Hullabaloo

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

 
Alpha Girls and Beta Boys

by digby


This Minnesota GOPvideo, courtesy of Adam Weinstein at Mojo is pretty hard to take. (You have to watch through to the end to see the worst of it.)

I can't help but be reminded of Sarah Palin's stirring words:

"The choice of photo for the cover of this week's Newsweek is unfortunate. When it comes to Sarah Palin, this "news" magazine has relished focusing on the irrelevant rather than the relevant. The Runner's World magazine one-page profile for which this photo was taken was all about health and fitness -- a subject to which I am devoted and which is critically important to this nation. The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist and oh-so-expected by now. If anyone can learn anything from it: it shows why you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, gender, or color of skin.

I wonder if she'd have a problem with this video? Hmmm.

It's hard to know what to say about it other than, "would you want your mother to see this?" After all, most of the Republican women they objectify in the beginning are younger (or their pictures are from when they were younger) while most of the "Democrat" women are well over 50. But hey, when a conservative can insult women, liberals and older people all in one short video, they've hit the trifecta.

This "hot GOP babes" theme is so pervasive that I have to wonder if these conservative male homunculi have convinced themselves that because there are attractive female GOP celebrities it naturally follows that GOP males are big time alphas. I don't know how to break it to them, but it's the women who are the alphas not their goopy fanboys.


.
digby 8/17/2010 07:30:00 PM |

 
Daniel Webster Tells Grandma That Fancy Feast Tastes Just Like Chicken

by digby


Wow. Alan Grayson's probable GOP opponent seriously wants to put retirees on a catfood diet:

A Republican House candidate in Florida wants senior citizens to share the burden of reducing the national budget deficit through cuts to Social Security benefits.

"My number one priority would be to cut spending, turn off the spigot. We can do that, and the way we would do that is to roll back the budget to 2007," said Daniel Webster during a Tea Party forum for Republican candidates gunning for firebrand Democrat Alan Grayson's job.

"Just three years ago, if we would take that budget and pass it today just as it was, does it roll back some salary increases? Yes," Webster continued. "Does it get rid of TARP and health care and all of the other things, including the stimulus package? Yes, it does that. Does it take back some of the COLAs for the entitlement programs? Yes, it does that, too. But it's only three years ago. If we took that budget and passed it, it would self-balance in two more years."

Aside from all the other idiocy (and convenient ignoring of the bloated Pentagon budget) what this translates into for senior citizens is this:

Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs) in 2008 and 2009, of 2.3 percent and 5.8 percent, respectively, amounted to roughly $100 per retiree every month.

Sure, those are the people who should have to pay for Webster's party's looting of the treasury and deregulation of the financial system. That's only fair. Besides, only losers would care about the loss of 100 bucks a month. They deserve to suffer.

These guys are so offensive, with their blithe talk about "rolling back" everything to 2007 and turning off the spigot. Well, it isn't 2007, it's 2010 and we're dealing with an economic crisis of huge proportions caused by bozos just like him who turned this country into a disaster zone with the policies they governed under --- in 2007!

I'm to the point that I can hardly even stand to listen to the swill they spew. These privileged creeps love to prescribe "sacrifice" for little old ladies and children (and the love to drop bombs on them too.) But ask them to pay a penny more in taxes and they whine and pout like spoiled little princes and threaten to blow up the whole country if anyone even tries it.

Anybody know where you can buy cheap pitchforks these days?


.
digby 8/17/2010 05:30:00 PM |

 
Motivated Cognition For Dummies

by digby


This may be one of the stupidest article I've ever read. Apparently, Andrew Breitbart isn't a racist, he's just a victim of "motivated cognition."

There is very little evidence, if any, that Sarah Palin hates teachers, or that Andrew Breitbart is a racist. Yet a recent flood of viral stories propagated by internet journalists allegedly catch prominent conservatives red-handed in acts of hate.

[...]

The flurry of finger-pointing, both of prejudice against Palin and Breitbart, and the counterclaims of conspiracy against the "liberal media," misses the hidden puppet master causing the scandals: a powerful psychological tendency for ideologues unwittingly to distort facts to fit their preconceived biases.

[...]

The official psychological term for this behavior is "motivated cognition" -- a tendency to bias our interpretation of facts to fit a version of the world we wish to believe is true. For instance, one study found that college basketball fans, viewing the same video of a game, were likely to believe the rival team committed at least twice as many fouls as their own...

Motivated cognition seems as likely an explanation of Breitbart's poor video editing as do allegations that he is a racist.

Evidently, "motive" and "cognition" can't be racist. Oy.



.
digby 8/17/2010 03:30:00 PM |

 
This Says It All

by digby

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Mosque-Erade
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

.
digby 8/17/2010 01:30:00 PM |

 
Orwellian Bubble

by digby


Kevin Drum wonders if there's been any decent polling on the Cordoba House and makes this observation:

The very first time I heard about the "Ground Zero mosque" I thought it was literally a plan to build a mosque as part of the memorial at the rebuilt WTC site. I wonder how many people still think that?

If this is all you've seen, then you surely do:

But that's not the only propaganda. How about this one that appeared on Jihadwatch last June? (It got 504 comments.)

(I love the crack about Islam having an "impossible afterlife.")

In case you didn't know, this is a "bigger threat to our freedom than Nazism ever was."

People who live entirely in the wingnut noise machine honestly don't know the truth about the project and are being scared half to death by this propaganda. Those who are apathetic (most Americans) probably think as Kevin did, that the "mosque" is being built on the site of the WTC as part of the planned memorial, which just seems odd. I don't think you can underestimate how uninformed most people are on just about anything. But on this issue I think there's a very good chance that they are more misinformed than usual.

I could be wrong, though. Maybe most of the country really believes that it's insensitive for American Muslims to practice their religion near Ground Zero, in which case we have bigger problems.



.
digby 8/17/2010 12:00:00 PM |

 
Aqua Buddha Speaks

by digby

When asked about how to solve the drug problem in Kentucky, Rand Paul distractedly fingered his stained copy of Atlas Shrugged Cliff Notes, took a deep breath, held it for a long moment and said:

"You want rich people because that's what creates jobs. If you punish people, they won't expand or create jobs, dude" Paul said.

(Ok, I added the "dude.")


.
digby 8/17/2010 10:30:00 AM |

 
Frenemies

by digby


Maybe Newtie could persuade Rupert Murdoch to have his partners build some synagogues and churches and end all this unpleasantness.

The stridency with which Fox News personalities attack the downtown Islamic center -- red meat for the millions who tune in each night -- is an example of the often uneasy relationship and occasionally diverging interests between many of News Corp.'s properties, in this case Fox News and its parent corporation.
















For example, News Corp.'s second-largest shareholder, after the Murdoch family, is Prince Alwaleed bin Talal (pictured above ), the nephew of Saudi Arabian King Abdullah, and one of the world's richest men.
[...]


Saudi Arabia, which is ruled by Alwaleed's uncle King Abdullah, is, of course, an authoritarian petro-monarchy that actually is governed by Sharia law and is known as one of the top global sponsors of terrorism. A spokesperson for the Saudi embassy in Washington says that while Alwaleed is part of the royal family, he isn't a member of the government, but rather a private citizen.

I doubt all those Fox news patriots know that the same News Corp that's owned by a Wahhabist Saudi prince just donated a million dollars to the Republican party. Of course they'll never find out because the only network they watch is the same terrorist funded network that's doing it.

But if they were to hear about it, considering that they all seem to be so worried about the terrorists coming to kill them in their beds, I would imagine they'd be uncomfortable about getting all their news from a network that's partially owned by one of "them." And I'd be very surprised if they were sanguine about a scary Muslim donating to their patriotic political party. Why next thing you know they'll be trying to build community centers near Ground Zero.

At the very least, this whole thing is very insensitive, don't you think? After all, some people really hate Muslims and it's very unpleasant for them to have to watch news networks that are owned by them and be asked vote for a Party that's funded by them. I'm not saying that Murdoch should be forced to stop donating millions to Republicans or partnering with Saudi princes who believe in Sharia law. I just think it's common sense that he wouldn't do it in the first place.


h/t to @markos.

.
digby 8/17/2010 09:30:00 AM |

Monday, August 16, 2010

 
Who's Trash Talking The Imam?

by digby

Marc Ambinder takes both parties to task over the Cordoba House controversy, asking "from an ethical standpoint, which is worse: Are Republicans demagoguing the issue or are Democrats trying to stay silent because they're afraid to engage?" I think the answer is pretty obvious, but I suppose your mileage may vary.

But I found this very puzzling. First he says this:

Stipulating that it's OK to oppose the Ground Zero mosque, that Imam Rauf is fashionably moderate (and yet was eager to fault Americans for 9/11 and had trouble describing Hamas as a terrorist group) .... : it's plain demagoguery to nationalize the issue.

Who but right wing demagogues have been saying that Imam Rauf is a "fashionable" moderate but was eager to to blame Americans for 9/11 and is sympathetic toward Hamas? I guess you can say that Ambinder was just stipulating this for argument's sake, but it's a major stipulation, especially since he later writes this in the same piece:

President Obama did not weigh in on the Cordoba House because it was a "constitutional issue." He did so because his national security principles call for him to do everything possible to integrate American Muslims into America, and to project those actions to the world. It's clear that he's read up on the mosque, Imam Rauf, and the real estate machinations of lower Manhattan, and that he's uncomfortable endorsing the decision to place a mosque near the pit.

If that's clear, I hadn't heard it. But then I don't have the contacts inside the administration Ambinder has, so I'm not privy to the explanations they may be giving to journalists on the qt.

I don't know that that's what happened. But until now, I haven't heard from anyone that the White House was "uncomfortable" endorsing the decision because of the Imam and real estate machinations. If that's the case, then the president is falling for right wing clap trap. If it isn't, then is Ambinder just making stuff up? Or is it that they are telling reporters this stuff off the record so they can get it out there that the President explicitly doesn't endorse this project for those reasons?

Frankly until I read this it hadn't even occurred to me that Obama actually opposed the project, much less for those reasons. I had assumed the opposite and that their decision to stay neutral on the "wisdom" of building it was an (ineffectual) attempt to stay above the fray. Even Harry Reid's cowardly baby splitting today didn't seem to be a comment on the merits of the project itself but merely the location. However if the White House now wants to get the word out that they aren't endorsing because they disapprove of Imam Rauf, we are in very different territory. I sincerely hope that isn't the case.


** There's also Ambinder's odd hosannas for Chris Christie's lame statement, which Kevin Drum effectively skewers here. All in all, it's a very strange post that raises more questions than it answers.

.
digby 8/16/2010 09:30:00 PM |

 
Reason, Sweet Reason

by digby

America may be awash in stupid at the moment but our neighbors to the north are still able to apply critical thinking:

The company that makes Tasers has lost its legal bid to quash a high-profile report that found the weapons can kill.

The British Columbia Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a legal challenge by Taser International to overturn results of the inquiry into the death of Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski.

The company was trying to quash retired justice Thomas Braidwood’s findings that the weapons increase the risk of fatal heart failure.

Dziekanski, 40, died on Oct. 14, 2007, at Vancouver International Airport after being Tasered five times by four RCMP officers responding to a 911 call.

“Obviously I am very pleased,” said Braidwood, shortly after the decision was released Tuesday. “The court found there was fairness in the report for Taser International. They had full opportunity to present evidence.”

In his report, Braidwood concluded that Taser hits contributed to Dziekanski’s death.

“Conducted-energy weapons do have the capacity to cause serious injury or death,” he wrote, adding that risk increases with multiple uses, specifically when aimed at the chest near the heart

I guess he must have looked at the huge pile of dead bodies and correctly discerned that it was common sense that the fact that they were shot full of electricity just before they expired was the proximate cause of their deaths. Or perhaps it was all the medical evidence. Either way, reason prevailed. Huzzah.

Meanwhile, here in the states:





.
digby 8/16/2010 07:30:00 PM |

 
Who Are The Expendables?

by digby

We get lectured all the time by Democratic strategists and politicians, among others, who tell us that we shouldn't take on Blue Dogs, that every seat is important, that the Party is a big tent that must contain different views and that we shouldn't ever be rude to other Democrats who are just following their principles and their constituents.

Apparently, that only applies to liberals. Blue Dogs are allowed to attack other Democrats for being insufficiently bigoted and still get rewarded with millions of dollars from the Party's donors.

Here's Howie:

As we pointed out over the weekend, despite Pelosi's efforts to tamp it down, the Blue Dogs are going on the warpath against progressive Democrats, using Henry Waxman's interview with The Hill as an excuse. One thing we can always be sure of inside the Democratic Caucus-- well, two, actually: Blue Dogs will always put self-preservation above the party’s principles, and the DCCC will do whatever it can to help them get re-elected.

Giffords is emblematic of the tragic turn the House Democratic Party has taken. Over the weekend she launched a $350,000 ad buy in the Tucson media market that slams the principled stand Grijalva took against SB1070-- throwing him directly under the bus in order to make herself look sufficiently xenophobic for the bloodthirsty Know Nothing mobs. As you can see in the ad, she makes a solemn vow to fight “these groups” who have protested this unjust law by boycotting the state. “These groups” include Latinos, liberals, and citizens across the country who know an injustice when they see one. She's directly targeting Grijalva, Arizona's most progressive leader and the Congressman who most consistently stands up for those who are hurt by the right wing’s agenda.

Howie's sources have told him that many people in the Party tried to dissuade Gifford from doing this but she was backed up by the DCCC.

There's a reason for it though, which Howie alluded to in that excerpt. Grijalva is the head of the Progressive Caucus, which is making strides to becoming an effective voting bloc in the House. Lots of people want to strangle this piece of progressive infrastructure before it starts seriously interfering with their simple collection of large sums from America's owners. Allowing Giffords to make a low blow against Grijalva is about much more than just Arizona politics.

And, even if it weren't, Grijalva has a tough race too. Evidently, he's expendable. Howie concludes with this:

Raúl needs help fighting back, and Blue America is asking supporters to donate to the OneAmerica page so he has the funds necessary to defend himself.

Minutes before publishing time I reached Raúl in Tucson and I was surprised to find him in such a determined mood. "I kind of feel like a character in the movie The Expendables, he told me. "In an effort to maintain their presence in Congress, Blue Dogs are throwing progressives under the bus. I find it disheartening and, quite frankly, I am embarrassed as a Democrat. In their effort to be Republicans, Blue Dogs often paint progressives as expendable. They're going to find out that we definitely are not."

Keep in mind that Grijalva is not just a progressive leader, he's one of the most visible Hispanic leaders in the Democratic party. The DC functionaries my think he's expendable, but they should think long and hard about whether or not they want to take his constituency for granted by backing Blue Dogs who are hostile to immigrants. It's about as short sighted as it gets.

You can donate to Grijalva here

.
digby 8/16/2010 04:30:00 PM |

 
Where's Boehner?

by digby

.
digby 8/16/2010 03:30:00 PM |

 
They Were Asking For It

by digby

Jack Cafferty just asked the question:

Are Muslims buying themselves unnecessary problems by insisting on building a mosque near Ground Zero in New York?

This is a familiar refrain going way back. I recall Breitbart recently saying that John Lewis and Emmanuel Cleaver were looking to "provoke" the teabaggers by walking through the crowd. You know how these you-know-whats are. They're always trying to trap racists and xenophobes into doing something racist and xenophobic. And then they get all mad and stuff.

This is why ghettoes and camps are so practical in these situations. It keeps the hated people from asking for trouble by walking among those who hate them. When you think about it, it's really doing them a favor.

And by all means when genocidal maniacs start shrieking, you should immediately retreat and let them have their way. Isn't that what the Churchill worshipping conservative patriots have been preaching for the past 50 years? Plus religious freedom, of course. That too.


.
digby 8/16/2010 02:30:00 PM |

 
The Mainstreaming Of Crazy Just Went Nuclear

by digby

"We have a President who is literally paving the way for an Islamic state in America" Atlas Shrugs VLOG July 2009

This Salon chronology of the Cordoba House controversy shows that it really is a one woman freakshow, led by none of the than Pamela "Atlas Shrugs" Geller. I went back in my archives to find the first time I became aware of her, and it turns out it was in 2005. Here was what I posted:

I see we have a wingnut blogger on the scene who goes by the name of "Atlas" (for Atlas Shrugged, natch.) She posts on Jackson's Junction. She's much more thoughtful than the e-mailer above, plus she posts a glamor shot of herself with each entry (that you can click for higher res!) Here's a taste:

War Must be Declared on those Against us

Pamela aka Atlas says BASTA! Enough hand holding, appeasing, talking "their"talk..........

THE BUSH DOCTRINE................either you're with us or against us

I say, first Declare War on Syria with our Coalition (Brits, Japanese, Baltic Nations, Israel, Australia) with a tactical approach to moving into Iran. The young people Of Iran (75% of the population) will rise and fight with us.

You can't say she isn't consistent.

And she's always had friends in high places. My favorite Atlas moment was her up close and personal interview in 2006 with neocon fruitcake John Bolton when he was the UN Ambassador:

What I most admire about John Bolton is his steely demeanor and moral clarity. His spectacular fortitude in the face of scoundrels, liars, and internationally sanctioned criminals never fails to surprise and delight me. What was completely unexpected was the other side of Bolton. He was funny, thoughtful, deliberate. I really enjoyed the chat.

Atlas: If I could I'd like to talk about you. [he is looking at me askance, laughing here] What formed you..........what is your favorite book?

JB: That's a good question actually. I'd say one of the things that made a big impression on me was Edmund Burke's book Reflections on the Revolution in France and I've read a lot of John Locke and that had a big impact on me and Ayn Rand.

Atlas: You're just saying that to make me feel better........

JB: No it's true.

Atlas: Growing up, were you one of many?

JB: No, I had one sister, nine years younger.

Atlas: So you were the oldest. Your parents were tough? Encouraging? Non approving?

Trying to figure out where you developed that spine of yours........I find that quality rare. There's a lot of it in that administration.

JB: My father was a firefighter in the city of Baltimore, my mother was a housewife.

Atlas: YAY, the great American story.

[...]

JB: Oh its do-able, under the right circumstances. I'm not so naive that I would be doing it if I didn't think there was a chance which makes it in some senses more frustrating. You can see sometimes how close you can get and yet you can't finish a particular thing. Like Iran, I've been working on this for three and a half years

Atlas: And you'll be working on it for three and half more.

JOB: I hope not, I hope not because now that it's in the Security Council, now is the time to say this is their chance that either they give up their pursuit of nuclear weapons or we go to what the President said, we do something else.

Atlas: We do something else? That's a little vague, don't you think? Deliberately vague?

JB: Yeah, sure absolutely. The President said I never take options off the table. And you've got to be that way. Look this has happened to me enough times before .... if I said, well -- I'll give you an example......after the invasion of Iraq, after Saddam was overthrown I said something in a BBC interview like I hope the governments of Syria and Iran take notice of what's just happened and I got into enormous trouble for that because it sounded like I was threatening the invasion of Iran and Syria.

Atlas: yeah but you get in enormous trouble for waking up in the morning

JB: Well that's true too.

to be continued

More to come guys, but right now I am going to take a break, head downstairs, meet up with some AIPAC folks, and have me a glass of pinot noir............I've had it. Long day. But great.

The interview continues with Pamela cooing some more about Big John's manly, macho manhood between asides about vaporizing Iran and nuclear holocaust. It's very hot.

But there is nothing more indicative of Atlas's unique contribution to political discourse than this Youtube of her bikini clad self in in the surf talking her special brand of politics on a vacation to Israel. It think it captures the real her. (And you can't deny that she has a slammin' bod.)

But there are so many "Vlogs" to choose from, that it's a shame to pick just one. This one pledging her troth to Sarah Palin is filled with notable quotes, like the one featured at the beginning of this post:



"Sarah Palin is not a full of shitnick" should be her 2012 campaign slogan.




.
digby 8/16/2010 12:30:00 PM |

 
Button Up

by digby

Howard Fineman almost has a moment of clarity:

If we had any sense, the fall elections would be about just one thing: the economy. But we do not have any sense. We are facing what Wall Street would call the “triple witching hour.” Republicans have their finger on three social-demographic hot buttons. The first is illegal immigration (in proposing a review of the 14th Amendment), and the second is Islam in America (in objecting to the mosque at ground zero). They won’t be able to avoid pushing the third, race, even if they wanted to, given that the two leading congressional Democrats facing ethics charges are African-American.

Uh, Howard. It's the same button.

Lee Atwater observed long ago that the right needed to develop racist dog-whistles once it became publicly and legally unacceptable to express racist sentiments. There have been many permutations over the years. There's always something.

Here's how I like to put it:

1955 - They are an inferior race
1965 - They are lazy workers
1975 - They make old white customers uncomfortable
1985 - Affirmative action means their diplomas are bogus
1995 - They are a litigation risk for discrimination claims
2005 - They are racists who discriminate against white people

Now we have a black president and he is widely believed to be a secret Muslim, thus conflating the terrorist threat with white fears of black and brown social equality.

It's getting more desperate and bizarre, which I think would surprise even Atwater, who assumed it would die out as it became more obscure. But it's still there and it still has power, particularly in a right wing populist framework.

I'm a little surprised at how crude it is, but unleashed beasts tend not to have many social graces.


.
digby 8/16/2010 10:34:00 AM |

 
Scandal Pimp

by digby

Darrel Issa's going to be a lot of fun with subpoena power, isn't he? Here's the latest "scandal" he's pimping:

Darrell Issa is out with a report this morning claiming that the Obama Administration has engaged in an unprecedented amount of illegal propaganda.

The charge is almost undoubtedly true: As the report drily catalogues, virtually every 20th Century administration, particularly in wartime, skirted the limits on propaganda. The first administration fully in the new media age produces a far, far larger volume of media than any of its predecessors, and Issa argues that some of it crosses the line.

One puzzling footnote: Issa's report includes the claim, floated on the right but never substantiated, that Justice Department blogger Tracy Russo posted anonymous comments to conservative blogs. If she did, that could qualify as propaganda. (Though perhaps its single least effectual form. Anonymous blog comments!)

Tracy, be sure to wear something conservative for your hearings and Grand Jury appearances.

What's most impressive about Issa is how he's managed to piggyback on vague public knowledge of huge scandals in the Bush administration and apply them to Democrats. (Sestak, this one.)

Basically, he's going to go after propaganda, including anonymous blog posts, when this wasn't even considered worthy of further investigation. I'm sure he knows that people are vaguely aware of this and other scandals like the Armstrong Williams case, but don't know the details. So he'll apply that awareness to this new "scandal" and everyone will say "it's about time they got to the bottom of this!" It's good politics for them --- for a while. He'll keep the Democrats constantly on defense and the media entertained with trivia.

But it has its limits, even in good times. Right now, I don't know how well this will play. But it might play very well. Isn't it a truism that during the Depression everyone wanted light entertainment to take their mind off their troubles?


.
digby 8/16/2010 08:30:00 AM |

Sunday, August 15, 2010

 
A Glimpse Of The Future

by digby

Why do I have the feeling that ignoring this is a huge practical and moral mistake?

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon met Sunday with Pakistan's president, and both men urged the international community to step up efforts to help the millions affected by flooding in Pakistan...

He said he has visited scenes of natural disasters worldwide, but has seen "nothing like this. The scale of the disaster is so large -- so many people and in so many places, in so much need."

"Thousands of towns and villages have simply been washed away," Ban said. "Roads, buildings, bridges, crops -- millions of livelihoods have been lost. People are marooned on tiny islands with the floodwaters all around them. They are drinking dirty water. They are living in the mud and ruins of their lives. Many have lost family and friends. Many more are afraid their children and loved ones will not survive in these conditions."

When you read about the effects of climate change, you see these moving maps where large parts of the land mass become submerged and you think, "boy that's really something." But what this shows is the depth of human misery that mass flooding causes. And the probability that this will be happening with frequency and sometimes simultaneously going forward is quite high. What that translates into, aside from the aforementioned human misery, is political instability, mass migration and social upheaval. This is a peek at our future, and it's happening in one of the most dangerous places on earth.

I hope somebody's paying attention because we certainly aren't.

.
digby 8/15/2010 06:00:00 PM |

 
Catch-22 21st Century Style

by digby


Why does everything have to be so damned hard?

At the height of the Iraq war, the Army routinely dismissed hundreds of soldiers for having a personality disorder when they were more likely suffering from the traumatic stresses of war, discharge data suggests.

[...]

Unlike PTSD, which the Army regards as a treatable mental disability caused by the acute stresses of war, the military designation of a personality disorder can have devastating consequences for soldiers.

Defined as a "deeply ingrained maladaptive pattern of behavior," a personality disorder is considered a "pre-existing condition" that relieves the military of its duty to pay for the person's health care or combat-related disability pay.

According to figures provided by the Army, the service discharged about a 1,000 soldiers a year between 2005 and 2007 for having a personality disorder.

But after an article in The Nation magazine exposed the practice, the Defense Department changed its policy and began requiring a top-level review of each case to ensure post-traumatic stress or a brain injury wasn't the underlying cause.

After that, the annual number of personality disorder cases dropped by 75 percent. Only 260 soldiers were discharged on those grounds in 2009.

At the same time, the number of post-traumatic stress disorder cases has soared. By 2008, more than 14,000 soldiers had been diagnosed with PTSD — twice as many as two years before.

The Army attributes the sudden and sharp reduction in personality disorders to its policy change. Yet Army officials deny that soldiers were discharged unfairly, saying they reviewed the paperwork of all deployed soldiers dismissed with a personality disorder between 2001 and 2006.

The story chronicles the ridiculous Catch-22 situation these vets are in, many of them suffering from traumatic brain injury (another horror story of the Iraq and Afghan wars.)

We went through this in Vietnam with Agent Orange and it caused huge amounts of needless pain for thousands of veterans and their families. It takes years to sort out and in the end it's always determined that a bunch of people suffered and were denied help for no good reason.

It's five thousand people at mos. Just cover them. Even if a few of them were legitimately messed up before they went in, you know damned well, they were worse off when they came out. And since there's no way to really know, just cover them all. They're vets. They need treatment, give it to them. It won't cost more than one useless airplane to cover them all for the rest of their lives.


.
digby 8/15/2010 04:30:00 PM |

 
The Man Called Petraeus Launches His Campaign

by digby



There's a counter campaign called Rethink Afghanistan, that's worth looking at and supporting. We don't want to think about this right now, but we'd better. It's not going away.


.
digby 8/15/2010 03:03:00 PM |

 
Plutonomy Revival

by digby


We've been hearing a lot lately about how we have to coddle the wealthy or they'll hold their breath until they turn blue and then we'll be in real trouble. It seems ridiculous that anyone would listen to this, but it's worth revisiting this Wall Street Journal piece from 2007 to get an idea of where this is coming from:

It’s well known that the rich have an outsized influence on the economy.

The nation’s top 1% of households own more than half the nation’s stocks, according to the Federal Reserve. They also control more than $16 trillion in wealth — more than the bottom 90%.

Yet a new body of research from Citigroup suggests that the rich have other, more-surprising impacts on the economy.

Ajay Kapur, global strategist at Citigroup, and his research team came up with the term “Plutonomy” in 2005 to describe a country that is defined by massive income and wealth inequality. According to their definition, the U.S. is a Plutonomy, along with the U.K., Canada and Australia.

In a series of research notes over the past year, Kapur and his team explained that Plutonomies have three basic characteristics.

1. They are all created by “disruptive technology-driven productivity gains, creative financial innovation, capitalist friendly cooperative governments, immigrants…the rule of law and patenting inventions. Often these wealth waves involve great complexity exploited best by the rich and educated of the time.”

2. There is no “average” consumer in Plutonomies. There is only the rich “and everyone else.” The rich account for a disproportionate chunk of the economy, while the non-rich account for “surprisingly small bites of the national pie.” Kapur estimates that in 2005, the richest 20% may have been responsible for 60% of total spending.

3. Plutonomies are likely to grow in the future, fed by capitalist-friendly governments, more technology-driven productivity and globalization.

Kapur says that once we understand the Plutonomy, we can solve some of the recent mysteries of the American economy. For instance, some economists have been puzzled (especially last year) about why wild swings in oil prices have had only muted effects on consumer spending.

Kapur’s explanation: the Plutonomy. Since the rich don’t care about higher oil prices, and they dominate spending, higher oil prices don’t matter as much to total consumer spending.

The Plutonomy also could explain larger “imbalances” such as the national debt level. The rich are so comfortably rich, Kapur explains, that they have started spending higher shares of their incomes on luxuries. They borrow much larger amounts than the “average consumer,” so they have an exaggerated impact on the nation’s debt levels and savings rates. Yet because the rich still have plenty of wealth and healthy balance sheets, their borrowing shouldn’t be a cause for concern.

In other words, much of the nation’s lower savings rate is due to borrowing by the rich. So we should worry less about the “over-stretched” average consumer.

Finally, the Plutonomy helps explain why companies that serve the rich are posting some of the strongest growth and profits these days.

“The Plutonomy is here, is going to get stronger, its membership swelling” he wrote in one research note. “Toys for the wealthy have pricing power, and staying power.”

Keep in mind that from atop the rubble of the economic meltdown, those very people are once again making big bucks and lobbying strongly for less regulation whiloe they cry about being demonized in the press. (And it is those same people who are telling congressmen, many of whom are also in the upper one percent, that they have plenty of jobs, but the unemployed are too lazy to take them.)

If you think plutonomy is a good idea (or at least a neutral one) then the current housing slump and unemployment crisis are irrelevant to the health of the nation --- as long as the government doesn't expect you to kick in more to keep these people from being forced to accept falling wages and a much lower standard of living. If that happens you might not be able to buy as many jewels and fine art and then the whole thing falls apart.

The writer did offer one little warning about the potential problems that might stem from that:

The author of the piece did offer a teensy little warning back in 2007:

Of course, Kapur says there are risks to the Plutonomy, including war, inflation, financial crises, the end of the technological revolution and populist political pressure.

I might have thought that the destruction of the middle class would be considered a primary risk for social unrest, but perhaps society's winners think they can protect their jewels and mansions by hiring Blackwater these days, so it's not a problem. In any case he brushed off all those potential consequences:

Yet he maintains that the “the rich are likely to keep getting even richer, and enjoy an even greater share of the wealth pie over the coming years.”

All of which means that, like it or not, inequality isn’t going away and may become even more pronounced in the coming years. The best way for companies and businesspeople to survive in Plutonomies, Kapur implies, is to disregard the “mass” consumer and focus on the increasingly rich market of the rich.

It would appear that even in the aftermath of a near cataclysm in the financial sector, they have not changed their minds. But then, why would they? From their perspective, the government did its job by bailing out the big banks and Wall Street to save the economy and everything's back to normal.


.
digby 8/15/2010 01:00:00 PM |

 
Newtie's Tantrum Pledge

by digby

Newt's gathering signatures for his presidential bid with this bold pledge:

To Member of Congress:

The Left are planning to subvert the will of the American people. You have the power to stop them.

Leading Congressional Democrats are dead set on passing controversial and unpopular legislation in a special Lame Duck session of Congress after the November 2nd Election. It’s the only way Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi can succeed in advancing their unpopular agenda because they know they do not have the support of the American people.

Given the Left's track record during this current session of Congress, the American people have the right to know where their elected representatives stand.

At American Solutions, we've developed the following No Lame Duck Pledge and we're trying to get as many citizens as possible to sign our letter urging members of Congress to pledge the following:

I, undersigned Member of the 111th Congress, pledge to the citizens of the State of _____________ I will not participate in a Lame Duck session of Congress. I believe reconvening the Congress after the November 2nd election and prior to the seating of the new 112th Congress, smacks of the worst kind of political corruption. Attempting to pass unpopular legislation subverts the will of the American people and is an abusive power grab.

We know the Left are capable of using cheap tricks. We saw it during the health care reform debate. We know they are willing to ignore the will of the people. They ignored the town hall meetings and the clear signal the voters of Massachusetts sent by electing Scott Brown and passed the health care bill anyway.

Your friend,

It wouldn't be the first time they shut down the government, would it?

digby 8/15/2010 10:30:00 AM |

 
Huh?

by tristero

The following gushed forth from MoDo's wordprocessor this morning:

W.’s reign of error so enraged Democrats that they were bound by one desire: to get rid of him. Bush, Cheney and Rove inspired the Democrats to spawn a powerful lefty tower of babble led by Rachel Maddow, Michael Moore and the blogosphere.

Let's get real: if, today, there are actual liberals with anything resembling a public face, it is in spite of the Democratic party, not because they spawned us. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Except, I suppose, in the negative sense. That is, during Bush, the Democratic party (and the press) were so cowardly and incompetent that someone had to speak up.

As for us being "a powerful lefty tower of babble" - why am I reminded of a Beach Boys song?

tristero 8/15/2010 09:00:00 AM |