DOWNLOADS: (14)

PLAYS: (90)

Embed

While discussing whether our so-called national security apparatus has grown too large and unwieldy in the aftermath of 9-11 on Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace asks Brit Hume if he thinks Americans' civil liberties are in jeopardy. Naturally, Hume says he's not concerned and actually goes so far as to say that we've responded really reasonably to the attacks on 9-11 because hey, at least we're not locking people up in Japanese internment camps like we did during World War II.

I think Hume might feel a bit differently if he were say, a member of a Muslim mosque, an ACLU lawyer representing a terrorism suspect, someone who found themselves placed on the no-fly list for no good reason, or perhaps one of the people who were unfortunate enough to find themselves swooped up without a trial and thrown into Gitmo and tortured. But Hume is no Maher Arar As a resident hack at Fox "News", he doesn't feel he's got anything to worry about, so it's all good, people. Just go about your business and don't worry about that pesky data mining they're doing or how much of your personal information they're collecting. Nothing to see here. Move along.

WALLACE: Brit, in the wake of 9-11 with some of the legal structure, the counter-terrorism architecture that was created with warrantless wiretaps and Patriot Act, there were critics who said that our civil liberties were in jeopardy. Do you see any sign of that's happened?

HUME: Well, I think there's always... you have to be vigilant about that, but what I think is striking about it is how... you know, I don't think any, very many Americans to speak of have any worry about their civil liberties. I mean we're... speech is as free as it's ever been, except for political correctness and that's not a function of the war on terror. Debates are as robust as ever.

I have no worries about my multitudeness (sic) communications on the Internet or anywhere else being supervised by some government official somewhere. I just don't worry about that very much and I don't think most Americans do. I think vigilance is reasonable about such things, but what's striking about this is how little we've done.

When you think about World War II and we were, you know, we locked up Japanese in prison camps. Nothing like that has happened. Nothing on that scale, nothing of that kind.

enlarge

On September 11th, 2001, on what was a perfect morning -- right up until the very moment a Boeing 767-223-ER slammed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center -- I stood on the corner of Delancey and Ridge Streets in downtown Manhattan.

I was working on an election campaign – it was primary day in New York – and little did I realize that politics, culture and our entire trajectory as a nation was about to change forever. I had been alerted to the first crash by a friend calling my cell phone, but it was as I was staring at the gaping hole in this New York City landmark, in horror, shock set in as I saw a second plane approaching.

I can see it all in slow motion these days – the airplane seemed to glide in almost effortlessly, and as I and others around stood unable to move, a loud explosion echoed through the canyons of lower Manhattan as a fireball erupted that almost seemed to reach where I was standing. It was, for lack of a better term, surreal.

For me, the journey forward from that day would be a difficult one. I was born and raised in Manhattan and was young enough that I couldn’t remember the city without those two awe-inspiring landmarks. It is what I would use to figure out where I was going whenever I came up from the subway system.

I had to process the knowledge that I had been in the North Tower only 16 hours before the attack. Because I had been delivering campaign literature to a volunteer who lived in the neighborhood and thought to myself, “I haven’t been in the Twin Towers for a while.”

What sticks with me most, though, is that after seeing the second plane hit, a lanky, salt-and-pepper-bearded man standing next to me who was holding his bike at his side, saying, “this is terrible; we’re going to be at war tomorrow.”

He wasn’t far off the mark. He only underestimated the wars.

Continue reading »

The latest stories from the front lines of the labor fight across the country... Public workers, union members and employees of utilitty companies...

From this Thursday's Thom Hartmann show, Hartmann debates Matthew Vandum who apparently thinks the only people who should be allowed to vote to promote their own interests are the rich. Here's more on Vandum from TPM:

Columnist: Registering Poor To Vote 'Like Handing Out Burglary Tools To Criminals':

Conservative columnist Matthew Vadum is just going to come right out and say it: registering the poor to vote is un-American and "like handing out burglary tools to criminals."

"It is profoundly antisocial and un-American to empower the nonproductive segments of the population to destroy the country -- which is precisely why Barack Obama zealously supports registering welfare recipients to vote," Vadum, the author of a book published by World Net Daily that attacks the now-defunct community organizing group ACORN, writes in a column for the American Thinker.

"Encouraging those who burden society to participate in elections isn't about helping the poor," Vadum writes. "It's about helping the poor to help themselves to others' money. It's about raw so-called social justice. It's about moving America ever farther away from the small-government ideals of the Founding Fathers."

Most conservative criticism of voter registration drives aimed at poor and minority communities has been under the guise of worries about voter fraud. Vadum's column is notable because he isn't just pretending to be worried about the nearly non-existent threat of in-person voter fraud -- he just doesn't think poor people should be voting.

And for a little blast from the past, here's more from The Daily Show when John Oliver interviewed this same guy back in 2008 below the fold.

Continue reading »

enlarge

Consider this my rant directed to the Washington Post's Charles Lane, who snarks his way through a series of inane arguments for why the provisions to assist the long-term unemployed are somehow wrong-headed and stupid.

Snarky Stupid Argument #1: The long-term unemployed have simply "taken some time off"

Obama’s idea – already distilled into legislation by Connecticut Democrats Rosa DeLauro in the House and Richard Blumenthal in the Senate – certainly has intuitive appeal. How indecent of some companies to hang out a “No Jobless Need Apply” sign at a time of record unemployment. And how contrary to their own self-interest: surely there are future employees of the month out there in the great pool of jobless Americans. “That makes absolutely no sense,” the president told a radio talk show audience the other day.

Actually, I can think of a couple of reasons why it would make sense. Companies may want people familiar with the latest trends and conditions in their industry, so that they don’t have to spend money training them up. Is it irrational for a hospital to prefer a nurse from their crosstown rival over a nurse who took five years off and is trying to get back into the field? Some firms may find that narrowing the field of potential hires in advance makes the hiring process more efficient.

Oh, hell yes. In a situation where some people were laid off in 2007 and 2008 and haven't found their way back to a job, it's really simply a matter of them taking a few years off? Because they were tired of working and didn't need that paycheck or those benefits. And the nurse example is absurd, since I'm pretty sure nurses have accreditation standards to meet and continuing education to keep their nursing certificate current.

How about that bank teller that was laid off when everything went kerfluey the first time? Or the over-50-but-perfectly-competent customer service representative? Did they just "take a few years off"?

Snarky Stupid Argument #2: Markets determine hiring decisions

This may or may not be a sensible calculation for any particular business. But I’m not prepared to second-guess them or assign malicious intent without a lot more specific information. In any case, if a firm that refuses to consider the unemployed is wrong about the costs and benefits of doing so, they’ll lose business to competitors that recruit differently. The market will punish them swiftly and effectively.

Oh, please. All hail the magic markets. You know, those markets that got us into this ridiculous situation to begin with? Those markets. But I digress. What is it he is saying here? Is he just so caught within his own little Beltway Bubble that he doesn't quite understand that millions of jobs just evaporated and will never come back? Never.

Let's talk about costs and benefits. In this job market, experience counts for less than nothing. Employers do indeed consider costs and benefits, and anyone over the age of 50 will come up short, despite having many more years of experience and knowledge of the tasks at hand. Health care costs too much for them when compared to the incredibly low costs of insuring younger people. Forget his magic markets. There is no market. And when there's even a glint of an opportunity, it's pretty disgusting to be discarded without even so much as a nod at the resume because there's a glut on that "market", so to speak.

Snarky Stupid Argument #3: It's really not that big of a deal

Be that as it may, the no-jobless-need-apply problem is probably not nearly as widespread, or as harmful to the unemployed, as Obama and other advocates of legislation suggest. The National Employment Law Project, which has made “unemployment discrimination” a cause celebre, found a total of 150 exclusionary ads in a four-week survey of four job-search sites -- Monster.com, Craigslist.com, CareerBuilder.com and Indeed.com. That’s 150 -- out of more than a million postings on the Web at any given time.

Anecdotally, I call BS on that. It happens every single damn day. Don't assume that every employer who discriminates puts a sign on their door confirming it. Want a job on the Internet? Got skills? Well, guess what? You don't get considered for that job, or even get your resume in front of someone if you haven't been employed in the past year. They don't have to say it to do it.

Snarky Stupid Argument #4: It's a burden on business

Subjecting companies to the risk of job-discrimination litigation is justifiable in the case of pervasive, historically rooted evils such as race or gender bias. But burdening the private sector for this dubious new purpose, in these difficult times, would be a big mistake.

Seems simple enough for business to avoid it. All they have to do is not discriminate, right?

Now with all of the snarky stupid arguments out of the way, I will say that I don't believe legislation will be all that effective, but it will ensure that some out-of-work fresh-faced law school graduates get work. It's almost impossible to prove this kind of discrimination because it's never blatant, and it involves following hiring patterns over a time horizon with follow-through on those not hired. Employers can always give a reason for not hiring someone, even one as simple as their gut check that one employee will be a better fit than another. I know because I've been the one who hired people. Ultimately the decision comes down to how that applicant will fit inside the larger organization, and there is no way to prove otherwise.

The best that legislation will do is put their foot in the door or their resume in front of a reviewer. They won't be able to go much farther than that. But don't insult my intelligence with ridiculous arguments that marginalize people who are already suffering far worse effects from this recession than many.

So says Alex Pareene at Salon.com. I don't know but I'll take his word for it. I wasn't able to bring myself to watch more than the first 30 seconds.

And yes, that is Herman Cain (the amateur gospel singer) singing. Reports are he did it in one take, almost as if this garbage was something to be proud of..

So, Joe Scarborough only produced the second-grossest 9/11 "tribute" video I've seen this week. Herman Cain's presidential campaign produced this monstrosity, in which Cain croons "God Bless America" over footage of the 2001 attacks and their aftermath.

Just a warning: If you don't want to see graphic images of the events of 9/11, including multiple shots of the second plane hitting and the towers collapsing, don't watch this video. (Also, don't turn on your TV this entire weekend.)

I don't even know what to say. I guess Cain can now brag that he's a former pizza magnate and crass exploiter of tragedies for political gain.

Here's the problem with extending the payroll tax cuts: They're unlikely to ever be restored. And if they're not restored, you've done what Republicans have been trying to do for decades: turned Social Security into a welfare program that no longer pays for itself, but comes out of the general fund and for the first time, adds to the deficit.

So when you hear people saying it's a good idea for the economy, they're right -- for the short term. It's additional stimulus at a time when it's badly needed. But for the long run, it will politically undermine the long-term future of Social Security -- which the administration probably considers a feature, and not a bug:

The President asked for a $175 billion one-year extension and expansion of the employee payroll tax holiday now in place, halving the tax rate to 3.1 percent in 2012. He also proposed halving employer payroll taxes to 3.1 percent for the first $5 million of payrolls in 2012. The president also wants a complete payroll tax holiday that would apply when companies grew their payrolls by up to $50 million in a year by hiring new workers or raising the salaries of existing workers.These cuts in the Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax (FICA) may be one of the best available stimulus options in the current political climate, and they will have a positive economic impact.

Ananalysis by The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities notes that the cuts already in place make a substantial difference in the spending power of middle class families, and that allowing them to expire at this time would be very negative for growth:

Failure by Congress to extend the temporary payroll tax cut enacted last December would reduce all paychecks starting on January 1, withdrawing needed support from the still-weak economy. The measure, part of the tax cut-unemployment insurance deal between President Obama and Republican leaders, reduces the employee share of the Social Security payroll tax,[1] boosting workers’ take-home pay by an estimated $120 billion in 2011. The tax cut is worth $934 to the average worker.

And Moody’s Analytics estimates that allowing the payroll tax cuts to expire would reduce GDP growth by one percentage point in 2012, translating into one million fewer jobs by the end of next year.

But Social Security advocates worry that these temporary payroll tax cuts will never be restored. “The problem is, it is very easy in our current political climate to cut revenue and very hard to increase it,” says Nancy Altman, co-director of the Strengthen Social Security coalition and author of The Battle for Social Security, an excellent history of the program and its politics.

“Look at the controversy over ending the Bush tax cuts, which would only affect a small portion of taxpayers,” Altman says. “In this case, if you propose restoring the payroll tax down the road, you’d have to double the rates on workers making minimum wage. This is being sold as temporary, but it’s not likely to work out that way.”

So, we're here. 9/11. We all remember how horrible that day was, not to mention how horrible the next, oh, ten years were. Do what you must to commemorate that day, preferably without the sort of ignorant jingoism that always seems to accompany a decaying superpower. (And remember the canine heroes, too!)

Meanwhile, enjoy the football. See you next time.

BeggarsCanBeChoosers: A 9/11 conspiracy theory that makes sense. (Hint: It involves the Saudis.)

Whammer's Blog: Contrary to his self-aggrandizing claims, Rick Perry is really just a for-profit non-prophet.

Darrel Plant: Looking back at a real populist, Huey Long, who died 76 years ago yesterday.

Occasional Planet: Reflections on a personal evolution from complacent conservative to passionate progressive.

Round-up by Michael J.W. Stickings of The Reaction.

Send tips to mbru@crooksandliars.com.

The Love We Make -- Premiering this weekend on Showtime

We all have our own personal stories on 9/11: where we were, what we saw, who we lost. The thing is, I don't know if I necessarily feel like sharing them, just because it's been ten years. It feels exploitative, and wrong. Which is, of course, exactly why we'll be inundated with 9/11 coverage today. Channel after channel, they are going to rehash the tragedy, with all the hysteria and hyperbole they can muster. But will they media take an honest eye to what happened? Will they admit that changed subsequent criticism of George W Bush? 'Course not. We'll have to relive collapsing buildings and sad survival stories and pictures of children who grew up in the last ten years without a parent. Personally, I'd rather watch the Mayles brothers' documentary of the Concert for New York that grew out of the tragedy.

ABC's "This Week" - Part of the network's Sept. 11 coverage.

NBC's "Meet the Press" - Part of the network's Sept. 11 coverage.

NBC's "The Chris Matthews Show" - Panel: Katty Kay, John Heilemann, Rick Stengel, Helene Cooper. Topics: Is Perry Like Reagan, The Westerner Who Can Defeat The Establishment Romney? In Bad Economic Times, Would Perry's Far Right Rhetoric Get Overlooked?

CBS' "Face the Nation" - White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

CNN's "State of the Union" - Vice President Joe Biden, former Bush White House chief of staff Andrew Card, former CIA Director Michael Hayden, Rumsfeld and others as part of the network's Sept. 11 coverage.

CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" - Remembering 9/11.

"Fox News Sunday" - Brennan, Rumsfeld, Giuliani; Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn.; Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich.

So what's catching your eye this morning?

enlarge

Credit: The Professional Left

Time for your weekly podcast with our own Driftglass and Bluegal, otherwise known as the Professional Left.

You can listen to the archives at The Professional Left Podcast and make a donation there if you'd like to help them keep these going and you can follow them on Facebook at The Professional Left Podcast with Driftglass and Blue Gal. Enjoy and have a great weekend everyone.