Hullabaloo

Wednesday, March 07, 2012

 
Centrist Prom King

by digby

I don't know if Chellie Pingree is right about this, but it is a sad comment if she is:

Pingree, after looking closely at her chances, determined that entering the race could pose too great a risk to Dem chances of holding the Senate, the Democrat familiar with her thinking tells me. Pingree did see a path to winning, and passing on the race cut against her competitive nature. But the entry of independent former governor Angus King would have meant they’d compete for many of the same voters, making a Republican victory more likely — a risk she was not prepared to take, the Democrat says.

“From the data we’e seen, there is a big correlation between people who are likely to support Angus King and her base of support,” the Democrat says. A Public Policy Polling survey found that King would beat Pingree and Republican Charlie Summers in a three way race, and notably, 51 percent of King’s supporters would want him to caucus with Dems, versus only 25 percent who would want him to caucus with the GOP.

“They tend to attract the same kind of voters,” the Dem says. “Making Mitch McConnell the majority leader could have an impact on which Supreme Court nominees could get confirmed. This was not something she was willing to put her personal ambition ahead of.”

Angus King? If you're expecting a Bernie Sanders "Independent", think again:

BRANCACCIO: You yourself were a politician, and one of the goals as a politician is to win, so you can have some effect on policy. It seems to work to take an extreme position.

ANGUS KING: Well, it's not good for the country, David, not only on the presidential level, but on the Congressional level. We're locked up. We can't deal with the really difficult, important issues. Nobody wants to tell the public what we've gotta do to get ready to meet China and India, to deal with the Baby Boomers. I mean, Social Security and Medicare are financial disasters. Everybody knows it's coming and instead of preparing for it, saving, putting money aside, we're building up enormous deficits and doing things like fighting wars that we're not paying for. You know, they talk about the greatest generation?

BRANCACCIO: Of course, World War II.

ANGUS KING: Greatest generation-- Depression, World War II. Our generation's gonna be the lousiest generation. Our grandchildren are gonna look back on us and say, "Those people were nuts. What were they thinking of." They're gonna think we're crazy.

BRANCACCIO: But, you think a politician could find an effective political strategy that would win votes from the center, so that you could enlighten the public to these important issues?

ANGUS KING: Maybe. I don't know. I think that's a really interesting question.

I, the other day, was thinking about the military and the situation that we have, and in the back of my mind I thought I remembered that Washington's farewell address spoke to the dangers of a standing army.

I Googled Washington's farewell address and read it. I was thunderstruck. It is an extraordinary document. And, he talks about the danger of public debt. He talks about-- oh, the bulk of it is the danger of party and faction, and division in the country. I mean, it's so prescient and powerful, everybody in America should read it.

We gotta get back to that point where it's, you know, you say I'm a moderate. I consider myself a pragmatist. I'm for what works. I think there is a path there not only to political success, but to trying to solve some problems.

BRANCACCIO: There's a famous political scientist out at Stanford, Morris Fiorina. He's written about the myth of a polarized America. He has some data that suggests this. But then he quotes Steeler's Wheel from 1973, "Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am stuck in the middle with you." That's--

ANGUS KING: That's not a bad line.

BRANCACCIO: Yeah.

ANGUS KING: Well-- we got a political system that's, you know, struggling with Terry Shiavo and stem cell research and all that kind of thing. Meanwhile, gas prices are at $3 a gallon.

The public doesn't care whether it's a Democratic solution or a Republican solution. They want the roads fixed. They want the schools to work. They want reasonable gas prices. And, if called upon, they understand the necessity of sacrifice. I think we have become somewhat soft and self-centered. But, I think if called up and led, people will do the right thing. The American people always have.

BRANCACCIO: All right, Angus. Thank you very, very much.

I'm not sure why they haven't tapped him for whatever the Unity-12 ticket is called this time, but he'd be perfect.

He might be a little bit better than Snowe on some things, but I'd guess he'll be the perfect patsy for the wingnuts most of the time. The beauty of it for the Republicans is that he'll be put into office by Democrats which makes it all the sweeter when he betrays them. That's really half the fun.


.
digby 3/07/2012 10:30:00 AM |

 
Doobious Strategy

by digby

Kevin Drum writes:

Over at Rolling Stone, Tim Dickinson has a good piece about the Obama administration's sudden about-face on medical marijuana. Initially they made soothing noises and announced that they wouldn't target pot dispensaries that complied with state law. Then, last year, everything changed:

The reversal began at the Drug Enforcement Agency with Michele Leonhart, a holdover from the Bush administration who was renominated by Obama to head the DEA…Almost immediately, federal prosecutors went on the attack. Their first target: the city of Oakland, where local officials had moved to raise millions in taxes by licensing high-tech indoor facilities for growing medical marijuana…Two months later, federal prosecutors in Washington state went even further…In isolation, such moves might be seen as the work of overzealous U.S. attorneys, who operate with considerable autonomy. But last June, the Justice Department effectively declared that it was returning to the Bush administration's hard-line stance on medical marijuana.

Kevin posits a number of possible reasons for this from a rogue DEA to genuine administration nervousness about people using marijuana. (My personal belief is that they have decided to run as law and order Republicans in the same way they are positioning themselves as tough guys on immigration and national security.) Nobody really knows the answer.

But over at Obsidian Wings, Sebastian wonders if this isn't one of those perfect issues to leave to the states. That's really what's happening anyway, with the Feds just inserting themselves where they aren't wanted. And it sounds good to use federalism to advance this goal, since the Federal Government can't seem to let go of its desire to stop marijuana use for whatever reason. And that's probably better than nothing, certainly for someone like me who lives in California and would be able to access what I needed fairly easily if I got ill.

But I just don't agree with this way of doing things. Federalism is a recipe for inequality. We are supposed to be one country and "American" is a national identity (which ironically conservatives usually wear with special pride. So why should it be ok for rights to be apportioned according to arbitrary boundaries that were established over centuries of territorial expansion? I get that they make sense for some things. Local government exists everywhere. But we fetishize the independence of the states as a direct throwback to colonial America in a way that no longer makes any sense.

Last night I saw Rick Perry on Fox blathering on for quite some time about the 10th Amendment as if it had come down from Mt Sinai. He's so far into tentherism that he now presents himself as a Texan first and an American second. That's his privilege,of course, but it's awfully convenient. (You know he'll be the first to wrap himself in the American flag when it suits his purpose.) This is becoming more common among the far right and it's starting to sound a little bit, dare I say it, unpatriotic.

While I certainly don't care about the right's temporary abandonment of their martial chauvanism (that's probably a good thing) I do think this resurgence of states' rights is a blight. I can see its utility in advancing my own causes. But as a matter of principle it always makes me uncomfortable. I think cancer patients in Oklahoma should have the same right to access medicine as cancer patients in Colorado. It seems to me that that's the "American way."

I don't want the Federal Government to just stop enforcing its laws against medical marijuana in states that have legalized it. I want the Federal Government to legalize it for the whole country. I assume that's the goal of the various organizations working on this as well. But I'm not convinced that the "laboratories of democracy" will necessarily make that happen sooner. History shows more examples of the states obstructing forward progress than enabling it.


.
digby 3/07/2012 09:00:00 AM |

 
Romney the Bizarrely Anti-Base Candidate

by David Atkins

So Mitt Romney squeaked out 6 of 10 states in a not-so-super Tuesday last night, including a very narrow win in Ohio. Kucinich lost to Marcy Kaptur, who will easily crush GOP nominee Joe "the Plumber" Wurzelbacher in November. Yes, it was that kind of night.

But in a sea of commentary, I'd like to focus everyone's eyes on this: check out the map of Ohio counties won by President Obama over John McCain. Now check out the Ohio map of counties won by Romney over Santorum. Eerily similar, no?

It's not just that Romney can't seem to earn clear victories in states that aren't coastal/northeastern bastions or heavily Mormon. The same dynamic occurs at a county level within states as well. The Republican base simply does not like the guy at all.

And no, that's not a particularly profound or novel statement at this point. But I would postulate the following question: what if there were a Democratic primary for president, and the likely nominee being pushed by the Party Establishment could only notch clear wins in the Deep South and the Bible Belt? What if that same likely Democratic frontrunner barely eked out victories in swing states, and even then performed terribly in areas won by the previous Democratic nominee, and only did well in Republican areas.

Methinks progressives would be furious. Raging mad. And methinks they would be coming out in droves to stop this hypothetical conservadem nominee. Democrats were certainly engaged and motivated during the Obama-Clinton wars.

And yet, turnout in this GOP clown car primary has been abysmally, comically low. A simple Google News search for low turnout brings up story after story in the local presses about weak voter turnout in this Super Tuesday election.

As much as the Democratic and progressive base feels betrayed by the establishment on a variety of issues--and rightly so--there's little precedent for the sort of deliberate smack in the face the GOP base is experiencing right now from its establishment in the form of Mitt Romney. But they appear to be lying down and taking it rather than really fighting back, allowing Mittens to limp, battered and bruised yet still undaunted, toward the finish line.

It's a sorry spectacle, and I wouldn't want to be in their shoes right now.


.
thereisnospoon 3/07/2012 07:30:00 AM |

Tuesday, March 06, 2012

 
Loving the state

by digby

We know why religious fundamentalists hate feminism. We know why misogynist creeps like Rush Limbaugh hate feminism. But why do conservative intellectuals hate feminism (assuming they aren't also twisted creeps like Limbaugh?)

Here's Mark Steyn to explain it to you:



The hatred of Big Government is not just about taxes then is it?

Once again, here's Corey Robin to explain Mark Steyn:

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. We see this political arithmetic at work in the ruling of a Federalist court in Massachusetts that a Loyalist woman who fled the Revolution was the adjutant of her husband, and thus not be held responsible for fleeing and should not have her property confiscated by the state; in the refusal of Southern slaveholders to yield their slaves to the Confederate cause; and the more recent insistence of the Supreme Court that women could not be legally obliged to sit on juries because they are “still regarded as the center of home and family life” with their “own special responsibilities.”

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.

There you have it. That's what this is about.



h/t to Jack Shafer
digby 3/06/2012 04:30:00 PM |

 
All there is to say on Limbaugh

by David Atkins

It's remarkable how eerily similar the Daily Show, the Colbert Report, and progressive bloggers were in their takes on Limbaugh:

The Daily Show:

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

And Colbert:

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

The responses to Limbaugh are similar not because they're scripted by the same people, but because it's really obvious how horribly wrong he and his co-ideologues are on this issue. The stupidity and misogyny are pretty cut and dried.

That the Republican candidates for President refuse to condemn not only Limbaugh's words but his argument speaks volumes but isn't terribly surprising.

More interesting, however, would be to get every Republican congressional and even legislative and non-partisan races in the country to clarify their feelings about whether contraceptives are bad for society. Limbaugh is their Dear Leader, they count on him to inflame to base to draw out their voters, and their presidential candidates stand by Limbaugh's arguments, if not his words.

They should be forced to stand right alongside him and see how their potential constituents feel about that. Find your local state and national Republican legislators and candidates for those offices, try to get them on the record, and share that information with local progressive groups and county committees.

.
thereisnospoon 3/06/2012 03:00:00 PM |

 
Wage slaves and prostitutes

by digby

This post at RH reality check addresses something that's been driving a lot of people nuts, including me. Namely, this ridiculous notion that somehow women (aka "sluts") are asking the government to pay for their birth control. I don't know where this comes from, but the ruling was for insurance companies to offer contraception at no cost, like any number of other preventive care practices. How they have seen that as asking the government to pay I don't know.

But it gets to a bigger issue, which is that employer paid health insurance is a form of compensation, not some perk like free coffee in the break room:

Health insurance is part of earned income. When a woman takes a job, she is offered a health insurance package in addition to her paycheck as compensation for her work. Do I hear you saying that’s “entitled”? How droll. A workman is worthy of his hire, isn’t he (1 Timothy 5:18, for those who like references)? Why isn’t a working woman worthy of receiving the fruits of her labor?

It's part of a worker's wages and unless one agrees that an employer's "conscience" allows it to withhold part of its employees' salary if the employees do something with that money it doesn't approve of, this entire argument is more than just an assault on women --- it's an assault on workers in general.

In America, employers don't have the right to tell their employers what they can spend their earnings on. At least not yet.



.
digby 3/06/2012 01:00:00 PM |

 
Blue America welcomes Montana state rep Franke Wilmer

by digby

Howie sez:

When I first met Montana state Rep. Franke Wilmer, I walked away thinking how great it would be to have a woman in Congress who is so much like Barbara Ehrenreich. I've gotten to know her a lot better now-- and I'm more impressed than ever. Her legislative role models tend to run more in the direction of Jeannette Rankin, a Montanan who was also the first woman elected to Congress (from anywhere), and populist lion Pat Williams. Digby, John and I are very enthusiastic about welcoming Franke today as our newest Blue America endorsee. Please be sure to join us at Crooks and Liars at 11am (PT), noon in Montana, to meet Franke for a live-blogging session. If she impresses you the way she has me, please consider contributing to her campaign at the Blue America ActBlue page here.

Please click over to Down With Tyranny to read more about Franke and then join us at C&L; at 11.

.

.
digby 3/06/2012 10:45:00 AM |

 
Today's dispatch from Gilead

by digby

The LA Times catches up with a Doctor who tried to replace Dr Tiller in Kansas. It's not pretty:

Posters circulated with her picture on one side scrawled with the words "child abuser"; the other side urged protesters to "reach out" to her at her home and office.

A letter arrived from an antiabortion activist who befriended Scott Roeder, the man convicted of killing Tiller, after he went to prison. That letter, now in federal hands, warned Means to check under her yellow Mini Cooper for explosives before turning the key.

"I anticipated the normal protest, but I didn't anticipate the intensity of those in the movement to keep Wichita abortion-free. They saw Dr. Tiller's murder as a victory," Means said.

Roeder has said killing Tiller was justified to protect unborn babies.

Cheryl Sullenger of the antiabortion group Operation Rescue denied finding triumph in Tiller's death but acknowledged starting the protest against Means. "The people of Wichita don't want abortion in our community," she said.

The pressure on Means was unrelenting. Her business manager quit, patients fled. A feminist group offered her a bulletproof vest. Law enforcement officials briefed her staff on how to spot a bomb.

Her landlord slapped her with a nuisance lawsuit, saying the protests disrupted other tenants. When Means tried to find another office, she said, no one would rent to her. She stayed put, settling the lawsuit with a promise not to perform abortions at that location, all the while quietly working toward creating a nonprofit organization so she could buy her own building.

Nice little constitutional right you have there. Be a shame if anything happened to it. Nice little life you have there. Be a shame if you lost it.

Meanwhile, Kansas government has gone all in:

In spring 2011, some of the most sweeping antiabortion measures in the nation became Kansas law, including the defunding of Planned Parenthood and the imposition of building specifications and medical equipment requirements — both of which Means said would put abortion providers out of business. Both laws were stayed pending court challenges.

Now, with abortion-related laws being debated in several states, eyes again turn to Kansas. In February, Kansas lawmakers introduced new antiabortion measures that Republican Gov. Sam Brownback has promised to sign, including a bill to stop tax deductions for abortion-related expenses. Other provisions would require that patients hear the fetal heartbeat and shield doctors against lawsuits if they do not inform patients of problems in pregnancies.

That last is nearly unbelievable to me. They are telling doctors basically that it's ok to lie to their patients about risky pregnancies. Indeed, it's preferable.

They truly want women to die and for babies with incurable congenital diseases to suffer. My God these people are cruel.

.





.
digby 3/06/2012 10:00:00 AM |

 
An Inadvertent Truth From the Cato Institute

By tristero

Now, this is funny:

“We can’t be perceived as a mouthpiece of special interests,” Robert A. Levy, chairman of Cato’s board, said in an interview. “The Cato Institute as we know it would be destroyed.”

Get it? Mr. Levy is clearly saying that the Cato Institute IS a mouthpiece of special interests - of the Kochs' creepy agendas - but its effectiveness would be destroyed if it becomes PERCEIVED as Koch's mouthpiece.

What he probably wanted to say was, "We can't be a mouthpiece for special interests. The Cato Institute as we know it would be destroyed."

Instead, he inadvertently told the truth. And, as we have learned from Messrs Stewart and Colbert, the truth is often very funny. If not revealing.

tristero 3/06/2012 09:00:00 AM |

 
No difference?

by David Atkins

Heeeeere's Mitt Romney:

The overall rubric of my foreign policy will be the same as Ronald Reagan’s: namely, “peace through strength.” Like Reagan, I have put forward a comprehensive plan to rebuild American might and equip our soldiers with the weapons they need to prevail in any conflict. By increasing our annual naval shipbuilding rate from nine to 15, I intend to restore our position so that our Navy is an unchallengeable power on the high seas. Just as Reagan sought to defend the United States from Soviet weapons with his Strategic Defense Initiative, I will press forward with ballistic missile defense systems to ensure that Iranian and North Korean missiles cannot threaten us or our allies.

As for Iran in particular, I will take every measure necessary to check the evil regime of the ayatollahs. Until Iran ceases its nuclear-bomb program, I will press for ever-tightening sanctions, acting with other countries if we can but alone if we must. I will speak out on behalf of the cause of democracy in Iran and support Iranian dissidents who are fighting for their freedom. I will make clear that America’s commitment to Israel’s security and survival is absolute. I will demonstrate our commitment to the world by making Jerusalem the destination of my first foreign trip.

Most important, I will buttress my diplomacy with a military option that will persuade the ayatollahs to abandon their nuclear ambitions. Only when they understand that at the end of that road lies not nuclear weapons but ruin will there be a real chance for a peaceful resolution.

My plan includes restoring the regular presence of aircraft carrier groups in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf region simultaneously. It also includes increasing military assistance to Israel and improved coordination with all of our allies in the area.

And here's Barack Obama:

With Israel warning of a possible military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, President Obama urged Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House on Monday to give diplomacy and economic sanctions a chance to work before resorting to military action...

“We do believe there is still a window that allows for a diplomatic resolution to this issue,” the president said as Mr. Netanyahu sat next to him before the start of their three hours of talks.

Both leaders agreed to try to tamp down the heated debate about Iran in their countries, officials said. Mr. Obama said the talk of war was driving up oil prices and undermining the effect of the sanctions on Iran. Mr. Netanyahu expressed frustration that statements by American officials about the negative effects of military action could send a message of weakness to Tehran.

Keeping a measured tone may be challenging, however. At the Aipac conference under way in Washington, speakers have delivered fervent calls for tougher action on Iran.

But clearly there's no difference between the two men and the two parties on foreign policy. No sirreee. Romney, Obama, eh, whatever. My vote's with man of principle Ron Paul.

Also, Al Gore would totally have invaded Iraq, too. I've got the evidence for that here somewhere...


.
thereisnospoon 3/06/2012 07:30:00 AM |

Monday, March 05, 2012

 
The Golden State of despair

by digby

There was a time when California had the best and least expensive public educational system in the world. Not anymore:

Going to school at Harvard University is cheaper than attending a public university in California.

According to the Bay Area News Group, a "family of four -- married parents, a high-school senior and a 14-year-old child -- making $130,000 a year," with typical financial aid, would pay around $17,000 for tuition, room and board and other expenses, if their child went to Harvard. However, if their child attended a Cal State, they would pay $24,000. Going to the University of California, Santa Cruz would cost around $33,000; at UC Berkeley would be about $19,500.

Other Ivy League schools including Yale University and Princeton University offer similar financial scenarios.

"It does sort of put you in an awkward spot," Dean Kulju, financial-aid director of the 400,000-student Cal State system, said. Cal State has double their tuition since 2007, the Bay Area News Group reported.

Thanks Howard Jarvis. You must be so proud to see your "revolution" resulted in the state of California being drowned in the bathtub.

And as California goes, so goes the nation, if Mitt Romney has anything to say about it:

“It would be popular for me to stand up and say I’m going to give you government money to pay for your college, but I’m not going to promise that,” he said, to sustained applause from the crowd at a high-tech metals assembly factory here. “Don’t just go to one that has the highest price. Go to one that has a little lower price where you can get a good education. And hopefully you’ll find that. And don’t expect the government to forgive the debt that you take on.”

What do you suppose these "affordable" colleges he speaks of are?

.
digby 3/05/2012 06:00:00 PM |

 
Getting his due as a broadcaster

by digby

How did Rush get away with it for so long? Well ...

LAMB: I mean, how do you – so much the conservative media criticize anchors living in New York City and in Connecticut for being isolated and never paying attention to their thought. How do you – do you ever listen to the Limbaugh show or any of that stuff?

WILLIAMS: Oh, often, often, and I’m one of the few in a very select group that Rush has allowed on when I’ve called in from the car. I do listen to Rush. I listen to it from a radio in my office or depending on my day, if I’m in the car, I will listen to Rush and he will tell you I’ve been listening for years.

I think it’s my duty to listen to Rush. I think Rush has actually yet to get the credit he is due because his audience for so many years felt they were in the wilderness of this country. No one was talking to them. They would look at mainstream media and they’d hear sentences like the following: Conservative firebrand Newt Gingrich today accused Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy….

Well, what’s wrong with that sentence? My friend Brit Hume – we covered the White House together, always would call reporters on this. Where’s the appellation for Ted Kennedy in that sentence, you remembers of the perhaps unintentionally liberal media? Why aren’t you calling Kennedy something if you’re going to label Newt Gingrich a conservative firebrand?

That’s what Rush did. Rush said to millions of Americans, you have a home. Come with me. For three hours a day you can listen and hear the like minded calling in from across the country and I’ll read to you things perhaps you didn’t see that are out there. I think Rush gave birth to the FOX news channel. I think Rush helped to give birth to a movement. I think he played his part in the contract with America. So I hope he gets his due as a broadcaster.

Your liberal media, folks.

And by the way, listening to Chris Matthews criticize Limbaugh for his sexist commentary is rich. Really rich.


h/t to Jonathan Schwartz
digby 3/05/2012 04:30:00 PM |

 
Another day, another proof of the desperate need to act on climate change

by David Atkins

MIT has a new report out on climate change:

• The Copenhagen pledges will nearly stabilize emissions in the developed countries, but global emissions will continue to grow rapidly.



• Global change will accelerate with changes in global and regional temperatures, precipitation and land use, and the world’s oceans will warm and acidify.



• Population and income growth will fuel a significant rise in the motorized vehicle fleet and increase CO2 and other pollutant emissions, especially in developing regions.



• While further emissions cuts in developed countries would be useful, such cuts will have less impact on global emissions over time.



• The Copenhagen pledges begin a transition to alternative energy in developed countries and China, but they do not provide enough incentive to create the full transformation needed within the energy system (i.e., wide-scale adoption of renewables, carbon capture and storage, nuclear or alternative propulsion systems in vehicles) to avert dangerous levels of climate change.



• While emissions from fossil fuels are sizeable, other greenhouse gas and land use emissions are also important and cannot be ignored if more stringent stabilization and temperature goals are to be achieved. Reductions in these emissions are often the most cost-effective. If policies to reduce them fail, a major opportunity to limit climate change may be missed.

Check the graphs in the report. Very scary stuff.

What's most frustrating about all this is that humanity has three unique challenges at this point: 1) an impending climate change disaster that would require an international Apollo program-style, multi-industry endeavor to switch to renewable energies; 2) a general economic malaise with huge numbers of people out of work; and 3) international conflicts centered around oil-producing regions of the globe.

These problems could all be solved by an international economic focus on putting people to work to develop renewable energy. People from research scientists to engineers to laborers to white-collar professionals would all be employable in the transition with real, non-outsourceable jobs in every country on earth; a global climate disaster would possibly be averted; and there would be no more need to bomb people in desert countries that happen to have oil underneath them. Win-win-win. It's a time of extraordinary potential for humanity.

But instead, the world's best and brightest are obsessed with austerity measures to protect the health of the parasitic financial services industry, while allowing war and climate change to continue unabated.

Our grandchildren and great-grandchildren are going to look back in horrified shame, and the history books will use this era as the prime example of obvious solutions ignored due to corruption and lack of collective will.

.
thereisnospoon 3/05/2012 02:59:00 PM |

 
Picking and Choosing

by digby

Well you knew this was going to happen, didn't you?

Keep in mind that in the Village all Democratic presidents are considered to have made an excellent decision if liberals are incensed at the sell-out of their principles but Republicans can still call them cowards and terrorist lovers. This one seems to have been a huge success by that metric. What a great idea on both politics and policy.

The good news is that the law will be there for others to use in the future so old Buck shouldn't completely despair. He can hit Obama now for thwarting the law and throw suspected terrorists in Gitmo and throw away the key later. It's all good.


Update: I'm guessing Old Buck won't be complaining too much ab out this, though. Adam Serwer explains:

On Monday, the Obama administration explained when it's allowed to kill you...

If the standards for when the government can send a deadly flying robot to vaporize you sound a bit subjective, that's because they are. Holder made clear that decisions about which citizens the government can kill are the exclusive province of the executive branch, because only the executive branch possess the "expertise and immediate access to information" to make these life-and-death judgments.

Holder argues that "robust oversight" is provided by Congress, but that "oversight" actually amounts to members of the relevant congressional committees being briefed. Press reports suggest this can simply amount to a curt fax to intelligence committees notifying them after the fact. It also seems like it would be difficult for Congress to provide "robust oversight" when intelligence committee members like Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) are still demanding to see the actual legal memo justifying the policy.

Both supporters and opponents of the administration's targeted killing policy offered praise for the decision to give the speech. They diverged, however, when it came to the legal substance. "It's essential that if we’re going to be doing these things, the top officials of our national security and legal officials explain why it's legal under international and constitutional law," said Benjamin Wittes, a legal scholar with the Brookings Institution, who said he thought the speech fufilled that obligation. "I think [the administration] is right as a matter of law."

In a statement, Hina Shamsi, Director of the ACLU's national security project, called the authority described in the speech is "chilling." She urged the administration to release the Justice Department legal memo justifying the targeted killing program—a document that the ACLU and the New York Times are currently suing the US government to acquire. "Anyone willing to trust President Obama with the power to secretly declare an American citizen an enemy of the state and order his extrajudicial killing should ask whether they would be willing to trust the next president with that dangerous power."

I think we already know the answer to that, don't we?

Update: Spencer Ackerman adds this:

“The Constitution’s guarantee of due process is ironclad, and it is essential — but, as a recent court decision makes clear,” Holder argued, “it does not require judicial approval before the president may use force abroad against a senior operational leader of a foreign terrorist organization with which the United States is at war — even if that individual happens to be a U.S. citizen.”

Holder left several aspects of his argument unexplained. He did not define the terms “senior operational leader” of al-Qaida, nor what it means to be an “affiliate” of the amorphous group. The attorney general only referred to the drones through the euphemism “stealth or technologically advanced weapons.” Holder did not explain why U.S. forces could not have captured Awlaki instead of killing him, nor what its criteria are for determining on future missions that suspected U.S. citizen terrorists must be killed, rather than captured. Holder did not explain why Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, whom a missile strike killed two weeks after his father’s death, was a lawful target. Holder did not explain how a missile strike represents due process, or what the standards for due process the government must meet when killing a U.S. citizen abroad. Holder did not explain why the government can only target U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism for death overseas and not domestically.

The decision to kill an American, Holder said, is “among the gravest that government leaders can face.” Targeted killing is not assassination, he argued, because “assassinations are unlawful killings.” Among the few external limitations on the government’s war power that Holder mentioned were the approval of a local government where the strikes occur — which must have pleased reluctant, unsteady U.S. allies in Pakistan and Yemen — and the after-the-fact disclosure of the strikes to Congress.

Well that clears that up. It can't be assassination because assassinations are unlawful and this isn't. These legal arguments are waaay over my head.
.
digby 3/05/2012 02:00:00 PM |

 
Romneycare: for it before he was against it

by digby

Uhm, Mitt?

Jonathan Chait discusses a USA Today op-ed from 2009 in which Romney said the same thing, namely that the Obama administration should adopt the Romney plan for the whole country. Meanwhile in the Bataan death march, also known as the Republican presidential debates, he has said this repeatedly:

My health care plan, by the way, is one that under our Constitution we're allowed to have. The people in our state chose a plan which I think is working for our state.

At the time we crafted it, I was asked time and again, "Is this something that you would have the federal government do?" I said absolutely not.

I do not support a federal mandate. I do not support a federal one-size-fits-all plan. I believe in the Constitution.

I'm surprised his nose didn't grow right out of the building.

Chait chalks up the Romney opposition's passivity in the face of such blatant lying to incompetence. But I'm beginning to wonder if this whole primary "battle" hasn't been some sort of conspiracy cooked up by the Not-Roomneys to con a bunch of wealthy idiots into handing over many millions to line the candidates' pockets.(In fact, the most "independent" of the candidates has been shockingly kind to Mitt while doing plenty of damage to the others.) Nobody can be that inept.

.
digby 3/05/2012 12:00:00 PM |

 
The 16 Percenters

by digby

I've been alluding to this frequently over the past couple of months as it's once again being demonstrated that women's rights are a still a major battleground in the culture wars. I don't bring it up to suggest that women haven't made progress. Of course they have. But something's wrong. I've felt that it's stalled out for some time. And lately I've been feeling it sliding backwards, particularly when I see vicious misogyny publicly celebrated in certain quarters, something which I don't recall being acceptable even in the bad old days. (That was perhaps because of the "protective" aspect of patriarchy that pervaded the culture. But still...) And we wonder why women only hold 16% of the positions of power in our country.

Anyway, here's a piece by Leslie Bennets in TDB discussing this issue. It's sobering:

“Women remain hugely underrepresented at positions of power in every single sector across this country,” said Barnard College president Debora Spar at a White House conference on urban economic development last month.

“We have fallen into what I call the 16 percent ghetto, which is that if you look at any sector, be it aerospace engineering, Hollywood films, higher education, or Fortune 500 leading positions, women max out at roughly 16 percent,” Spar said. “That is a crime, and it is a waste of incredible talent.”
Seventeen percent of United States Senators are women, and only 16.8 percent of the House of Representatives. The Supreme Court has three women justices out of nine, and six women governors out of 50, or 12 percent. In state legislatures, 23.6 percent of elected representatives are female, and only nine percent of mayors are women in the 100 largest cities.

Such figures belie America’s self-image as a world leader with enlightened values; the nation actually ranks 71st in female legislative representation, behind Bangladesh, Sudan and United Arab Emirates.

From politics and business to academia, law and religion, the allocation of power remains stunningly lopsided. “Over half of college graduates but less than a quarter of full professors and a fifth of college presidents are female,” reported Deborah Rhode and Barbara Kellerman in their book Women and Leadership. “In management, women account for about a third of M.B.A. classes, but only 2 percent of Fortune 500 CEOs, 6 percent of top earners, 8 percent of top leadership positions, and 16 percent of board directors and corporate officers. In law, women constitute about half of new entrants to the profession, but less than a fifth of law firm partners, federal judges, law school deans, and Fortune 500 general counsels. Half the students in divinity school are women, but they account for only 3 percent of the pastors of large congregations in protestant churches that have been ordaining women for decades.”

Nor are such imbalances improving; in most areas, women’s advancement has flatlined in recent years. “I think we are stuck in the muck,” says Kathryn Kolbert, director of the Athena Center for Leadership Studies at Barnard. “We made great progress on the rights front in the 1970’s, and life has changed significantly, but progress for women has plateaued in rights, in leadership, and in the ability to contribute equally in social and cultural affairs.”
[...]
Women’s ongoing failure to attain leadership positions can no longer be blamed on a lack of qualified candidates in the professional pipeline that ultimately limits the executive talent pool; even when women are abundantly represented in a given field, they rarely manage to reach the top levels of management. “In the financial services industry, 57 percent of the workers are women—but only 1.5 percent of the CEO’s are female,” says Mary Quist-Newins, an assistant professor at The American College, the nation’s largest non-profit educational institution for financial services.
[...]
Whatever the arena, analysts cite various reasons why women’s progress has stalled in recent years, starting with a backlash to the previous period of rapid social evolution. “Classically speaking, resistance to change comes at two points,” Gloria Steinem explains. “The first is right in the beginning, when you break the rules and people say, ‘No, women can’t do that!’ And the second comes when you reach a critical mass, because then the dominant group thinks, ‘Wait a minute!’ Up until then, it hasn’t seemed as if the other group might have great influence or, in the case of women, might actually outnumber them. We’re now at the second stage of resistance.”

I feel that. Having come of age with the women's movement, I'll admit that I felt for many years that change was coming fast and was inevitable. For a long time I bought into the idea that once women had to come to a certain age and level of experience parity would naturally be reached. That time is now. And we're at 16%.

With the rise of social conservatism as a political and cultural force I felt the backlash, but I still thought that we were in the midst of inexorable change. (Ironically, I believed it was the advent of birth control that made the difference -- being able to control reproduction was the big change.) Now I'm seeing backsliding on reproductive freedom --- and a whole lot of other things, including a sort of misogynistic cruelty I first dealt with when women were trying to break into male dominated jobs in the 1970s. Then I saw this movie, which was based on a true story and saw that it was still going on in the late 80s, virtually unchanged. In recent years, it's bubbled up to the surface online in a big way. This thing never goes away.

A lot of men hate women in a serious, fundamental way. (And they aren't all old guys.) Rush Limbaugh is clearly one of them. He's demonstrated it over and over again for more than two decades, and has been feted as a hugely powerful media and political celebrity that entire time. I think the problem is that this is still such an accepted part of male culture that even decent enlightened men (and women) often don't recognize the milder version when they see it for what it actually is.

This worries me. When you look at what's happening around the globe, it's very easy to see just how possible it is for women's rights to backslide. It's true that it's been most obvious in the middle eastern countries in the grip of Islamic fundamentalism. But our "exceptional" Western democracy is hardly a world leader in feminist achievement:

Update: Now I really do feel sick:

Since We Can’t Call Sandra Fluke a ‘Slut,’ Would ‘Lying Liberal Bitch’ Be OK?

UPDATE: At one point in this “controversy,” Ace tried to find the proper comic tone for riffing on Sandra Fluke:

She’s not a hero. She’s just a Chubster looking for some camera time.

Not good. I thought about going there. The line where I have Fluke “lying through her teeth”? That was going to be “lying her chubby ass off,” but I wasn’t sure that readers would understand that I actually like chubby asses, and I didn’t want to risk offending women who’ve got that kind of more-cushion-for-the-pushin’ biscuits-and-gravy action that me and Sir Mix-a-Lot dig, IYKWIMAITYD.
So I decided against that joke, with a bit of a guilty conscience for even having considered it.

I also felt a slight twinge of guilt when I remembered having made fun of Maureen Dowd’s musty old vajayjay a few years ago. But then I thought about all the vicious things MoDo wrote about Sarah Palin, and my conscience felt a whole lot better all of a sudden.

UPDATE II: Linked by Bob Agard, Monoblog and Rio Norte Line — thanks! — and I want to take this opportunity to apologize to readers for some of our commenters who have made derogatory remarks about Sandra Fluke’s appearance. This is terribly unfortunate, and probably sexist, too.

Besides, it is inaccurate to imply that Sandra Fluke is unattractive.
A recent survey I’ve conducted indicates that 27% of men are attracted to women with the “varsity softball scholarship” look. In fact, seven out of 10 Eritrean immigrant cab drivers in the D.C. metropolitan area say that they would be attracted to Sandra Fluke, especially if her family were willing to provide a dowry that included a small herd of goats, or if they could score a Permanent Residency Visa out of the deal.

Also, if given a choice between Maureen Dowd and Sandra Fluke, the Eritrean cab drivers would unanimously choose Fluke.

Don't even look at the comments.
digby 3/05/2012 10:45:00 AM |

 
Democratic Manliness

by digby

Paul Begala makes the smart observation that Democrats shouldn't take the election for granted and posits that foreign policy could end up being a very serious impediment for a number of reasons(virtually all having to do with Israel and oil.) I think it's always smart to remember that events can take over the best laid plans in politics and that something major could happen overseas, especially in the Middle East, to turn things upside down. Now whether or not you agree with Obama's foreign policy or not, I think most of us can agree that this is just bellicose bullshit:

Ultimately, the best foreign policy is the best politics. President Obama’s foreign policy has been remarkably successful. Just ask 22 of the top 30 al Qaeda leaders. Oh, wait, you can’t. They’re dead—on Obama’s orders. He has approved 239 Predator drone attacks in just three years. George W. Bush approved 44 in eight years, the wuss. As he promised in the 2008 campaign, Obama has ended America’s combat mission in Iraq, which has been the most divisive issue in America, indeed the world. He is imposing tough sanctions on the terrorists in Tehran and has won what may be pivotal concessions from North Korea. He’s helped lead on the European debt crisis and rebuilt America’s battered global image.

I guess there are Democrats out there who are really getting off on this macho posturing, but it smacks of the same sort of primitive schoolyard taunting that I hated during the Bush years. The celebration of assassinations, sanctions on innocent children --- oh, excuse me, "terrorists" in Iran --- is unseemly to say the least and not just a little reminiscent of the way our enemies tend to behave. It breeds more of that shallow cruelty that led Americans into the morass of Iraq in the first place. It's hard to see much daylight between the flagwaving chauvanism of the Bush administration and that chest thumping screed.

I'll let Glenn Greenwald and other informed critics of the drone operations make the detailed case against them. For me, the idea that a president's foreign policy success is based upon how many remote killings he's approved is simply repulsive, particularly in the context of calling the previous president a "wuss" for failing to approve more of them. (Begala should know that these planes have been mass produced only in recent years, by the way. I'm sure Bush would have happily approved as many killings as Obama if he'd had the hardware. It's one area that we have total bipartisan agreement in Washington.)

I am glad that there seems to be some movement on North Korea, although I understand a lot of kids had to starve to get there, and there is no reason to believe that Obama led Europe on anything to do with the debt crisis. And it's too bad, really. By comparison, he's handled it better than they did although that's small comfort to the masses of unemployed. And as for Iraq, well, the administration tried to extend combat operations and were rebuffed by the Iraqi government. It's possible that the Cheney administration would have put up more of a fight, I admit.

I appreciate the fact that Begala is warning Democrats not to get too cocky because "shit happens." But this is a funny way of doing it. It's exactly the kind of "shit" that makes things "happen" and we should be skeptical of it not celebrating it. Obama successfully cooled the rhetorical temperature when he came into office, which is probably his greatest foreign policy success. Even if you disagree with me on all those points about the foreign policy and think that every one of them has been a correct decision, I would hope that we can all agree that this fratboy machismo goes a long way toward building back the image that got us into many of these messes in the first place.

.
digby 3/05/2012 09:00:00 AM |

 
SNL takes on Mitt Romney

The folks over at Saturday Night Live are having a field day with Mitt Romney:



I know one isn't supposed to say this to remain in good standing with Axelrod and crew, but Mitt Romney is really weird--in ways that have nothing to do with his religion. More and more Americans are figuring that out. He's distant, elitist and out of touch--everything conservatives like to pretend about liberals, except in this case it's actually true of one of their own plutocrats.

Which is part of why he seems unable to close the deal with even Republican voters as several polls, including the latest Marist poll out of Ohio, are showing.


.
thereisnospoon 3/05/2012 07:30:00 AM |

Sunday, March 04, 2012

 
Palin's moment

by digby

Ok, I guess I have to watch Game Change on HBO. David Frum's review makes it sound irresistable. I have reservations because I found the book to be rather breathlessly patronizing and cruel toward all the women in the 2008 campaign, from Clinton to Elizabeth Edwards to Palin. It was just too much to take in the wake of that intense campaign and I put it away half way through and and haven't picked it up since. Maybe I should.

My criticisms of the coverage of Palin in general were not so much about her intelligence, which I agreed was egregiously inadequate to the task, but rather the creepy stories about her running around in a bath towel in her hotel room and the unnecessary discussions of her pregnancy and "mothering" habits. As much as I loathe her as a politician and political figure, that stuff was too much for me. But Frum highlights something more interesting in the film which I think is well worth exploring:

By luck or by some deep political instinct, Palin launched her attack on the credentialed urban elite at exactly the hour that this elite was discrediting itself as at no time since the urban crisis of the 1960s.

It was the mighty brains of Wall Street who first enabled the financial crisis—and then escaped scot-free from the disaster, even as ordinary Americans lost their jobs, homes, and savings. Palin was speaking to and for constituencies who had steadily lost ground through the previous decade—and who now confronted personal and national disaster. Meanwhile, the people asking for bailouts—and the people deciding whether to grant bailouts—boasted résumés that looked a lot like Obama’s private school/Columbia/Harvard Law School pedigree. That is, when they weren’t outright Obama supporters and donors.

And at the same time, the position of America in the world—and of the white majority within America—seemed in question as never before. There, too, Obama could be made to represent every frightening trend: the flow of immigrants (12 million of them between 2000 and 2008, half of them illegal); the rise of non-Western powers like China and India; the deadly threat of terrorism emanating from people with names like “Barack,” “Hussein,” and—give or take a consonant—“Obama.”

Game Change shows Palin gleefully exciting all these fears—and a dismayed McCain overwhelmed by them. “Who is the real Barack Obama?” McCain, as played by Ed Harris, asks a campaign crowd. “A terrorist,” shouts a man in a red gimme cap. Later, other voices from the crowd shout in reply to that same question: “A Muslim! A socialist! He hangs out with people who hate our country! Kill him! Send him back to Africa!” McCain recoils—but Palin is shown leading angry crowds in chants of “U.S.A., U.S.A.”

“This is not the campaign I wanted to run,” Harris’s McCain wistfully laments. But it’s too late.

Now that's interesting and if the films captures some of it, it will be worth watching.

Also, too, this:

The professionals soon discover their mistake. “I don’t even like to say this, but has it occurred to you guys that she might be mentally unstable?” asks one staffer about the woman the McCain campaign proposed to put next in line to America’s nuclear codes. As they come to know Palin, the campaign professionals begin to feel an awakening of conscience: first qualms, then fears, and finally revulsion—not for the campaign, not for their careers, but for their country. They supported McCain because they saw him, in Schmidt’s words, as a statesman and national hero running against a celebrity with no major life accomplishments. In hopes of reversing adverse poll numbers, they yoked a great man to a running mate who was not merely unworthy, but dangerous.

Some of the best acting in the film is in the looks of unspoken dread that flit about the faces of Sarah Paulson’s Wallace and Harrelson’s Schmidt as they react to Palin’s wilder and wilder provocations. What have they done? And if this campaign somehow wins—and Palin is put within reach of the presidency—what might they have done?

In the end, Wallace confesses she could not bring herself to vote for the ticket—and Schmidt is left to wrestle with his conscience before the 60 Minutes cameras, gallantly casting aside all self-excuse and self-deception. “You don’t get do-overs in life,” he says in the anguished voice of a man who wished one did.

It's hard to believe now that Palin was once considered the frontrunner for the GOP nomination in 2012. And I'm not entirely convinced she couldn't have competed quite well against the clown show ended up with if she had even the slightest ambition to be a real politician. Her status should have been everyone's first clue that the GOP had already flown over the cliff.

Frum's review discusses the huge costs to the Republican party and the country of her special brand of resentment politics. But she's not the progenitor of them --- there have been a slew of attractive right wing women selling that message for years.

He should look to Roger Ailes, the man behind the GOP Girls Gone Wild Fox culture. He didn't personally groom Palin. But he certainly created the prototype.

.
digby 3/04/2012 06:00:00 PM |

 
Panchito in the Snowe

by digby

It's a fierce competition these days for who is going to win the Joseph Kraft/David Broder chair at Village U, but clearly Frank Bruni is in the running:

BACK in 1999, when I covered Congress, I had a kind of crush on Olympia Snowe.

She moved, dressed and treated people — even reporters, and even when we hounded her through the hallways of the Capitol — with an unforced, uncommon graciousness. She spoke with intelligence and almost never with vitriol.

But those weren’t the main reasons we had such soft spots for her. We liked her best for her disobedience. Unlike the majority of her colleagues in the Senate, be they Democrats or, like her, Republicans, she dared to disagree with her party. Often. And she did it publicly, with her votes and her forthright explanations of them.

Even then, in times that were a bit less harshly partisan, this was unusual, and she had limited company, though it included Susan Collins, Maine’s other senator, also a Republican and also one of our heroes. Snowe and Collins offered proof and reassurance: just because you identified yourself principally with one side in the ceaseless fight, wearing an R or a D, it didn’t mean you signed on automatically to everything it championed, to each plank in its sprawling (and often suffocating) platform. These two senators validated the fact that a person’s values, philosophy and priorities are more complex than a political tribe’s often tyrannical orthodoxy. And that the tribe’s package of positions isn’t necessarily coherent, each fitting naturally with the others. Snowe and Collins made human sense. Their peers usually didn’t. Those dutiful foot soldiers marched in dreary lock step with their given generals, infrequently demonstrating any real individuality, any rebel spunk.

That was around the time Bruni was also following Bush around like a faithful hound running madly with his long ears flapping every time he whistled for Panchito. Here's an example:

[Bush] not only slaps reporters' backs but also rubs the tops of their heads and, in a few instances, pinches their cheeks. It is the tactile equivalent of the nicknames he doles out to many of them and belongs to a teasing style of interpersonal relationship that undoubtedly harks back to his fraternity days...Late one afternoon, a reporter who was trying to get some work done had to implore Mr. Bush to retreat to his seat in the first row of first class so the chatter would cease.Mr. Bush flashed a wounded expression, quickly replaced by a smile, and talked on, a reminder of the adage that when God is in a mood to punish, he simply answers people's prayers.

Let's just say he had a lot of crushes.

As for the column about Snowe, it's a perfect example of Villager twaddle about bipartisanship and "independence" which always seems to come down to a couple of corporate shills getting together to thwart the will of the people of both parties. All it lacks is a reference to Tip and Ronnie getting shitfaced together on the White House lawn every night. (Or something like that ...)


.
digby 3/04/2012 04:30:00 PM |

 
The Consequences of Hate

by David Atkins

DailyKos diarist beantown mom writes:

You see, my 16 year old daughter came home from school on Friday in tears and has been in a state of utter despair since. She was told, in no uncertain terms, that she is a slut, a prostitute, a horny piece of trash that is out to sleep with every guy in school! The horrid little monsters who started harassing my daughter had the audacity to tell her their mothers were the ones who labeled her with these despicable opinions- they were just "telling it like it is, you know, like that guy on the radio! The one who isn't afraid to tell the truth!"

Here is the note that one of the hatemonger classmates who attends her school gave her:

Little miss innocent, huh? Whatever slut- you take birth control pills so you can f*&# every guy in school! What a joke- u are nothin but a whore! Pretty bad when some guy on the radio who isn't afraid to tell the truth has to break it down for everybody- if u on the Pill u are nothing but a skank ass ho! My mom said girls on the pill are tramps who just wanna get laid and don't care about nothin- is that how u are?

This is the consequence of the hate being peddled by Rush Limbaugh and his ilk. It's not just "entertainment" or "humor" as he and his defenders like to claim. The bullying these folks do on the airwaves trickles down to bullying in the workplace and in the schoolyard. It has very real, very negative consequences to people's lives--including to these "mean girls" bullies themselves, who are at significantly higher risk of teen pregnancy and doomed shotgun weddings due to a learned prejudice against basic birth control.

Now, I might also point out that this woman's daughter is taking the pill to address horrible cramps. But while that clarification might matter to the pearl-clutching prudes, the fact is that it doesn't matter at all. If she's taking them because she needs birth control, then good for her. That's her decision to make, and hers alone.

This is also, incidentally, why I'm a big proponent of liberal homeschooling for those with the capability to do so. If it were up to me, every kid who engaged in this sort of horrid behavior would be subject to significant suspension and/or expulsion. There should be a zero-tolerance policy for this sort of behavior, and it should be rigorously enforced. If this ever happened to any daughter of mine at a public school, I would first have the heads of the principals and the administrators, then the kids' parents would get a personal visit, then my kid would get yanked out of the school. I would encourage as many parents of her friends to do likewise as possible, and then I'd get an op-ed and letter-to-the-editor campaign in every local newspaper. Either the parents of these bullies would be humiliated in the community, or I would find a different community in which to live.

But then, I'm an activist like that.


.
thereisnospoon 3/04/2012 02:40:00 PM |

 
I gotcher religious liberty for ya right heah Part II

by digby

...and free speech too:

An atheist group is putting up signs that say God is "a myth" -- and they're making sure that Jews and Muslims will see them.

American Atheists announced on their website that two signs, one in Hebrew and one in Arabic, will go up in Brooklyn and Paterson, New Jersey, this Monday.

The Hebrew sign will go up near the Williamsburg Bridge, where there is a large orthodox Jewish community, CNN reported. The other, written in Arabic and English, will go up just a few blocks from a Paterson mosque, the Islamic Center of Passaic County.

The signs feature each faith's word for God in large lettering next to the message "You know it's a myth... and you have a choice."

I was somewhat unpopular for defending the Danish cartoonists and Madonna's allegedly "sacreligious" stage number (which happened at roughly the same time) against censorship. I realize that these sorts of provocations make people angry and are often unnecessary. (Certainly, when one is occupying a country in which burning their sacred book is considered to be a unparalleled insult, it's extremely bad policy for government agents to do such a thing.) But in America there is no more obvious test of our willingness to apply the Bill of Rights without prejudice to all comers. It's fundamental to our civic culture.

At a time when the right is pushing a new definition of religious liberty --- insisting that the right to religious freedom belongs to institutions, not the individual believers --- it's a good idea to keep this sort of thing out here. It's not comfortable for anyone, but the Religious Right needs to understand that the whole point is that they don't get to decide which religions apply --- or whether any religion applies. Social conservatives have a very hard time in general with the definition of freedom --- they think it means they have the freedom to require others to adhere to their beliefs. But they need to be challenged with things like this, no matter how provocative, so they understand that their beliefs aren't universal --- and that the constitution protects people who believe different things than they do.

.

digby 3/04/2012 01:30:00 PM |

 
Just don't call it climate change

by digby

Al Gore was very fat yesterday and it's horrifying. Are we going to be living with more and more of this?

36 people were killed and many dozens injured.

But I'm sure there's nothing to worry about:

.
digby 3/04/2012 12:00:00 PM |

 

Lovin' Rush

Before we let Rush off the hook with his phony little apology, I think it's a good idea to take one more look at his rather ... vivid ... sexual imagination:

CALLER: Just to keep you with the season, I want to wish you a Happy Abu Ghraib. And I apologize that I didn’t get my Abu Ghraib present in the mail. I was wondering what I could get you for Abu Ghraib this year and how are you going to decorate your Abu Ghraib tree sir?

RUSH: You want to know what to get me for Abu Ghraib? You know what? That is a good question. I don’t really want anything for Abu Ghraib. The Democrats, that is who we need to get presents for. One thing, have you thought about handcuffs? Those have multiple uses for Democrats. A whip. You know, to go along with the handcuffs. Dawn says a good present would be to give a Democrat a digital camera so that he or she can document their own atrocities. All you have to take it to a Madonna concert. You got the whips, and the handcuffs and chains right there on stage and people are paying for this.

CALLER: They may have military intelligence, Rush. Who knows?

RUSH: That is a great question. What kind of gift to give Democrats here on the anniversary of Abu Ghraib. I’m glad you called, Christopher.

We’ll think of more as they, as they come up. You know, you might give them a little pyramid game, something that is in the shape of a pyramid. Wire tap kit. Could borrow that. Ted, actually could borrow one from Raymond Reggie, a wire tap kit. What else? Autographed picture of Mary Mapes. Boy, if you could score, come up with an autograph of Mary Mapes, she’s the mother of the Abu Ghraib scandal. Jumper cables. A pair of jumper cables—superb idea, Mr. Maimone. And these are things we all have lying around the house, folks. Just get rid of it. It is junk. Give them a German shepherd. Oh, yeah, a German shepherd dog, little German shepherd puppy. You can train yourself.

This sociopath has been sharing his psycho-sexual depravity on the air five days a week, for years. There is nothing new in this --- if anything, his comments about Sandra Fluke were bland by comparison. And only a few cranky liberals have complained and they were shot down repeatedly for being "politically correct".

Indeed, the Village has protected him as one of their own:

HOWARD KURTZ: Has Tom Daschle lost a couple of screws?

Did the normally mild-mannered senator accuse Rush Limbaugh of inciting violence?

He came pretty darn close. There were cameras there. You can watch the replay.

We can understand that Daschle is down, just having lost his majority leader’s job and absorbed plenty of blame for this month’s Democratic debacle.

What we can’t understand is how the South Dakotan can suggest that a mainstream conservative with a huge radio following is somehow whipping up wackos to threaten Daschle and his family.

Has the senator listened to Rush lately? Sure, he aggressively pokes fun at Democrats and lionizes Republicans, but mainly about policy. He’s so mainstream that those right-wingers Tom Brokaw and Tim Russert had him on their Election Night coverage.

I'm glad he got pressured by an advertising boycott (or his employer's owner Bain Capital) to attempt to shut down the recent controversy. But let's not pretend it's all about Rush. It's about every member of the Republican Party who kissed his ring (and that means all of them) and every Villager who shrugged his degenerate commentary off as some sort of harmless joke. They should all apologize too.

More on Kurtz and Rush here.

digby 3/04/2012 10:30:00 AM |

 
"People who don't have money, don't understand the stress"

by digby

Well, this is a big relief:

In 2010, average real income per family grew by 2.3% (Table 1) but the

gains were very uneven. Top 1% incomes grew by 11.6% while bottom 99%

incomes grew only by 0.2%. Hence, the top 1% captured 93% of the income

gains in the first year of recovery. Such an uneven recovery can help explain

the recent public demonstrations against inequality. It is likely that this uneven

recovery has continued in 2011 as the stock market has continued to recover.

National Accounts statistics show that corporate profits and dividends

distributed have grown strongly in 2011 while wage and salary accruals have

only grown only modestly. Unemployment and non-employment have

remained high in 2011.

This suggests that the Great Recession will only depress top income

shares temporarily and will not undo any of the dramatic increase in top

income shares that has taken place since the 1970s.

Thank Goodness. With all the whining getting even louder, I thought the bottom must have dropped out again:

"I'm not Zen at all, and when I'm freaking out about the situation, where I'm stuck like a rat in a trap on a highway with no way to get out, it's very hard," Schiff, director of marketing for broker-dealer Euro Pacific Capital Inc., said in an interview.

Schiff, 46, is facing another kind of jam this year: Paid a lower bonus, he said the $350,000 he earns, enough to put him in the country's top 1 percent by income, doesn't cover his family's private-school tuition, a Kent, Connecticut, summer rental and the upgrade they would like from their 1,200-square- foot Brooklyn duplex.

"I feel stuck," Schiff said. "The New York that I wanted to have is still just beyond my reach."

The smaller bonus checks that hit accounts across the financial-services industry this month are making it difficult to maintain the lifestyles that Wall Street workers expect, according to interviews with bankers and their accountants, therapists, advisers and headhunters.

"People who don't have money don't understand the stress," said Alan Dlugash, a partner at accounting firm Marks Paneth & Shron LLP in New York who specializes in financial planning for the wealthy. "Could you imagine what it's like to say I got three kids in private school, I have to think about pulling them out? How do you do that?"

Hang in there buddy. It's getting better all the time. For you.

The good news is that as even more money flows back into the upper 1%, there will be more and more vastly wealthy plutocrats who have so many extra millions that they can afford to play the political system like they do the market and ensure that the government looks after their class interests. It'll be fine.

.
digby 3/04/2012 09:00:00 AM |

 
Sunday Classical Music Fun

by David Atkins

Now that Rush Limbaugh has apologized (not really), and all is right with the world again (definitely not), go ahead and enjoy this bit of Sunday morning fun, courtesy Aleksey Igudesman, Sebastian Gürtler and the Upper Austrian Youth Orchestra (because, really, why not?)



For the uninitiated, the piece they're riffing on is Mozart's gorgeous 40th symphony in G minor.


.
thereisnospoon 3/04/2012 07:30:00 AM |

Saturday, March 03, 2012

 
Saturday Night At the Movies

Motel money murder madness

By Dennis Hartley

Dirty Harrelson: Rampart

In a 1995 interview, hard-boiled scribe James Ellroy said of the protagonists in his (then) current novel, American Tabloid: “…I want to see these bad, bad, bad, bad men come to grips with their humanity.” Anyone who has read any number of his books will glean this as an ongoing theme in his work. Later in the interview, Ellroy confides that he “…would like to provide ambiguous responses in my readers.” If those were his primary intentions in the screenplay that drives Oren Moverman’s gripping and unsettling new film Rampart (co-written with the director), I would say that he has succeeded mightily on both counts.

And there is, indeed, a very bad, bad, bad, bad man at the heart of this story, and he is veteran LAPD Sgt. Dave “Date Rape” Brown (Woody Harrelson), who earned his charming nickname in the wake of an incident that resulted in the fatal shooting of a suspected serial date rapist. This is another Ellroy trademark; I was reminded of a scene from L.A. Confidential, wherein Lt. Edmund Exley (Guy Pearce) is cheerfully christened “Shotgun Ed” by the chief after gunning down several suspects. As there is a 50-year gap that separates Lt. Exley’s era (the 1950s) from Sgt. Brown’s (his story is set in 1999), perhaps this is Ellroy’s way of telegraphing that the more things change, the more they stay the same…at least regarding those who “serve and protect” the City of Lost Angels.

Based on job description, Dave Brown may be a public servant who “protects”, but the more we get to know him, the more obvious it is that he “serves” no one but himself. Despite a career-long propensity for generally disregarding most of the ethical standards one would expect an officer of the law to uphold, Brown has somehow managed to hang on to his badge. While he embodies many defining characteristics of that noir staple known as the “rogue cop”, he is not quite so in the same sense as, say, Clint Eastwood’s “Dirty” Harry Callahan (who may be a fascist…but at least he’s a fascist with principles). Nor is he a “conflicted cop”, wrestling with his conscience, because he doesn’t have one. He does have a Code, of sorts; he may be racist, sexist and homophobic (again, a typical Ellroy protagonist) but as he helpfully qualifies at one point, “I hate everyone…equally.”

However, Brown’s karma is catching up with him, particularly after he flies off the handle when his police cruiser is struck by another motorist (who may or may not be a “fleeing suspect”). His subsequent beatdown of said motorist is caught on camera, resulting in a Rodney King-sized public relations nightmare for the department that puts Brown at odds with a no-nonsense D.A. (Sigourney Weaver) and an Internal Affairs investigator (Ice Cube). We see an interesting side to Brown in the course of these grilling sessions; he is quite the silver-tongued devil, articulating his viewpoint with a cool intelligence and developed vocabulary that belies his otherwise thuggish demeanor. Regardless, the reality sets in that he needs to scare up serious coin for a defense lawyer, so he reaches out to a crooked ex-LAPD officer (Ned Beatty) who tips him to an “easy” cash grab, which of course goes horribly wrong, putting Brown into an even deeper hole.

In the meantime, Brown is becoming more and more alienated from his fellow cops, and (more significantly) his family. His family situation is odd, to say the least. He lives with his two ex-wives (Anne Heche and Cynthia Nixon), who are sisters. He has two daughters (Brie Larson and Sammy Boyarsky), one by each. After witnessing Brown’s on-the-job behavior, I was bracing myself for what I anticipated to be inevitable and horrifying scenes of domestic abuse, but interestingly, they never “go there”. In fact, with the exception of his youngest daughter, who is likely too naïve to see through his bullshit, he is treated by the exes and eldest daughter like a housecat who keeps getting underfoot at the most inconvenient times. And whenever he’s told to fuck off (which is often), he dutifully slinks away to sulk in the corner. It appears that Brown needs his family much more than they need him; because it is only after they finally boot him out for good that he really begins circling the drain in earnest, embarking on a thoroughly debauched sex, drug and alcohol-fueled midnight alley roam (a la Nicholas Cage in Leaving Las Vegas).

Curiously, despite the film’s title (and 1999 time frame), the story has little to do with the infamous Rampart police scandal of the late 1990s, in which over 70 officers assigned to the division’s anti-gang unit were implicated in a shocking laundry list of misdeeds ranging from frame-ups and perjury to bank robbery and murder. There are a few perfunctory references, but I don’t believe that the intention here was to do a docudrama. Also, the cops involved in the Rampart scandal seemed to operate from a mindless mob mentality; essentially co-opting the gang culture they were supposed to be countering. Brown is a lone wolf, perhaps an anachronism; a sort of “last holdout” to the old school of LAPD corruption that permeates Ellroy’s “L.A. Quartet”, a series of four novels that spans the late 40s through the late 50s (including the aforementioned L.A. Confidential).

This is the second collaboration between director, leading man and the film’s co-producer, actor Ben Foster (virtually unrecognizable here in a minor supporting role as a homeless, wheelchair-bound Vietnam vet). Moverman, Harrelson and Foster teamed up in 2009 for the outstanding drama, The Messenger . In my review of that film, I noted:

…there is a lot about this film that reminds me of those episodic, naturalistic character studies that directors like Hal Ashby and Bob Rafaelson used to turn out back in the 70s; giving their actors plenty of room to breathe and inhabit their characters in a very real and believable manner.

The same can be said for Moverman’s latest project as well. Some viewers may find this approach a little too episodic, especially if one is expecting standard crime thriller tropes. So if you’re seeking car chases, shootouts and a neatly wrapped ending tied with a bow-look elsewhere. Like those classic 70s character studies, the film just sort of…starts (no opening credits, no musical cues), shit happens, and then it sort of…stops (no big finale). It’s what’s inside this sandwich that matters, namely the fearless and outstanding performance from a gaunt and haunted Harrelson. Larson (as his eldest daughter) is a standout, as is the always excellent Robin Wright (as a burned out, self-loathing defense lawyer), who nearly steals all her scenes with Harrelson. So, does Harrelson’s bad, bad character ever manage to “come to grips” with his humanity? It may be too little, too late, but he does. It is expressed in an extraordinary, wordless exchange between him and his daughter. Both actors play it beautifully; and it’s so ephemeral that you might miss it if you blink. So don’t blink. Because by the time it registers, Brown has crawled back into the dark urban shadows that spawned him, just another lost angel in the city of night.

Bad cop, worst cop: Dark Blue, Cop, The Black Dahlia, True Confessions, Serpico, Prince of the City, Training Day, Internal Affairs, Q & A, Cop Land, The Departed, Tightrope, Bad Lieutenant, The French Connection, The Choirboys, The Big Easy, Night Falls on Manhattan, China Moon, The Godfather, Unlawful Entry, The Seven-Ups, Romeo Is Bleeding, Magnum Force, Fort Apache the Bronx, Touch of Evil, Where the Sidewalk Ends, Shield for Murder, I Wake Up Screaming, The Prowler, Pushover, Private Hell 36, Detective Story, The Big Heat, On Dangerous Ground.

Previous posts with related themes:

The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call-New Orleans

The Killer Inside Me

American Gangster/Tough Guys Don’t Dance

Tribute to Sidney Lumet

.

Dennis Hartley 3/03/2012 05:00:00 PM |