Gladys from Austin, TX is hilarious. Especially at about the four-minute mark.

Open thread below.

The longer I was on the road as a touring sideman, the more I began to understand what Pavement were talking about in this song off of 1994's Crooked Rain Crooked Rain. I don't think Billy Corgan was too happy when he heard this though.

(The leopards attempt at changing spots)

When Iran, under Mohammed Mossadegh nationalized Iran's oil production in March of 1951, it put a crimp in the relations between Iran and Britain, who had enjoyed massive profits from drilling operations going back to 1909 and who, by 1950 had come to rely (as did the U.S.) on Middle East oil for 70% of its consumption (even back then). After a hotly contested dispute, which brought in the League of Nations to re-negotiate in 1933, Iran got slightly more of a percentage and by 1946 had negotiated to get 30% profits to Britain's 70%.

After Mossadegh took over and nationalized Iran's oil production, Britain quickly attempted to negotiate a 50/50 split, but Mossadegh would have none of it. The dispute between Britain and Iran went on for two years. So on August 22, 1953, with the help of our very own CIA the Mossadegh government was overthrown and The Shah was reinstated. Shortly after, Britain and Iran were negotiating oil.

And shortly after, The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company became British Petroleum. And the rest, as they say, is history.

This clip comes from a CBS newscast of August 21, 1951 when the negotiations had broken down.

Looks like Lindsey Graham is worried about appeasing the nativists in his wingnut base. On Greta Van Susteren's show the other night he announced he might introduce a bill that would change the law granting citizenship to children of immigrants born in the United States. As Steve Benen noted:

...as far as much of the media is concerned, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is a reasonable, pragmatic Republican, with whom Democrats should have no trouble finding common ground.

He's proving once again here he doesn't deserve that label.

Lawmakers Consider Ending Citizenship for Children of Illegal Immigrants:

Lawmakers since last year have been kicking around a proposal to bar U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants from becoming U.S. citizens. Such a move, which has been ridiculed by legal scholars, would be a drastic reinterpretation of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment.

But those supporting the move say it removes a key incentive luring illegal immigrants over the border. And with Arizona lawmakers now prohibited from requiring police to check immigration status, the option might be back on the table.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Fox News after the Arizona ruling came down that "birthright citizenship" needs to be changed.

"I'm a practical guy, but when you go forward I don't want 20 million more (illegal immigrants) 20 years from now," he said. "Let's have a system that doesn't reward people for cheating."

Though other lawmakers have called for a change in U.S. or state law, Graham said he might introduce a constitutional amendment.

"We should change our Constitution and say if you come here illegally and you have a child, that child's automatically not a citizen," he said Wednesday. "They come here to drop a child -- it's called 'drop and leave.' ... That attracts people here for all the wrong reasons."

As Steve also noted, Jamelle Bouie at the American Prospect did a very good job of pointing out just how extreme Graham's position is -- What Ever Happened to the Maverick of South Carolina?:

Continue reading »

Iran starts feeling heat

• Whoa, whoa... I'm starting to get a funny feeling in my pants... I haven't felt this way since 2003... what could it be? Oh God! OOOOHHH GOD, YES!!! WE MIGHT HAVE ANOTHER WAR!!!! YESYESYES!!!! OOOOOOOHHHHH GOD!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!

  *pant, pant*

  So, Iran, was that as good for you as it was for me?

---

'Shorter' concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard. We are aware of all Internet traditions.™ Graphics and postscript shamelessly pilfered from my pals at Sadly, No!

---

Fred Clark of Slacktivist writes one of those blogs that I just love. He's smart, compassionate and very, very perceptive. This piece on the credit report industry is timely -- go read the rest:

Kevin Drum makes a helpful comparison between your credit history and your medical history:

In the same way that medical records are available only to people with a legitimate medical need, I think that credit records should be available only to those who actually extend credit. Beyond that, they're private. Employers don't get them, the FBI doesn't get them, journalists don't get them and my neighborhood association doesn't get them. I don't care how much each of these people really, reallythinks it would be handy to have a peek at them. Short of a subpoena or a court order, my financial records are my business. You can't have them.... The credit reporting agencies [have] been placed in a privileged position where they're allowed to collect sensitive private information — just as doctors and banks and census takers are. That privileged position means they have a heightened responsibility for maintaining privacy, not a license to use their databases for anything that can make them an extra buck or two.

I think that's exactly right.It also seems to be exactly the opposite of the current relationship between citizens and credit reporting agencies.

Right now, the credit reporting agencies are permitted to collect and evaluate sensitive private information about anyone and everyone. (Although, again, "evaluate" may be too elevated a term for the crude reductionist number-crunching of their secret "scoring" formulas.) Almost no information about you and your money and how it is spent is off-limits to them. They are further permitted to sell this information to anyone to whom they wish to sell it, repackaging and marketing your private financial information for sale to insurance companies, your boss or your prospective employer.

Fred goes on to describe the carelessness with which those agencies treat your information, and why protecting consumers from the consequences is a political winner:

There are at the moment Democratic attorneys general in 31 states. Of those, I'm guessing, about 31 are hoping some day to be governors or senators. Advocating for their constituents against the costly and predatory negligence of credit-reporting agencies seems like a promising step toward fulfilling such ambitions. (I forget who it was who first observed that some seek power in order to enact policies while others seek policies in order to attain power, but I think this should appeal to those in either category.)

The Federal Trade Commission estimates that about 9 million Americans are victims of identity theft every year, so it's a safe bet that each of these AGs (or A's G) has thousands of constituents whose credit histories are scarred by such theft and who are therefore being forced to pay premium rates for everything from mortgages to consumer loans to insurance and utilities. Some of these constituents may have been denied employment or promotion on the basis of these lucratively inaccurate and uncorrected credit scores.

These costs are real and therefore they can be measured and quantified and added up into a single Very Large Dollar Amount -- the amount that constituents have been inaccurately and unfairly overcharged due to the negligence and irresponsibility of others. That VLDA is the basis for the class-action lawsuits that these attorneys general ought to be filing on behalf of their constituents.

Whether or not such lawsuits can succeed in achieving restitution for the millions of citizens who have paid dearly for the carelessness of the credit-reporting agencies, the lawsuits ought to be able to achieve at least a bit more of what is desperately needed and sorely lacking in the current system: accountability and transparency.

Without transparency and accountability, the power that credit agencies have will be abused and expanded and extended until its abusive presence is felt, as Matt Lauer put it, in "all portions of your life."

State lawsuits will allow AGs to subpoena information on the calculations and variables that go into the credit-reporting agencies secret-formula scores. Such information would empower consumers to improve those scores beyond what is currently knowable from the best-guesses of hack finance writers and "credit-monitoring" scams.

More importantly, the state lawsuits would allow the AGs to subpoena information on the marketing of citizens private financial information -- to gauge the full scope of the credit-reporting agencies' plans for the use of this private information beyond the realm of actual credit. Informed attention to the misuse of this information for employment decisions or by insurers or utilities would likely lead to the sort of outcry that would make limits on such misuse a legislative priority.

And that could lead to a situation in which the misuse or sale of private financial records is as obviously illegal -- and unthinkable -- as the misuse or sale of private medical records.

When Glenn Beck speaks, a little more truth dies. In usual right-wing echo chamber fashion, they just can't let go of Shirley Sherrod. They're milking her story so dry the cows are screaming.

The latest accusations, which I have seen repeated verbatim on the Illinois Review and the Washington Examiner so far, and which appear to be from a press release sent out for posting across all conservative blogs in an effort to game the Google, are nearly unintelligible. But I'll try. (h/t BillieGirlToo)

Oh noes! Shirley Sherrod's group, New Communities, was involved in the Pigford lawsuit against the USDA

Oh, seriously. They were, that's true. And who better to hire to actually make reparations than the person who actually understood the damages?

From the press release:

... Over the years, USDA refused to provide loans for farming or irrigation and would not allow New Communities to restructure its loans. Gradually, the group had to fight just to hold on to the land and finally had to wind down operations.

... The cash (settlement) award acknowledges racial discrimination on the part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture for the years 1981-85. ... New Communities is due to receive approximately $13 million ($8,247,560 for loss of land and $4,241,602 for loss of income; plus $150,000 each to Shirley and Charles for pain and suffering). There may also be an unspecified amount in forgiveness of debt. This is the largest award so far in the minority farmers law suit (Pigford vs Vilsack).

This particular round of crazy asks a series of questions that are irrelevant, not particularly interesting, and attempt to suggest that hiring her was the USDA's effort to "shut her up", and she was summarily fired so as to cover up the dastardly news that she was involved in the Pigford suit.

This question really takes the cake, though:

Given that New Communities wound down its operations so long ago (it appears that this occurred sometime during the late 1980s), what is really being done with that $13 million in settlement money?

Oh wow, wingnuts! She must have STOLEN IT. RIGHT?

The release then goes on to suggest that the USDA might be worried about possible waste, fraud and abuse (you know, that bill the Republicans all voted AGAINST?).

Step back, think. If a court-ordered settlement is to be made from the government to people who were wronged, how is that waste, fraud or abuse? It's only in the minds of the crazy folks like Breitbart, who is desperately trying to intimidate Sherrod out of suing him, as far as I can tell.

Meanwhile, over at the Illinois Review...

Writer Teri O'Brien manages to conflate the New Black Panthers, William Ayers, AND the Pigford case, citing the strength of character and discernment in Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.

Somewhat breathlessly, Ms. O'Brien heaves forth the knowledge that Sherrod's husband...

...was a former honcho in the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee back in the 1960’s. You can read more about it in Bill Ayers book “Fugitive Days.” Yes, that Bill Ayers. He was involved in SNCC as well.

Now see? That's how you take an apple and an orange and make it into a prune. You find out about a group, link up 'scary guy' Bill Ayers without any corresponding direct link between the two or between the SNCC and the Weather Underground and all of a sudden it's a story! Who needs journalists when we've got Breitbart and his merry minions to keep us stupid?

Media Matters has a thorough debunking of this story and all of the companion versions here.

Here's a newsflash for conservatives: Shirley Sherrod is not going to be your tea party wedge issue for August. You don't have health care reform to kick around anymore and your conduct in Congress should earn you a one-way ticket home. It might be time to quit milking dead stories and get on with life on the Planet Earth. Planet Teabag can't be reached by normal humans yet.

For a palate cleanser after this tripe, I highly recommend Joan Walsh's essay on the Shame of Right Wing Journalism, and especially, this brilliant essay from her about the wrong lessons of the Sherrod story.

Rich Trumka, the current president of the AFL/CIO, has been fighting to protect Social Security for a very long time. (Take a look at this video from 1994, when he asks, "Where is the crisis?" and points out that Social Security is the target of "draconian" proposals while it was in surplus.)

He is one of a very few voices standing up for working people in this country, and here's the speech he made this week at the National Press Club for the press conference announcing the Strengthen Social Security coalition:

Good morning. Working people around the country know the value of Social Security, and the Labor Movement has long been one of its staunchest supporters.

The American Federation of Labor was there in 1935, advocating for passage of the Social Security Act. In the decades following, the AFL-CIO played a lead role in designing the evolving Social Security system -- supporting efforts to strengthen and broaden the program, and opposing weakening of its protections. During the last Administration, we were key to defeating privatization.

In a misplaced effort to reduce the deficit, Social Security is under attack again --this time by proposals to raise the retirement age. And the right wing spin machine has convinced many Americans that Social Security won’t be there for them, anyway.

Working America, the community affiliate of the AFL-CIO, goes door to door every night talking to thousands of people a week. What they hear is that working families -- including young people -- are deeply worried about their retirement security. They are hearing that their Social Security benefits may be cut --- and they don’t see how they can possibly make up the difference.

At a time when retirement is less secure for working Americans than it has been in many generations, only Social Security remains a defined and stable retirement benefit -- not to mention the important family protections it provides when a worker is injured or dies. Unions know exactly what is happening to retirement income in this country because we see it at the bargaining table. Fewer traditional pensions. More riskier 401(k) plans -- not a great benefit for workers with stagnant incomes who find it difficult or impossible to save. Now is the time, to strengthen, not weaken, Social Security.

Raising the eligibility age for a full Social Security benefit would be disastrous for millions of Americans. It is a benefit cut, plain and simple. It is a cut that is unnecessary and one that Americans can ill-afford.

For those born in 1960 or later, the retirement age for a full Social Security benefit is now 67, rather than 65. These younger workers have already been hit with a 13 percent benefit cut -- and some now want to impose another cut on top of that.

A 62-year old worker who would receive $800 a month if the retirement age for a full benefit were 65, will get only $700 a month when that retirement age becomes 67.
Further increasing the retirement age for a full benefit to 69 (and some are even saying 70) means another 13% cut in benefits -- for a total benefit cut of more than 25% for anyone who is now 50 or younger. That probably includes many of you in this room.

Continue reading »

This has to be one of the most bizarre things I've seen in a long time. Chris Matthews has Howard Dean and Joan Walsh on to discuss the Shirley Sherrod debacle and what Andrew Breitbart did to slime her and the Obama administration's response and when both Walsh and Dean point out to Matthews that despite his assertions to the contrary, Breitbart's video was highly edited, Matthews goes ballistic on them and claims that the nearly hour long video wasn't edited because Breitbart included this bit.

Sherrod: That's when it was revealed to me that's it's about poor versus those who have. It's not so much about white... it is about white and black but it's not, you know... it opened my eyes. Because I took him to one of his own.

Apparently in Tweety's mind, Breitbart including that somehow absolved him from the editing of the tape he did. The more Walsh and Dean tried to point out to Matthews that the tape was edited and that what he was saying wasn't true, the more agitated he got.

Digby was kind enough to transcribe some of this nonsense for us and I've got a couple of theories for why Matthews acted the way he did. Her transcript along with what MSNBC aired in place of this along with part two of the segment they apparently didn't want anyone to watch below the fold.

Continue reading »

Here's your daily Wall Street-related laugh -- after getting busted for knowingly selling self-described "sh*tty deals" to clients, Goldman Sachs has now decided that it must stop employees from using naughty words in company emails:

The New York company is telling employees that they will no longer be able to get away with profanity in electronic messages. That means all 34,000 traders, investment bankers and other Goldman employees must restrain themselves from using a vast vocabulary of oft-used dirty words on Wall Street, including the six-letter expletive that came back to haunt the company at a Senate hearing in April.

"[B]oy, that timberwo[l]f was one s— deal," Thomas Montag, who helped run Goldman's securities business, wrote in a June 2007 email that was repeatedly referred to at the hearing.

Mr. Montag, who couldn't be reached for comment, wouldn't be allowed to send that email under Goldman's sanitized communications policy, which is being enforced by screening software. Even swear words spelled with asterisks are out.

Oh, now where's the fun in that! How can get an accurate picture of the Real Wall Street works if traders aren't allowed to email each other messages such as "LOL OMG I CANT BELIEVE THE DUMB-A** C***S***ER BOUGHT THAT S****Y M*****F***ING DEAL I CAN'T WAIT 2 SHORT THAT B***H ROFL!!!!1!"

Man, it's hard out here for a pimp these days. Continuing:

A Goldman spokeswoman said: "Of course we have policies about the use of appropriate language and we are always looking for ways to ensure that they are enforced."

"We always tell our f***ing traders not to mouth the f**k off about the s****y deals they make over email," he added. "That sort of talk must be reserved for company restrooms only."

The new edict—delivered verbally, of course—has left some employees wondering if the rule also applies to shorthand for expletives such as "WTF" or legitimate terms that sound similar to curses.

Traders are now banned from writing things like, "OMFG THAT MF HAS NO IDEA WTF IS ABOUT 2 HAPPEN LMAO! I PURCHASED CDS ON THOSE POS SECURITIES FIVE MINUTES AFTER HE BOUGHT THEM FROM ME -- NOW WHEN HE BLOWS UP I WILL BE EFFING RICH LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!"

This new Goldman policy is a classic example of what we professional philosophers call "Missing the damn point." No one is taking offense at the fact that they used four-letter words in company emails. The offensive thing is that they allegedly designed collateralized debt obligations filled with crappy mortgages and then sold them to unwitting clients and then shorting securities in the CDOs through credit default swaps.

This sort of behavior, needless to say, is much more offensive than using the s-word over and over again in emails.