Hullabaloo

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

 
Job Creators

by digby

They used to say that the money wealthy people spent would trickle down to everyone else, but nobody was really buying it. I'm not sure anyone's buying this either:

"Let's define rich," Scarborough suggested. "So, what's the cutoff? Is it $500,000?"

"I don't even want to get into what the cutoff is because I don't think we should get into this definition," Ryan said. "But I'm not going to give you what I think is a rich person and what I think is not a rich person because you have to look at the fact that these are job creators."

As I was reminded earlier today, even poor Americans are richer than 98% of the rest of the world. By that measure, we're all rich.

But within the US it's not hard at all to figure out who has most of the money:

And as for the "job creators" well, I happen to have a rich person right here to tell you all about it:

It is a tenet of American economic beliefs, and an article of faith for Republicans that is seldom contested by Democrats: If taxes are raised on the rich, job creation will stop.

Trouble is, sometimes the things that we know to be true are dead wrong. For the larger part of human history, for example, people were sure that the sun circles the Earth and that we are at the center of the universe. It doesn’t, and we aren’t. The conventional wisdom that the rich and businesses are our nation’s “job creators” is every bit as false.

I’m a very rich person. As an entrepreneur and venture capitalist, I’ve started or helped get off the ground dozens of companies in industries including manufacturing, retail, medical services, the Internet and software. I founded the Internet media company aQuantive Inc., which was acquired by Microsoft Corp. in 2007 for $6.4 billion. I was also the first non-family investor in Amazon.com Inc.

Even so, I’ve never been a “job creator.” I can start a business based on a great idea, and initially hire dozens or hundreds of people. But if no one can afford to buy what I have to sell, my business will soon fail and all those jobs will evaporate.

That’s why I can say with confidence that rich people don’t create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is the feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion a virtuous cycle that allows companies to survive and thrive and business owners to hire. An ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than I ever have been or ever will be.

This brings us right back to the increasingly obvious fact that Randroids like Paul Ryan simply can't be entrusted with the nation's financial decisions. They don't understand (or care) how democratic capitalism works --- and they're going to kill it.


.
digby 4/11/2012 12:00:00 PM |

 

It ain't over 'til it's over

by digby

My experience of earlier recessions has always been that it takes people a good 18 months to 2 years before they believe it's really over. I don't know if it's shorthand for "crappy economy" or if it's just that it takes that long for people to shift their perceptions, but people never seem to agree that a recession is over until long after it's technically passed. It can be a big problem for politicians, (especially when they've cried "green shoots" multiple times and unemployment is still high.)

In any case, this result from the latest NBC/WaPo doesn't surprise me:

4. Do you think the country’s (economic recession is over), or do you think the (economy is still in a recession)?

Recession is over --- 21%
Still in recession -- 76%
No opinion --- 4%

Obviously, this should be playing to Mitt's strong suit. But it isn't because this recession was caused by financial sector malfeasance and Wall Street greed, which Mitt represents. If he were running in a normal economic slump, his "businessman" cred might be potent. As it is, I think he's probably the worst person to be representing the GOP. People may be disappointed in the nation's economic performance under Obama, but they aren't anxious to take a flyer on a wealthy legacy name who made humongous sums of money in the financial markets. It's not a selling point on a resume at the moment.

In a way, it's too bad for McCain that he couldn't have run in this cycle instead of the last one. His reputation as a financial reformer (carefully nurtured in the wake of his own scandal) might have served him better.

.

digby 4/11/2012 10:30:00 AM |

 

At long last sir, have you left no sense of decency?

by digby

West told almost 100 Floridians in Palm City on Tuesday that "he's heard" as many as 80 Democrats in Congress are members of the Communist Party, according to the Palm Beach Post.

The freshman Republican, an outspoken conservative and Tea Party favorite, is a longtime critic of the Democratic Party...

West has been mentioned as a possible vice presidential pick for the 2012 Republican nominee. South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley ( R) called him a "good" choice. Sarah Palin has also spoken highly of him.

Update: Oh this is even better than I thought:

“I believe there are about 78 to 81 members of the Democratic Party that are members of the Communist Party: It’s called the Congressional Progressive Caucus,” West said at an event Tuesday, according to a partial YouTube video and his campaign manager, Tim Edson, who was there. West was responding to a question: “What percentage of the American legislature do you think are card-carrying Marxists or International Socialists?”

“He stands by his words,” Edson said. But Edson and West’s office clarified what he meant.

“The Congressman was referring to the 76 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus,” West Communications Director Angela Melvin said in a statement to Roll Call. “The Communist Party has publicly referred to the Progressive Caucus as its allies. The Progressive Caucus speaks for itself. These individuals certainly aren’t proponents of free markets or individual economic freedom.”

A call to the Communist Party USA was answered by a woman who gave her name as Esther. Asked about West’s comments, she said, “That’s the most ridiculous statement I’ve ever heard.”

.
digby 4/11/2012 09:00:00 AM |

 
Le Nouveau Riche n'Oblige Pas

by David Atkins

I must confess that I haven't read or even looked at Chris Hayes' new book yet, so I may be shortchanging or mischaracterizing his argument. If so, I'll be back with some copious meae culpae. But from my brief perusal of his own interviews and the reviews, it would seem that Hayes' thesis complements something that I've been thinking for a while ever since reading this article in the Atlantic about plutocracy, but haven't written much about for fear of needing to explain my position with too many caveats or for fear of being taken out of context. The idea is the disturbing notion that the breaking down of blue blood rigidity, and the comparative ease of the rise of a new global class of nouveau riche may have the horrible unintended consequence of an even more out-of-touch and entitled group of individuals than the blue bloods they replaced.

This is not to say that old school plutocrats are angels by any stretch of the imagination, or that there aren't some fine liberal philanthropists to be found among the new rich. But at least with blue bloods, most people (including, even at a base subconscious level, among the blue bloods themselves) understood that they hadn't actually earned their wealth. Inherited wealth came with noblesse oblige, the notion that those born into privilege were obligated share the wealth. It was understood by a significant section of society at least since the Great Depression if not before that wealth begat more wealth, that social mobility was limited, and that the wealthy were obligated to the rest of the nation to ensure that the social order was generally kept.

The few new rich who won the lottery of the IPO economy, by contrast, feel that they earned that money, dammit (regardless of how many of their similarly talented fellow entrepreneurs didn't quite hit the jackpot for one reason or another), and that they don't owe anyone else a damn thing. Add to this the fact that a high proportion of those who are most successful in rising to the top of the business ladder tend to be sociopaths or have sociopathic tendencies, and we have the perfect recipe for an Ayn Rand renaissance, and a society with less compassion than seen in Rockefeller's day.

Let me put it another way: I think you'd have an easier time trying to convince Paris Hilton of the need for her to pay a higher tax rate, than you would David Koch. Paris Hilton and her ilk would understand at a certain level that her wealth wasn't exactly something she could morally keep all to herself at the expense of society, while David Koch ironically labors under the illusion that whatever wealth he managed to extract from society was his by right. The economic explosion of the mid-19th century due to the expansion of the West created a similar class of nouveau riche sociopaths, and it took a good 50 years for the country to recover from the collective damage they did.

None of this is to say that economic mobility even at the highest levels is a negative thing, or that we'd necessarily be better off under the thumb of Baron Howard Whittlethorpe the Fourth. But it is to say that of all the classes of people in the world, it may well be that the nouveau riche are among the most to be feared at an organizational and societal level as a general rule, individuals among them to be excepted as usual. For it's the nouveau riche who tend to be the most entitled and most ruthless of all.

As a matter of public policy, if any part of this thesis has merit it means that societies with major economic mobility at the upper end of the income scales must make all the more certain to have economic protections in place for the poor and middle class, because the nouveau riche are potentially even likelier to attempt to predate on them and resent their less fortunate fellows than are the generationally wealthy.

.
thereisnospoon 4/11/2012 07:30:00 AM |

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

 
Buy this book

by digby

.

digby 4/10/2012 11:30:00 PM |

 
We're killing ourselves, Volume XXIII

by digby

Barbara O'Brien of Mahablog asked if I would re-post this article for my readers. It's sobering.

Experts Forecast Global "Catastrophe of Death and Disease" From Asbestos Use
by Gary Cohn

Asia is heading for a huge jump in asbestos-related diseases in the coming decades, according to numerous scientific studies and two of the world’s most prominent experts on public health and asbestos exposure. Not surprisingly, the consequences are expected to be felt most severely in India and China, two emerging economies and most populous countries in the world.

“What we can expect is very predictable – an absolute catastrophe of death and disease,” Dr. Arthur Frank, chairman of environmental and occupational health at Drexel University, said in a recent interview with this reporter. He added that the coming catastrophe is “all preventable.”

“What we can expect is very predictable – an absolute catastrophe of death and disease”
- Dr. Arthur Frank, Chairman of Environmental and Occupational Health, Drexel University

Frank’s cautionary words parallel numerous scientific studies and expert predictions forecasting a surge in mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases in Asia in the coming decades. This is primarily because India, China, and other countries on the continent continue to use – or in some cases, even increase – their dependence on asbestos for cheap roofing insulation, in cement, and other widespread applications.

Another expert, Dr. Amir Attaran, a scientist, lawyer and acknowledged expert on global health issues, said that the consequences of continued heavy use of asbestos will be felt particularly hard in India, a growing nation of 1.2 billion people with few limits or controls on the use of asbestos.

“It’s a scientific failure, a clinical failure, and a social and moral failure of India. It is a failure of culture and science”
-Dr. Amir Attaran

When asked about the consequences of the country’s widespread use of asbestos, Attaran, a leader in the fight to stop exports of the material to Third World countries, quickly replied: “In disease terms, incalculable. India has no public health controls. They will pay dearly for this with an epidemic of mesothelioma.”

“It’s a scientific failure, a clinical failure, and a social and moral failure of India. It is a failure of culture and science,” Attaran added.

Asbestos and Asia

Asbestos has historically been used as cheap insulation material in construction, ships and cars. In the United States and Europe, it has been banned for most uses because of its clear-cut links to mesothelioma and other diseases, but it is still widely used in Asia and other nations because it is effective, yet relatively inexpensive. In Asia, it is used primarily for cheap roofing insulation, and in cement and power plants. The health hazard of exposure is compounded by the fact that Asian workers often toil in factories with poor ventilation.

A few Asian nations, such as Japan and South Korea, have banned asbestos, but they are the exceptions.

In recent years, numerous studies have documented the anticipated rise in mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases over the next several decades in Asia. One recent study, in the Journal of the Asian Pacific Society of Respirology, said that Asia, with its large, developing countries, currently accounts for about 64% of the world’s asbestos use. This represents a steady increase -- the continent accounted for a 33% share from 1971 to 2000, and 14% from 1920 to 1970.

Medical experts say that it generally takes people 20 to 50 years after exposure to asbestos to develop mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases. This timetable clearly forecasts that Asia’s current rate of usage is likely to lead to a huge hike in asbestos-related diseases in the coming decades.

An Asbestos Tsunami

Ken Takahashi, the lead author and acting director of the World Health Organization Collaborative Center for Occupational Health, has said that Asia can anticipate an “asbestos tsunami,” in the coming decades. In response, WHO has identified asbestos as one of the most dangerous occupational carcinogens in the world, and says there is an urgent need to stop asbestos use in order to curtail the enormous associated health damages.

An estimated 107,000 people worldwide die each year from asbestos-related diseases, a number that will continue to grow if efforts to curb its usage fail.

While already substantial, this assessment is probably low, according to leading public-health experts, as it is difficult to categorically track deaths from asbestos-related diseases in Asia because India, China and other countries do not to keep reliable data on them.

In recent years, some Asian nations, including Japan and South Korea, have banned or limited asbestos use. But in most other Asian nations, most significantly India and China, the use of asbestos has continued with little or no regulation or oversight. (This reporter got a first-hand view of the problem in the late 1990s whileinvestigating India’s notorious shipbreaking facilities in Alang, where thousands of unprotected workers worked on large, retired vessels with high asbestos content).

Many public health experts, such as Frank of Drexel University, have called for a ban on asbestos exports to Asia. Last year, Frank led a group of 120 medical doctors and other health professionals in a campaign to stop Canada from exporting asbestos to developing nations. Canada, which has largely banned asbestos for domestic use, is the second-largest exporter of asbestos to Asia, behind only Russia.

In an appeal to Canadian medical experts, Frank and his colleagues warned that Canada is morally obligated to consider the “enormous harm to health for generations,” if the exports continue – a plea that so far has gone unheeded.

In the recent interview, Frank reiterated the urgency to stop developed nations such as Canada from exporting asbestos to the Third World, along with the need for Asian nations to ban asbestos and start using available non-lethal substitutes.

“What needs to be done is very simple,” Frank told me. “They should stop using asbestos in Asia.”

However, this is unlikely to happen as long as established countries continue to chase the profits from exporting the carcinogen. “Canada is the world’s biggest hypocrite when it comes to asbestos,” said Frank. “It is taking it (asbestos) out of Parliament buildings but willing to sell it overseas.”

Next up: The hypocrisy of asbestos-exporting nations. Canada, for example, has banned the use of asbestos domestically and is scheduled to begin a $1 billion renovation project to clean its parliamentary buildings of asbestos this summer. Yet Canada remains one of the world’s biggest exporters of asbestos to the Third World.

.
digby 4/10/2012 09:00:00 PM |

 
Who are these "other people" (besides men) you speak of?

by digby



It's hard to believe that guy was accused of sexual harrassment, what with his over whelming respect for women and all.

By the way, this piece by Stuart Rothenberg indicates that Romney doesn't just have huge problems with women, but with "other people" as well.

.
digby 4/10/2012 06:00:00 PM |

 
Torture dispatch: Fresno edition

by digby

FRESNO, Calif. (CN) - Fresno police drowned a man by Tasering and hogtying him, then sticking a garden hose "onto (his) face and mouth" when he pleaded for water, the man's two children claim in Federal Court.

The two minor children, I.R. and H.R., claim that in the summer of 2011 Fresno police restrained their father, Raul Rosas, at a friend's house while responding to a domestic disturbance call.

The children say their father was not armed and "had not committed a crime."

After an altercation with a John Doe officer, police pepper-sprayed Rosas and then Tasered him a "countless number of times," the complaint states.

The children claim their father was Tasered "for eight to ten more minutes," then he was "hogtied with his ankles tied to his handcuffs behind his back."

The complaint continues: "Decedent was then slammed onto a table in the residence's backyard face down. An officer was observed with his knee on decedent's back while decedent was hogtied, handcuffed, and face down.

"Decedent stated that he couldn't breathe and that he needed water; an officer ran water from a hose onto decedent's face and mouth to the point of making it more difficult for decedent to breathe. Decedent tried to move his mouth away from the water and gasp for air. A witness yelled 'He can't breathe, you're drowning him,' but the officer continued running water over decedent's face.

"After turning the water off, the Doe Officer(s) continued to press his knee against decedent's back and continued to put pressure on it. Witnesses repeatedly asked officers to let decedent get up because he couldn't breathe, but their cries for help were ignored.

"By now there were in excess of 15 deputies and officers on the scene.

"After some time passed, decedent had clear spit bubbles coming out of his mouth.

"Witnesses yelled at officers that decedent was not breathing and pointed to the clear spit bubbles but again were ignored. Doe officer claimed decedent was 'faking it.'"

"Officers, after much pleading from witnesses, checked decedent's pulse and discovered he had stopped breathing after not feeling anything when they touched decedent's neck.

"Decedent had his handcuffs taken off and was untied and placed on his back on the ground. After some time had passed, an officer started doing chest compressions but none of the officers administered mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to the decedent. Ultimately a witness at the scene administered CPR to decedent.

"Some time later, an ambulance arrived and took over trying to revive decedent."

I'm pretty sure this what Dick Cheney would call a "no-brainer" when the authorities are dealing with somebody who gives them lip. Or whenever they need to.

If this is all true, you have to give them credit. It is a truly innovative torture regime employing pepper spray, electro-shock, hog-tying and water torture. I wonder where they came up with the idea?

.
digby 4/10/2012 04:30:00 PM |

 
We'll Miss You, Ricky

by David Atkins

Yes, this man was and still is taken seriously by tens of millions of Republican voters. That's still hard to process.

I suppose I do share a country with these people, but only on the flimsiest and most superficial of levels.









Of course, Mitt Romney comes equipped with his own special brand of assholery, so there's that, too.


.
thereisnospoon 4/10/2012 02:54:00 PM |

 
The Santorum Legacy

by digby

Sarah Posner:

Just days after he won the Iowa caucuses (at the time, he was a close second until additional votes were found and counted), Santorum began the race to the dark ages:

Rick Santorum thinks Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 case that invalidated criminal bans on contraception, was wrongly decided. He's off the deep-end on this one, and completely out of touch even with his fellow Catholics, but his statement provoked an exchange at last night's debate about whether states should be permitted to ban birth control.

Mitt Romney feigned surprise -- and emphasized that he would be absolutely, positively against banning birth control -- but the moderators failed to ask him about his enthusiastic support for "personhood" bills that would effectively ban certain kinds of birth control (not to mention fertility treatments). Santorum turned the question to be all about the Griswold ruling on a "penumbra" of rights created under the constitution, anathema to conservatives because of how it underpins Roe v. Wade, and, as Chris Geidner points out, Lawrence v. Texas. They claim these rights are not actually found in the Constitution but were created by "activist judges" -- this from the people who think the 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection to fertilized eggs.

At his press conference today, Santorum alluded to reproduction and procreation by praising the family as "the moral enterprise that is America," and by specifically thanking the 19 Kids and Counting Duggars for campaigning for him. It might have sounded like a standard political homage to wholesome family life, but to anyone who knows Santorum's views, it was an homage to uber-fertility. As Kathryn Joyce noted here last week, it rings of Quiverfull:

It's the movement that looks to the Duggar family as de facto spokespeople (even if the Duggars have often hedged whether or not they consider themselves a part of it), and that so venerates the role of proud "patriarch" fathers leading their families—comparing them to CEOs and generals—that it's easy to see where Harris' appraisal of Santorum’s family-man qualifications come from. In this election, and the birth control debate that has become a significant part of its soundtrack, the convictions of the Quiverfull community seem to have made a mainstream debut.

Santorum's speech this afternoon was suffused with other religious imagery, calling Good Friday his family's "passion play" because of his daughter Bella's hospitalization; he talked about "witnessing" for Americans' stories and voices, and belief in miracles. Miracles, that is, for the true believers, not the Kennedys who want to keep religion out of governing, or the mainline Protestants whose congregations are supposedly in shambles, or the believers in "phony religion."

I wrote about the Quiverfull influence a couple of weeks ago, here. I think he succeeded in doing exactly what he set out to do:

"A President Rick Santorum will start an ongoing national discussion about family, marriage and fatherhood"

"One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is what I think is the danger of contraception. The whole sexual libertine idea that many in the Christian faith have said, well, it's ok, contraception's ok. But it's not ok.

It's a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. It is supposed to be within marriage. It is supposed to be for purposes that are yes, conjugal and also unitive but also procreative and that's the perfect way that sexual union should happen. When you take any part of that out, we diminish the act.

If you can take one part out, if it's not for the purpose of procreation, that's not one of the reasons you diminish this very special bond between men and women. So why can't you take other parts of it out? It becomes deconstructed to the point where it's simply pleasure...

I'm not runnning for preacher, I'm not running for pastor. But these are important public policy issues. These have profound impact on the health of our society. I'm not talking about moral health, although clearly moral health, but I'm talking economic health, I'm talking about out of wedlock birth rates, sexually transmitted diseases.

These are profound issues that we only like to talk about from a scientific point of view. Well that's one point of view, but we also need to have the courage to talk about the moral aspects of it and the purpose and rationale for why we do what we do. "

Good bye Ricky. It's been real.

.

digby 4/10/2012 01:30:00 PM |

 

Recipe for a Grand Bargain

by digby

Words that send a shudder down my spine:

Romney holds a double-digit lead over Obama on just one issue tested in the poll: who would better deal with the federal budget deficit.

No matter how much they are willing to compromise, no matter that a Democratic president actually managed to leave a surplus (granted, it was during a boom) which the Republicans promptly threw away in tax cuts, the Democratic Party finds itself on the wrong side of this equation.

Now, I don't think this appears as high on the list of voter priorities as the Village Scrooge's think it does, but it's still a potent perennial issue as an abstract symbol. And for whatever reason, the Democrats seem to be desperate to be seen as magnificent spending cutters. (Perhaps that's because many of them are fiscal conservatives themselves who are just stuck with inconveniently liberal constituents.)

This is a problem. If it were me, I'd probably stop trying to prove how "responsible" I am, since even leaving budget surpluses is considered irresponsible. I think I'd just spend all my time trying to persuade the American people that government spending to help people is good and that fighting expensive wars and coddling wealthy criminals is bad. But that's just me. I don't have to run for office.

But there are people running who will make that case. You can find them here.

Update:

If one prefers a more wonkish explanation as to why austerity is counterproductive, there's this.

digby 4/10/2012 12:20:00 PM |

 

Elites swimming in the swamp

by digby

I have taken a fair amount of grief over the years from fellow liberals for saying that racism is still an animating feature of conservatism. I got a lot of blowback back in 2005 for my writing on Katrina in which I analyzed the delayed response through the prism of white fear of the black mob and the history of slave revolts and then more recently in the virulent racist undercurrents in the Tea Party movement. It has been very unpopular among a certain set of liberals to submit that despite the huge improvements in race relations over the past couple of generations, wiping out this primal characteristic of American culture was still a work in progress.

I don't know how most liberals feel about that today --- I suspect they are less sanguine than they sued to be --- but after perusing a dozen or more mainstream news sites researching the Trayvon Martin case, it's clear from the comments that some conservatives are very angry. I don't know how many people these commenters represent --- I assume it's a small minority. But the level of vitriol and paranoia that comes up over and over again is shocking. Keep in mind, I'm not talking about right wing fever swamps (which are too toxic to even read at the moment) but mainstream news sites.

It's tempting to just throw up your hands and say that the "young people" are color blind so there's no need to address this. However, it's quite clear that many of the racist comments I've been reading are coming from young people as well as old. I'm sure that less and less racism is being passed down with each generation, but it's obvious that some of it is. And the conservative movement is in the midst of creating a new paranoid delusion about reverse racism that's quite pernicious --- and dangerous. There's good reason to think that it could catch on with young conservatives.

So, for the sake of young African Americans, it's necessary to keep working at this. But what's to be done? I keep coming back to this piece by conservative Josh Barro from last month in which he addressed the fatuous complaint from high levels of the conservative movement about President Obama's comments on the Trayvon case:

Conservatives, almost universally, feel like they get a bad rap on race. They catch heat when they point out improvements over the last several decades in race relations and in the material well being of minorities in America, even though those phenomena are real. They catch heat when they contend that government programs intended to help the poor have led to problems with dependency in minority communities, even though those critiques are sometimes correct. They catch heat when they criticize Affirmative Action, even when in some cases (as at the University of California) Affirmative Action was clearly disserving minority communities.

Why do conservatives catch such heat? It’s probably because there is still so much racism on the Right to go alongside valid arguments on issues relating to race and ethnicity. Conservatives so often get unfairly pounded on race because, so often, conservatives get fairly pounded on race.

And this is the Right’s own fault, because conservatives are not serious about draining the swamp.

In recent months, both Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum have gotten questions at public events that referred to President Obama being a Muslim. Neither candidate corrected the questioner. Santorum later told a reporter that’s “not his job.” PPP polls in Mississippi and Alabama have found that about half of Republican voters believe Obama is a Muslim, and others aren’t sure.

For years, Republicans have done a dance with the Birthers in the Republican base, trying to avoid associating themselves with the Birther position without alienating activists who believe the President was born abroad. Donald Trump has worked to keep Birtherism alive and in the news, and in January, Mitt Romney went to appeared in Las Vegas to accept his endorsement on live television. Republican rejections of Birtherism tend to focus on the issue being “a distraction,” as RNC Chairman Reince Preibus puts it, rather than pointedly noting that it is a nutty, racist conspiracy theory.

There has been a clear strategic calculation here among Republican elites. Better to leverage or at least accept the racism of much of the Republican base than try to clean it up.

The problem is that elite conservatism is not just accepting it --- they are exploiting it. And it's because of that that it's awfully hard to take their allegedly legitimate contributions to the dialog regarding "dependency" or affirmative action as anything more than extensions of their racist exploitation.

The onus is on the conservative movement to drain their toxic swamp before they can be taken seriously on this issue. They have no credibility until they do it. Unless, of course, they are actually racist themselves, in which case they're no different from those anonymous commenters.

Update: As I was putting this together I noticed that Barro himself has dealt with these commenters in a more recent column. I agree that they are probably a small minority. But it pays to keep in mind that they are still members of the privileged white majority, too many of whom are more than willing to let them have a major role in one of the two American political parties.

.

digby 4/10/2012 11:00:00 AM |

 
They always knew it was a bad idea

by digby

Via Rick Perlstein, this is from July 1973:

digby 4/10/2012 09:30:00 AM |

 
Krugman on social security

by David Atkins

Paul Krugman explains the fake social security crisis again for the 10,000th time:

Jared Bernstein and Dean Baker are both mad, understandably, at Robert Samuelson, who pulls out, for the 7 millionth time, the old Social Security bait and switch. Here’s how it works: to make the quite mild financial shortfall of Social Security seem apocalyptic, the writer starts out by talking about Social Security, then starts using numbers that combine SS with the health care programs — programs that are very different in conception, financing, and solutions.

And then the writer ends by demanding that we cut Social Security, as opposed to addressing health care costs.

The serious (as opposed to Serious) thing to say here is that on current projections, Social Security faces a shortfall — NOT bankruptcy — a quarter of a century from now. OK, I guess that’s a real concern. But compared to other concerns, it’s really pretty minor, and doesn’t deserve a tenth the attention it gets.

It’s also worth noting that even if the trust fund is exhausted and no other financing provided, Social Security will be able to pay about three-quarters of scheduled benefits, which would mean real benefits higher than it pays now. I don’t want to see that happen, but it’s worth keeping in perspective — especially when you look at the solutions “reformers” propose, which all seem to involve reducing future benefits relative to those currently scheduled.

If there's any debate in this country that more fully proves how full of shit professional centrists are, and how totally captured our politics are by Wall Street, it has to be the "debate" over Social Security. That supposedly intelligent people spend any time arguing about this when there are so many other urgent problems is madness.


.
thereisnospoon 4/10/2012 07:30:00 AM |

Monday, April 09, 2012

 
Lord Saletan of Slate

by digby

Oh, I was so hoping that he would make the finals. Here's Atrios on my own personal favorite wanker, Will Saletan, coming in at number 5:

The Lords of Slate, including Saletan, come from the waning days of the era of High Punditry, where people with no particular knowledge or skills, but who are truly the right sort of people, from the right schools, with the right friends, would send their pronouncements down from the mountain onto the grateful population below. They are for some reason granted the magic power of punditry, the ability to survey the entire body of knowledge on a particular topic, and issue their final infallible decree in time for their deadline. All the experts in the world be damned, give The Lords an afternoon and an intern and The Truth can be determined, usually by determining that The Partisans On Both Sides Are Wrong, while arriving at their proclamations without nasty partisan preconceptions or agenda involved.

The problem with politics for the Lords is that people actually disagree about stuff. The solution to this problem is that everybody should agree with them about everything. Problem solved! And so much tidier.

This last trait comes out with Saletan in his endless writing about how the real problem with the abortion issue is that liberals don't think abortion is icky enough. If only liberals would, indeed, acknowledge that it is icky, that some abortions are really really really icky, that we all die a little bit on the inside when someone gets an abortion, that if only the wimmenfolk knew what horrible monsters they are when they do the sexytime that might eventually cause them to get pregnant and have an abortion, if stupid liberals would get behind education and contraception, and maybe a little shaming,and a bunch of moral prudery for Other People, instead of focusing all of our efforts on fetus killing, then we could put the whole issue behind us and abortion could be legal. Otherwise, well, your fault liberals for not agreeing with Saletan. Those back alley abortion deaths are on your consciences liberals! Also, too, dead doctors.

Do yourself a favor and read the whole thing.

And then throw a couple of bucks in the tip jar. Thew drinking that is necessary to deal with the wankerrific for ten long years doesn't come cheap ...
digby 4/09/2012 06:00:00 PM |

 
War on women? Huh?

by digby

Michelle Goldberg reports on the latest battle:

On Thursday, with little fanfare, Wisconsin governor Scott Walker signed a bill repealing the state’s 2009 Equal Pay Enforcement Act, which allowed victims of workplace discrimination to seek damages in state courts. In doing so, he demonstrated that our political battles over women’s rights aren’t just about sex and reproduction—they extend to every aspect of women’s lives.

Yes, they really did this. And more. And he did it in the middle of the night.

But that's ok. The women won't mind. They don't really want to make as much money as men because they have children. Or something:

Repealing the law was a no-brainer for state Sen. Glenn Grothman (R), who led the effort because of his belief that pay discrimination is a myth driven by liberal women’s groups. Ignoring multiple studies showing that the pay gap exists, Grothman blamed females for prioritizing childrearing and homemaking instead of money, saying, “Money is more important for men,” The Daily Beast reports:

Whatever gaps exist, he insists, stem from women’s decision to prioritize childrearing over their careers. “Take a hypothetical husband and wife who are both lawyers,” he says. “But the husband is working 50 or 60 hours a week, going all out, making 200 grand a year. The woman takes time off, raises kids, is not go go go. Now they’re 50 years old. The husband is making 200 grand a year, the woman is making 40 grand a year. It wasn’t discrimination. There was a different sense of urgency in each person.” [...]
Grothman doesn’t accept these studies. When I ran the numbers by him, he replied, “The American Association of University Women is a pretty liberal group.” Nor, he argued, does its conclusion take into account other factors, like “goals in life. You could argue that money is more important for men. I think a guy in their first job, maybe because they expect to be a breadwinner someday, may be a little more money-conscious. To attribute everything to a so-called bias in the workplace is just not true.”

It's a liberal plot. Here's what the conservative Concerned Women For America have to say about this issue:

The Concerned Women For America calls Equal Pay Day an "annual farce" and encouraged "women not to let feminists make them victims of an imaginary enemy."

"The real problem is feminist groups who try to dictate wages rather than allowing the market to provide a wide variety of options to women. In an age where women have more opportunities than ever before, it is shameful that feminists judge them by the size of their paycheck. Women who choose to stay home with their children make a huge contribution to society," said Wendy Wright, spokesperson for Concerned Women For America, "every person has the opportunity to make career choices and when we compare men and women who have made similar choices, we see equal pay already exists.

A majority of women would stay home with their children if they could afford to. We should focus on policies that allow women to make this choice, rather than pushing them into careers they don't want."

Wendy Wright was paid $121,000 in 2010 in her job as president of CWA. I guess she figured she earned it, unlike all those other women who weren't giving their jobs their all, what with the childbearing and everything.

There is some mystery as to why she is no longer with the CWA. I sure hope it wasn't over a salary dispute.


.
digby 4/09/2012 04:30:00 PM |

 
Taibbi on the JOBS Act Debacle

by David Atkins

One of Matt Taibbi's singular gifts is the ability to take complex financial issues and boil them down in a way that everyone can understand. His latest piece on the awful JOBS Act is a great example of this. I wish I could simply copy and paste the whole thing because mere excerpts don't do it justice, but I'll give you a taste:

The "Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act" (in addition to everything else, the Act has an annoying, redundant title) will very nearly legalize fraud in the stock market.

In fact, one could say this law is not just a sweeping piece of deregulation that will have an increase in securities fraud as an accidental, ancillary consequence. No, this law actually appears to have been specifically written to encourage fraud in the stock markets.

Ostensibly, the law makes it easier for startup companies (particularly tech companies, whose lobbyists were a driving force behind its passage) attract capital by, among other things, exempting them from independent accounting requirements for up to five years after they first begin selling shares in the stock market.

The law also rolls back rules designed to prevent bank analysts from talking up a stock just to win business, a practice that was so pervasive in the tech-boom years as to be almost industry standard.

Even worse, the JOBS Act, incredibly, will allow executives to give "pre-prospectus" presentations to investors using PowerPoint and other tools in which they will not be held liable for misrepresentations. These firms will still be obligated to submit prospectuses before their IPOs, and they'll still be held liable for what's in those. But it'll be up to the investor to check and make sure that the prospectus matches the "pre-presentation."

The JOBS Act also loosens a whole range of other reporting requirements, and expands stock investment beyond "accredited investors," giving official sanction to the internet-based fundraising activity known as "crowdfunding."

But the big one, to me, is the bit about exempting firms from real independent tests of internal controls for five years.

And why is that such a big problem? Taibbi explains:

There's just no benefit that the JOBS Act brings to an honest startup company. In fact, it puts an honest company at a severe disadvantage, because now it has to compete against other, less scrupulous companies that can simply make their projections up on the backs of envelopes.

This is like formally eliminating steroid testing for the first five years of a baseball player's career. Yes, you can pretty much bet that you'll see a lot of home runs in the first few years after you institute a rule like that. But you'd better be ready to stick a lot asterisks in the record books ten or fifteen years down the line.

In the same way, get ready for an avalanche of shareholder suits ten years from now, since post-factum civil litigation will be the only real regulation of the startup market. In fact, there are already supporters talking up future lawsuits as an appropriate tool to replace the regulations being wiped out by this bill.

The JOBS Act seems like it will invite a replay of the disastrous tech-stock bubble of the late nineties. That mess was made possible by a historic collapse in accounting standards, with the great investment banks the pioneers of the collapse. In the old days, in the fifties and sixties for instance, you would never take a company public that wasn't profitable at the time of the IPO, or didn't have a multi-year track record of solid revenues.

There's much more where that came from, too.

I have to confess that I don't really understand how to solve this problem. The Republican Party is willing to do whatever it takes to eliminate the middle class in favor of Wall Street. The Democratic Party is fractured, with many great progressives like Elizabeth Warren trying to do the right thing, but with a number of corrupt Democrats as well. Also, there's the pesky detail that the Democratic Party wouldn't be able to win elections without its own share of corporate cash.

So screw parties and elections, right? OK, except for the fact that all the laws actually get passed by Congress and legislatures. Or the fact that we'd be at war with Iran right now if McCain were president. Or that whole Supreme Court thing, whose incredible importance should be patently obvious by now. No matter what one thinks of Barack Obama, can anyone imagine how much worse off we would be if Kagan's and Sotomayor's spots on the bench were replaced by Alito clones?

So...third party? Yeah, sure. The Greens and Peace and Freedoms have been around forever. The Greens' biggest impact on national elections was giving Bush the presidency over Al Gore (and on that note, anyone who thinks Al Gore would have invaded Iraq isn't capable of holding an intelligent conversation about politics. The financial crisis would have probably still happened, but we would still have been far, far better off under Gore than under Bush. These things still matter.) But no, the third party candidates most likely to enter America's poisoned political blood stream are Michael Bloomberg, Angus King and (sigh) Linda Parks. If there is any movement away from the two parties, that's the direction the movement is headed. And that's fairly disastrous. Just one look at the viable non-partisan options drives me further into the arms of the Democratic Party as the only credible progressive alternative.

There's popular protest, of course. We've seen the Occupy movement gain some traction by changing the discourse somewhat. Republicans became somewhat more scared of the income inequality message, and Democrats have been more eager to use it. And yet as we enter what is supposed to be an Occupy Spring, crap like the JOBS Act still passes, nor has anyone yet provided a credible answer as to how popular protest on these things is supposed to translate into legislative success.

My best answer at this point remains to attempt to curtail money in politics, while using the partisan techniques the Right has successfully implemented over the last forty years to attempt to make the Democratic Party as progressive as possible, eliminating all the Reagan Democrats (at least in blue areas) as swiftly as the Republicans got rid of their Rockefeller Republicans. I don't see any viable alternatives that have a prayer of success.

.
thereisnospoon 4/09/2012 03:00:00 PM |

 
EZ Bipartisanship

by digby

I've been saying it for a while: bipartisanship is actually very simple to attain. All the Democrats have to do is enact the Republican agenda (which, when it comes to Wall Street, they are more than happy to do.) Robert Kuttner concurs:

Its Wall Street and Silicon Valley sponsors baptized it the JOBS Act, a contrived acronym for Jumpstart Our Business Startups -- claiming that it would increase jobs. An ill-timed scandal involving accounting misrepresentations by Groupon in its stock pitch nearly rained on the JOBS Act's parade. But President Obama signed the Act anyway, in a display of... bipartisanship.

Obama, in a Rose Garden ceremony, called it a "game changer" that would promote hiring by small businesses. More likely, it will promote stock frauds.

Leading GOP legislators were on hand to cheer for Obama's support for Republican legislation. Standing behind Obama was House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, a sponsor of the Act, who has blocked just about everything else Obama has proposed.

So this is what bipartisanship looks like. All Democrats have to do is embrace Republican ideology and -- voila! -- bipartisanship.

In this case, Silicon Valley Democrats helped, too. According to the Wall Street Journal, in a now-it-can-be-told piece, a venture capitalist named Kate Mitchell, a Democratic campaign donor, worked behind the scenes with Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Republican House Financial Services Committee Chairman Spencer Bacchus to shelter small (under a billion dollars!) companies from the disclosure and reporting requirements that protect investors.

Seeing a way both to ingratiate the White House with the business elite and to cheer Wall Street and Silicon Valley donors, Obama jumped on board. Once the White House signaled that Obama would sign it, most Democrats got out of the way.

This is what bipartisanship looks like.

Indeed it is. I'm sure there were many toasts to future bipartisan deals such as this one once they get this fall's unpleasantness out of the way. The possibilities for more happy Rose Garden ceremonies are endless. Indeed, I'm guessing that the only hope progressives have is that the House Tea Partiers will be so riled up by the "liberal" Romney's loss that they'll try to impeach Obama --- and ruin their only chance to completely dismantle the New Deal.

And keep in mind: the Democrats are either very, very cheap dates or they truly believe it's a good idea to be able to rip off investors.

.
digby 4/09/2012 01:30:00 PM |

 
Dignified graft

by digby

So Rick Warren really went on TV and said that "subsidizing" poor people"robs them of their dignity?" On Easter?

I just love it when people who pay no taxes make this case. Especially when all they have to do is crook their fingers and millions of tax free dollars flow in to them --- no questions asked:

It’s been a heck of a year for mega-pastor/bestselling author/power broker Rick Warren of the enormous Saddleback Church. It started out with Warren’s invocation at the historic inauguration of one President Barack Obama - and it concludes with Warren asking his flock to cough up nearly $1 million in just two days to keep the church out of the red.

“Dear Saddleback Family,” begins today’s missive from Warren. “THIS IS AN URGENT LETTER unlike any I’ve written in 30 years. Please read all of it and get back to me in the next 48 hours.

“I have thrilling news to share with you below but first some seriously bad news: With 10% of our church family out of work due to the recession, our expenses in caring for our community in 2009 rose dramatically while our income stagnated. Still, with wise management, we’ve stayed close to our budget all year. Then… this last weekend the bottom dropped out.

“On the last weekend of 2009, our total offerings were less than half of what we normally receive – leaving us $900,000 in the red for the year, unless you help make up the difference today and tomorrow.”

The church does not make its financial information public, so it’s impossible to tell just how big of a hole in the boat this $900,000 represents. A spokeswoman for Warren said the church does not release detail on its finances, so it’s hard to put the shortfall in context. (Suffice to say it may not represent a terribly significant portion of Saddleback’s annual budget, and that his personal appeal may well close the hole, and then some.)

In his letter, Warren goes on to detail the church’s accomplishments for the year, and then says:

It’s obvious that your giving through your church family is providing more “bang for the buck” than anything else you could support. It is no wonder that our ministry was named the top religious newsmaker of 2009 as reported by Associated Press.

YOU CAN HELP SAVE THE DAY 3 WAYS BEFORE JAN 1.
Click HERE right now to and give as large an end-of-the-year gift as you can to help avert this crisis. If we all do what God leads us to do, we’ll all be a part of a miracle.

Mail in your gift today. Gifts must be postmarked in 2009 to be posted as 2009 gifts for tax purposes. Mail to: 1 Saddleback Parkway, Lake Forest, CA 92630.

Drop your gift in the box at the front door of the Ministry Center at 1 Saddleback Parkway so you know for certain we get it TODAY or Thursday….

I love you so much. It is a deep privilege to be your pastor….

Yeah, I'm sure it is.

Of course his flock isn't exactly hurting for money either. Here are a couple of his famous followers --- who also fell on hard times when their multi-million dollar mortgage went underwater and they had to engineer a short sell. I'm sure they found some extra cash to pass on to Saddleback Church, however. Or somebody did. Warren apparently averted his "shortfall."

Nobody knows what it was used for, of course. But I guess we know it didn't go to "subsidizing" the poor and robbing them of their dignity, so there's that.

.
digby 4/09/2012 12:30:00 PM |

 
And so it begins

by digby

Here it is --- Bush Was Right:

Bush administration officials feared a repeat of Iran's 1979 revolution, when the collapse of an oppressive, U.S.-backed government led to a power vacuum that violently anti-American Islamists were best positioned to exploit. Iraq aside, the Freedom Agenda was intended less to bring about full-blown transitions to democracy than to treat the pathologies of existing regimes, maximize the capacity of secular opposition groups to compete with Islamists, and dispel the widespread belief among Arabs that the United States, as Al-Quds al-Arabi editor Abdelbari Atwan once put it, "wants us to have dictators and monarchical presidents."

You have to love the "Iraq aside ..." Other than that, Mrs Lincoln, how did you like the play?

This article, the first of many to come I'm sure, is an attempt to give the Bush administration credit for every good thing that unfolded in the middle east since he's left office while ignoring the dead elephants all over the region that his misguided policies left in his wake.

Bush always had an interesting take on his own legacy. This was in 2004:

In two interviews with Woodward in December, Bush minimized the failure to find the weapons of mass destruction, expressed no doubts about his decision to invade Iraq, and enunciated an activist role for the United States based on it being "the beacon for freedom in the world."

"I believe we have a duty to free people," Bush told Woodward. "I would hope we wouldn't have to do it militarily, but we have a duty."

The president described praying as he walked outside the Oval Office after giving the order to begin combat operations against Iraq, and the powerful role his religious belief played throughout that time.

"Going into this period, I was praying for strength to do the Lord's will. ... I'm surely not going to justify war based upon God. Understand that. Nevertheless, in my case I pray that I be as good a messenger of His will as possible. And then, of course, I pray for personal strength and for forgiveness."

The president told Woodward that "I am prepared to risk my presidency to do what I think is right. I was going to act. And if it could cost the presidency, I fully realized that. But I felt so strongly that it was the right thing to do that I was prepared to do so."

Asked by Woodward how history would judge the war, Bush replied: "History. We don't know. We'll all be dead."

Some people sooner than others --- thanks to him.

.
digby 4/09/2012 10:30:00 AM |

 
The most idiotic thing you'll read all day

by digby

Of course, it's still early. But this is going to be hard to beat:

Filmmaker James O’Keefe demonstrated just how easy it is [to steal elections]on Tuesday when he dispatched an assistant to the Nebraska Avenue polling place in Washington where Attorney General Holder has been registered for the last 29 years. O’Keefe specializes in the same use of hidden cameras that was pioneered by the recently deceased Mike Wallace, who used the technique to devastating effect in exposing fraud in Medicare claims and consumer products on 60 Minutes.

O’Keefe’s efforts helped expose the fraud-prone voter-registration group ACORN with his video stings, and has had great success demonstrating this year in New Hampshire, Vermont, and Minnesota just how easy it is to obtain a ballot by giving the name of a dead person who is still on the rolls. Indeed, a new study by the Pew Research Center found at least 1.8 million dead people are still registered to vote. They aren’t likely to complain if someone votes in their place.

That article is by "voter fraud" crusader John Fund, who has yet to uncover the mass conspiracy of Democratic partisans who have been coordinating to steal elections by actually impersonating dead people at the polls. But maybe he can enlist the crack journalist James O'Keefe to help him. I'm sure nobody will be bothered if he uses outtakes from The Walking Dead. His reputation is sterling. He's the new Mike Wallace.

Well, except for the open political agenda, the dishonest editing, the rap sheet and the bizarre public sexual obsessions. (And you'd think John Fund, of all people, would know better.

.
digby 4/09/2012 09:17:00 AM |

 
Damned if you do, damned if you don't

David Atkins

Pure comedy:

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) said Sunday that he counseled President Obama not to champion the Bowles-Simpson fiscal commission recommendations because that would have “automatically” turned House Republicans against them.

On a Fox News Sunday panel, freshman Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), a member of the Budget Committee, said the president “totally ignored” the work of Bowles-Simpson and showed “no leadership” on the matter.

“I don’t think that’s fair,” Conrad responded. “Look, he asked me for my advice. I told him look, ‘If you embrace this totality of Bowles-Simpson, what will happen is Republicans in the House will automatically be against it. So you need to make the case for why it’s necessary, but you need those of us in Congress to work it out.’”

I can't decide: is it better for President Obama to have supported Bowles-Simpson, thus thankfully killing it but putting the President on record for supporting the awful thing? Or would it have been better for President Obama to have opposed it, making the leadership position more progressive, but giving the abomination a chance of passing through congress?

I have an idea: let's just get rid of all the congressional Democrats who would actively support Bowles-Simpson instead?

.
thereisnospoon 4/09/2012 07:30:00 AM |

Sunday, April 08, 2012

 
Torture probe

by digby

Writing about the strip-search decision the other day, I said:

This is punitive, anyone can see that. They are "breaking down" suspects with humiliation to make them docile and afraid. There is no reason to grant the police blanket permission to do this except for a naive belief that anyone who is arrested must be guilty of something.

Scott Horton points out in this article called "The High Court’s Body-Cavity Fixation" that this is a well documented technique,

Just as the Florence decision was being prepared, the Department of Defense released a previously classified training manual used to prepare American pilots for resistance to foreign governments that might use illegal and immoral techniques to render them cooperative. Key in this manual are the precise practices highlighted in Florence. Body-cavity searches are performed, it explains, to make the prisoner “feel uncomfortable and degraded.” Forced nudity and invasion of the body make the prisoner feel helpless, by removing all items that provide the prisoner with psychological support. In other words, the strip search is an essential step in efforts to destroy an individual’s sense of self-confidence, well-being, and even his or her identity. The value of this tool has been recognized by authoritarian governments around the world, and now, thanks to the Roberts Court, it will belong to the standard jailhouse repertoire in the United States. Something to consider the next time you walk Fido without scooping up his droppings—a cop may well be watching, ready to seize the opportunity to invade your rectum.

This reminded me of this from Jane Mayer back in 2007:

"The C.I.A.’s interrogation program is remarkable for its mechanistic aura. 'It’s one of the most sophisticated, refined programs of torture ever,' an outside expert familiar with the protocol said. 'At every stage, there was a rigid attention to detail. Procedure was adhered to almost to the letter. There was top-down quality control, and such a set routine that you get to the point where you know what each detainee is going to say, because you’ve heard it before. It was almost automated. People were utterly dehumanized. People fell apart. It was the intentional and systematic infliction of great suffering masquerading as a legal process. It is just chilling.'"

[...]

"A former member of a C.I.A. transport team has described the 'takeout' of prisoners as a carefully choreographed twenty-minute routine, during which a suspect was hog-tied, stripped naked, photographed, hooded, sedated with anal suppositories, placed in diapers, and transported by plane to a secret location. A person involved in the Council of Europe inquiry, referring to cavity searches and the frequent use of suppositories during the takeout of detainees, likened the treatment to 'sodomy.' He said, 'It was used to absolutely strip the detainee of any dignity. It breaks down someone’s sense of impenetrability. The interrogation became a process not just of getting information but of utterly subordinating the detainee through humiliation.' The former C.I.A. officer confirmed that the agency frequently photographed the prisoners naked, 'because it’s demoralizing."

Strip searches are a form of torture. So is tasering.

And here's where all that good stuff comes together. That cavity probe is always the next step:

" 'Let me get my shoes,' " Maten quoted Booker as saying as he walked toward the chairs to get his shoes.

The deputy yelled at him repeatedly to stop, got up and followed Booker. Booker turned and repeated that he was getting his shoes, Maten said.

The deputy grabbed Booker by the arm and put a lock on him, Yedo said. Booker, who was 5 feet 5 and weighed 175 pounds, pushed her away. At that point, four other deputies wrestled Booker to the concrete floor. They slid down two steps to the floor in the sitting area. Yedo said the deputies each grabbed a limb while he struggled.

" 'Get the Taser. Get the Taser,' " Yedo quoted one of the deputies as saying.

Yedo said he was only about 3 feet away, and Maten said he was close enough that if he stood and took one step, he could reach out and touch one of the deputies.

None of the deputies involved in the restraint has been identified. One female deputy was treated at a hospital for an injury she suffered in the confrontation, Gale said.

A fifth deputy put Booker in a headlock just as the female deputy began shocking him with a Taser with encouragement from one of the deputies, who kept repeating, "Probe his ass," Maten said. He could hear the Taser crackle repeatedly.

Booker said, "'I can't breath . . .," Yedo heard. Then, Booker went limp.

Booker's wrists were handcuffed behind his back in an awkward position when the deputies picked him up, each holding an arm or a leg, and carried him stomach-down to a holding cell with an unbreakable glass door.

They set him down on his stomach, with much of his weight on one shoulder and his legs bent, Yedo said. They took the handcuffs off and without checking his pulse, the officers left him on the floor of the holding cell.

The deputies walked away high-fiving and laughing, Maten said. Several inmates were saying, " 'I can't believe they're doing this,' " Maten said.

He died.

Both President Bush and President Obama have used the same phrase repeatedly: "The United States doesn't torture."

Oh yes it does. And the highest court in the nation just approved another torture technique last week.

.

digby 4/08/2012 06:00:00 PM |

 
Partisan (Judicial) Review

by digby

From Up With Chris Hayes today. Important to note that at the end of the previous segment Jonathan Alter helpfully pointed out the Village wisdom that "Democrats started it" and then muttered a bunch of stuff about liberals on the courts. This is where the conversation picked up:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Yep. We can have as many right wing fascists on the court but Democrats should only nominate people who "moderate" and have a "reasonable" judicial temperament.

These Village "liberals" are killing us. He is completely wrong about this. If the people didn't give a shit that a partisan court stole an election, giving them a lecture about the Obamacare mandate isn't going to get the job done.

No, we are living in an ideologically polarized age and this guy wants liberals to stand around tittering politely about how wrong it is that we be so. History shows how well that works out for them when the other side has gone mad.

.
digby 4/08/2012 04:30:00 PM |

 
RIP Mike Wallace

by David Atkins

Mike Wallace has passed away. No one is perfect, of course, but Wallace was a bright star in the firmament of journalism. He spent a lot of time comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable, aggressively confronting the seats of power, probing and trying to delve down to find the truth rather than playing at High Broderist balance.

That made him something of an archaism in the decrepit world of modern journalism.

So thank you, Mike, for creating more justice in this world than would have existed without you. It's all that can be asked of a person.


.
thereisnospoon 4/08/2012 02:52:00 PM |

 
The worst idea in history?

by digby

This is just what we need:

American scientists have drawn up plans for a new generation of nuclear-powered drones capable of flying over remote regions of the world for months on end without refuelling.

The blueprints for the new drones, which have been developed by Sandia National Laboratories – the US government's principal nuclear research and development agency – and defence contractor Northrop Grumman, were designed to increase flying time "from days to months" while making more power available for operating equipment, according to a project summary published by Sandia.

"It's pretty terrifying prospect," said Chris Coles of Drone Wars UK, which campaigns against the increasing use of drones for both military and civilian purposes. "Drones are much less safe than other aircraft and tend to crash a lot. There is a major push by this industry to increase the use of drones and both the public and government are struggling to keep up with the implications."

I'll say. But here's the good news:

A halt has been called to the work for now, due to worries that public opinion will not accept the idea of such a potentially hazardous technology, with the inherent dangers of either a crash – in effect turning the drone into a so-called dirty bomb – or of its nuclear propulsion system falling into the hands of terrorists or unfriendly powers.

Yeah, the public might balk at that. What fools, eh?


.
digby 4/08/2012 01:30:00 PM |

 
"White Americans don't have many spokespeople"

by digby


So now they're just another "civil rights" group ...

digby 4/08/2012 12:00:00 PM |

 
Hallelujah

by digby

I'm not going to try to compete with David's Easter post below. I'll just say what I say every year --- while I might not be religious, I do respect the essential spring-rebirth-new life aspect of the spring rituals. It's a time to throw yourself open to the possibilities.

In that vein, I offer you my own favorite religious experience: cute baby animals. Here are a couple of very happy piglets enjoying the spring for you to enjoy. (Click over to the Youtube page to read their whole story)

And if you're interested, here's a story analyzing why humans all love them (and why it's obviously therapeutic to look at them after a day reading horrible political stories)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Happy Easter everyone.

.
digby 4/08/2012 09:30:00 AM |