Friday, November 21, 2014
Compassionate at birth
by Tom Sullivan
9 And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?
One of the takeaways from the Genesis account of Cain's murder of his brother is, yes, you are. And we are wired that way, suggest experiments involving young children. Cognitive scientist Paul Bloom, author of Just Babies told Inquiring Minds last week that a basic sense of morality likely developed via Darwinian evolution:
"I think all babies are created equal in that all normal babies—all babies without brain damage—possess some basic foundational understanding of morality and some foundational moral impulses," says Bloom on the Inquiring Minds podcast.
The question is how much of our moral sensibility is innate and how much is acculturation? By studying babies before they receive instruction and language, Bloom and other researchers hope to get at that answer. Using simple puppet plays [video here at Mother Jones], researchers find that babies and toddlers exhibit a sense of fairness, and a preference for "helping" characters. They avoid "hindering" ones.
Interestingly, as the toddlers get a little older, this sense of fairness seems to morph into pure egalitarianism—at least when it comes to distributing other people's stuff. "There's a lot of research suggesting that when it comes to divvying up resources that strangers possess, they are socialists—they like to share things equally," says Bloom.
When asked to hand out treats to other people or to stuffed animals, 3- and 4-year-old children will divide resources equally, if at all possible. Even if they know that one person deserves more of a resource than another because she worked harder for it, they will still opt for equal distribution. In a study of 5-to-8-year-olds, when it was impossible to divide resources equally—for example, if the children were given five erasers to distribute to two people—they would even throw the extra eraser in the trash instead of giving more to one person than the other.
"But this compassion and this helping, it all pertains to the baby's own group," says Bloom. They are less naturally generous with out-group members.
By our natures, we strongly value those around us over strangers. And to the extent that you and I don't, to the extent that you and I might recognize that somebody suffering, I don't know, from the Ebola virus in Africa, is a life just as valuable as those of our closest friends and family, that's an extraordinary cultural accomplishment. And it's something that's not in the genes. It's not what we're born with.
What strikes me is how this research echoes something paleoanthropologist Richard Leakey said about Turkana Boy in speculating about the development of compassion in early Man:
Bipedalism carried an enormous price, where compassion was what you paid your ticket with. You simply can't abandon somebody who's incapacitated because the rest will abandon you next time it comes to be your turn.
There but for the grace of God. Compassion has an evolutionary advantage, Leakey suggests. Perhaps it is what helped us rise above the law of the jungle.
The irony is that a libertarian-leaning conservative posted the Mother Jones article on Bloom — "Science Says Your Baby Is a Socialist" — to a Facebook forum as a tweak to lefties (socialist babies, I suppose). In fact, it would seem that a movement that sneers at being your brother's keeper in organizing human society is hardly an accomplishment, cultural, political, or evolutionary.
Undercover Blue 11/21/2014 06:00:00 AM
Thursday, November 20, 2014
Megyn Kelly accidentally tells the truth
"Amnesty is citizenship and that's not what [Obama] is talking about. That's a hot-button term that the right uses to sort of get people upset."
Of course every person on Fox has used the term including Kelly. Still, it's nice to see her admit what her job really is --- to get people upset. And she does it well.
digby 11/20/2014 06:00:00 PM
What does "poisoning the well" really mean?
by David Atkins
The pushback against the noxious idea that Obama's move on immigration reform has somehow "poisoned the well" with Republicans has been delightful to see. American Bridge, Daily Kos and Huffington Post have all been on the case, showing how often the Republicans have cried out about the President "poisoning the well."
Two things stand out about it. The first is that a simple google search shows that the phrase was almost never used to describe George W. Bush's presidency. Somehow, no matter how outrageous and vindictive the Bush Administration became, nothing they did ever seemed to eliminate the possibility of some sort of cooperation between the Administration and Democrats. Democrats were always eager to cooperate to pass bills if there was something on which common ground could be found.
The second is that it's a thinly veiled indication that Republicans cannot control their own caucus at all.
What does it mean that a Democratic president is constantly guilty of poisoning the bipartisan well (besides being a meaningless rightwing talking point, of course)?
It means that the Republican Party intends to obstruct absolutely everything and wants to blame the President for it when they do. But it also means the leadership of the GOP that needs it to looks slightly less than totally insane will be unable to control their rowdies.
In essence, the GOP leadership is telling the President that if he does anything at all to help people, the crazies that make up the majority of the GOP caucus will get out of line and do crazy things, and that would be bad.
What I don't understand is why the President would help out GOP leadership on this front? What possible incentive does he have to do that, since GOP leadership hasn't been the least bit cooperative with him in the past?
Live by the crazy, die by the crazy. That well is already long since poisoned
thereisnospoon 11/20/2014 04:30:00 PM
Obama+Immigrants= Haters in full effect
Right Wing Watch caught up with everyone's favorite "self-deporter", Kansas Secretary of State and all around xenophobe, Kris Kobach. He is very frightened.
Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, a leader in the anti-immigrant movement, said during his Sunday radio program that it’s possible that a Hispanic majority in the U.S. could conduct an “ethnic cleansing.”
Kobach made his remarks in response to a caller who asked, “What happens, if you know your history, when one culture or one race or one religion overwhelms another culture or race?”
Claiming that immigrant rights groups are “calling for the return of the Spanish territory, which could be almost half of the United States,” the caller warned, “When one race or culture overwhelms another culture, they run them out or they kill them. And it’s a bigger issue than just being Democrats. And they know in numbers, once the numbers are so bad, they can pretty much do whatever they want to do.”
He's got a point. That is,after all, what the Europeans, our white American forefathers, did to the natives here in the Americas. When they weren't committing all-out genocide anyway. But that was a long time ago. More recently, you may recall that Kobach is the guy who came up with Mitt Romney's "self-deportation" plan which bears more than a passing resemblance to ethnic cleansing. Adam Serwer described it this way:
"Self-deportation" might sound like something you don't want your parents to catch you doing, it's actually an old euphemism for an immigration strategy of "attrition through enforcement." What "self-deportation"—the favored approach to immigration of the GOP's right-wing—actually means is making life so miserable for unauthorized immigrants that they "voluntarily" leave. Here's Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies (the anti-immigrant think tank that tried to mainstream the "terror baby" conspiracy theory) explaining the concept in 2005:
Among the other measures that would facilitate enforcement: hiring more U.S. Attorneys and judges in border areas, to allow for more prosecutions; passage of the CLEAR Act, which would enhance cooperation between federal immigration authorities and state and local police; and seizing the assets, however modest, of apprehended illegal aliens.
These and other enforcement measures would enable the government to detain more illegal aliens; additional measures would be needed to promote self-deportation. Unlike at the visa office or the border crossing, once aliens are inside the United States, there's no physical site to exercise control, no choke point at which to examine whether someone should be admitted. The solution is to create "virtual choke points"—events that are necessary for life in a modern society but are infrequent enough not to bog down everyone's daily business. Another analogy for this concept to firewalls in computer systems, that people could pass through only if their legal status is verified. The objective is not mainly to identify illegal aliens for arrest (though that will always be a possibility) but rather to make it as difficult as possible for illegal aliens to live a normal life here.
This is the right-wing's answer to the question of how you deport 11 million unauthorized immigrants: You don't. You force them to "deport themselves." Although immigration reform advocates would prefer a solution that involves a path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants already here, Romney and his top immigration advisers believe they can remove millions of people through heavy-handed enforcement that makes life for unauthorized immigrants intolerable. This approach is notable for its complete lack of discretion and flexibility. Unauthorized immigrant parents with citizen children who need to go to school? Americans who are married to an undocumented immigrant who needs medical treatment? "Self-deportation" hits them all with the same mailed fist.
I can think of somebody else who had that idea and implemented it for a few years until he decided that more drastic steps were needed.
It's interesting that someone who came up with such a plan would project it back on to the very people he sought to "cleanse" the nation of. There's some heavy duty psychological baggage operating there.
This paranoia is getting completely out of hand on the right, however. They truly seem to believe that a vast horde of latinos are going to go on a rampage and kill them. I'm not kidding. This is the leap they have made. Just listen to Laura Ingraham or watch Fox. They are working the right wingers into total hysteria.
Here are just a few of the stories Right Wing Watch has captured:
Anti-Immigrant Activists: Obama Inciting Civil War By Making Immigration Announcement On Mexico's Revolution Day
Arrest Obama for his Immigration Action
Fighting Obama's immigration action is like fighting ISIS
The immigration announcement could lead to civil war
Allen West predicts demand for impeachment over immigration
Rep. Kelly says Obama dragging America into a civil war
Heritage: Obama will use government goodies to replace Americans with Latinos
Viguerie: Both Republicans and Democrats want to impeach Obama over immigration
And on and on and on. They are having a hissy fit of epic proportions. Whether they can work up a Tea Party level lather over it is still unknown. But they're trying.
digby 11/20/2014 03:30:00 PM
There's always impeachment
The Republicans are looking at every way possible to stop the horror of Emperor Obama doing what Ronald Reagan did:
It would be “impossible" to defund President Obama’s executive actions on immigration through a government spending bill, the House Appropriations Committee said Thursday.
In a statement released by Committee Chairman Hal Rogers's (R-Ky.) office hours before Obama's scheduled national address, the committee said the primary agency responsible for implementing Obama's actions is funded entirely by user fees.
Oh heck. Congressman Steve King is having none of it.He says he doesn't believe that and that people just want to go home and have Thanksgiving instead of defunding the INS. Because they are communists. (No, I just made that last part up. But I'm sure he was thinking it.)
Unfortunately, he appear to be right, at least about the part about defunding. And Senator Jeff sessions agrees. But it's pretty complicated and will probably fail:
Budget expert Stan Collender, executive vice president at Qorvis MSLGROUP, said Sessions is correct that something can be done.
“Congress can, if it wishes, use an appropriations bill to include authorization language,” he said. “There’s no constitutional prohibition against that.”
But while Collender warned to take Rogers’ words with a “grain of salt,” he said defunding the order would face major hurdles.
Even if a bill defunding Obama's actions made it to the Senate floor, there would likely be a point of order that would require 60 votes to waive, Collender said.
On top of that, President Obama would almost certainly veto the bill, and Congress likely wouldn’t have the two-thirds majority needed to override it.
Don't worry though. They have many other ideas up their sleeves to thwart the Emperor Obama and keep him from doing what all other presidents have done:
Another idea Rogers had advanced for dealing with Obama's order was for Congress to pass a funding bill for the entire government this year, and then look to rescind funds related to the executive order in January, when Republicans will have control of both the House and the Senate.
Asked if a rescission bill would be irrelevant now, Hing said, “right,” but then added that this could change based on the executive order’s provisions.
“Later on, if we find out down the road that ... other agencies have some piece of it, then we can go back and specifically look at those agencies,” she said.
Congress could also pass an authorization bill to shift the funding authority for CIS to lawmakers.
But Rogers argued that couldn’t be part of an appropriations bill.
“To alter or change the fee matter, it would take a change of law — an authorization — to change an immigration act. It would take an act of Congress,” Rep. Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) said.
That sounds exciting. Maybe congress could just pass a law that removes all discretion from the Executive branch unless the president is a Republican. That would solve the issue too.
On the other hand, there's always this:
The Appropriations panel, meanwhile, is moving forward with a 12-bill omnibus spending package.
“We’re making good progress on negotiations and we expect to have the bill on the floor the week of December 8,” Hing said.
Congress must pass a new spending bill by Dec. 12 or the government will shut down.
So what's the problem?
digby 11/20/2014 02:00:00 PM
QOTD: "In your heart you know he's right" edition
"We went down the government-shutdown route before, and the results didn't hurt the Republicans at all," says Rick Tyler, a onetime spokesman for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. "Republicans got reelected to the majority."
What's the problem with his logic? I can't see it. The Republicans acted like hooligans in the last congress and got richly rewarded at the ballot box. Why wouldn't they keep doing what they're doing?
Now, this might be one of those sticky situations where the owners of America don't like this sort of behavior and believe they've bought themselves protection from it by buying up most members of both parties. But that doesn't mean the Republicans won't do it anyway. The election told them that they can do whatever they please and it doesn't matter whether the Big Money Boyz like it or not. Why would they think otherwise?
digby 11/20/2014 12:30:00 PM
That time when Lynn Cheney said Jim Webb was full of baloney
So Jim Webb is officially exploring the idea of entering the race for president. I'm sure quite a few people are thrilled. He's never been my favorite politician --- I'm suspicious of anyone who couldn't see through Ronald Reagan, even to the extent he would work in his administration --- although he does take some interesting iconoclastic positions. But I'm a bit believer in primaries, as painful as they may be, so I think it's just fine if he runs and good luck to him.
I suppose I'll have a lot to say about him over the next couple of years so I won't go into it today. But I thought it would be fun to re-run this most excellent conversation about Webb between Wolf Blitzer and Lynn Cheney from a while back. It's just so ... great:
BLITZER:Let's talk about another issue in the news, then we'll get to the book. This -- the Democrats are now complaining bitterly in this Virginia race, George Allen using novels -- novels -- that Jim Webb, his Democratic challenger, has written in which there are sexual references, and they're making a big deal out of this. I want you to listen to what Jim Webb said today in responding to this very sharp attack from George Allen.
L. CHENEY: Now, do you promise, Wolf, that we're going to talk about my book?
BLITZER: I do promise.
L. CHENEY: Because this seems to me a mighty long trip around the merry-go-round.
BLITZER: I want you to -- this was in the news today and your name has come up, so that's why we're talking about it, but listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAMES WEBB (D), VIRGINIA SENATE CANDIDATE: There's nothing that's been in any of my novels that, in my view, hasn't been either illuminated the surroundings or defining a character or moving a plot. I'm a serious writer. I mean, we can go and read Lynne Cheney's lesbian love scenes, you know, if you want to get graphic on stuff.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
L. CHENEY: Jim Webb is full of baloney. I have never written anything sexually explicit. His novels are full of sexual, explicit references to incest, sexually explicit references -- well, you know, I just don't want my grandchildren to turn on the television set. This morning, Imus was reading from the novels, and it's triple-X rated.
BLITZER: Here's what the Democratic Party put out today, the Democratic Congressional -- Senatorial Campaign Committee: "Lynne Cheney's book featured brothels and attempted rape. In 1981, Vice President Dick Cheney's wife, Lynne, wrote a book called "Sisters," which featured a lesbian love affair, brothels and attempted rapes."
L. CHENEY: No.
BLITZER: "In 1988, Lynn Cheney wrote about a Republican vice president who dies of a heart attack while having sex with his mistress." Is that true?
L. CHENEY: Nothing explicit. And actually, that was full of lies. It's not -- it's just -- it's absolutely not a...
BLITZER: But you did write a book entitled "Sisters"?
L. CHENEY: I did write a book entitled "Sisters."
BLITZER: And it did have lesbian characters.
L. CHENEY: This description -- no, not necessarily. This description is a lie. I'll stand on that.
BLITZER: There's nothing in there about rapes and brothels?
L. CHENEY: Well, Wolf, could we talk about a children's book for a minute?
BLITZER: We can talk about the children's book. I just wanted to...
L. CHENEY: I think my segment is, like, 15 minutes long and we've had about 10 minutes of...
BLITZER: I just wanted to -- I just wanted to clarify what's in the news today, given -- this is...
L. CHENEY: Sex, lies and distortion. That's what it is.
BLITZER: This is an opportunity for you to explain on these sensitive issues.
L. CHENEY: Wolf, I have nothing to explain. Jim Webb has a lot to explain.
BLITZER: Well, he says he's only -- as a serious writer, novelist, a fiction writer, he was doing basically what you were doing.
L. CHENEY: Jim Webb is full of baloney
digby 11/20/2014 11:00:00 AM
Opposition was led by Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell and colleague Sen. Rand Paul, who both voted down the legislation, though for different reasons. McConnell, like many Republicans, voted it down because he believed the reforms went too far, while Paul voted against the bill because it did not go far enough.
Paul said immediately after the vote that he “felt bad” about his vote against the motion.
“They probably needed my vote,” he said, opposing Leahy’s bill because it would extend the sunset provisions for the laws authorizing surveillance. “It’s hard for me to vote for something I object to so much.”
It's always nice when you can vote with your party and still hold yourself up as superior to them for doing what you say you abhor.
Evunthelibertarian Reason magazine doesn't think it was such a hot move.
Although his single vote would not have been enough to open up debate, Paul should nevertheless have heeded the insight of the developer of radar Robert Alexander Watson-Watt who explained, "Give them the third best to go on with; the second best comes too late, the best never comes." I am no parliamentarian, but it appears that under Senate rules because Paul voted with the prevailing side, he could move to have the Senate reconsider the bill, although it seems unlikely that he will do so.
Why should he? This way he can have his cake and eat it too.
digby 11/20/2014 09:30:00 AM
Help us call on Mark Udall to read the Torture Report into the record
Blue America sent this out to our members last night asking them to sign this petition asking Senator Mark Udall to read the Torture Report into the congressional record
There have a been many dark days in America during the past decade but the revelation that the government had authorized the torture of prisoners has to be one of the darkest. It took a lot of painstaking journalism to uncover what we know even as the government did everything in its power to cover up the details, going so far as to destroy evidence and immunize the perpetrators from prosecution.
Nonetheless, the Senate Intelligence Committee went to great lengths to compile a 6,000 page report on this ugly chapter in our history. It was approved for release by a majority of the committee many months ago but the White House insisted on a further review and approval process even going so far as to insist that pseudonyms be redacted. They are still dragging their feet. If they have their way the report will be issued with every word blacked out except "the" and "end". As of yesterday, the outlook for its release any time soon looked bleak.
The Senate is going to lose one of its foremost civil libertarians at the end of this congress. Senator Mark Udall, who lost his seat in the midterm election, has been among the few in congress who performed his oversight duties as a member of the Intelligence Committee with independence and integrity and he will be missed. But he could do one last act of conscience before he goes: as a sitting Senator, he can place the Torture Report into the congressional record as former Senator Mike Gravel did back in 1971 with the Pentagon Papers.
Udall himself has said he is considering it:
Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), who was defeated in the midterm elections, has threatened to read the unredacted report into the Congressional Record on the Senate floor, a rare and provocative move that is nevertheless protected by the Constitution's "speech or debate" clause.
We are hoping that Senator Udall will cap his Senate career with this act patriotism and have joined with several other groups to petition him to do it. If you would like to sign on to this request along with us, you can click here.
"I'm not going to accept the release of any version of the executive summary that doesn't get out the truth of this program," Udall told the Denver Post last week. "Not only do we have to shed light on this dark chapter of our nation's history, but we've got to make sure future administrations don't repeat the grave mistakes."
This isn't an easy thing to ask of any Senator. But torture isn't just another issue. It goes to the very heart of who we are as a country. Senator Udall can help this nation face up to what happened and let the government know that it must never, ever, happen again.
We don't ask people to sign petitions very often but this one is special. If this is an issue about which you feel as strongly as we do, please consider signing it.
digby 11/20/2014 08:00:00 AM
What kind of people are they?
by Tom Sullivan
Walmart is a store my wife refuses to set foot in. We have that luxury. Then again, there are plenty of Walmarts in rural areas heavily frequented by poorer shoppers who don't. Then again, Walmart does not seem to have learned what Henry Ford knew: unless you actually pay your employees a decent salary, they won't be able to buy your products. Walmart's (and others') answer is to cheapen everything, customers and employees included. Can't afford to shop elsewhere? Tough luck.
Since 2000, Public Eye has staged a counter-event to the World Economic Forum to highlight bad corporate actors. Walmart is in their sights again:
Walmart workers in 10 countries joined a global day of action on Wednesday to demand better wages and treatment for employees, as a public interest group nominated the retailer for a Lifetime Award as “worst corporation in the world”.
Organizers with the group OUR Walmart estimated that about 300 protesters would march on Walmart’s headquarters in India and block the gate. Another 200 people were expected to protest at the company’s headquarters in Mexico City. Workers in Argentina, Brazil and Canada were also expected to participate.
Public Eye has nominated Walmart for "worst corporation in the world." They will have company:
In 2005, Walmart received a Public Eye award in the labor category for “lack of respect for human and labor rights along its supply chain in places such as Lesotho, Kenya, and Thailand”. This year, Public Eye will give a lifetime achievement award to one of its previous winners. Goldman Sachs and Chevron are also among those nominated. Consumers can submit their votes over the next two months.
In an op-ed awhile back, I explored how Sam Walton, the pickup-driving, underdog owner of a small, American-flag-draped chain of five-and-dime stores from Bentonville, AR, went from being Everyman Sam to selling cheap, plastic crap from China as the downtown-killing Prince of Darkness. How many stores did that take? Can you be too successful? How big is too big?
The best I could figure it was when he took his company public. In privately held or closely held companies, one man (or woman) with a vision is its guiding light. He/she has as much of himself/herself invested as money. How the company comports itself is a direct reflection of its founder’s character, and those with any moral compass take the reputation of their firm personally. But once the company goes public, once it is sold to nameless, faceless absentee-landlord investors, that connection is broken. It’s no longer personal. The visionary loses control, the soul and any morality he/she brought to the company is lost, and like a great white shark, its eyes go black and dead. All that remains is appetite and instinct.
Like Walmart, the thing that’s wrong with business today is not the corporation per se, but the disconnected, amoral nature of the public corporate “person”. Writing about megabanks, Matt Taibbi puts it more bluntly:
... what we’ve found out in the last years is that these Too-Big-To-Fail megabanks like Goldman no longer see the margin in being truly trustworthy. The game now is about getting paid as much as possible and as quickly as possible, and if your client doesn’t like the way you managed his money, well, fuck him – let him try to find someone else on the market to deal him straight.
The Public Eye protest in Miami was mostly rained out, but a few people showed up nevertheless:
“I’m standing with protesters all over the world today to send a message to Walmart and the Waltons that we need better pay,” said Emily Wells, one of the protesters. Wells makes $9.50 an hour and relies on food stamps to make ends meet. “As the richest family in America and one of the richest in the world, we all know the Waltons can afford to pay $15 an hour to the workers that make them richer every day.”
Maybe. But that's not the new business model.
If corporations are people it's legitimate to ask, what kind of people are they?
Undercover Blue 11/20/2014 06:00:00 AM
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Sam Stein reports:
At the Mayflower Hotel, lawyers gathered for the annual Federalist Society national convention -- one of the highest-profile conservative legal events of the year. The day’s big draws were the opening speech by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and an evening event featuring Justice Samuel Alito.
Before the crowd changed into black tie attire for Alito's appearance, however, a smaller panel convened under the title, “Federalism: The President’s Duty to Take Care That the Law be Faithfully Executed.” Panelists discussed major confrontations between the branches of government, from enforcement of marijuana law and the implementation of health care to Obama's impending executive order on immigration.
The talk was, well, lawyerly. Every conclusion seemed to have a qualification attached to it. But, by and large, the panelists agreed the president has wide legal latitude to prioritize and shape deportation laws, as regrettable for Republicans or the long-term balance of powers that may be.
“I think the roots of prosecutorial discretion are extremely deep,” said Christopher Schroeder, the Charles S. Murphy Professor of Law and Public Policy Studies at Duke Law School. “The practice is long and robust. The case law is robust. Let me put it this way: Suppose some president came to me and asked me in the office of legal counsel, ‘Is it okay for me to go ahead and defer the deportation proceedings of childhood arrival?’ Under the present state of the law, I think that would be an easy opinion to write. Yes.”
Well, they can always look for a typo. They're definitely unconstitutional, we know that. Or if push comes to shove the Supremes could just hand down a Bush vs Gore style one-off.
Schroeder was speaking specifically about the deferred action program that Obama already has put into place -- the one affecting so-called Dreamers who were brought to the U.S. as children. But later, Schroeder expanded his legal reasoning.
“I don’t know where in the Constitution there is a rule that if the president’s enactment affects too many people, he’s violating the Constitution,” Schroeder said. “There is a difference between executing the law and making the law. But in the world in which we operate, that distinction is a lot more problematic than you would think. If the Congress has enacted a statute that grants discretionary authority for the administrative agency or the president to fill in the gaps, to write the regulations that actually make the statute operative, those regulations to all intents and purposes make the law.
“I agree this can make us very uncomfortable. I just don’t see the argument for unconstitutionality at this juncture,” Schroeder added.
On the other hand, the Republicans can take heart in the fact that even if it's constitutional, it's still impeachable. High crimes and misdemeanors are something the congress gets to define all by iytself without any pointy headed lawyers interfering.
digby 11/19/2014 06:00:00 PM
QOTD: libertarian madness
This is truly amazing:
Sarah Kliff: Are you 100 percent convinced it was Congress's intent to withhold subsidies in the federal exchange?
It's not as though we're pouring over the Federalist Papers here trying to figure out what the founders had in mind. This happened just five years ago. And that just ain't true.
Michael Cannon: There are two ways to interpret that question. Did the people who wrote this language mean to withhold subsidies in federal exchanges? My answer to that is, I'm 100 percent convinced that they meant to do that.
The other way to think about it is, "Did the people who voted for this law intend to withhold subsidies in federal exchanges?" That’s a different question, but the answer is the same. I’m 100 percent convinced that’s what the members of Congress who enacted this law meant to do, just the same way I’m 100 percent convinced they meant to throw people off of their existing health plans even though they said, "If you like your health plan, you can keep it."
He states different things throughout the interview --- that lawmakers were rushed and didn't know what they doing, that they were perfectly aware that states would have to create exchanges or their people would not get subsidies, or that Democrats created a federal exchange apparently for their own health since it is completely useless without the subsidies. But at the end of the interview it's obvious that he knows it was a drafting error and simply sees this as a way to remove the subsidies from millions of people so they will not be able to afford health insurance --- at which point the Republicans can blame the Democrats for doing that and then offer some weak tea "reform" removing community ratings, the pre-existing condition ban and required coverage, all of which will raise prices even more.
And then their plan will once more be in place. You remember the libertarian health care plan don't you?
digby 11/19/2014 04:30:00 PM
Doing the right thing is the best negotiating stance
Simon Maloy at Salon breaks down the latest polling on Immigration in anticipation of President Obama's big announcement tonight:
USA Today and Princeton Survey Research ... provide us with our first post-election look at the public’s stance on unilateral immigration action, and the results are pretty unsurprising: the country is split almost down the middle, and support for Obama’s proposal breaks down along partisan lines. Given the circumstances, that’s fairly decent news for the White House.
The USA Today poll’s question was curiously worded (more on that in a bit), but the survey found that 42 percent of Americans want the White House to act immediately on immigration, while 46 percent want the White House to wait. Democrats favor immediate action by a huge 60-28 percent margin, Republicans favor waiting by an even huger 76-17 percent, and independents are split 44-46 in slight favor of delay.
If I’m in the White House, then I’m reassured by this poll. After the child migrant crisis during the summer and Obama’s decision to delay taking executive action, the president’s credibility on immigration took a big hit, and for a while it looked like the public was starting to turn away from meaningful immigration reform. Obama’s approval rating on immigration as an issue tanked to 31 percent, according to Gallup. There were also dips in public support for a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Gallup hasn’t polled Obama’s approval on immigration since then, but public support for a pathway to citizenship has bounced back. The fact that Obama has fought the executive action issue almost to a draw would seem to indicate that he’s come back somewhat from the summer’s immigration doldrums.
He knew there would be a shitstorm either way and recognized that in such a situation it's better to do the right thing, for both moral and practical reasons, than it is to try to please the beltway with some bogus excuse about bipartisanship. That is a very good thing.
Republicans terrified that Latinos are going to make them a permanent minority party. Right -wingers just don't like Latinos. Their media under the likes if Laura Ingraham has persuaded them that immigration reform is a stealthy way to make "illegals" into Democratic voters. Case in point:
There is nothing you can do to change these things before taking action. So, Democrats should just do what they can to help human beings and let the chips fall where they may.
The president's Executive Order is probably not going to be everything we might hope. But he could have succumbed to the Villagers and the Republicans and made a case that the election showed that the nation wasn't ready for Immigration Reform or that he wants to give the "new congress" a chance to work something out. Advisors like David Axelrod were saying publicly that's what he should do. Instead, he's saying I'm doing this and if you don't like it, pass a bill I can sign and I'll rescind it. He's not foreclosing compromise he's just saying that he's not going to wait any longer for them to do what they keep saying they are going to do and never actually do it. I don't know how it's going to work politically but he has nothing to lose by trying it. And actual humans will benefit. Good.
digby 11/19/2014 03:00:00 PM
The deeper problem with "Intelligence Reform"
I wrote a piece for Salon today about the debate around the USA Freedom Act and other "reforms" of the Intelligence Community. I think the problem is that even if it had passed last night and even if it had been much better than it was, there is no reforming them simply by using the law to do it. The way these agencies are structured in secrecy and with ever changing, complex capabilities means that there must be a different mechanism applied. Oversight isn't working. Lawyers find ways to do what they want to do. The congress will inevitably legalize anything they cannot justify.
We need to do a serious re-think about how to deal with this stuff. The good news is that there are some very smart people doing that. Read the piece if you're interested in such things.
digby 11/19/2014 01:30:00 PM
For those of you who haven't been following the Uber flap, it has two parts. The first is the fact that the Uber exec told a bunch of important people and journalists that he thought it was a great idea to dig up dirt on journalists who criticize the company essentially to blackmail them. Lovely fellow, lovely company. (He's since apologized for the remark. Sort of.)
The second half of the flap is about the fact that journalists routinely attend these gatherings as what PR people call "influencers" and agree to drink their wine and eat their food and keep whatever is said off the record. Buzzfeed's Ben Smith was invited to the Uber Influencer get-together by journalist Michael Wolff who didn't tell him that it was on background and so Smith wrote about what he heard. Wolff thinks that was teddibly untoward although, strictly speaking, it was perfectly ethical if you want to get all technical about it:
In an effort to argue its case with more care and professionalism, Uber has recently organized some background meetings with journalists and what are called in the PR trade, "influentials." I was invited to one such dinner last week in a private room at the Waverly Inn in New York. In turn I asked Ben Smith, BuzzFeed's editor in chief, if he'd like to come as my guest.
Yes he certainly didn't want to know that. Because he is a journalist. And journalists are supposed to write about what powerful people are saying behind closed doors when they hear them saying it. What's telling here isn't that Smith didn't seek permission to write about something that nobody told him was off the record --- something I would hope most reporters do every day. What's interesting is Wolff's comment here:
I had understood that the Uber dinner, like other such media meet-and-greets — I've been to hundreds over the years — was off the record. I neglected, however, to specifically tell Smith this. And while I might have fairly assumed Smith knew the context, this was my oversight — though surely not Uber's. I might have thought too that, as my date, he would have asked if there was an understanding — suffice to say, he didn't ask, and likely, didn't want to know.
I had understood that the Uber dinner, like other such media meet-and-greets — I've been to hundreds over the years — was off the record. I neglected, however, to specifically tell Smith this. And while I might have fairly assumed Smith knew the context, this was my oversight...
What the hell?
I'm not a member of the New York or LA media cognoscenti by any means. But I have attended a few dinners and fundraisers attended by politicians, businessmen and media celebrities over the years. Never once have the hosts, and often the speakers and guests as well, failed to say explicitly that they were off the record if they were off the record. The idea that anyone would just assume such a thing where media are present is mind-boggling to me. The fact that Wolff and the others who were there have no problem with this says everything you need to know about the cozy insiderism that exists among all these elite players.
But even beyond that, this idea that all these rich people hire PR firms to get "influencers" in the media together to let their hair down and tell it like it is without the riff raff being in on it is pretty sickening. I would never attend such an event if someone told me it was off the record. I can buy my own meals, thank you. And I certainly wouldn't want to be stuck in the same room for hours with people like this for no good reason.
digby 11/19/2014 12:00:00 PM
Today's blast from the past: Wall Street brat edition
In doing some research in my moldy archives I came across this memorable email that was making the rounds in 2010. It's the sort of thing we shouldn't forget:
“We are Wall Street. It’s our job to make money. Whether it’s a commodity, stock, bond, or some hypothetical piece of fake paper, it doesn’t matter. We would trade baseball cards if it were profitable. I didn’t hear America complaining when the market was roaring to 14,000 and everyone’s 401k doubled every 3 years. Just like gambling, its not a problem until you lose. I’ve never heard of anyone going to Gamblers Anonymous because they won too much in Vegas.
Well now the market crapped out, & even though it has come back somewhat, the government and the average Joes are still looking for a scapegoat. God knows there has to be one for everything. Well, here we are.
Go ahead and continue to take us down, but you’re only going to hurt yourselves. What’s going to happen when we can’t find jobs on the Street anymore? Guess what: We’re going to take yours. We get up at 5am & work till 10pm or later. We’re used to not getting up to pee when we have a position. We don’t take an hour or more for a lunch break. We don’t demand a union. We don’t retire at 50 with a pension. We eat what we kill, and when the only thing left to eat is on your dinner plates, we’ll eat that.
For years teachers and other unionized labor have had us fooled. We were too busy working to notice. Do you really think that we are incapable of teaching 3rd graders and doing landscaping? We’re going to take your cushy jobs with tenure and 4 months off a year and whine just like you that we are so-o-o-o underpaid for building the youth of America. Say goodbye to your overtime and double time and a half. I’ll be hitting grounders to the high school baseball team for $5k extra a summer, thank you very much.
So now that we’re going to be making $85k a year without upside, Joe Mainstreet is going to have his revenge, right? Wrong! Guess what: we’re going to stop buying the new 80k car, we aren’t going to leave the 35 percent tip at our business dinners anymore. No more free rides on our backs. We’re going to landscape our own back yards, wash our cars with a garden hose in our driveways. Our money was your money. You spent it. When our money dries up, so does yours.
The difference is, you lived off of it, we rejoiced in it. The Obama administration and the Democratic National Committee might get their way and knock us off the top of the pyramid, but it’s really going to hurt like hell for them when our fat a**es land directly on the middle class of America and knock them to the bottom.
We aren’t dinosaurs. We are smarter and more vicious than that, and we are going to survive. The question is, now that Obama & his administration are making Joe Mainstreet our food supply…will he? and will they?”
After his mommy gave him a bottle and put him to bed he felt much better.
The sad thing is that this attitude must now be even more pervasive. None of them paid a price for the ongoing years of pain for average people. They're richer than ever and undoubtedly even more arrogant than they were then. After all, they've just "proved" they are the winners.
And the rest of us are the losers.
digby 11/19/2014 10:30:00 AM
Working more, earning less
With all the talk of inequality, this comment from Nick Hanauer strikes me as one of the more important insights:
If you’re in the American middle class—or what’s left of it—here’s how you probably feel. You feel like you’re struggling harder than your parents did, working longer hours than ever before, and yet falling further and further behind. The reason you feel this way is because most of you are—falling further behind, that is. Adjusted for inflation, average salaries have actually dropped since the early 1970s, while hours for full-time workers have steadily climbed.
Meanwhile, a handful of wealthy capitalists like me are growing wealthy beyond our parents’ wildest dreams, in large part because we’re able to take advantage of your misfortune.
So what’s changed since the 1960s and '70s? Overtime pay, in part. Your parents got a lot of it, and you don’t. And it turns out that fair overtime standards are to the middle class what the minimum wage is to low-income workers: not everything, but an indispensable labor protection that is absolutely essential to creating a broad and thriving middle class. In 1975, more than 65 percent of salaried American workers earned time-and-a-half pay for every hour worked over 40 hours a week. Not because capitalists back then were more generous, but because it was the law. It still is the law, except that the value of the threshold for overtime pay—the salary level at which employers are required to pay overtime—has been allowed to erode to less than the poverty line for a family of four today. Only workers earning an annual income of under $23,660 qualify for mandatory overtime. You know many people like that? Probably not. By 2013, just 11 percent of salaried workers qualified for overtime pay, according to a report published by the Economic Policy Institute. And so business owners like me have been able to make the other 89 percent of you work unlimited overtime hours for no additional pay at all.
I watched the phenomenon of "more work, less pay" grow over the course of my so-called career. It took many forms, from re-classification of workers to non-contract and "executive" to avoid paying paying overtime to subtle coercion from the boss implying that you won't get ahead if you put in for overtime pay. "Productivity" became the watchword which, in the business world, just means squeezing more work out of fewer people.
It's so pervasive that they don't even think about what they're saying when they run ads like this:
People who "work through" their lunch don't get paid for that time.
Read the whole piece. Hanauer is one of the most interesting rich guys around.
digby 11/19/2014 09:00:00 AM
Not gonna go there with Uber
by Tom Sullivan
We'll spare you the easy Uber jokes and get right to it. The ridesharing service is not having a good week after a couple of Buzzfeed articles hit social media. It seems Uber executives might like to surveil both customers and critics. The WaPo has this:
Our daily interaction with tech companies means "we have never been more extortable," according Chris Hoofnagle, a UC Berkeley law professor specializing in online privacy.
The controversy stemmed from remarks by Uber Senior Vice President Emil Michael on Friday night as he spoke of his desire to spend $1 million to dig up information on “your personal lives, your families,” referring to journalists who write critically about the company, according to a report published Monday night by Buzzfeed. The same story said a different Uber executive once had examined the private travel records of a Buzzfeed reporter during an e-mail exchange about an article without seeking permission to access the data.
That combination of vindictiveness and willingness to tap into user information provoked outrage Tuesday on social-media sites, spawning the hashtag “#ubergate” on Twitter. Critics recounted a series of Uber privacy missteps, including a 2012 blog post in which a company official analyzed anonymous ridership data in Washington and several other cities in an attempt to determine the frequency of overnight sexual liaisons by customers — which Uber dubbed “Rides of Glory.”
In an earlier Buzzfeed article, Uber CEO Travis Kalanick made it seem Obamacare was an enabler for services such as his. Jonathan Chait writes:
This weekend, Uber CEO Travis Kalanick appeared at a dinner in New York and, in a few words, fatally undercut the premise of the Republican Party’s economic philosophy. Kalanick told reporters that Obamacare had been a crucial element in his firm’s success. “It’s huge," he said, according to BuzzFeed. “The democratization of those types of benefits allow people to have more flexible ways to make a living. They don’t have to be working for The Man.”
The destructive power of this blunt statement works in two ways. The first, of course, is that it rebuts the Republican indictment of Obamacare, opposition to which is a matter of holy writ within the party. Of all the grounds for Republican hatred of Obamacare, the most deeply held is the belief that it amounts to onerous regulation that holds back capitalistic dynamism. That belief is not only foundational on the right, but nebulous enough that, even as conservative predictions about Obamacare’s cost and functionality obviously fail, the deeper suspicion that it is invisibly rotting away the foundations of capitalism can linger without any real evidence.
Anyway, that's management's pitch, if not the Republicans', but no cause for celebration. How is that benign-sounding "sharing economy" working for Uber's independent contractors (the company prefers partner-drivers)? “It’s like owning my own business; I love it,” says one. Except that's a lie drivers feel they must tell or be "deactivated" for low customer ratings:
Gabriele Lopez, an LA Uber driver, also lies. “We just sit there and smile, and tell everyone that the job’s awesome, because that’s what they want to hear,” said Lopez, who’s been driving for UberX, the company’s low-end car service, since it launched last summer.
In fact, if you ask Uber drivers off the clock what they think of the company, it often gets ugly fast. “Uber’s like an exploiting pimp,” said Arman, an Uber driver in LA who asked me to withhold his last name out of fear of retribution. “Uber takes 20 percent of my earnings, and they treat me like shit — they cut prices whenever they want. They can deactivate me whenever they feel like it, and if I complain, they tell me to fuck off.”
A sweet bunch. Uber recently hired Obama campaign guru, David Plouffe, "king of dishing out liberal kool-aid," to help with marketing. In another race to the bottom, it seems everyone from left to right is being played by this democratized, naked capitalism. It's a heads we win, tails you lose business model. Just the way they like it.
Undercover Blue 11/19/2014 06:00:00 AM
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
God he's loathsome
... in every possible way:
[Chris] Christie took the opportunity to jump in bed with Big Pork by pledging to veto a bill that would ban the use of gestation crates on New Jersey pig farms.
The Republican governor, who traditionally backs off from declaring how he’ll act on pending legislation when asked by reporters, made his intentions clear on a pig gestation crate bill when asked last month about it during a visit to Northwest Iowa, according to a pork producer.
“He indicated to us that he was going to veto the bill,” said Bill Tentinger, an Iowa pork producer and former president of the Iowa Pork Producers Association.
This is the second attempt by New Jersey lawmakers to ban gestation crates, which hold pregnant sows in rigid positions for months on end and are so cruel that noted animal rights activists McDonald’s and Burger King don’t want their pork suppliers using them.
Man, that's bad.
If he wins the nomination and/or (God forbid) the presidency, I honestly don't think I could take it. He's everything horrible.
digby 11/18/2014 04:30:00 PM
How ISIS "builds its brand"
I don't think I've ever seen soulless corporate jargon applied to torture and mayhem before but why not?
ISIS has produced a large catalogue of media documenting its own atrocities. Last June, for instance, ISIS released photographs of its fighters committing a massacre of captured Iraqi army troops. In the gruesome images, approximately 1700 Shia Iraqi soldiers are gunned down en masse by black-clad ISIS figures. According to a recent UN report, ISIS has released other videos of mass executions, including one showing the murder of a group of Syrian government soldiers, and one of fighting-age men from the al Sheitat tribe. The videos of the murders of five western hostages, including, most recently, Kassig, are part of that broader media strategy.
This is apparently their business plan to attract customers and "build its brand":
ISIS forces civilians, including children, to watch the videos. For instance, the UN report found that in Raqqah city, ISIS gathered children for screenings of mass execution videos. In Aleppo, ISIS forced a group of 153 kidnapped Kurdish teenagers to watch videos of beheadings and attacks over a five-month period. ISIS also forces civilians to attend public executions, and publicly displays the corpses of its victims. That strategy is designed to instill terror in the civilian population of the areas ISIS controls, in order to coerce them into cooperating with the group's demands.
ISIS's media presence is also a way for the organization to build its brand. ISIS is struggling to claim the mantle of the global jihadist movement, and it's in competition with groups like al Qaeda for that status. Publicizing its brutality is a way to demonstrate its power and ruthlessness. The executions of Western hostages heighten that effect, presenting ISIS as the main opponent of Western imperialism and elevating the group's status in comparison to other jihadi organizations. That matters because ISIS is competing against other groups to attract recruits and funding.
I don't think they're exactly building a brand: they're just terrorizing a population into compliance. That can be very effective. For a while. Eventually it ... isn't.
The one thing I would hope America and Europe don't do is delude itself into this kind of thinking:
[W]hen they look up and see an RAF, Danish, or American bomber coming in, they feel precisely as you and I would feel. That sight must seem like the answer to a prayer, a prayer that can be expressed in every faith: “Save my family, save my home, save my village, save me, from this evil.”
The Superhero Savior Daddy syndrome is not a solution. If we want to help ISIS we'll have more western leaders making speeches like that one from Rick Perry in London.
What all of these various hate groups have in common is a disdain for, and a wish to destroy, our Western way of life.
And someone needs to tell them that the meeting has already been held. It was decided, democratically, long ago – and by the way through great and heroic sacrifice – that our societies will be governed by Western values and Western laws.
Among those values are openness and tolerance. But to every extremist, it has to be made clear: we will not allow you to exploit our tolerance, so that you can import your intolerance. We will not let you destroy our peace with your violent ideas. If you expect to live among us, and yet plan against us, to receive the protections and comforts of a free society, while showing none of its virtues or graces, then you can have our answer now: No, not on our watch!
You will live by exactly the standards that the rest of us live by. And if that comes as jarring news: then welcome to civilization.
They are not space aliens with supernatural powers. Neither are we. They are a violent gang using medieval methods to frighten the population into submission. That's horrible enough.
digby 11/18/2014 03:00:00 PM
QOTD: Gun nut #1
Gun Owners of America's Larry Pratt on President Obama:
"He clearly doesn't like the fact that the American people can own guns because we might just want to use them to keep people like him from becoming tyrants."Good thing we've never had any presidents assassinated or someone might get the wrong idea.
I wonder what Ronald Reagan would think about that?
digby 11/18/2014 01:30:00 PM
Jobs, jobs jobs
Can you see what's wrong with this picture?
“The president is the president; we can’t control him. Good, bad or indifferent. I think the Democratic Caucus, we can be loyal to the president, we can be part of the team, which we should to the best of our ability. But we need to focus more on middle-class issues,” said Rep. Michael Capuano of Massachusetts. “We now have lost three elections in a row based on those themes [health care, immigration, minimum wage, pay equity for women] — all of which I agree with, all of which I can run on in my district, they’re fine — but middle-class Americans are not hearing that message. When was the last time the Democratic Caucus as a caucus — not individually — really talked about jobs? For me, we don’t do that enough.”
Other Democrats, though, believe it’s a mistake to adopt a more centrist message or to try to run away from Obama.
A couple of things. First, since when are the issues of minimum wage and pay equity for women not about jobs? I don't think they relate to leisure time activity do you? Evidently, when he says "jobs" he means high wage jobs for men. Which is fine. They do need high wage jobs. So do women. So does everyone. The working poor have "jobs" as do women who are paid less than men. Both of those groups would like "jobs" --- that pay more.
Second, (and this isn't Capuano's fault, it's Politico's) since when is the issue of jobs exclusively "centrist?" I don't think it is. Good There's a reason why labor unions gather on the left of the Democratic Party and it isn't because they don't care about good paying jobs. In fact, the centrist position is to care about "business" not jobs which requires lowering of regulation and taxes to make the rich get richer so they'll spend more money and which will create more jobs. Also too: the deficit.
In any case it's a little bit unfair to call it centrist simply because everyone "talks about" jobs on all sides of the ideological spectrum. The question is what to do about it. Liberals at least have some specifics on the table about pay equity, minimum wage, infrastructure etc that would directly help workers. Centrists and conservatives on the the other hand just keep blathering on about taxes and "incentives" and regulations even though the last 30 years have shown that none of that actually helps "jobs." In fact, we're watching the result of all that fetishizing of business destroy the middle class.
digby 11/18/2014 12:00:00 PM
It's always something
There will always be a reason for timorous Democrats to demand the President not hit the GOP hornet's nest. They always think that if only they don't do anything to make them mad they'll survive. They demanded that the president not issue his promised immigration Executive Order until after the election so vulnerable Democrats might be able to keep their seats. How did that work out for them?
Nonetheless, here we go again:
President Obama has a tough decision to make on the timing of an executive order to freeze deportations of illegal immigrants.
Senate Democrats want him to wait to give them time to pass an omnibus spending bill and other legislative priorities in the lame-duck session that is just now ramping up.
But Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, which has jurisdiction of the immigration enforcement agencies that would be affected, said Obama should wait until next year.
“If I were the president, what I’d say to the Congress — House, Senate, Democrat or Republican — I’m going to give you a little bit of time and in the new Congress expect you to do something,” he said.
Surely, they'll pass a wonderful bill if only the president agrees not to do what he's promised to do. Because the Republicans are very sincere.
digby 11/18/2014 10:30:00 AM
Washington Post creates a new boogeyman
The Washington Post editorial board is very worried about what President Ted Cruz might do if President Barack Obama shows him how to use executive power:
DEMOCRATS URGING President Obama to “go big” in his executive order on immigration might pause to consider the following scenario:
It is 2017. Newly elected President Ted Cruz (R) insists he has won a mandate to repeal Obamacare. The Senate, narrowly back in Democratic hands, disagrees. Mr. Cruz instructs the Internal Revenue Service not to collect a fine from anyone who opts out of the individual mandate to buy health insurance, thereby neutering a key element of the program. It is a matter of prosecutorial discretion, Mr. Cruz explains; tax cheats are defrauding the government of billions, and he wants the IRS to concentrate on them. Of course, he is willing to modify his order as soon as Congress agrees to fix what he considers a “broken” health system.
That is not a perfect analogy to Mr. Obama’s proposed action on immigration. But it captures the unilateral spirit that Mr. Obama seems to have embraced since Republicans swept to victory in the midterm elections.
Right. Never mind the previous Republican presidents who used executive powers to enable immigrants to stay in the country. Or the Republican presidents who ordered stuff like torture and warrantless surveillance in secret. Surely President Cruz would never think of doing anything like that if Obama agrees not to follow through on his promise.
digby 11/18/2014 09:00:00 AM
"Pants Up, Don't Loot"
There's always someone who can't help but give the game away. Like the fine fellow who raised the money to buy a billboard in Ferguson that says "Pants up, Don't loot". He evidently thinks he's very clever.
This crowdfunding campaign is for the purchase of a billboard in the Ferguson, MO area. The billboard will display black text on a white background with the text “#PantsUPDontLoot”. After some initial confusion we are working with other, undisclosed companies in the area that are willing to create and display this image. The funds collected from this campaign will be used to purchase this billboard for as long as possible. Lamar originally quoted us ~$2,500 for 1 month but others have come in under that amount. Whatever funds we receive will go directly to keeping the billboard campaign up as long as possible. If we come to an agreement with a company and can fund it for 3 months, 5 months, 7 months…, we will.
I know from experience that billboard companies will often refuse to run political messages. Blue America has been shut out of quite a few places because they don't want to be controversial or the owners are conservative. It will be interesting to see if the Ferguson billboard companie agree to run this.
digby 11/18/2014 08:01:00 AM
My well doesn't want your fracking waste water
by Tom Sullivan
Fracking continues to gain in unpopularity. During the recent election, candidates and campaigners told me one sure way to flip voters from the opposition — especially rural voters — was to inform them the Republican supported fracking.
There's trouble at t'drill in Bakersfield, CA. "Errors were made." (video at KNTV link):
Nah. Never happen where you live, right?
State officials allowed oil and gas companies to pump nearly three billion gallons of waste water into underground aquifers that could have been used for drinking water or irrigation.
Those aquifers are supposed to be off-limits to that kind of activity, protected by the EPA.
“This is something that is going to slowly contaminate everything we know around here,” said fourth- generation Kern County almond grower Tom Frantz, who lives down the road from several of the injection wells in question.
According to state records, as many as 40 water supply wells, including domestic drinking wells, are located within one mile of a single well that’s been injecting into non-exempt aquifers.
Kern County community organizer Juan Flores told reporters, “No one from this community will drink from the water from out of their well. The people are worried. They’re scared.”
But there's nothing to see here, little people:
The trade association that represents many of California’s oil and gas companies says the water-injection is a “paperwork issue.” In a statement issued to NBC Bay Area, Western States Petroleum Association spokesman Tupper Hull said “there has never been a bona vide claim or evidence presented that the paperwork confusion resulted in any contamination of drinking supplies near the disputed injection wells.”
However, state officials tested 8 water supply wells within a one-mile radius of some of those wells.
Four water samples came back with higher than allowable levels of nitrate, arsenic, and thallium.
Those same chemicals are used by the oil and gas industry in the hydraulic fracturing process and can be found in oil recovery waste-water.
“We are still comparing the testing of what was the injection water to what is the tested water that came out of these wells to find out if they were background levels or whether that’s the result of oil and gas operation, but so far it’s looking like it’s background,” said James Marshall from the California Department of Conservation.
Marshall acknowledged that those chemicals could have come from oil extraction, and not necessarily wastewater disposal.
I know, right? What a relief.
Undercover Blue 11/18/2014 06:00:00 AM
Monday, November 17, 2014
Santa fights the War on Christmas
Glenn Beck has recently confessed that he's had some er ... issues in recent years. They even included some hallucinations.
This is Beck's latest project:
‘The Immortal’ turns Santa Claus into the warrior protector of a young Jesus Christ
"The Immortal" is the name of his new book and movie, slated for 2016:
Santa is an important part of Christmas, but it’s become nothing more than a racket. If the kids just think that Santa just shows up and just dumps a whole bunch of presents, and you don’t even know why we’re getting gifts anymore, is that the lesson you want to teach your children? Because it’s not mine. And so it bothered me and bothered me all through Thanksgiving and all through Christmas, and I started writing a story called the Immortal.
It’s coming out as a book, not this Christmas but next Christmas, and then it will be a film. The premise behind it was how can I take a guy, Santa, and completely reshape him and make him into something even more magical than what we already think. How can I tell the story of Santa and place him into the actual first Christmas story without damaging the actual Christmas story? I can’t do any damage to that. I can’t have kids go yeah, well, that was Santa that was feeding the sheep. I can’t do that.
So how do I place this figure there so he is forever pointing to that moment? It wasn’t easy, but this story started to download, and I wrote it over the Christmas vacation. And we have been working on it now ever since, and we have come up with something that I think is game changing. Clement Moore was the guy who did ‘Twas the Night Before Christmas, and he was the first guy that really changed the look of Santa
And then Coca-Cola did it, changed the look of Santa. And then Montgomery Ward did it with Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, and then we’ve been off to the races and off to the malls ever since. How can we reshape? My Santa, the Immortal is a very different guy. He starts out right before the birth of Christ, and he is up in the mountains. And he is a warrior. He has lost his wife, and he’s a sad individual. And he’s got a son who loves dearly, and he lives up in the mountains, and he hunts for food.
But what’s interesting about him is he’s also good with his hands, and the way he hunts is completely different. He actually goes up in the mountains, and he makes these giant puppets that he actually gets inside. And he is trying to kill these wild boars by being inside one of these puppets, if you will, of a boar. And he roots around as the boars come in. That way he’s close enough to kill them.
And he takes his son and leaves him in his sledge up on the mountaintop and tells him to be careful. You know, he has taught him to be smart and wise, but as Agios, the main character, comes down, and he is hunting for these wild boar, he hears a scream up by the sledge, and the wolves have come and dragged his boy away. Let me just give you a little bit.
This is from the book:
Agios is now trying to go hunt the wolves because he has seen that his son has been dragged away. “The ridge led downward and beneath a rocky overhang. He spotted two wolves, huge animals, snarling as they fought over something they were devouring. Agios leapt from the sledge before the animals could react, spear in one hand, knife in another. The startled wolves whirled and snarled. Both ran at him like gray ghosts speeding from the gathering gloom.
Agios leaned back on the spear, planting the spear deep inside the lead wolf as it leapt. The blade lodged between the shoulder muscles. The wolf jerked the knife from his hand. In blind fury, Agios grabbed the savage creature, held her muzzle in one hand, lower jaw in the other, and wrenched. Bone and sinew cracked, and the wolf fell…and retrieved the knife as he sank it into the animal’s heart.
He saw the male, mortally wounded, on its belly, making its way towards him. He saw the fallen mate dragging the spear, spilling its own blood. He gave no thanks. Sobbing, cursing himself, he scrambled to the small ripped body beneath the overhang. “Alec,” he moaned, and then he screamed, “My son!” But no living thing could hear. Night enclosed him. The pines creaked in sudden gusts. The mountain storm did not care. Agios screamed again a wordless sound of agony, guilt, and grief. The wind whipped his anguished cry into the darkness.”
That’s how our story begins. That’s Santa? Yes, because what does a man do when he’s in that position where he has no hope, no resurrection, nothing? What does he do? He goes on an amazing journey as a hunter, as a gatherer. He eventually is hired by three wise men because he can negotiate, because nobody is going to rip them off, and he knows how to get the very best gifts. And so he negotiates with gold, frankincense, and myrrh and then has to go protect that gold, frankincense, and myrrh and then through a series of events is left there to protect the Christ child, never interacting, just watching.
I guess he's never heard of this guy.
digby 11/17/2014 06:00:00 PM
What is this bipartisanship you speak of?
Oh lordy, Ron Fournier's at it again:
On health care, we needed a market-driven plan that decreases the percentage of uninsured Americans without convoluting the U.S. health care system. Just such a plan sprang out of conservative think tanks and was tested by a GOP governor in Massachusetts, Mitt Romney.
Instead of a bipartisan agreement to bring that plan to scale, we got more partisan warfare. The GOP resisted, Obama surrendered his mantle of bipartisanship, and Democrats muscled through a one-sided law that has never been popular with a majority of the public.
I'll let Matt Yglesias respond to that inane comment:
It is true that we did not get a bipartisan agreement. It is true that the GOP resisted. It is true that the law is unpopular. But Obama didn't surrender his mantle of bipartisanship. The GOP took it away from him. They took it away from his as part of a deliberate strategy. They knew, as Fournier says right in this very column, that a big bipartisan health reform would be more popular than a big partisan health reform. So since Republicans didn't want Obama to be popular, they had every incentive to refuse to reach a bipartisan agreement. And thus no agreement was reached.
But regardless of the process used to get there, Obama and congressional Democrats delivered exactly the kind of reform Fournier says America needed. Shouldn't they be congratulated? After all, in substance, you still have a program that is very much on the Massachusetts model. That's the whole reason Jon Gruber came to be a prominent proponent and exponent of the federal law.
But politically speaking, it's a one-sided law that's never been popular. And that's not a coincidence. It's also not something Obama bungled. It's a consequence of mismatched incentives in Washington, DC. The president would like to be associated with bipartisan initiatives. The opposition party would like the president to not be associated with bipartisan initiatives. And the opposition party has it in their power to make sure that the president is not associated with bipartisan initiatives.
"I can almost guarantee you this thing won't pass before August, and if we can hold it back until we go home for a month's break in August," members of Congress will hear from "outraged" constituents, South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint said on the call, which was organized by the group Conservatives for Patients Rights.
"Senators and Congressmen will come back in September afraid to vote against the American people," DeMint predicted, adding that "this health care issue Is D-Day for freedom in America."
"If we’re able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him," he said.
That would be former Senator Jim DeMint, the current head of the Heritage Foundation --- an advocacy group that once touted a plan with the element of Obamacare most loathed by the right wing.
What this proved was that even if the Democrats agreed to pass the Republican agenda, the Republicans would vote against it. This should be obvious even to beltway insiders by now.
digby 11/17/2014 04:30:00 PM
Speaking in tongues on Meet the Press
Via Kilgore I see that Bobby Jindal gave Chuck Todd a cognitive workout this week-end:
CHUCK TODD: Very quickly on immigration. If the president goes through with his executive action, do you think Republicans and Capitol Hill ought to use even the power of shutting down the government to stop him from doing it?
Also too: volcano monitoring.
GOV. BOBBY JINDAL: Two things. I don’t think the president should shut down the government to try to break the Constitution. The reality is this. I do think the—
CHUCK TODD: You think the president would be shutting down the government?
GOV. BOBBY JINDAL: Oh, absolutely.
CHUCK TODD: So you do want Republicans to fight him on this to the point that it could shut down the government?
GOV. BOBBY JINDAL: Absolute— I don’t think the president should shut down the government.
CHUCK TODD: But you’re twisting my question.
GOV. BOBBY JINDAL: But wait, wait.
CHUCK TODD: That means you want that kind of showdown?
GOV. BOBBY JINDAL: ….No, we shouldn’t shut down the government, but absolutely Republicans should do everything they can to force the president to follow the law. Let’s secure the border. No, the president shouldn’t shut down the government so that he can break the law.
They shouldn't be allowed to get away with speaking gibberish on the Sunday Morning shows. It confuses people. And it allows this sort of nonsense talk to become normal in American discourse. If people want to know why nobody understands politics --- or why so many people tune it out --- this is your answer. It quite literally doesn't make any sense.
digby 11/17/2014 03:00:00 PM
"The fullness of being a woman"
It's so rare in our society these days to hear right wingers be up front and open about what they truly believe. It's so refreshing when they do it. Here's an example of what I'm talking about from Katie McDonough at Salon:
When you talk about how essential birth control and abortion rights have been to women’s progress, another thing becomes clear: The current assault on access is actually a referendum on women’s progress. This isn’t exactly breaking news, either. Plenty of people who oppose reproductive freedom are pretty clear about why they feel this way.
Here’s what one protester outside a Planned Parenthood in Boston, Massachusetts told Cosmopolitan’s Jill Filipovic about his view of a woman’s true purpose: “The fullness of being a woman is being a mother.” Here’s what another had to say: “Girls that want to have their careers, their education, they want to have this and that, the latest fashions, or go to this, or get a car, and they also want to have children? That’s a pretty hard thing to do. Usually it’s the children come first — that’s how society has changed. Children have become a throwaway.”
And while we’re at it, here’s what the Freedom Law Center, a group the filed a court brief in support of Hobby Lobby’s challenge to the Affordable Care Act, argued about birth control’s impact on society: “[T]he widespread use of contraceptives has indeed harmed women physically, emotionally, morally, and spiritually — and has, in many respects, reduced her to the ‘mere instrument for the satisfaction of [man’s] own desires.’ Consequently, the promotion of contraceptive services — the very goal of the challenged mandate — harms not only women, but it harms society in general by ‘open[ing] wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards.’”
There you go. This is the essence of conservatism which, to once again quote Corey Robin, comes down to this:
One of the reasons the subordinate’s exercise of agency so agitates the conservative imagination is that it takes place in an intimate setting. Every great political blast—the storming of the Bastille, the taking of the Winter Palace, the March on Washington—is set off by a private fuse: the contest for rights and standing in the family, the factory, and the field. Politicians and parties talk of constitution and amendment, natural rights and inherited privileges. But the real subject of their deliberations is the private life of power. “Here is the secret of the opposition to woman’s equality in the state,” Elizabeth Cady Stanton wrote. “Men are not ready to recognize it in the home.” Behind the riot in the street or debate in Parliament is the maid talking back to her mistress, the worker disobeying her boss. That is why our political arguments—not only about the family but also the welfare state, civil rights, and much else—can be so explosive: they touch upon the most personal relations of power.
Still, the more profound and prophetic stance on the right has been Adams’s: cede the field of the public, if you must, stand fast in the private. Allow men and women to become democratic citizens of the state; make sure they remain feudal subjects in the family, the factory, and the field. The priority of conservative political argument has been the maintenance of private regimes of power—even at the cost of the strength and integrity of the state….
Conservatism, then, is not a commitment to limited government and liberty—or a wariness of change, a belief in evolutionary reform, or a politics of virtue. These may be the byproducts of conservatism, one or more of its historically specific and ever changing modes of expression. But they are not its animating purpose.
Neither is conservatism a makeshift fusion of capitalists, Christians, and warriors, for that fusion is impelled by a more elemental force—the opposition to the liberation of men and women from the fetters of their superiors, particularly in the private sphere. Such a view might seem miles away from the libertarian defense of the free market, with its celebration of the atomistic and autonomous individual. But it is not. When the libertarian looks out upon society, he does not see isolated individuals; he sees private, often hierarchical, groups, where a father governs his family and an owner his employees.
digby 11/17/2014 01:30:00 PM
So John Harris has written a piece for Politico entitled:
The Dark Art of Political B.S.
Pay no attention to the pundit behind the curtain: Most of them are full of it.
Yes, that's by the same John Harris who edits the Politico, the premiere Village font of gasbaggery.
In fairness, he does indict himself among the gasbags --- and he's basically right about what he calls out although it's a little bit amusing that it took him so long to recognize what most of us have known for a while: these sweeping statements that the political world stopped turning on its axis and went the other direction every single election was just, as he puts it, "bovine byproducts."
In 2004, after George W. Bush won re-election despite the war controversies that had battered his approval ratings, the line went like this: The turnout machine built by campaign advisers Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman was so technologically superior that—combined with the natural GOP advantage on national security—Republicans held an advantage that would allow them to dominate national politics for the next generation. Rove, in the afterglow of victory, famously declared that “a conservative era in American governance could be starting now” and discussed the possibility of a permanent majority.
Two years later, Democrats won control of Congress, and two years after that, the Obama era launched a new set of “for the next generation” narratives. Obama campaign manager David Plouffe’s data wizards had lapped Republicans in the former art and now science of voter outreach and mobilization. Meanwhile, the GOP was the party of old, white, male straight conservatives in a country that is increasingly less of all those things.
While throwing myself on the mercy of the court let me hasten to plead that there is a difference between pure B.S., and much of what colleagues I respect produce—an alloy of partial B.S. merged with some genuine measure of intelligent and conscientious effort to divine larger truths about the broad patterns shaping our political life.
Those earlier narratives that were served up with such emphatic confidence weren’t flatly wrong. They just failed to reckon with the reality of life: Current trends never continue indefinitely. Politics especially is an infinitely fluid process, refreshed continually by new issues, new circumstances and, above all, new voters with different generational perspectives. Politicians are intelligent people, whose ambitions naturally orient them to accommodate change and find a way to prosper in it.
In other words we can't really tell the future. Stop the presses.
digby 11/17/2014 12:00:00 PM