Hullabaloo

Friday, May 25, 2012

 
Gekkoian Heroics

by digby

If you haven't read today's Paul Krugman's column yet, do it. I have no doubt that quite a few Masters of the Universe broke down and had themselves a good old fashioned cry when they read it.

He writes about one of the main themes of this blog since 2009, which is the embarrassing and desperate need on the part of Wall Street players to not just be rich, but universally adored. He brings up something else, however, which I haven't been aware of:

[L]et me take a moment to debunk a fairy tale that we’ve been hearing a lot from Wall Street and its reliable defenders — a tale in which the incredible damage runaway finance inflicted on the U.S. economy gets flushed down the memory hole, and financiers instead become the heroes who saved America.

Once upon a time, this fairy tale tells us, America was a land of lazy managers and slacker workers. Productivity languished, and American industry was fading away in the face of foreign competition.

Then square-jawed, tough-minded buyout kings like Mitt Romney and the fictional Gordon Gekko came to the rescue, imposing financial and work discipline. Sure, some people didn’t like it, and, sure, they made a lot of money for themselves along the way. But the result was a great economic revival, whose benefits trickled down to everyone.

You can see why Wall Street likes this story. But none of it — except the bit about the Gekkos and the Romneys making lots of money — is true.

The chutzpah of these people never fails to amaze me. But this does explain their shock at being held responsible for this meltdown and the pain and suffering that followed. They really believe they are big heroes and the rest of us are a bunch of ungrateful wretches for failing to acknowledge it.

These people may not be the geniuses they think they are, but they aren't stupid and they do have to live somewhat in touch with reality in order to do their jobs. So they know they have reaped all the rewards of their heroic Gekkoian deeds. They just think this is a fair distribution of the nation's wealth and we should all be grateful for the crumbs that are left over. In other words, they believe they are heroes for making each other rich.


.

digby 5/25/2012 06:00:00 PM |

 
Look for the federalist label

by digby

Adele Stan talks to pollster Celinda Lake about this alleged drop in "pro-choice" sentiment and she explains that it's less the attitude than a revulsion toward the fight:

[W]e know from other data that people are significantly less interested in labels right now, period," Lake said. "[W]e're seeing it in everything -- it has nothing to do with abortion; we're seeing it in lots of different areas -- is that people just don't like labels right now. They think it's divisive, and not reflective of the complications of an issue, gets in the way of solutions."

We're seeing a lot of this, particularly in the issues that have to do with the "lady-parts." Recall Dana Milbank just recently:

In his latest column, Dana Milbank criticizes abortion provider Merle Hoffman for raising a ‘false alarm’ about the threat to reproductive rights in this country. He then goes on the cite the numerous marches and events that will take place on both sides of the debate over the next week as the country celebrates – or laments – the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that made abortion legal in this country.

All of this attention troubles Dana Milbank. He writes, “if these groups cared as much about the issue as they claim, and didn’t have such strong financial incentives to avoid consensus and compromise, they’d cancel the carnivals and get to work on the one thing everybody agrees would be worthwhile — reducing unwanted pregnancies.”

He chastises the choice movement by telling us that “not every compromise means a slippery slope to the back alley.” He tells us to stop with the “sky is falling” argument and to acknowledge that the majority of Americans have legitimate concerns.

That's very typical gaslighting, which is something almost guaranteed to make almost any women want to scream in frustration. But be that as it may, there are a lot of people who just want this to go away as an argument and most of them happen to be people who support abortion rights.

I don't know what to do about that. It's a complicated argument and we've clearly failed along the way to make it simple enough to counter the lugubrious paeans to "life" from the people who want to cut off unemployment insurance. But still, there remains at least a bare majority of Americans who support the policy itself.

And Stan spells out how the right is effectively dealing with that:

When you look at the results of national polls on both abortion and marriage equality, you get a clear sense of why the right plays the states' rights game today, just as slave-owning Southerners did two centuries ago. Opponents of equality for women and LGBT people know they can't win a national popular vote on their bigotry and misogyny; the best they could hope for is a draw on women's rights, and a loss, however close, on LGBT rights. That's why the right aims its biggest battles at state legislatures. Now that the Supreme Court is a right-winger's dream, any test of draconian law at the state level may well be sanctioned at the federal level. And if enough Tea Partiers and religious-right types win election to Congress, the law of the land may come to defy overall public opinion.

Just look at the Washington Post poll on marriage equality. It was released just days after North Carolina passed a particularly restrictive amendment to the state constitution that not only banned same-sex marriage, but civil unions and domestic partnerships for both gay and heterosexual couples. In passing such a ballot measure, North Carolina joined another 30 states that have already passed same-sex marriage bans.

Even as the nation remains divided on abortion, a torrent of restrictive legislation aimed at women seeking abortions or the medical facilities that provide them is flooding state legislatures. This year, bills have been introduced for mandatory ultrasounds for women seeking abortion -- some of which demand that the ultrasound technician ask the woman to view the image or listen to the fetal heartbeat -- in 17 state legislatures. Two of those bills have already passed, in Virginia and Arizona.

For advocates of reproductive justice and marriage equality, nothing less than a shift in the balance of power on the Supreme Court will settle the law in their favor.

Indeed. And the only people who are old enough to retire any time soon are people who already support women's and LGBT rights. Barring something unexpected happening, this battle is going to rage on for quite awhile. Sorry.


.
digby 5/25/2012 04:30:00 PM |

 
A failure to organize

by David Atkins

The world was deeply inspired by the people power that brought about the Arab Spring. It was a leaderless loose assemblage of citizens gathering into public squares, doing nothing other than peacefully demanding change and the removal of longstanding dictatorships.

In its aftermath, we're also seeing the Achilles' Heel of that anarchistic approach:

Egypt looks set for weeks of tension and uncertainty after the first round of its landmark presidential election produced a runoff between the candidate backed by the powerful Muslim Brotherhood and a former general who is seen as a hangover from the regime of the deposed Hosni Mubarak.

In what many described as a "nightmare scenario" that will mean a polarised and possibly violent second round, Mohammed Morsi of the Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party polled around 26% in the two-day first round. Ahmed Shafiq, Mubarak's last prime minister, came second with 23% when 90% of the votes had been counted.

Amr Moussa, the former head of the Arab League, who tried to capture the centre ground, was knocked out. Late on Friday there was only a slight chance that the final picture would change when votes for Cairo and Giza were in.

Turnout was said to be around 40% of the 51m-strong electorate. Official results are yet to be published but a combination of exit polls, centrally collected data and reporting by the candidates appeared to confirm a dramatic runoff that many supporters of the revolution consider a catastrophic outcome. "It feels as if the revolution never took place," lamented a despondent George Ishaq, a founder of the leftwing Kifaya Party.

"The Brotherhood are despotic and fanatical and Shafiq is the choice of Mubarak. It is a very bad result. The revolution is not part of this contest."

Those who fail to organize will always be at the mercy of those who do. Religious and secular authoritarians alike have no trouble with this principle. Neither do hardline Maoist/Leninist regimes. Champions of liberal democracy, on the other hand, seem to have a unique problem here, which leads to our defeat time and time again.


.
thereisnospoon 5/25/2012 03:00:00 PM |

 
Let them eat ... nothing?

by digby

I love it when people who have 250 million dollar contracts paying them to sit on their asses and spout lies for a couple of hours a day call other people lazy moochers:

"The fact that 88 million Americans aren't working but they are eating Obama loves. Because he's the one getting credit for feeding them.

And not only are they eating, but they've got their televisions and their cellphones and they've got cable. And a number of these 88 million who aren't working but have food, have cable, have cellphone and have flatscreens may be saying, 'what more do I need?'"

This extremely well-fed fatuous gasbag seems to believe that people should starve if they can't find work. And if the little people have some food, a phone and a TV whah, there ain't nothin' more they kin want outta life!

Here's the dining room of the apartment he sold in NYC for 11 million dollars. It looks as though it was designed to look like a cartoon version of Versailles, don't you think?

.
digby 5/25/2012 01:30:00 PM |

 
Goodbye Mistah Soljah

by digby

So the General Election has officially begun and the predictable "race to the middle" is in full swing. What, you ask, has Mitt Romney finally distanced himself from the Birthers? Well, no. They're holding fundraisers for him. Is he tacking back to the center on the war on women? Not hardly. So, what's going on?

Well, we have Barack Obama bragging about his devotion to cutting spending. And now the campaign is out there touting their hostility to public employee unions. Dday writes:

It looks like we’re going to have six more months of the Obama campaign trying to prove that their candidate has conservative values and believes in conservative ideas. That’s what we can learn from the latest fact check from Deputy Campaign Manager for Obama 2012 Stephanie Cutter.

FACT CHECK: Romney off on Obama’s relationship with teachers’ unions; it’s anything but cozy: http://wapo.st/Lu0nYZ

The link takes you to a story at the Washington Post with the same name as what Cutter quoted approvingly. And I can’t say that anything in the Post’s fact-check is wrong. It makes the case that President Obama has promoted ideas and instituted policies that teachers’ unions oppose, and that’s true:

"Education “reform” is a pretty contentious topic with a split in the Democratic coalition. But Obama has always lined up on the opposite side of the unions on the matter. Not only that, he boasts of it."

They don't have any shortage of such "achievements" to tout as proof of their center right bona fides, from the civil liberties crackdown to the record number of deportations of undocumented workers. But I'm fairly sure that in order for this to have the desired effect, the middle must be some agreed upon place between the two parties, and the other side must tack back to that place as well. Is there any evidence that this "center" exists?


Update: When was the last time a GOP candidate for any office boasted about flouting a major conservative constituency? I'm, sure it must happen sometimes, but nothing comes to mind.

.
digby 5/25/2012 12:30:00 PM |

 
Rightwingers for all seasons

by digby

Have you heard about the "Fortnight For Freedom?" (I know, how many Americans know what a fortnight is ...) Anyway, this is happening:

[The] "Fortnight for freedom" [is] between "June 21—the vigil of the Feasts of St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More—to July 4, Independence Day." Fusing the martyrdom of Catholic saints with Independence Day, the Bishops write, "Our liturgical calendar celebrates a series of great martyrs who remained faithful in the face of persecution by political power . . . . Culminating on Independence Day, this special period of prayer, study, catechesis, and public action would emphasize both our Christian and American heritage of liberty."

That's right, now the Catholic Bishops are fully integrating their "religious liberty" trope with patriotism. It's not that right wingers haven't been doing this for some time, but this is the first time I've seen it organized this way.

Sarah Posner wrote about this last month:

All of this will of course come to a head as the general election campaign is heating up over the summer months. The Bishops urge commemoration of "resistance to totalitarian incursions against religious liberty" and call on "an immense number of writers, producers, artists, publishers, filmmakers, and bloggers employing all the means of communications—both old and new media—to expound and teach the faith. They too have a critical role in this great struggle for religious liberty. We call upon them to use their skills and talents in defense of our first freedom."

It will be the summer of the Bishops' discontent. Their call to action ensures that it will spill over into the presidential campaign. The culture wars are far from over. This new chapter has just begun.

In fact, we're looking at a full fledged effort to re-fight the Reformation. Here's Posner a couple of days ago:

In the coming weeks, as the Fortnight for Freedom approaches, expect More's name to be invoked again and again, and his martyrdom compared with, supposedly, that of 21st century American Catholics, who live in a modern democracy, not a 16th century monarchy. Yet in this depiction—wait for it—the Obama administration is like Henry VIII, attempting to require loyalty to the Church of England (or the Department of Health and Human Services) rather than the Vatican.

Fr. Paul Scalia, pastor of St. John the Beloved Parish in McLean, Virginia, writing in the Catholic Herald last month, implored Catholics to mimic More in response to the Obama administration (emphasis mine):

Just as in St. Thomas’s day it was a moral issue that precipitated the larger crisis, so also in our day. The Church’s teaching on contraception is at the core of this crisis. We can — and should — say many things about this teaching. It is one of the most important, challenging and beautiful of the Church’s doctrines. But the teaching itself — as important as it is — really just occasions another, broader issue. The crisis now before us between the bishops and the administration turns on the rights of the Church and the rights of man: the Church’s right of self-governance and the rights of individual conscience.

Henry VIII redefined the Church in England. It is not too much to say that by the HHS mandate, the administration seeks to do likewise in the United States. Cardinal Timothy Dolan, archbishop of New York, asks the question: Can a government bureau define for us or any faith community what is ministry and how it can be exercised? Of course not. The Church has the right to define herself and not be told by outside authorities what does or does not define her work.

Uhm ... holy shit. As Posner rightly points, unlike England of the period, the United States government, the last we heard, does not answer to Church authority of any kind. Indeed, the American experiment was a product of the 500 years of bloody religious wars that preceded it and explicitly rejected the very idea of Religious and Monarchical rule.

According to Posner, the Catholic hierarchy begs to differ:

The Archbishop of Miami, Thomas Wenski, recently said that "efforts to restrict religious liberty are seemingly founded in a reductive secularism that has more in common with the French Revolution than with America's founding."

So the Catholic Bishops have joined the wingnut chorus in full voice, making the case that up until now only the far right fringies like David Barton have made. It's profoundly disturbing.

Posner concludes:

The very idea that providing women with insurance coverage is somehow tantamount to the terror and violence inflicted on both sides in Reformation England—or to the historical cataclysm that was Henry's schism from Rome—is so absurd I'm stunned as my fingers tap across my keyboard. If we're going to spend the next five and half months discussing whether Barack Obama is like Henry VIII, well, God help us.

Somehow I doubt this is only go to go on for the next five months. This one's going to be with us for a while.

.

digby 5/25/2012 11:00:00 AM |

 
Winning short term and long term

by digby

So, Ornstein and Mann say that the GOP opposition to all of President's Obama's programs is not ideological but rather a strategy to make him fail. I'm sure they want to make him fail, but I think that's too facile. It's true that they want to make him fail, no doubt about it. But it's also ideological.

Take this lunacy for instance:

The Navy’s ambitious renewable energy plans aren’t sunk quite yet. But they took a major hit Thursday, when the Senate Armed Services Committee voted to all-but-ban the military from buying alternative fuels.

The House Armed Services Committee passed a similar measure earlier this month. But the House is controlled by Republicans, who are generally skeptical of alternative energy efforts. Democrats are in charge of the Senate Armed Services Committee. And if anything, the Senate’s alt-fuel prohibition goes even further than the House’s. If it becomes law, if would not only sink the Navy’s attempt to sail a “Great Green Fleet,” powered largely by biofuels. It would also sabotage a half-billion dollar program to shore up a tottering biofuels industry.

Like their counterparts in the House, senators prohibited the Pentagon from buying renewable fuels that are more expensive than traditional ones — a standard that biofuels many never meet. In addition, the committee blocked the Defense Department from helping build biofuel refineries unless “specifically authorized by law” – just as the Navy was set to pour $170 million into an effort with the Departments of Energy and Agriculture to do precisely that.

The measures — amendments to the Pentagon’s budget for next year — were pushed by two Republicans. Sen. James Inhofe has long been one of the Republican’s fiercest critics of renewable energy efforts; Sen. John McCain has in recent years turned away from long-held eco-friendly positions.

“Adopting a ‘green agenda’ for national defense of course is a terrible misplacement of priorities,” McCain told National Journal Daily on Tuesday, calling it “a clear indication that the president doesn’t understand national security.”

These old men who are apparently determined to destroy the planet are he same people who are rending their garments over the possible future tax rates of their grandchildren.

Ok. So McCain is carrying a grudge and wants to show the president doesn't care about national security. No surprise for the mean old man. But Inhofe? He's a true believer and he wants to stop the United States from developing alternative fuels because he truly thinks there is no need for it and has it in his head that the United States can run forever if only it will drill, baby, drill. And he represents a large faction of the throwback base and the oil barons who stand to make a lot of money. It's a twofer.

In fact, underlying all of these obstructive maneuvers is an advancement of their agenda at the same time. This used to be considered basic smart politics. Whatever you do, win or lose, it should be in service of both your short term goals and your long term goals. Republicans have always kept their eyes on both the short term and the long term, and tend to screw up only when they are overcome by hubris and do something silly like impeach a president over a sexual indiscretion.

For all I know, Democrats are always doing this too. If they really believe that deficits are the greatest threat to the nation (it's just a matter of getting the rich to throw in some tip money for it to be all good) or that America really should be a military empire then they've been doing a bang-up job. Otherwise, the Republicans have been playing much smarter politics for decades now. All along the way their stated agenda has been advanced far more often than it's retreated. The opposite is true for the Democrats.

The GOP may be heading toward one of those hubristic set-backs. But both sides have set up a monumental confrontation on the budget and tax cuts after the election and if I were a betting person I'd have to say that it's the GOP agenda that is likely to be the big winner. In fact, both parties have set it up so that's there's no other possible outcome.

.
digby 5/25/2012 09:30:00 AM |

 
Yes, there is a difference

by David Atkins

You don't have to be a close watcher of politics to know that Barack Obama has been far friendlier to Wall Street than Wall Street deserves. A casual read of Matt Taibbi will tell you all you need to know on that front.

But to say that because of that, there's no difference between Romney and Obama on matters of Wall Street and austerity is an exercise in lazy equivalence. Mitt Romney just went out and proved that with his latest stance on student loans:

Mitt Romney has just released his plan for educating America’s young people, and it’s wholly consistent with his overall philosophy: Allow money to dominate politics, and everything will work out great. Except that, when it comes to policies on college education, we tried that approach under George W. Bush, and it was a disaster for students and taxpayers.

Specifically, Romney attacks — and pledges to undo — two critical reforms implemented by the Obama Administration: (1) reforming student loans and (2) holding for-profit colleges accountable for waste, fraud, and abuse.

In the recent bad old days, the big firms dominating the student loan business — Sallie Mae, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, etc. — got paid as if they were lenders, when in fact they were merely loan servicers; it was us taxpayers who actually took the risk of students defaulting on loans. These banks then used our money to hire lobbyists to protect their billions in unwarranted profits. The Obama Administration stood up to them, and Congress, with nowhere left to cut spending, finally ended this absurd giveaway. There’s absolutely no logical reason to restore this massive waste of taxpayer money. You would only do it if a central principle of your presidency was to hand out gifts to special interests who helped you get elected. Unfortunately it looks like Romney might want to be just that kind of President. JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and Wells Fargo employees are ranked numbers 3, 6, and 10 among the top 2012 Romney donors.

Then there’s the issue of the for-profit college sector, whose multiple bad actors have been caught in the act of defrauding our veterans and low-income students with deceptive recruiting practices, and defrauding government with phony reporting. For-profit colleges have grown rapidly and now account for about 12 percent of students, but their financial footprint is even bigger: With high prices, high dropout rates, and poor job placement, they account for 25 percent of federal financial aid — over $30 billion a year — and 45 percent of student loan defaults.

Romney takes direct aim at the Obama Administration’s “gainful employment” rule — an effort to channel federal student aid to college programs that actually help students learn and get jobs, rather than to programs that leave students deep in debt and ruin their lives. Many of the biggest for-profit schools get 90 percent or more of their revenue from taxpayer funds. They devoted a big chunk of that money to a lobbying and public relations campaign that succeeded in watering down — but not eliminating — the new Obama rule. But that’s not good enough for Mitt Romney.

Politics is almost never about perfect choices. But more importantly, the passions that run hot in politics would be as pointless and inane as the heated arguments on sports or celebrity blogs but for the fact that real people's lives are at stake and important decisions hang in balance.

A vote against President Obama in a swing state is functionally a vote to give our tax dollars back to rapacious student loan companies by eliminating these needed reforms. It's a vote to take away health insurance for people with pre-existing conditions. And it's a vote to give federal funding to Harold Hill scam "colleges." It may feel good to cast a pox on both houses for their similarities. In the end, though, that decision affects all the many places where there are big differences, too.


.
thereisnospoon 5/25/2012 07:30:00 AM |

Thursday, May 24, 2012

 
Ron Paul is the one true Christian

by digby

... according to this fine fellow:

This is not a joke (at least not an intentional one.)

Pastor Steven Andrew teaches on how is a Christian to vote. Faithful to Jesus. In God we trust.

Vote for Christians. Christian election. Vote for Jesus.

Ron Paul is Christian.

Mitt Romney is Mormon.

Barack Obama is Muslim or an anti-Christ.

Were you waiting for him to say "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me"? I know I was.


.
digby 5/24/2012 06:00:00 PM |

 
Bachman in drag

by digby

Mitt Romney, who on Wednesday said he would bring the nation's unemployment rate to 6% as president, offered three ways he would achieve that goal in an interview Thursday.

"Well, there are a number of things," Romney said on Fox News. "You start off by saying, let's stop something that's hurting small business from creating jobs and that's 'Obamacare.' Get rid of it. No. 2, have an energy strategy that takes advantage of our natural gas and oil and coal, as well as our renewables. Those low cost energy fuels will ultimately mean jobs come back here, even manufacturing jobs that left here. And finally, get a handle on the deficit so that people understand if they invest in America, their dollars will be worth something in the future."

So basically, the Romney economic plan is to end Obamacare, drill baby drill, and slash government spending (aka "deficit reduction" in GOP-speak.)

It's a little surprising that this alleged Master of the Universe has adopted the Michele Bachman platform, don't you think?


.
digby 5/24/2012 04:30:00 PM |

 
Yes, the bully pulpit can shift public opinion

by David Atkins

There has been a debate raging among political science and academic circles over whether presidential rhetoric has any real power over public opinion. The new commonly held theory is that bully pulpit statements have no real effect on legislation or public opinion.

On the legislation point, I tend to agree. Interests in Congress tend to be so entrenched that presidential speeches urging Congress to do one thing or another don't make that much difference to how legislators will vote. The President could talk about the benefits of single-payer healthcare every single day and it probably wouldn't budge a single legislator from their previously held position.

But on public opinion, the picture is much less clear, but the recent shift in perceptions of marriage equality after Barack Obama's statements in favor of it do seem to indicate that poll numbers can be shifted by the power of presidnetial rhetoric. :Digby wrote earlier on this same subject, and I tend to strongly agree with her. The notion that the rhetoric of powerful and visible people doesn't influence opinion is too bizarre and flies in the face of thousands of years of recorded history. Still, the data isn't wholly conclusive for recent Presidnential history. Scott Lemieux of Lawyers, Guns and Money has a somewhat skeptical take:

Well, let’s consider this. The Post has the trends in the data online (Question 23). In terms of support for SSM, there’s…nothing. 53% support it after Obama’s interview; 52% in March; 51% in July 2011; 53% in March 2011. There’s no evidence of any effect at all. So as the headline suggests, the evidence for the power of the BULLY PULPIT would have to be in the reduced opposition, which did drop from 43% to 39% between March and May. But particularly given the longer-term trend — opposition was 55% in 2004, 50% as recently as 2010 — this is pretty weak evidence. The 4 point drop in opposition might reflect an effect from Obama’s speech, but it also might reflect statistical noise combined with longer-term trends favoring same-sex marriage. The fact that support didn’t increase is further reason to be skeptical.

Of course, this one data point hardly disproves the theory that Obama’s support will have some effect. It’s possible that this could, like foreign policy, be an exception to the rule that presidential rhetoric doesn’t influence public opinion. Since what matters here is the position-taking, at least believing that there will be some effects doesn’t require transparently implausible theories about the electorate paying close attention to the details of presidential speeches (when even professional BULLY PULPIT obsessives can’t remember the details of presidential speeches.) Nonetheless, as a general rule using the bully pulpit can’t sway public opinion, so I won’t believe that Obama’s interview will significantly increase support for same-sex marriage unless the data clearly shows otherwise. As of now, it doesn’t; hopefully Amanda and Digby will be proven right in the future.

In the comments there, David Mizner points out what I think will become obvious:

There’s polling evidence suggesting that President Obama’s position is swaying opinion among African-Americans.

The increase in support toward gay marriage was mainly fueled by increasing support for it among African Americans, who now narrowly support the issue 42 percent to 41 percent. In their November survey, Public Policy Polling found that black voters overwhelmingly opposed gay marriage 52 percent to 34 percent.

This change in support among black voters reflects similar findings in North Carolina. After President Barack Obama publicly announced his support of gay marriage, Public Policy Polling found that 27 percent of black voters supported gay marriage, up from 20 percent in a May 6 poll taken three days before President Obama made his announcement.

This is a pretty specific case for several reasons and could be an exception that proves the rule, but the movement seems to be real. He’s also inspired others — Colin Powell, Jim Clyburn, and Steny Hoyer — to come out of the closet. I wouldn’t be surprised if history books treated President Obama’s step as a Pivotal Event.

I don't see how it could be perceived otherwise.

.
thereisnospoon 5/24/2012 02:58:00 PM |

 
Getting rid of the old ball and chains

by digby

It's hard for me to imagine that all the people in charge of redistricting sat down and said, "first, let's get rid of all the bitches" but it sure looks as if they did:

That Democrats became roadkill during the latest round of redistricting, mostly at the hands of Republican state legislatures, has been well documented. But less widely known is that the casualties at the state level often hit women lawmakers the hardest — eating into the slow but steady gains women have made in statehouses across the country.
[...]
In North Carolina, where Republicans controlled the redistricting process and women lawmakers have been particularly hard-hit, those dealt a tough blow by redistricting include state Sen. Linda Garrou, the deputy Democratic leader, and Rep. Martha Alexander, who has served for nearly 20 years and is a former co-chair of the redistricting committee. In all, 10 of 25 Democratic women lawmakers in the state were either “double bunked” — forced into a district with another incumbent — or drawn into heavily Republican districts.

“I just don’t see how that’s anything other than deliberate,” Carol Teal, executive director at Lillian’s List, a group working to elect pro-choice Democratic women in the Tarheel State, told TPM. “There’s no other category of people who took that kind of hit.”

“Republican legislative leaders seemed especially eager to target Democratic women in the General Assembly for defeat,” noted NC Policy Watch.

Republican women in leadership have been targeted, too. Take Colorado, for example, which has the highest percentage (40) of female lawmakers in the county and where Democrats essentially controlled the redistricting process via a special commission. “Three of the nine Republican women in the House will have to run in a primary with another GOP incumbent. Two of them, House Majority Leader Amy Stephens and Rep. B.J. Nikkel, the majority whip, are in leadership,” according to the Denver Post. Party primaries for legislative seats in Colorado are scheduled for June 26.

In New Jersey, where women accounted for 28 percent of the 2011 Legislature, they made up 70 percent of the legislators who retired as a result of redistricting.

“The impact of the new map has been especially harsh on incumbent Democratic assemblywomen, with one quarter of them leaving the legislature,” said Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics.

Walsh believes the impact of redistricting could be even worse than the numbers indicate.

“Much of what goes on, unfortunately, is very non-transparent, so it’s hard to figure out exactly what happened,” she told TPM.

This could be a coincidence (or partly a coincidence.) But whatever it is, it's a sad comment on this country. We're already way behind most other nations in national female representation and this will probably make it worse. If women are being run out of politics at the state level it's hard to see where the new blood for federal office comes from.

(This chart says we rank number 78. You have to scroll waaay down to find us.)

.
digby 5/24/2012 01:30:00 PM |

 
Penguins

by digby

West coast lunch break:

h/t to @sethdmichaels


.
digby 5/24/2012 12:30:00 PM |

 
Dissonance and hypocrisy: why so many Americans lie about what they believe

by digby

Amanda Marcotte takes a closer look at the new Gallup poll which shows that theterm "pro-choice" is losing ground as a self-identifier. (The data shows that people's views about abortion have changed little.) This is a very astute observation and one which I wish more poli-sci types would look into when they use polling to demonstrate this or that about the state of mind of the polity:

Polling Americans on vague beliefs and self-identity doesn't really tell us much in general beyond highlighting how delusional and/or hypocritical our nation is. The reality is that there's a huge gulf between what people claim to believe—even when speaking anonymously to a pollster—and what they actually believe, which is easier to measure when looking at behavior or what kind of policy choices they support. Gallup didn't just measure views on abortion this week, but also took a more general look at Americans' beliefs about various morally contentious issues, including sexual choices. While some of the answers are in alignment with people's actual behavior—nearly nine out of 10 Americans support the use of contraception, for instance—in some cases the gulf between what people actually believe and what they tell pollsters is comical. For instance, 38 percent of Americans say that sex between unmarried heterosexuals is wrong, but Guttmacher data demonstrates that 95 percent of Americans actually do the deed at some point. Even in the unlikely event that there's complete overlap between the "thou shall nots" and the "didn't dos," that still means one in three Americans is so invested in an image of themselves as an uptight prig that they will misrepresent themselves to a pollster who they know isn't attaching their name to the answers.

It's of course possible that one-third of our nation are swimming in daily guilt about their fornicating ways, but the likelier answer is that most of these people have rationalized their own choices while passing judgment on others. (Abortion providers see this all the time with self-identified pro-life patients, who usually have a reason why their abortion is the moral one.)

Religiosity is another example:

Two in five Americans say they regularly attend religious services. Upward of 90 percent of all Americans believe in God, pollsters report, and more than 70 percent have absolutely no doubt that God exists. The patron saint of Christmas, Americans insist, is the emaciated hero on the Cross, not the obese fellow in the overstuffed costume.

There is only one conclusion to draw from these numbers: Americans are significantly more religious than the citizens of other industrialized nations.

Except they are not.
[...]
There was an obvious clue (in hindsight) that the survey numbers were hugely inflated. Even as pundits theorized about why Americans were so much more religious than Europeans, quiet voices on the ground asked how, if so many Americans were attending services, the pews of so many churches could be deserted.

"If Americans are going to church at the rate they report, the churches would be full on Sunday mornings and denominations would be growing," wrote C. Kirk Hadaway, now director of research at the Episcopal Church. (Hadaway's research has included evangelical congregations, which reported sharp growth in recent decades.)
Hadaway and his colleagues compared actual attendance counts with church members' reports about their attendance in 18 Catholic dioceses across the country and Protestants in a rural Ohio county. * They found that actual "church attendance rates for Protestants and Catholics are approximately one half" of what people reported.

A few years later, another study estimated how often Americans attended church by asking them to minutely document how they spent their time on Sundays. Without revealing that they were interested in religious practices, researchers Stanley Presser and Linda Stinson asked questions along these lines: "I would like to ask you about the things you did yesterday from midnight Saturday to midnight last night. Let's start with midnight Saturday. What were you doing? What time did you finish? Where were you? What did you do next?"

This neutral interviewing method produced far fewer professions of church attendance. Compared to the "time-use" technique, Presser and Stinson found that nearly 50 percent more people claimed they attended services when asked the type of question that pollsters ask: "Did you attend religious services in the last week?"

In a more recent study, Hadaway estimated that if the number of Americans who told Gallup pollsters that they attended church in the last week were accurate, about 118 million Americans would be at houses of worship each week. By calculating the number of congregations (including non-Christian congregations) and their average attendance, Hadaway estimated that in reality about 21 percent of Americans attended religious services weekly—exactly half the number who told pollsters they did.

Finally, in a brand new paper, Philip Brenner at the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research compared self-reported attendance at religious services with "time-use" interviews in the United States, Canada, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Norway, Finland, Slovenia, Italy, Spain, Austria, Ireland, and Great Britain. Brenner looked at nearly 500 studies over four decades, involving nearly a million respondents.

Brenner found that the United States and Canada were outliers—not in religious attendance, but in overreporting religious attendance. Americans attended services about as often as Italians and Slovenians and slightly more than Brits and Germans. The significant difference between the two North American countries and other industrialized nations was the enormous gap between poll responses and time-use studies in those two countries.

I recall reading years ago that when they compared people's self-reported driving records to their claims of church attendance, they were clearly lying. We've known this for a while, but nobody wants to deal with it.

I think Amanda is right about many, if not most, Americans being moral hypocrites. And it's not just over abortion and religion. It also applies to their feelings toward government and the common good. (I have long had my own hypothesis about why that is, but YMMV.) Until someone figures out how to use this information properly, I suspect that we'll continue to be at the mercy of data that doesn't reflect reality and smart propaganda that knows how to exploit the dissonance.


.
digby 5/24/2012 11:00:00 AM |

 
The condemnation roundelay

by digby

I will happily join the Women's Media Center's condemnation of Hustler Magazine for the demeaning, sexually explicit depiction of SE Cupp in its pages. Nobody deserves that kind kind of treatment.

I was curious, however, to see if any of the right wing women's groups had likewise come to the defense of Sandra Fluke when Limbaugh went on his days long tantrum. Here's all I could find at Concerned Women for America:

In an election year gambit to unite women everywhere, feminists have launched the "Rock the Slut Vote" campaign.

Why, you ask? Their answer, "Our mission is to fight the GOP effort to bully, subjugate and silence women. We will wrest the power from the word slut and help women get informed, get involved, get registered and vote." (Seems to me it was the left trying to bully, subjugate, and silence Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, by calling them names far more offensive than "slut.")

According to the Daily Caller, "The previously not politically active study guide publisher, Susan McMillan Emry, started the group in early March following The Susan G. Komen for the Cure/Planned Parenthood controversy, an increase in pro-life legislation and radio giant Rush Limbaugh's controversial comments about contraception activist Sandra Fluke."

So, this is about the GOP having a difference of opinion with feminists. That would be the feminists who declare they don't need a man, while they are on Capitol Hill begging members of Congress (many of whom are men by the way) for money to support their sexual practices and resultant consequences of said sexual practices, which frequently occur with men. At least those that end up with a pregnancy. Once pregnant, these independent feminists need big daddy government or big daddy employer to step in and pay for their abortion. Of course, they claim if big daddy would provide them with contraception they might not need abortions too often.

They also mentioned it in this article condemning Bill Maher, referring to it as a "flub."

Too Much Hypocrisy in Limbaugh-Fluke Fight

Decrying Rush Limbaugh's recent Sandra Fluke flub while supporting comedian Bill Maher, who refers to conservative women as "Bimbos," is a pure double standard.

Other than that, nada. As far as I could tell Concerned Women of America didn't issue any kind of official condemnation of Limbaugh. And the unofficial criticisms were all prefaced by flowery paeans to Rush's overall wonderfulness.

There was a blogger at the Independent Women's Forum who expressed some discomfort with Limbaugh's words:

From listening to Rush, I know what point he wanted to make. He wanted to highlight the absurdity of women, under the banner of feminism, who want to be seen as independent as they try to force other people to pay for their choices and lifestyle. Painting yourself as a victim for having to figure out how to buy your own contraception, especially when you are enrolled at one of the nation's most prestigious law schools, is pretty difficult to mesh with the idea of true independence. Grossly exaggerating the costs of contraception invites jokes—childish to be sure—about how exactly one could run up such a tab.

But Rush shouldn't have resorted to name calling. He has much better ammo than that. He knows this, and he has apologized to Sandra Fluke, and to the public more broadly, and I believe those apologies are sincere.

That same blogger is demanding that the left step up to defend Cupp, although she doesn't think it will.

Another blogger said this:

Although I in general get a kick out of Rush, I didn’t care for his crude remark about Sandra Fluke either. (I have a thing about chivalry.) But the feminist troika is calling for the FCC to suppress Limbaugh. At one point, they describe Limbaugh as “hiding” behind the First Amendment!

Citing the scarcity of radio bandwith, Steinem, Morgan, and Fonda creepily wonder if letting Limbaugh, who brightens the day for millions, speaks is “in the public interest.” When they admonish the FCC that broadcasters should “serve their respective communities,” what they are talking about is getting a public agency to make sure people who don't agree with them aren't able to express their opinions on the radio.

And the Executive Director did publish this in the Hill:

Let’s be clear: There is no war on women. And it’s time to tone down the rhetoric.

Neither Democrats nor Republicans are actually attacking women. Calls for government-run, cradle-to-grave policies — from either the right or the left — are bad for women and their families; but they’re a far cry from an assault on women.

Ted Nugent’s (most recent) inflammatory comments, in which he referred to Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Nancy Pelosi as “varmints,” ought to be condemned — and forcefully. This kind of rhetoric — whether it’s from Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann or Rush Limbaugh — is not only repulsive, but also distracting.

I'm not sure I even know what that means, but whatever. (They had a lot to say about Sandra Fluke being wrong about everything.)

Michelle Malkin did come through, however:

I’ll tell you why Rush was wrong. Young Sandra Fluke of Georgetown Law is not a “slut.” She’s a moocher and a tool of the Nanny State. She’s a poster girl for the rabid Planned Parenthood lobby and its eugenics-inspired foremothers.

So there you have it. The funny thing is that I don't recall anyone specifically demanding that they condemn Limbaugh.(They might have, I just couldn't find it.) But then I suppose everyone knew it was a waste of time.

Calls to disavow and condemn are something we commonly do in our politics. (It's one of my least favorite tactics, frankly.) But I hope nobody thinks it works the same way on both sides. The difference here, in case you haven't figured it out, is that there is no one on the left who would defend Hustler's misogyny on the merits. Limbaugh had no problem finding millions of defenders, even among women who could barely find even a throwaway sentence to condemn him. Liberals will never win in the condemnation roundelay. The two sides play by different rules.


.
digby 5/24/2012 09:30:00 AM |

 
Rights are rights. Blowback is irrelevant.

by David Atkins

Marriage equality advocate Mae Kuykendall writes an op-ed in the New York Times demonstrating the key element, that has gone wrong with liberalism over the last 30 years. She argues, essentially, the the Supreme Court should thread the needle on the coming challenges to marriage discrimination laws by forcing states to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, without requiring those states to perform the ceremonies themselves:

Some observers expect the court to dodge the issue. They assume that the best that can be hoped for is a long period of legal skirmishes that will gradually chip away at states’ denial of the rights and privileges of gay couples who marry where it is legal to do so. But a protracted and agonizing battle would not be good for anyone.

I happen to believe that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. But I also believe that the court isn’t ready to go that far. Directly mandating that states rewrite their laws to allow same-sex marriages (and that county clerks issue marriage licenses to gay couples) would risk the kind of backlash that followed court-ordered school desegregation in the 1950s.

In contrast, a more limited ruling that forbade states from voiding other states’ marriages would recognize equality as a fundamental norm of citizenship while also speaking to values, like fairness and neighborliness, that are often obscured by anti-marriage ballot initiatives. An example of this can be found in Wyoming, where Republican legislators defeated a bill last year that would have prohibited recognition of out-of-state marriages.

One can empathize a little with Ms. Kuykendall's desire to find an outcome that might allow conservatives to save face and avoid a major backlash. But it's deeply misguided.

Rights are rights. That's why they're called "rights." One might wish they were enforced globally, but the limitations of power structures usually prevent that, at least at this point in human history. So insofar as our courts have jurisdiction, we expect them to enforce rights within our borders.

Imagine the contempt we would have today for an opinion writer who used the same logic for interracial marriage that Ms. Kuykendall does on same-sex marriage. Did Loving v. Virginia create a backlash, especially in certain states I'll politely refuse to characterize? Yes, of course it did. Was it the right thing to do, anyway? Of course it was. Did the locals view it as the tyranny of a federal power intervening in business that it didn't belong in, obliterating decent God-fearing local customs at the point of a federal marshal's gun? I guess so. Too damn bad. Rights are rights, and local prejudices don't get to determine who has rights and who doesn't. If we had the civil rights era to do all over again, knowing that the Civil Rights Act would usher in two generations of Reaganomics delivered at the hands of racists and their puppeteers, would we do anything differently? No, we wouldn't. Some principles are worth fighting for, and applying as universally as possible.

And if that means the regressive localities in question decide to wage a culture war and deliver blowback to the more progressive ones? Too damn bad. We'll do without their votes, and drag them kicking and screaming into the 21st century, anyway.

That's been the progressive program in the modern era ever since at least the late 19th century. The victories are never easy. There's usually blowback, mostly political but also violent at times. And in the long run it's worth the cost. The left broadly speaking used to understand that. I wonder if it still does.


.
thereisnospoon 5/24/2012 07:30:00 AM |

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

 
Sponsor a uterus in need

by digby

Help free women from the burden of making their own decisions.




.
digby 5/23/2012 06:00:00 PM |

 
PoMo conservative revisionism

by digby

This makes my head hurt so much I just want to crawl into bed and drink Nyquil. Apparently, Kevin Williamson at National Review is seriously trying to make the stupid argument that the Republicans have always been the party of civil rights and that nothing's ever happened to change that.

Ed Kilgore explains the truth to him:

Prior to 1964, southern white Republicans were a hardy minority built on the Mountain Republicanism of regions that had opposed the Confederacy and middle-class business-oriented city-dwellers. While neither faction was loudly racist, nor were they champions of civil rights, either. Not all Democrats were virulently racist, but the virulent racists were all Democrats. As V.O. Key demonstrated in his classic study, Southern Politics, the most race-sensitive white southerners, centered in the Black Belt regions of the Deep South, stuck with the White Man’s Party even as other southerners defected to the GOP in 1920 (over Prohibition) and 1928 (over Prohibition and Al Smith’s Catholicism). In 1948, these same racists heavily defected to the Dixiecrats in a protest against the national Party’s growing commitment to civil rights. They mostly returned to the Democrats after that uprising, until 1964, when they voted almost universally for Barry Goldwater, purely and simply because Goldwater had opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Four years later most of them voted for the race-centered candidacy of George Wallace, and four years after that just about every one of them voted for Richard Nixon. These were not people attracted to the GOP, when they were, because it was “pro-civil rights,” as Williamson asserts, or because they favored that party on any other issue. It was all about race, which is why, for example, the GOP percentage of the presidential vote veered insanely in Mississippi from 25% in 1960 to 87% in 1964 to 14% in 1968 to 78% in 1972.

Jimmy Carter (who was endorsed by Wallace and most other surviving Democratic ex-segregationists) got a lot of those voters back for the obvious reason of regional pride, and after that issues other than civil rights did matter in the region, though the racial polarization of the two parties was evident from the beginning in Mississippi and eventually spread elsewhere. But however you slice it, the idea that Barry Goldwater in 1964 was viewed by white southerners as anything other than the direct descendent of the Dixiecrats is just ridiculous. Sure, issues other than civil rights buttressed GOP strength in the region later on, but it would not have happened if the GOP had not also rapidly become the party most hostile towards or indifferent to civil rights. It’s also worth mentioning that among the Republicans who were notably interested in civil rights in and after 1964, none of them were southerners.

Also too, the sun came up yesterday and we have a long border with Canada. Plus gravity. This is not in dispute. There is no controversy. There isn't even a slightly different interpretation. It is what happened, period.

I used to write a lot about PoMo conservatism and epistemic relativism or just plain old Bizarroworld politics. Rewriting history is part of all that. In order to create an alternate reality it's important to re-imagine a past that led to it. And I think that the more blatantly dishonest it is, the better. People have to really strain to accept it and that makes it more emotionally valuable.

Fundamentally dishonest crackpots like Ann Coulter always say this stuff.



But I've come to realize that it has a bigger purpose than just being a gadfly and getting under liberals' skin. These people lay the groundwork for an alternative history which, when their followers finally hear it espoused by someone like Kevin Williamson, sounds like something they've always known.

That's just sad.

.
digby 5/23/2012 04:30:00 PM |

 
Plastic Progress

by David Atkins

Progress often happens in bits and spurts:

Los Angeles became the largest city in the nation Wednesday to approve a ban on plastic bags at supermarket checkout lines, handing a major victory to clean-water advocates who sought to reduce the amount of trash clogging landfills, the region’s waterways and the ocean.

Egged on by actress Julia Louis-Dreyfus and an array of environmental groups, the City Council voted 13 to 1 to phase out plastic bags over the next 12 months at an estimated 7,500 stores. Councilman Bernard Parks cast the lone no vote.

"Let’s get the message to Sacramento that it’s time to go statewide," said Councilman Ed Reyes, who has focused on efforts to revitalize the Los Angeles River.

Council members quietly backed away from a more controversial plan to also ban use of paper grocery bags, which was first proposed by appointees of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

A bill authored by Assemblymember Julia Brownley to institute a similar ban statewide was narrowly shot down due to the heavy influence of corporate interests.

Brownley against now running for Congress in California's 26th district, one of the most watched Congressional districts in the country. Her biggest opponent is professional centrist Linda Parks, about whom I've written here before.

If you can, please consider sending some help Brownley's way so that we can help get a solid progressive Democrat to Congress. One who actually believes in progress.


.
thereisnospoon 5/23/2012 03:00:00 PM |

 
Tweety Revisionism

by digby

Oh my Dear God:

Reporting from the big cable TV industry event this week, Broadcasting & Cable's Andrea Morabito writes (5/22/12):

Hardball host Chris Matthews argued that because of the rise of opinion-based news networks, the non-critical aspect of the media is gone, going as far to say that the reporting that verified the U.S. administration's claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in 2002 would not happen today because of cable news.

"I would like to think there would be a reckoning we didn’t have then because of modern media," Matthews said. "24/7 is good because it's not only breadth, it's depth. Without cable, it is just network [television] thinking, embedded thinking, which is dangerous in a democracy."

Umm… He's aware of the fact that cable news channels existed in 2002, right?

I just don't know what to say. The article at FAIR has some good examples of the "embedded thinking" of cable news during that period.

I'll add these:

"We're all neo-cons now."
(MSNBC's Chris Matthews, 4/9/03)

"We're proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who's physical, who's not a complicated guy like Clinton or even like Dukakis or Mondale, all those guys, McGovern. They want a guy who's president. Women like a guy who's president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. It's simple. We're not like the Brits."
(MSNBC's Chris Matthews, 5/1/03)

"Why don't the damn Democrats give the president his day? He won today. He did well today."
(MSNBC's Chris Matthews, 4/9/03)

"He [Saddam Hussein] actually thought that he could stop us and win the debate worldwide. But he didn't--he didn't bargain on a two- or three week war. I actually thought it would be less than two weeks."
(NBC reporter Fred Francis, Chris Matthews Show, 4/13/03)

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.


.
digby 5/23/2012 02:00:00 PM |

 
GOP takeover: The Randroid Generation

by digby

One thing about Ayn Rand's influence is that, for the most part, it tends to wane as people grow up and wise up. But until they do, they tend to be insufferably single minded and painfully aggressive about it.

So, does this seem like a good idea?

Armed with an inherited fortune and a devotion to Ron Paul, John Ramsey, a 21-year-old college student from Nacogdoches, Tex., plunged into a little-watched Republican House primary in Northern Kentucky this spring to promote his version of freedom.

More than $560,000 later, Mr. Ramsey’s chosen standard-bearer, Thomas H. Massie, a Republican, cruised to victory Tuesday in the race to select a successor to Representative Geoff Davis, a Republican who is retiring.

The saturation advertising campaign waged by Mr. Ramsey’s “super PAC,” Liberty for All, may be the most visible manifestation of a phenomenon catching the attention of Republicans from Maine to Nevada.

With their favorite having lost the nomination for president, Mr. Paul’s dedicated band of youthful supporters is looking down-ballot and swarming lightly guarded Republican redoubts like state party conventions in an attempt to infiltrate the top echelons of the party.

“Karl Rove’s fear-and-smear-style Republicans are going to wake up at the end of the year and realize we are now in control of the Republican Party,” said Preston Bates, a Democrat-turned-Paulite who is running Liberty for All for Mr. Ramsey...

Paulite candidates for Congress are sprouting up from Florida to Virginia to Colorado, challenging sitting Republicans and preaching the gospel of radically smaller government, an end to the Federal Reserve, restraints on Bush-era antiterrorism laws and a pullback from foreign military adventures.

It would be nice to have some allies in the GOP on the last two items, so perhaps this could have a positive effect. But further radicalizing the party on taxes and budget cutting would be almost insane. And having 21 year old Randroid heirs to large fortunes buy elections is even more insane.

And once again I have to ask, why do they all choose the Republican party? There isn't even one civil liberties, anti-war elected official in the Party and barely any GOP voters who agree with them on those issues. There are a handful of elected Democrats and tons of voters on the left who do. And even if Democrats are guilty of the same sins as Republicans, meaning that they would not end wars any sooner, why assume they wouldn't be happy to shrink government and cut taxes? There are many more Dems who are on the austerity bandwagon than there are Republicans who want to cut military spending.

I think we know the answer. They have prioritized their concerns and they believe Republicans are more likely to follow through on their primary issues, which are low taxes and small government. The foreign policy piece is simply less important. It must be. Nobody would join the Republican Party if shrinking America's military empire was what they really cared about. The Democrats may be warmongers too, but it's definitional in the modern GOP. You have as much chance of changing that as you would have declaring the US is a Muslim nation.


.
digby 5/23/2012 12:30:00 PM |

 
Jackbooted Attendants

by digby

I can see a rationale for allowing airlines to kick people they suspect might be physicially dangerous off of planes. But what can possibly be the explanation for this?

[O]n the plane of the first leg of my flight home, I spent the majority of [time] sleeping, using my shawl as a blanket. Right before we were set to land the flight attendant from first class approaches me and asks if I had a connecting flight? We were running a bit behind schedule, so I figured I was being asked this to be sure I would make my connecting flight. She then proceeded to tell me that I needed to speak with the captain before disembarking the plane and that the shirt I was wearing was offensive.

The shirt was gray with the wording, "If I wanted the government in my womb, I'd fuck a senator." I must also mention that when I boarded the plane, I was one of the first groups to board (did not pass by many folks). I was wearing my shawl just loosely around my neck and upon sitting down in my seat the lady next to me, who was already seated, praised me for wearing the shirt.

When I was leaving the plane the captain stepped off with me and told me I should not have been allowed to board the plane in DC and needed to change before boarding my next flight. This conversation led to me missing my connecting flight. I assumed that because I was held up by the captain, they would have called ahead to let the connecting flight know I was in route. Well, upon my hastened arrival at the gate of the connecting flight, it was discovered that they did indeed call ahead but not to hold the flight, only to tell them I needed to change my shirt. I was given a seat on the next flight and told to change shirts.

Due to the fact that my luggage was checked, changing shirts without spending money wasn't an option. I consulted a friend with a law background who told me covering with my shawl would suffice. Upon boarding the now rescheduled flight with shawl covering my shirt, my ticket dinged invalid. I was pulled to the side while the gentleman entered some codes into the computer and then told, "it was all good." I did finally arrive home to pick up my daughter an hour and a half later than scheduled.

I find it very hard to believe this is standard procedure for anyone who has the word "fuck" on his or her t-shirt. In fact, I know it isn't since the last time I was traveling I sat next to a kid who had a "fuck you I'm from Philly" t-shirt on. Nobody said anything.

If American Airlines thought it was the word that was offensive, you'd think they would have simply told her to cover it up instead of personally harassing her and demanding that she change the shirt. (And why was the pilot involved in that?) So I'm guessing it was more the message than the word. And the last I heard, the Airline exemption from free speech only applies to threats. I don't think there have been any pro-choice groups crashing airliners recently.

You have to wonder if they have decided to police all political speech, leaving it up to the discretion of the pilot, attendant or whomever objects to it. Do you suppose they would have kicked someone off the plane for wearing a shirt that said this?

Update: Apparently AA's rules do state that they can kick off any passenger who is "clothed in a manner that would cause discomfort or offense to other passengers." No word on who decides what that might be. I guess it's left to the individual attendant or pilot to decide. Good to know. Best keep all opinions to yourself when you're flying.

Once again, I'm reminded how airplane travel is now training for good little citizens who ask no questions and immediately do exactly what they're told by anyone in a uniform. I can't recall where I read it, but apparently Europeans often wonder what's wrong with Americans who just start stripping and removing their shoes before they go through security in foreign airports. They don't even question it, just start doing it like trained seals, even if nobody around them is doing the same thing.


h/t to @ImprimereLLC
.
digby 5/23/2012 11:08:00 AM |

 
So it's not just bleating in to the void

by digby

This can't possibly be right. Everyone knows the bully pulpit is a total myth and nobody with a thought in their head would ever dream that something the president said could ever make a difference in anything:

Public opinion continues to shift in favor of same-sex marriage, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, which also finds initial signs that President Obama’s support for the idea may have changed a few minds.

Overall, 53 percent of Americans say gay marriage should be legal, hitting a high mark in support while showing a dramatic turnaround from just six years ago, when just 36 percent thought it should be legal. Thirty-nine percent, a new low, say gay marriage should be illegal.

Interesting. I wonder if the president properly explaining the government's role in the economy would make any difference.Who knows, maybe it could change a few minds too. Couldn't hurt anyway. At the very least it could make people question the wisdom of deficit reduction as a logical response to a recession or the necessity of slashing the safety net for the future good.

They're certainly not going to get the whole story from the other side:

To Whom It May Concern:

Erskine Bowles and I thoroughly enjoyed our time on the West Coast and received an excellent reception from folks — at least those who are using their heads and have given up using emotion, fear, guilt or racism to juice up their troops. Your little flyer entitled “Bowles! Simpson! Stop using the deficit as a phony excuse to gut our Social Security!” is one of the phoniest excuses for a “flyer” I have ever seen.

You use the faces of young people, who are the ones who are going to get gutted while you continue to push out your blather and drivel. My suggestion to you — an honest one — read the damn report. The Moment of Truth — 67 pages, and then tell me if we’re not doing the right thing with Social Security. What a wretched group of seniors you must be to use the faces of the very people that we are trying to save, while the “greedy geezers” like you use them as a tool and a front for your nefarious bunch of crap.

You must feel some sense of shame for shoveling out this bulls**t. Read the latest news from the Social Security Trustees. The Social Security System will not “hit the skids” in 2033 instead of 2036. If you can’t understand all of this you need a pane of glass in your naval so you can see out during the day! Read the report. Get back to me. My address is below.

If you don’t read the report, — as Ebenezer Scrooge said in the Christmas Carol, “Haunt me no longer!”
Best regards,
Alan Simpson

Or this, which is even more bizarre and frightening:

PAUL RYAN: What we’re saying is let’s get on growth and prevent austerity. The whole premise of our budget is to pre-empt austerity by getting our borrowing under control, having tax reform for economic growth, and preventing Medicare and Social Security and Medicaid from going bankrupt. That pre-empts austerity. The president, his budget, the fact the Senate hasn’t done a budget in three years, puts us on a path towards European-like austerity. That’s what we’re trying to prevent from happening in the first place.

These are crazy people. Somebody with a very big megaphone needs to counter what they are saying. Up until now, it hasn't been the president (at least with any consistency.) Maybe the need to "change a few minds" will focus his attention. If it worked on something as fraught with tension as gay marriage, who knows what it might do to change people's misconceptions about deficits in order to preserve social programs they already don't want slashed?

Update: Dday has a good post today about the president's rhetoric on business experience. If the campaign doesn't get pressured by the Village into abandoning it, it could do some good.

.
.

digby 5/23/2012 09:15:00 AM |

 
We must drown this government to save it

by David Atkins

I guess we're supposed to be celebrating this now:



See? Republicans are lying! Democrats aren't the tax-and-spend liberals the mean Republicans say we are! And look at all these graphs that prove it!

Pretty soon if Democrats shrink the government sector enough, the tide of public opinion will finally turn and we'll be seen as the responsible, thrifty party. Maybe we can even shrink it small enough to fit in a bathtub! After which Cory Booker can have a champagne toast with new economy job creators like Jamie Dimon.

And boy oh boy, when we do, and those independent voters in Missouri finally notice how responsible we are for cutting discretionary spending to near zero, then Democrats will surely win more elections. And then won't mean old Grover Norquist be mad, I tell ya!

Of course, the only thing that might endanger that happy dream would be spending valuable DNC dollars defending labor's last stand in places like Wisconsin. That would be divisive and might get in the way of winning over undecideds in those all-important right-to-work states.

It all makes sense, if only you position your head just so...


.
thereisnospoon 5/23/2012 07:30:00 AM |

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

 
That transformative air

by digby


The problem with everything:

“Progressives are livid,” said one senior Democratic strategist who, like everyone we talked to for this story, requested anonymity to talk about the matter. “Cory already had the Wall Street crowd and already had a reputation as an independent thinker. He just created a lot of questions amongst folks he would need in any future Democratic primary.”

And yet, there are plenty of people in the Democratic professional political class who see Booker’s actions over the last three days as less crazy and more crazy like a fox.

“Whatever race he chooses next will be an eight-figure campaign, and in the New York market, it’s political suicide to write off Wall Street money,” said one Democratic consultant. “He’s no stranger to Wall Street but he also has this transformative air about him that makes straddling this divide possible.”

That's Village scribe Chriz Cilizza, succinctly laying out in three short paragraphs why politics is fucked.


.


.
digby 5/22/2012 06:00:00 PM |

 
Government slowly committing suicide

by digby


This ad from Karl Rove is pretty clever ... and it's a winner for the Republicans, even if they lose the presidential election, because it perpetuates the myth that spending and deficits caused the recession:

Unfortunately, since the Democrats refuse to counter this myth --- even going so far as to brag about their own record of cutting spending in the midst of an historic downturn --- it will go on in perpetuity. Everyone will continue to believe that deficits are the cause of all our woes and that the most important thing we can do in an economic catastrophe is curtail government spending. (Of course, we are also supposed to curtail spending in a boom because "it's your money!")

Many Americans will believe the story in that ad. And they'll keep believing it until someone tells them otherwise, which means that the government is not getting small enough so that Grover Norquist can drown it in the bathtub. It's drowning itself.


.
digby 5/22/2012 04:30:00 PM |

 
Dumbing it down

by David Atkins

If you had an inkling that political discourse was getting dumbed down by the day, it appears you were right:

The Sunlight Foundation determined that Congress is talking at nearly a full grade level below the level at which members spoke seven years ago, according to its study of the Congressional Record—the official record of members' proceedings and speech. The foundation applied the Flesch-Kincaid grade level test to congressional conversations and found that today's Congress speaks "at about a 10.6 grade level, down from 11.5 in 2005," senior fellow Lee Drutman wrote in his analysis. Sunlight also found that the newest as well as the most conservative members of Congress on average speak at the lowest grade level.

Is it a surprise that all the new Tea Partiers are dumbing down the discourse? No, it isn't. But then, that may be part of the reason they were successful. Strategists often note that Democrats speak more to the brain than to heart, while Republicans do the reverse. Part of speaking to the heart means speaking in language that most people can understand. The article's accompanying chart, meanwhile, shows that Democrats have also been vulgarizing their speeches, just not as dramatically as Republicans.

So maybe the drop in linguistic register is a good thing for democracy. But I can't help feeling that when the political discourse of the highest lawmaking body in the land drops down to a 10th grade level, we lose something vital to democracy in the process.

Of course, as long as all the legislation is written by the lobbyists, anyway, I guess it doesn't much matter what's in the speeches.


.
thereisnospoon 5/22/2012 03:00:00 PM |

 
Respect for he badge

by digby

Some people have seen way too many movies

I will never understand the homoerotic rape scenarios these authoritarians always seem to gravitate toward, but it's so common (think Abu Ghraib) that I think it must be a huge part of the pathology.

In any case, here's a bit of the transcript if you can't follow it on the video:

New York Police Sergeant Lesly Charles told the man, who was getting harassed for parking illegally, that he didn’t mind the “hustling” as long as he paid him respect.

“I have the long d--k. You don’t,” the cop bragged.

“Your pretty face — I like it very much. My d--k will go in your mouth and come out your ear. Don’t f--k with me. All right?”

After the target of his tirade insisted, “I didn’t do anything,” Charles retorted, “Listen to me. When you see me, you look the other way. Tell your boys, I don’t f--k around. All right?”

“I’ll take my gun and put it up your a-- and then I’ll call your mother afterwards. You understand that?”

For good measure, the sergeant added: “And I’ll put your s--t in your own mouth.”

oy.

.
digby 5/22/2012 01:00:00 PM |

 
"The FBI had a file on him when he was 14 years old"

by digby

Alan Grayson endorsed Norman Solomon yesterday. Did he ever:

I have five children. Sometimes I try to explain to them what it was like to live in America in the Sixties and Seventies. When the federal government listened in on phone conversations of civil rights leaders, and bugged their homes. When the President of the United States and his henchmen plotted to kill a reporter, Jack Anderson. When one major party burglarized the headquarters of the other major party. When the National Guard shot and killed college students. When rioting prisoners were picked off and killed by marksmen with rifle scopes.

There is one candidate for Congress this year who knows all about that. Because the FBI had a file on him. When he was 14 years old.

Here is how Solomon describes how it came about that the FBI opened a file on him when he was 14:

“I’d heard that some people were protesting at an all-white apartment complex close by, near the D.C. border, named Summit Hills. I was just a kid, but I’d figured out that segregation was wrong. So I picked up a sign, and joined the picket line.”

And that, ladies and gentlemen, was enough in 1966 to label you a “subversive,” and put you under FBI surveillance.

But what’s important now is that Norman Solomon showed what he was made of, at the age of 14.

Support someone who doesn’t just talk the talk, but someone who walks the walk. Someone who has been walking in picket lines and protest marches for the past 46 years. Someone whom J. Edgar Hoover wouldn’t like at all. Someone named Norman Solomon.

A lot of people who have been working in progressive causes for almost half a century are too tired, too burnt out, to run for Congress. But not Norman Solomon. He still has the energy, and the drive, and the conscience, to make a difference in Congress.

Tuesday, June 5th is what Blue America is calling its "Super Tuesday", when several extremely important primary races will be decided. In fact, early voting has begun in California and Norman's running to replace progressive stalwart Lynn Woolsey in the second district just above San Francisco.

We don't need to tell you again what an amazing person Norman is. His progressive resume spans 30 years as an activist and media critic and an elected official. He's been endorsed by the most committed progressives in the nation. His good friend and longtime colleague Jeff Cohen, co-founder of FAIR, is one of them. In a recent impassioned endorsement, he explained why this particular race is so important:

Getting to a bloc of 25 genuine, principled progressives in Congress is attainable. What’s needed is a strategy and resources to develop candidates in dozens of solidly progressive congressional districts nationwide: black, Latino, college town, liberal urban, etc. When an incumbent Democrat sells-out or leaves office, activists in such a district should be able to call upon national organizational and netroots support to get a 100% progressive into Congress. Once elected by the grassroots in such districts, it’s hard for corporate or conservative forces to ever get them out. Think Bernie Sanders. Think Barbara Lee.

Think Blue America. Think Norman Solomon -- a progressive leader with a lifetime of liberal activism representing a deep blue district, unencumbered by obligation to business or the Democratic establishment. This is how we build our bloc.

We don't have to worry about a bunch of Republicans and ConservaDems demanding "centrism" in the second district of California. It's a place filled with voters who will support liberal policies and reward political courage. It's a seat that rightfully belongs to a leader of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

Ask yourself, if not Norman Solomon, then who? If not in a deep blue district that believes in progressive values, then where? If not now, when?

If you haven't given any money yet this year or if you planned to give a little more, please consider donating to Norman Solomon.

Watch Norman take Glenn Beck downtown. Wouldn't you like to see him and Grayson in congress together?

digby 5/22/2012 11:00:00 AM |

 
Austerian vampires

by digby

For those who still think the US escaped austerity these past few years, perhaps this will finally clear it up:

Before Obama had even lifted a finger, the CBO was already projecting that the federal deficit would rise to $1.2 trillion in fiscal 2009. The government actually spent less money in 2009 than it was projected to, but the deficit expanded to $1.4 trillion because revenue from taxes fell much further than expected, due to the weak economy and the emergency tax cuts that were part of the stimulus bill.

The projected deficit for the 2010-13 period has grown from an expected $1.7 trillion in January 2009 to $4.4 trillion today. Lower-than-forecast revenue accounts for 73% of the $2.7 trillion increase in the expected deficit. That’s assuming that the Bush and Obama tax cuts are repealed completely.

When Obama took the oath of office, the $789 billion bank bailout had already been approved. Federal spending on unemployment benefits, food stamps and Medicare was already surging to meet the dire unemployment crisis that was well under way. See the CBO’s January 2009 budget outlook.

Obama is not responsible for that increase, though he is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill, from the expansion of the children’s’ health-care program and from other appropriations bills passed in the spring of 2009.

If we attribute that $140 billion in stimulus to Obama and not to Bush, we find that spending under Obama grew by about $200 billion over four years, amounting to a 1.4% annualized increase.

After adjusting for inflation, spending under Obama is falling at a 1.4% annual pace — the first decline in real spending since the early 1970s, when Richard Nixon was retreating from the quagmire in Vietnam.

In per-capita terms, real spending will drop by nearly 5% from $11,450 per person in 2009 to $10,900 in 2013 (measured in 2009 dollars).

And that's just the Federal government. States are even worse.

Now the Democrats seem to think this is a good thing, something to be proud of. And the Republicans are just lying through their teeth insisting that the administration has been throwing dollars around like drunken sailors. But the truth is that for a number of political and ideological reasons, the United States has been practicing austerity.

And it's having the same effect that Keynesian economists predicted. By trying to cut the deficit in a recession, you end up making it worse. As Krugman memorably put it:

"Austerity-loving pundits and policy makers really are like medieval doctors who believed in treating illness by bleeding their patients, making the patients even sicker, leading to more bleeding".

h/t to groobiecat

digby 5/22/2012 09:30:00 AM |