Hullabaloo

Sunday, August 05, 2012

 
QOTD: David Siegel

by digby

David and Jackie have been surprised by the criticism of their lifestyle. “So much negativity. You would think they would be happy for someone living the American dream,” Jackie says. … As for the notion that the divide between the wealthy and everyone else is grotesquely wide, David says: “There’s always been rich and poor, the 1 percent and the 99 percent.” And then he adds, “It’s like a prison. If you only have prisoners and no guards, you’d have chaos.”

Right. Well, at least we know we're free.

That comes from the ertswhile "King of Versailles" via Jonathan Schwartz, who also notes this charming tid-bit from Bloomberg:

A lot of people are wondering how much influence a few rich businessmen will have on the presidential election. The rich businessmen might be wondering, too. But mostly they’re not talking about it. There’s one exception: David Siegel…In [The Queen of Versailles], Siegel says that he was personally responsible for the election of George W. Bush in 2000…

Here’s Siegel’s account of how he swung the election in Bush’s favor: “Whenever I saw a negative article about [Al] Gore, I put it in with the paychecks of my 8,000 employees. I had my managers do a survey on every employee. If they liked Bush, we made them register to vote. But not if they liked Gore. The week before [the election] we made 80,000 phone calls through my call center – they were robo-calls. On Election Day, we made sure everyone who was voting for Bush got to the polls. I didn’t know he would win by 527 votes. Afterward, we did a survey among the employees to find out who voted who wouldn’t have otherwise. One thousand of them said so.”

Click over to A Tiny Revolution for the whole story and a truly amazing Youtube about the movie.

.
digby 8/05/2012 09:30:00 AM |

 
Cruel and unusual punishment just for dying

by David Atkins

Reading stories like this makes me want to destroy random inanimate objects:

"My husband has repeatedly asked me to give him a gun, he has asked me to shoot him, and he repeatedly begs to die."

This came to me Wednesday afternoon in an email from a Northern California woman.

"All I can do is give him the prescribed doses of morphine provided and hope it's enough to enable him to let go," said Sandy Wester, whose 71-year-old husband, Donald — Donnie she called him — was in hospice care, with cancer spreading through his body. His dignity was gone, he had many of the same needs as an infant, and the long days brought nothing but anguish.

Wester wrote to say she had followed my accounts of my father's death and was incensed by my July 22 column about the arrest of an 87-year-old Palm Springs man. Bill Bentinck was locked up for three days on suspicion of murder after his terminally ill wife removed her nasal oxygen catheter to speed death along. Bentinck, who quietly allowed her to pass, was held on $1-million bail but was later released without charges.

I called Wester as soon as I got the email, and she described the scene playing out in her cabin in the Sierra foothills. Donnie, who hadn't eaten in days, was trying to lift himself off the bed, angry that death was making him wait so long.

"He's flipping a chair," Sandy said, describing a light, plastic lawn chair next to the bed. "He's saying, 'Why can't I just die?'"

Why not, indeed? Where is the concern for "liberty" we so often hear from the right wing in cases like these?

Donnie's line, according to Sandy, was that he wanted to wake up dead, meaning that if physician-assisted death wasn't possible, he wanted to die in his sleep. Weeks of misery at the end of a good life "was not the way he wanted to go, and I think we need to have more control over the dying process," Sandy said.

"My God," said Sandy's friend Sue, "we put our dogs down because they've got a terminal illness or can't breathe or walk or whatever. But we make a human being … suffer."

Sandy said Donnie had recently backed off his requests that she go fetch a pistol, but only because he didn't want her to have to "clean him up."

On Wednesday night, he fell out of bed and the fire department came to help Sandy lift him. On Thursday morning, he was barely hanging on.

"At 5:30, he laid there and that's when the horrible breathing started," she said of the death rattle that often signals the end is near. "And then it got worse. Oh my God, it was horrible."

She used the word "barbaric" to describe the way Donnie died, and it's not the first time I've heard that very description from a Californian wondering why we don't have the same end-of-life options that residents of Oregon, Washington and Montana do. The answer is that religious organizations — chief among them the Catholic Church — and some medical associations have derailed such efforts in the past.

Revolting. Conservatism in all its forms, but especially in its most backward social forms, is responsible for untold misery and suffering. If only the eternity of suffering truly awaited them in equal exchange for the pain they cause others.

.
thereisnospoon 8/05/2012 07:30:00 AM |

Saturday, August 04, 2012

 

Saturday Night at the Movies

Angst in my pants

By Dennis Hartley

Lowered expectations: Blair and Gelber in Dark Horse

“Why does one decide to marry? Social pressure? Boredom? Loneliness? Sexual appeasement? Love? I won't put any of these reasons down...Last year, I married a musician who wanted to get married in order to stop masturbating…He is now separated, still masturbating, but he is at peace with himself because he tried society's way.”
-from Little Murders (screenplay by Jules Feiffer)


Todd Solondz loves to make his audience uncomfortable. I can’t imagine anyone sitting through a film like Welcome to the Dollhouse, Happiness or Storytelling without squirming in their seat, grinding their teeth or occasionally putting their hand over their eyes and daring themselves to peek. And what is it that the viewer is afraid of looking at? It’s not what you may think. It’s not an axe murderer, lurking in the closet. It’s not someone being doused with gasoline and set ablaze or having their fingernails pulled out one by one. No, it’s much, much worse than that. Because there is nothing that human beings fear coming face to face with more than...human nature. Or the Truth. Because the Truth is…life is nothing like the movies. Paradoxically, Solondz’s films are a lot like life.

Refreshingly, his latest film, Dark Horse, does not induce the usual amount of squirming and grinding and daring yourself to peek. Not that it lacks the dark comedic flourishes that have become the director’s stock in trade, but it actually toys with sweetness and light. Sort of a twisty, postmodern art house re-imagining of Marty, the story centers on Abe (Jordan Gelber), a portly thirty-something nudnik who lives with his parents (Christopher Walken and Mia Farrow, worth the price of admission right there). Abe works for his father, collects action figures and doesn’t have any aspirations. You sense in Abe an undercurrent of angst and desperation, likely exacerbated by constant doting from his over-protective mother and verbal drubbing from his hyper-critical father. Abe also harbors a seething resentment toward his brother (Justin Bartha), a successful doctor.

Yes, Abe is a man-child…in the most petulant, cringe-worthy sense (which makes him a typical Solondz protagonist). Yet, he sees himself as a catch; a “dark horse” waiting to be discovered by some lucky lady (perhaps one who finds a delusional thirty-something man who works for his dad, collects toys and lives with his parents to be devastatingly attractive). Still, Abe registers genuine surprise when Miranda (Selma Blair), a lovely thirty-something woman he meets at a wedding, gives him her phone number after a few minutes of meaningless chatter. Of course, there is a catch. She’s completely nuts (and lives with her parents, too). She’s so profoundly depressed (and heavily medicated) that she can barely hold a conversation. However, she is startled from her psychotropic haze when Abe proposes marriage during their first date (“You’re not being ironic…like performance art or something?” she asks). Abe assures her that he is being dead serious.

From this point onward, the viewer begins to wonder if maybe it is the filmmaker who is being ironic…like performance art or something? Without giving too much away, we become uncertain whether some events are occurring in the protagonist’s reality, or in his imagination. Gelber (who reminds me of the late Jack Weston) imbues his troubled character with enough vulnerability to invite empathy, yet spikes the punch with a fair amount of edgy unpredictability (lest we get too comfortable). Blair slyly pinpoints the sweet spot between funny and sad with her deadpan performance, and Walken’s magnificently gauche toupee deserves its own star billing. Solondz has fashioned something akin to a modern Jewish morality tale, in the tradition of Jules Feiffer, Saul Bellow, Philip Roth and Mordecai Richler (Could Solondz be their heir apparent?). He’s also delivered a thought-provoking treatise on life, love and death. While he doesn’t let anyone completely off the hook (including the audience), he slips enough humanity and compassion into the mix to make the Truth a little bit easier to swallow this time around.

Previous posts with related themes:
A Serious Man
Saturday Night at the Movies review archives

.

Dennis Hartley 8/04/2012 05:00:00 PM |

 
So the anti-communists were socialists?

by digby

The other day I wrote about Darrell Issa dissing the Depression and WWII era Americans as either commies or criminals. A reader sent this to school me about the fact that this is actually common wisdom on the right:

ON SEPTEMBER 12, the Spanish newspaper El Mundo published a wide-ranging interview with Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, prominent conservative activist, and Karl Rove ally. It was a long interview, presented in a traditional Q & A format. You can go to El Mundo's website, access the interview, and find Norquist saying this (in Spanish):

Each year, two million people who fought in the Second World War and lived through the Great Depression die. This generation has been an exception in American history, because it has defended anti-American policies. They voted for the creation of the welfare state and obligatory military service. They are the base of the Democratic Party. And they are dying.

Or at least that's how another news outlet, Agence France-Presse, translated the Spanish into English. And it took no time at all for publications like the New Republic and Slate to jump on Norquist's incendiary language. Whereupon Norquist denied the whole thing. Sort of.

He denied that he'd called the anti-American. But not the rest.

I thought I was aware of most of the wingnut mythology and I certainly knew that they hated the policies of the New Deal and post WWII era. I didn't know they blamed the entire generation for it though. It would have come as a hell of a surprise to the hardcore anti-communist right wingers in my father's circles to know that pissants like Grover Norquist were counting the days until they died. After all, they never voted for a Democrat in their lives.

The funny thing, of course, is that many Democrats are counting the days until the baby boomers die, which also presumes that we are all right wingers. I'm not sure that generational theory is a very good guide to politics.

.
digby 8/04/2012 03:30:00 PM |

 
"It's called gravitas"

by digby

Colbert takes on Chris Hayes:

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

I'm pretty sure he read the book too.

digby 8/04/2012 02:00:00 PM |

 
Please, I beg you, at least stop talking about it

by digby

I don't have a problem with the Democrats calling for extension of the middle class tax cuts as an election ploy. It's good politics under the circumstances. But when I read this memo from David Plouffe to the congress I got that sick feeling again:

MEMORANDUM

THE WHITE HOUSE

August 3, 2012

MEMORANDUM FOR INTERESTED PARTIES

FROM: DAVID PLOUFFE

SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE PRESIDENT

SUBJECT: August Recess Messaging

The President and Democrats in Congress move into the August recess with clear momentum on the question of who to trust on taxes and, more broadly, whose economic agenda will benefit the middle class. Over the coming weeks, there is an opportunity to build on this momentum and shape the legislative agenda this fall by highlighting the choice Congress faces at this make-or-break moment for the middle class. Three points can clearly define the legislative choice throughout August:

—The President and Democrats in Congress are fighting to create an economy built on a strong and secure middle class, but Republicans in Washington are determined to return to the exact same top-down policies that led to the economic crisis.

—The plans proposed by the President and Democrats in Congress will keep taxes low for the middle class and create jobs by investing in education, clean energy, manufacturing, and small businesses. The President’s plan to reduce the deficit in a balanced way by $4 trillion asks the wealthy to pay their fair share and preserves the investments we need to grow the economy.

—Both parties agree that tax cuts for the middle class should be extended. We should extend those tax cuts now. Republicans in Congress are holding middle class tax relief hostage by insisting on more budget-busting tax cuts for the wealthiest.

Highlighting Wednesday night’s vote on middle class tax cuts in the U.S. House of Representatives lays out the choice clearly. With one vote, House Republicans could have joined Democrats in the Senate and sent a bill to the President’s desk to prevent a $2,200 tax increase on a typical family in a few short months. Instead, House Republicans blocked the bill because it did not cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires even further. Rather than giving 98% of Americans and nearly every small business a little more certainty, House Republicans again chose to prioritize cutting taxes by $1 trillion for the wealthiest few.

I think having an argument about taxes for the middle class makes sense. This economy remains a mess and average people don't need any more financial stress at the moment. But putting the deficit into the mix makes no sense. If 4 trillion remains the target, massive cuts are inevitable, even if the Democrats out-fox the Republicans and they end up allowing the Bush tax cuts for the rich to expire. This is approximately how much those taxes would raise:

If you tax only the rich, according to the New York Times analysis of the federal budget deficit (David Leonhardt's recent "Fix the Deficit Puzzle"), by allowing taxes to go up for households earning income above $250,000 a year, the take would be $54 billion in 2015 (or 13% of the projected $418 billion 2015 budget shortfall) or $115 billion in 2030 (or 9% of the projected $1,345 billion budget shortfall in 2030).

Keep in mind that the Clinton tax rates weren't exactly onerous by historical standards, and yet going back to them is the heaviest lift we can imagine. In fact, it's a tremendous long shot. And I think we know how tough cutting the defense budget is going to be, don't we? So, even if the Bush tax cuts for the rich are allowed to expire, what do you think will end up making the difference in that 4 trillion dollar promise?

The deficit projections are almost all a matter of rising health care costs, which the battle over the ACA shows is a political nightmare. It will be a miracle if the savings from the plan materialize. So, as long as they are focused on the deficit the safety net is in terrible danger, as are many other necessary government functions. And in a time of lagging growth, financial insecurity for the middle class and global economic drag, that's insane.

Obviously if Romney wins, they'll slash the hell out of everything and that will be that. I'd guess they'll re-discover the joys of stimulus in the form of more tax cuts so we'd better enjoy the $11.26 most of us will get. Unfortunately, if Obama wins I'm not sure we'll be a whole lot better off unless they can all agree to prioritize jobs and growth and table the deficit nonsense at least until the economy is really growing and unemployment is way down. It's hard to see that happening.

So, we've probably got some form of austerity coming, no matter what, unless some faction in the congress is willing to obstruct it. I've been counting on the tea partiers to be idiots and I still think that's our best bet. But maybe a group of Democrats will throw themselves in front of the bus and just say no to cuts.
Sadly, unlike the Republicans, they will be in mortal danger of losing their jobs if they do it. Democrats shun people who aren't "reasonable" and since the reasonable grown-up President is still defining 4 trillion dollars as the deficit cutting target and is also selling the fiscal cliff mythology, these Democrats would be brutally dealt with by the press, the Party and probably the voters if they obstruct a deal. They will be seen as delusional lefties who refuse to face the reality that "entitlements" and other government functions must be sacrificed for the greater good. After all, everyone agrees that all the Republicans have to do is agree to some nominal "revenue" and it's all good right?

This is where I think rhetoric plays a big part. Nobody's making any argument against cutting spending. The need for a big deficit reduction plan is an article of faith and the question is only if they can get Grover Norquist to sign off on raising some phony tip money from millionaires or if they can out-maneuver the Republicans on the Bush tax cuts and raise some money that way. So, if a faction of progressives were to obstruct any deficit reduction bill that incorporates the stated goal of raising taxes "a little bit" on millionaires, it would be greeted with stunned disbelief. After all, that's what has been touted as the big victory for the Democrats.

If the Party, including the President, would drop all this "balanced approach" hoohah and ran solely on the idea that we need jobs and growth and that worrying about deficit reduction right now is like selling your car to pay for your new couch while your house is burning down, some Democrats might be able to block a new Simpson-Bowles-PetePeterson-Grand Bargain extravaganza. At least people would understand that they are not doing it out of unreasoning petulance. But that's not happening so we are stuck hoping against hope that Grover Norquist still has enough juice to blow up this deal one more time. I don't know if he does.


.
digby 8/04/2012 12:30:00 PM |

 
It's about women being able to make decisions

by digby

It's hard to believe we have to make that point in the 21st century, but we do:

.
digby 8/04/2012 11:00:00 AM |

 
Stand your ground with grandpa's ashes

by digby

Are you looking for the proper way to pay tribute to your recently deceased loved ones? Look no further:

Planning a loved ones final arrangements can be a challenging responsibility, one you want to do with care and consideration. Allow Holy Smoke to help you create a tribute to your outdoorsperson like no other.

We provide compassionate personal service, exceptional quality, and a truly unique memorial. Our unparalleled service and overall value are why our loyal customers won't go anywhere else. We look forward to serving you!

What is it? Well ...

The process of having cremated ash placed in live ammunition begins when you contact us. You tell us what type of hunting or shooting that the decedent practiced and we can help you decide what will best suit your needs. Feel free to complete the proposal form on our Buy Holy Smoke page, and we will gladly discuss the options (caliber, gauge, etc.) available to you. We are here to serve you and want to simplify the ordering process as much as possible.

Once the caliber, gauge and other ammunition parameters have been selected, we will ask you (by way of your funeral service provider) to send approximately one pound of the decedents ash to us. Upon receiving the ashes our professional and reverent staff will place a measured portion of ash into each shotshell or cartridge. (Please note that our process uses only a portion of the ash from a typical cremation.)

Example: 1 Pound of ash is enough to produce 250 shotshells (one case).

Imagine how happy your grandpa would be to know he can stil participate in killing even after he's dead.

h/t to RL

digby 8/04/2012 09:30:00 AM |

 
"When you're rich, you want a Republican in office"

Multimillionaire Jenna Jameson says it all:

"I'm very looking forward to a Republican being back in office," Jameson said while sipping champagne in a VIP room at Gold Club in the city's South of Market neighborhood. "When you're rich, you want a Republican in office."

True. At least until the lack of demand sinks the entire economy. But that's OK, because when that happens the rich will get bailed out anyway.

But you know, it's not surprising that Ms. Jameson is a fan of Mitt and the GOP. Utahns, Alaskans and other family-values red staters are her biggest fans, too.


.
thereisnospoon 8/04/2012 07:30:00 AM |

Friday, August 03, 2012

 
Values have been adjusted

by digby

This is just sad:

GREENE: Another person who felt the economic squeeze in Atlanta, is Jason Palmer. When I first met him, he had just taken a new job with the Federal Reserve in Atlanta, after being unemployed for nine months. To make ends meet during that time, he searched the streets for scrap metal to sell. Now, since I first met Jason, he and his wife had a son. Jason told me last week that he has friends who are out of work, or struggling with homes that are underwater. He's counting his blessings.

JASON PALMER: I think even if I get a lot of stability, I have a tendency to - it creates doubt. Once you've been shaken up, it's hard to see stability and embrace it. It almost feels foolhardy to me. I know that sounds pessimistic, but that's kind of the way I feel. But what it does do is, it makes me thankful for every day that I'm able to go to work and do what I do. I'm totally thankful for that.

GREENE: There was a time when things were very unstable...

PALMER: Correct.

GREENE: ...for you. You had been laid off, and you were out searching for scrap metal.

PALMER: That's correct, yeah. I still scrap metal occasionally. Again, I'm not afraid to roll up my sleeves and get some stuff done. Yeah, that was a tough time. I was. I was back looking for jobs. I would - I'd put on my Sunday best, go to some job interviews; and kind of fight the market that way. And if I saw some scrap metal on the side of the road, I'd just try to pick it up without getting my suit dirty. And it definitely - it definitely put food on the table, at times. And it helped pay utility bills, and put gas in the car, that type of thing. But yeah, that was a real trying time.

But I look back on it, and I don't - it's not that I necessarily pride myself over it. I just know when you've got to do hard work. I just know when you've got to be humbled. There's merit in hardship. There's new perspectives in times that aren't easy. I'm not saying desperate is a way to go. I'm saying that when you only have a few tools in your life, you learn how to use those tools more efficiently. And you learn how to use a crescent wrench like a hammer, you know?

As reader Steve D pointed out: it's the "Mellonization" of the nation:

"Liquidate stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate… it will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted."

I guess they know when they've been humbled ...

.
digby 8/03/2012 06:00:00 PM |

 

Buying up all the free speech they can find

by digby

This story in Mother Jones about the small handful of gazillionares who are trying to buy the election is astonishing. I honestly don't know how anyone can call this democracy anymore.

Click over to read the story, but here are the accompanying charts.





But keep something important in mind here. Romney may very well lose and everyone will say this shows that they failed, despite all their money. But these PACs and 501cs are not just about the presidential race. They are spreading this money around from the top of the ticket all the way to local races and their themes and talking points are all coordinated. I doubt they ever really believed this election was a shoo-in (or even really wanted to rock the boat --- it's not as if they haven't been doing very, very well under Obama.) But they are setting up a system for the future:

During sessions of the “Weaver Terrace Group,” representatives of the embryonic Crossroads organization gathered with counterparts from groups such as the Chamber of Commerce, Americans for Tax Reform, and Americans for Prosperity, the funding vehicle affiliated with the billionaires David and Charles Koch. Crossroads served as referee, says CEO Law. “Conservative activists tend to act like six-year-olds on soccer teams,” he explains, “with everyone grouping around the ball and getting in each other’s way. Karl’s idea was that all of these organizations should share information, coordinate polling, reduce redundancy.”

Together with a follow-on ruling by the federal appeals court in Washington, Citizens United knocked several crucial holes in McCain-Feingold. Corporate and union money, for example, could now be used without restriction for “electioneering communications,” meaning radio and TV ads that mention a candidate’s name within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.

More important than the incremental increase in campaign-law porosity, though, was the passionately phrased celebration by Justice Anthony Kennedy of political spending in its manifold forms. Kennedy’s majority opinion declared that “the appearance of influence or access … will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy.” Kennedy continued: “The fact that a corporation, or any other speaker, is willing to spend money to try to persuade voters presupposes that the people have the ultimate influence over elected officials.” In Kennedy’s syllogism, democracy benefits from more speech. Political money is speech. Therefore democracy benefits from more political money.

That's so true. I certainly feel a new found faith in democracy knowing that this handful of billionaires are finally allowed to have the same influence over our government that I do.

And for all this cash they're spending, it's chump change to them. They are that rich.


.
digby 8/03/2012 04:30:00 PM |

 
Paul Ryan and the Grand Poobahs were horribly wrong on S&P; downgrade. But nothing changes.

by David Atkins

NPR's Marketplace had an interesting report yesterday on the foolishly dire predictions that were made about the S&P; downgrade of U.S. credit last year. Regular Hullabaloo readers will remember that Digby and I roundly, repeatedly and consistently mocked both S&P;'s rationale for downgrading U.S. credit, and the notion that the downgrade itself would hurt the economy. Paul Krugman made the same points.

It turns out--surprise, surprise--that we were right and the big names in lights were wrong:

It's been about year since the twin fiascos of the debt ceiling debate and the subsequent Standard and Poor's downgrade of this country's credit rating. You remember: No more AAA, only AA+.

It was, indeed, historic. And forecasters in business and politics made dire predictions about how the downgrade would whack your wallet...

As far as worst predictions, it would take a medal stand the size of a swimming pool to hold all the people who were wrong. But we’ve only got room for one, so the gold goes to Republican Congressman Paul Ryan, speaking on Fox just after the downgrade.

Paul Ryan: Obviously, not only does it hurt the federal government in its ability to close the deficits, but it hurts people. You know, car loans, home loans, all these things are gonna go up.

Didn’t happen. In fact, the opposite occurred. Home loan interest rates are now at record lows, in large part because global investors kept faith that America would always pay its debts.

And yet it's still fashionable for the Very Serious People to wring their hands over the S&P; downgrade. Erin Burnett still puts up the tracker of the number of days since the downgrade, as if it mattered a whit. Centrist politicians still say preposterous things like this:

Congress needs to stop the brinkmanship politics and work together to balance our nation’s budget and restore our bond rating. This will give businesses the certainty they need to invest in capital projects and expand their workforce. This in turn will create demand for goods and services that will buoy our economy. If Congress can't pass a budget on time, they shouldn't be paid.

And no one "serious" calls them out for being as demonstrably wrong as if they declared the sky was green.

And year after year, partisan conservative crazies like Paul Ryan and the centrist Grand Poobahs will be treated with utmost deference and respect, while Paul Krugman and silly progressive bloggers like us will be sidelined and marginalized as rabid know-nothings. A year later shows like Marketplace will make a brief note of the horrible wrongness of the conventional wisdom while making some false equivalences between left and right, and the cycle will repeat.

When it comes to being "serious", you can never be too wrong. You can only be too shrill about the facts.


.
thereisnospoon 8/03/2012 03:00:00 PM |

 
Paul Ryan worries about the Makers vs the Takers

by digby

Hey, remember when Paul Ryan said he was all over Ayn Rand and now he's all Catholic and stuff? Well, it may have become the love that dare not speak its name but it's clear that Ryan still has deep, deep feelings for the old girl:

Here, let me translate that into the original Randroid:

"The man who attempts to live for others is a dependent. He is a parasite in motive and makes parasites of those he serves. The relationship produces nothing but mutual corruption. It is impossible in concept. The nearest approach to it in reality -- the man who lives to serve others -- is the slave. If physical slavery is repulsive, how much more repulsive is the concept of servility of the spirit. The conquered slave has a vestige of honor. He has the merit of having resisted and of considering his condition evil. But the man who enslaves himself voluntarily in the name of love is the basest of creatures. He degrades the dignity of man, and he degrades the conception of love. But that is the essence of altruism.-- Ayn Rand"

Shhhh. Don't tell Jesus.

.
digby 8/03/2012 01:30:00 PM |

 
Culture in the sovereign states

by digby

Earlier this week there was a torrent of discussion about Mitt's remarks in Israel about the differences in "culture" between two neighboring countries making the difference in economic performance. If you would like to read a thoughtful take on the issue, I'd recommend James Fallows' piece in The Atlantic.

There was also a lot of discussion about the US and Mexico example, but I didn't see anyone except Blue Gal Texan at Crooks and Liars take the example of what the right wingers insist upon seeing as the "sovereign" states of America. (Many of these people including governors of big states are Tenthers, which means they see this quite literally.)

So how does Mitt explain this?

Of the top 10 states (and including DC) in per capita GDP, only two -- Alaska and Wyoming -- are Republican. And Alaska is heavily subsidized by the federal government.

Of the bottom 10 states in per capita GDP, only two -- Michigan and New Mexico -- are Blue.

So, 8 of the 10 most prosperous states are Blue, and 8 of the 10 poorest states are Red. A rather "stark difference in economic vitality," is it not?

And there's more.

Red states have higher rates of divorce, teen pregnancy, higher crime rates, and lower education levels than Blue states.

So what gives?

...why haven't Republicans had more success rejuvenating the economies of deep red states?Why are so many deeply conservative states among the worst performers on a range of statistics, from output and income, to educational attainment, to life expectancy and literacy?

These are all good questions. If it's all about "culture" I think we have to ask why conservative cultures are so economically backwards, don't you?

Mitt's point is much better made with the US example than with Israel and Palestine. After all, the blue states send a helluva lot more money and federal help to the red states than they get back and are constantly trying to even out the distribution of wealth and services a little bit to help their poorest citizens. (It's not like private enterprise is getting the job done...)Many of these red states would rather their people die than accept it. I suppose one has to ask whether this is ideology or culture, but I think it's pretty clear that when it comes to American conservatives that's a distinction without a difference.


.

digby 8/03/2012 12:30:00 PM |

 
Dear David Sirota

By tristero

You write:

We [Sirota and radio co-host/former Bush Administration official Michael Brown] both come to the microphone with a desire to dial down the rhetorical volume and engage in an honest dialogue about the toughest issues of the day.

Do you seriously think an "honest dialogue" can take place on "the toughest issues of the day" when conservatives frame misogynists as "pro-life," bigoted fanatics as "Christians," and cynical paid liars as "global warming skeptics?" Do think it is possible to speak with any substance at all "at a lower rhetorical volume" when even many liberals thoughtlessly repeat these outrageously misleading frames? I don't.

Expecting an honest dialogue with a Bush administration hack is a lot like expecting honest financial reporting from Bernie Madoff. But hey, it's a gig.

Love,

Tristero

.

tristero 8/03/2012 11:00:00 AM |

 

Baiting Mitt

by digby

As much as I'd like to say that I'm shocked that some self-righteous so-called liberals are joining the right in their condemnation of Harry Reid for baiting Romney but I'm not. It's just how they roll. The wingnuts are kicking up a lot of dust in the hope that this might shut down the tax issue. If they can get Reid to apologize for "crossing the line" I suppose it might even be possible. And yes, they will be able to find even more timorous Villagers and others who vaguely position themselves on the left side of the dial to wring their hands and clutch their pearls over Harry Reid's alleged ethical downfall.

But I don't know that it will work this time. Romney is out there saying "put up or shut up" and it makes people laugh when they hear it. After all, it's Romney who refuses to put up his tax returns to make Reid eat crow, which is the first thing people think when they hear this. Reid is baiting him to release the returns and the best Romney can do is demand that Reid ... release Romney's tax returns. It just doesn't scan.

And Reid may not be making this up. Who knows? Reid is a Mormon and Bain had some very big Mormons in high places. And Reid is a very important guy who could have contacts in Bain just because. In any case, it's very easy to prove Reid wrong. Harry said that someone told him Mitt didn't pay any taxes for ten years. All Mitt has to do is release his taxes to prove otherwise and I think most people instinctively get that.

But who knows? The Democrats could easily do the big el-foldo. It's one of their specialties.

*I'm not going to talk about Jon Stewart. It isn't the first time that his self-righteous definition of "civility" has taken him down the wrong path. Nobody's perfect, although I have to say that I've never seen Colbert fail to see the forest for the trees.

.

digby 8/03/2012 09:30:00 AM |

 
Questioning the merit of the lucky, lucky rich

by David Atkins

I'm increasingly convinced that talking about luck is the key to destroying the right-wing rhetorical enterprise. Digby touched on this significantly several days ago, but I think it's important to reiterate the point. Regular readers may recall my review of Chris Hayes' extraordinary book Twilight of the Elites back in June:

Through Hayes' lens, liberalism for much of the last half century has been about opening the meritocracy up to all segments of the population without discrimination based on intrinsic ephemera such as race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. This has meant a full embrace of the same pseudo-meritocratic impulse that has led to the renaissance of Objectivism on the right and the dominance of neoliberalism on the left.

If Hayes is right, what has been missing from much of leftist discourse isn't just economic inequality or the struggles of working families. What's missing is discussion of luck.

After all, what could be more iconoclastic to the edifice of the neoliberal and conservative systems? Declaring the Masters of the Universe incompetent is a given. Calling them evil is commonplace and mostly worth a chuckle. Using words such as heartless, bumbling, uncaring, greedy, inept, callous, and self-serving barely makes a dent.

But to call Lloyd Blankfein "lucky", or to say that Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg were simply "fortunate"--that's something altogether different. That's revolutionary. It cuts against the dominant discourse of the institutional left and right to reorient the entire social contract. It challenges not only the ethic of equality of opportunity, but also the legitimacy of much of the inequality of outcomes.

Hard work is still a key to success, of course. But what has been lost in modern culture is that many fail to achieve traditional measures of success despite high intelligence and hard work, while many "succeed" despite constant failure. Social connections are a huge factor. Most of our governing elites come from Ivy League universities, despite the fact that a huge number of very bright and highly competent people never attended an Ivy League institution. And then there's just being in the right place at the right time: how many Internet millionaires would have succeeded just as well had they been born in a pre-Internet world? How successful would Michael Jordan have been, had he been born in a country where soccer was the dominant sport?

Hard work is one factor in success, but it pales in comparison to good connections, family privilege, and dumb luck.

That idea is extremely threatening to the meritocratic status quo.

And again, here's David Frum on what he calls with admiration the destabilizing idea in Barack Obama's much discussed "you didn't build that" speech:

Obama's second idea is that success is to a great extent random, a matter of luck. You think you succeeded because you were smart or hard-working? Listen—a lot of smart and hard-working people don't succeed.

This second idea is not original to the president, obviously. In fact, Friedrich Hayek often made a similar point, suggesting that a big part of capitalism's PR problems originated in the fact that markets did not distribute their rewards according to ordinary ideas of moral deservingness. Yet it's also true that we badly want to believe that success is earned and is deserved. A universe that distributes its rewards randomly is a frightening place—and even worse is the suspicion that success is often seized precisely by the undeserving...

President Obama's stray sentences however point to a bolder conclusion. If it's not brains or work that account for success, what is it? The answer must be … luck. Not maybe entirely luck, but luck to a great degree. By definition, however, luck is amoral. Nobody can deserve luck, otherwise he wouldn't be lucky. To the extent success is due to luck, success is undeserved—and to the extend that success is undeserved, the successful have no very strong claim to the proceeds of their success. Whereas Warren suggests that the wealthy should be taxed to repay tangible benefits they have personally received, Obama is indicating a possibility that the wealthy should be taxed … because their wealth is to a great extent an accident of fate.

Indeed. While some will shudder that the Republicans have managed to call into question the very idea of the social contract, I think it's a wonderful thing that the Left is no longer simply arguing for equitable access to the meritocracy. Many of our leaders have begun questioning the very premise of the system that has given such outsized rewards to the lucky, lucky few.

It's about time.


.
thereisnospoon 8/03/2012 07:30:00 AM |

Thursday, August 02, 2012

 
Darrell Issa insults the Greatest Generation

by digby

I guess the depression kids and WWII vets are all a bunch of morons,commies or criminals:

Politicians of all stripes genuflect before the Greatest Generation, as newsman Tom Brokaw dubbed the men and women who endured the Great Depression, helped win World War II, and went on create the most prosperous society the world had ever known.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., offered a less reverential footnote today, attributing the origins of today’s fiscal crisis to entitlement programs fostered by some of those same people.

“The Greatest Generation created many of what the private sector would call Ponzi schemes,” Issa said at an Association of Government Accountants conference here. “They created Social Security, they created Medicare on their watch, [they] created Medicaid.” All of that, Issa continued, ”without resources or funding.”

“A generation that was doing many things right–coming out of World War II–also planted the seeds for all the problems we have today.”

I think it's interesting that these wingnuts don't want to go back to the 1950s anymore, which for many decades was considered the golden era for conservatism. Apparently, they've realized that a lot of what made the 50s so prosperous and peaceful (for nice white people) was the New Deal. So they have no choice but to sully their reputations as con-men.

They still revere the 50s, mind you. The 1850s.


*For a nuanced look at the GG, check out this great article by Chris Hayes.


.
digby 8/02/2012 06:00:00 PM |

 
Uh-Oh

By tristero

Gail Collins today:

Maybe the real answer to this and all the other Tea Party-over-establishment upsets is that the traditional Republican party is just burned out, and devoid of fresh faces.

This is a common and very old fallacy: Because the Republican party has such awful people and/or such awful ideas, it is burnt out, ie, weak, powerless. But their ideas have been awful for generations, and they have consistently elected mediocrities and scoundrels that are easily comparable to the current crop. But that's not where the fire ever burnt.

It's all about power, not ideas or people. And the Republican's obsession with gaining a monopoly on political and financial power is blazing brighter than ever right now, fueled by hundreds upon hundreds of millions of pieces of green paper.

There is nothing burnt out about the Republicans, nothing at all.


UPDATE: Anyone who thinks this is a reason not to worry should stand outside one of those fast food chicken joints that's celebrating hate today. There are a lot of very angry, very sick people in this county - and they vote. So should you.


tristero 8/02/2012 04:30:00 PM |

 
Scott Brown maintains the Big Lie--and the Big Gamble

by David Atkins

Scott Brown, slagging Elizabeth Warren and President Obama for daring to suggest that business owners actually pay taxes to pay for the society that makes their success possible, reiterates the big lie:

America’s entrepreneurs have built great things on their own. If only leftists like Warren and all Occupy protesters weren’t so wrapped up in taxing and regulating them without end or in denigrating their achievements, these men and women would do even greater things and hire even more workers.

There is nothing in this statement that isn't a lie. Taxes? They're at their lowest point in 60 years, especially on the wealthy. Income inequality? At or near record highs. The stock market? Still doing much better than the real economy, with the Dow Jones up near a nosebleed-worthy 13,000--nearly 4,000 points ahead of where it was when President Obama took office. Oh, and the reason we're in this economic slump in the first place? Deregulation was the primary cause. So where are all the jobs?

Scott Brown is peddling full-bore Ayn Rand Objectivism: the business owner as epic hero, struggling to succeed to provide jobs to the ungrateful and parasitic masses. In reality, of course, corporations aren't in the business of creating jobs: they're in the business of making profits for shareholders and investors. If they can do so by hiring fewer workers and paying them less, they'll do it in a heartbeat. The success of small business depends on the infrastructure our taxes pay for, and a healthy consumer base willing and able to purchase products. The biggest threat to small businesses is the predation of big business forcing them out of the market. The biggest destabilizing threats to general prosperity going forward are the financialized casino economy in the short term, and the effects of climate change in the long term.

Republicans like Scott Brown are staking everything on convincing the public of this Galtian Big Lie. It's an incredibly risky gamble. If they lose this argument, the entire edifice of their economic policy crumbles along with it. As Greg Sargent at The Plum Line notes:

This is what this whole thing has been about from the start. It's about selling voters a bill of goods — a narrative about what ails the economy that obscures the fact that Republicans don’t have a plan to fix the short term unemployment crisis. Brown and Mitt Romney want voters to believe that the recovery is being held back by taxes, regulations, and Obama’s and Warren’s disdain for your success. If we just put people in charge who want people to succeed — who would of course promptly cut regulations, government and taxes on the rich — then the recovery will roar forward.

This is a pleasing little tale, but it’s wholly at odds with the consensus view of many mainstream economists, who think the problem lies in weak demand. Economists believe that government spending, in the form of Obama’s stimulus, did bring down the unemployment rate. Economists don’t believe that high end tax cuts will produce the runaway growth necessary to bring in the revenues to pay for them. Economists don’t believe that getting rid of Obamacare will solve the crisis. As Mark Hopkings of Moody’s Analytics has put it: “The central problem is not burdensome regulations. It’s that people can’t sell anything.” Nor do economists believe that cutting government will fix the crisis; in fact, reduced government outlays are partly responsible for slow growth, and economists say that in the short term, more fiscal austerity will slow growth further.

Neither Obama nor Warren demeaned success or individual initiative, but even if they had, the idea that those sentiments are responsible for holding back the recovery is just snake oil. From the start, this whole thing has been about selling people a storyline about the short term economic crisis that covers up the fact that Republican ideas wouldn’t do anything to solve it.

On the one hand, it's an outrage that national Republicans are daring to make such a mendacious and immoral argument. On the other, it's almost exhilarating that they're staking so much on it. So much, in fact, that Democrats who have spent the past half century arguing simply for equality of basic opportunity and access to our flawed meritocracy are now being forced to actually make arguments in favor of the social contract itself.

This is a good thing, and potentially bodes well for the future.

.
thereisnospoon 8/02/2012 03:00:00 PM |

 
The Taser War on the mentally ill continues

by digby

I have often written about the taser war on the mentally ill, but I've never seen anything as awful as this:

Someone using a stun gun like a cattle prod assaulted a dozen patients at the Sonoma Developmental Center last fall, inflicting painful thermal burns on their buttocks, arms, legs and backs.

The center’s in-house police force, the Office of Protective Services, had a suspect from the start. An anonymous whistle-blower called a tip line in September 2011 and accused Archie Millora, a caregiver at the Sonoma center, of abusing several profoundly disabled men with high-voltage probes.

Detectives found burn injuries on the patients, according to internal records obtained by California Watch. The following morning, they discovered a Taser and a loaded handgun in Millora’s car at the Sonoma center.

The facility is one of five state-run board-and-care institutions that serve roughly 1,700 residents with cerebral palsy, mental retardation and severe autism – disabilities that make communication difficult, if not impossible.

The one victim who is able to speak named Millora and used the word “stun” when interviewed by a detective at the center, according to a state licensing record.

As part of an ongoing investigation, California Watch has detailed how the institutions’ internal police force, created by the state to protect the vulnerable residents at these state homes, often fails to conduct basic police work when patients are abused and harmed.

In case after case, detectives and officers have delayed interviews with witnesses or suspects – if they have conducted interviews at all. The force also has waited too long to collect evidence or secure crime scenes and has been accused of going easy on co-workers who care for the disabled.

Those shortfalls again were on display in the Taser case, records show.

After the assaults were discovered, the Office of Protective Services made no arrest, deciding instead to handle it as an administrative matter. Also, at least nine days after the revelations, records show, detectives still had not interviewed Millora, whose personal Facebook page includes wall photos of assault weapons and handguns.

To make matter even worse, if that's possible, this was once a top flight facility that has been degraded over time with budget cuts, turning it into a Bedlam for the 21st century. And there is fear on the part of advocates that this will be used as an excuse to close it down and sell off the land to speculators who have been eyeing the valuable property for some time.

Obviously, this is a case of a sadistic gun-nut employee rather than your average street cop and his behavior is beyond the pale of all but the worst taser abuses. But I can't help but think that if tasers were less generally "acceptable" this sort of thing would carry more of a risk. When they are featured as big laughs in the movies one can see how a person could get the idea they could get away with using them.

By the way, the man was fired. But click over to the whole story to see how an incompetent and corrupt police department deals with something like this. It isn't pretty.

.
digby 8/02/2012 01:30:00 PM |

 
Deficit scolds on a bus

by digby

And the Deficit Fetish Club rolls out yet another stunt in preparation for their big Lame Duck moment:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

July 25, 2012

The Hon. David M. Walker, former U.S. Comptroller General, today announced a first-of-its-kind national bus tour to engage Americans about our nation's deteriorating financial condition — and show them what they can do to help restore fiscal sanity.

The "$10 Million a Minute Tour" will help voters understand that we face a fiscal cliff in January 2013 and a possible U.S. debt crisis within the next two years.

No matter what progress we make to improve economic growth and generate jobs, our nation’s current fiscal path puts our collective future severely at risk: jobs, education, health care, a secure retirement, infrastructure, national security, mortgage rates, an effective social safety net to prevent more poverty, and the success or failure of thousands of businesses.

Yet every minute, our nation's financial hole gets deeper by about $10 million.

The Comeback America Initiative (CAI) has developed a U.S. Financial Burden Barometer (Burden Barometer) to supplement the "National Debt Clock." The Burden Barometer is a far more accurate measure of our financial situation, since it includes both total liabilities and unfunded promises (e.g., Social Security and Medicare).

"We are at a crossroads in America. Our political leaders can keep hiding their heads in the sand and continue toward economic catastrophe. Or, they can take an honest look at our situation, and lead us by pursuing nonpartisan solutions, that can address our challenges in an effective, equitable, moral and sustainable manner," said Mr. Walker.

Mr. Walker will kick off the tour in Manchester, N.H. on Sept. 7. From there, the bus will make its way to New York City, then on to at least 16 states, including swing states and key districts.

A who's who of national leaders support the tour, including:

• Former Senators Alan Simpson (R-WY), Pete Domenici (R-NM), Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), and Judd Gregg (R-N.H.)
• Former Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. (D-TN) and Tom Coleman (R-MO)
• Hon. Erskine Bowles
• Former Director of the OMB and CBO Alice Rivlin
• Former Chairmen of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan and Paul Volcker
• Former DNC Chairs and Governors Ed Rendell and Roy Romer
• Former RNC Chairs and Senators Bill Brock and Mel Martinez
• Former Presidential candidate H. Ross Perot, Sr.
• Former AARP CEO Bill Novelli
• Former Lockheed Martin CEO Norm Augustine
• Former SEIU CEO Andy Stern
• Former Deloitte CEO Mike Cook
• Sojourners CEO Rev. Jim Wallis
• Former HP CEO Carly Fiorina

One measure of the enormity of our problem is that things have actually gotten worse since H. Ross Perot Sr. spotlighted the issue during his presidential campaign. "Our nation's debt is about four times higher than when I first ran for president in 1992. It's time to defuse our ticking debt bomb," said Mr. Perot.

The former Comptroller General of the United States and a former Trustee of Social Security and Medicare, Mr. Walker is currently CEO of the Comeback America Initiative. Mr. Walker will be joined by various other fiscal experts at various stops on the tour.

Please visit the bus tour's web site at www.10MillionaMinute.com for graphics of the Burden Barometer, a full list of high-profile bus tour supporters, and the tour itinerary.

I have a feeling that nobody in the country knows who any of these people are or care. But I suspect that's not the point. This is all about building the Village consensus.

(It's certainly nice to see Andy Stern and the AARP working together with Pete Peterson on this. With friends like these ... )

Here's the list of cities:

Manchester, NH
Friday, September 7 2012

New Haven, CT
Saturday, September 8 2012

New York, NY
Monday, September 10 2012

Philadelphia, PA
Tuesday, September 11 2012

Pittsburgh, PA
Wednesday, September 12 2012

Columbus, OH
Thursday, September 13 2012

Cleveland, OH
Friday, September 14 2012

Brunswick, OH
Saturday, September 15 2012

Milwaukee, WI
Monday, September 17 2012

St. Louis, MO
Tuesday, September 18 2012

Des Moines, IA
Wednesday, September 19 2012

Denver, CO
Friday, September 21 2012

Las Vegas, NV
Monday, September 24 2012

Phoenix, AZ
Tuesday, September 25 2012

Tucson, AZ
Wednesday, September 26 2012

Dallas, TX
Friday, September 28 2012

Orlando, FL
Tuesday, October 2 2012

Jacksonville, FL
Wednesday, October 3 2012

Atlanta, GA
Thursday, October 4 2012

Raleigh, NC
Friday, October 5 2012

Northern VA
Saturday, October 6 2012

Washington, DC
Tuesday, October 9 2012

I don't know why people think this is in any way trying to influence the election, do you?

.
digby 8/02/2012 12:00:00 PM |

 

Romneygaffe can't even properly defend his own wife

by digby

If you wondered whether Romney really has no center, this should dispel any questions:

Mitt Romney tried to distance himself from the elite horse-dancing sport of dressage on Wednesday night, telling NBC’s Brian Williams that he doesn’t know anything about it – and doesn’t plan to watch his wife’s horse compete in the upcoming Olympics.

“It’s a big, exciting experience for my wife. I have to tell you, this is Ann’s sport,” Romney said. “I’m not even sure which day the sport goes on. She will get the chance to see it, I will not be watching the event. I hope her horse does well.”

This is low, even for him. This is his wife, to whom, by all accounts, he is completely devoted. And that was the best he could do?

Also too, he's just lying:

Romney’s coolness towards dressage is certainly a new development. The presumptive Republican nominee has talked extensively about his love of horses, and he has been deeply involved with his wife’s Olympic contender, Rafalca, in the past. The Romneys have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in the horse, and Mitt himself personally picked the music that Rafalca “danced” to at the World Cup.

Even if he couldn’t attend, it would be odd for a supposed family man — and Olympic enthusiast — to be unaware of what day his wife’s horse is competing.

He sure seemed up on the sport in this clip:

I don't think it's a big deal that Ann Romney is into dressage. She's got millions and she likes horses and that's one of the sports in which millionaires who like horses participate. (Personally, I think that cross country and show jumping are less cruel to the animals, but that's just me.) But it's absurd for them to try to hide it or pretend that it isn't a big deal for their horse to be in the Olympics --- especially since Mitt is supposedly Mr Olympics! Who do they think they're fooling?

Mitt should have just said that Ann's horse is competing and the family is very excited and hopes he brings home the Gold for the USA. Jesus, how hard is it for this guy to be a human being?


Update: On the subject of dressage, if you missed this from Stephen Colbert you must watch it immediately. (And good on the American dressage coach for being such a good sport too.)

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

.

digby 8/02/2012 10:30:00 AM |

 
Romney ethics at the Olympics

by digby

Ed Kilgore is righteously irked about the latest idiotic right wing contretemps over the fact that Olympic athletes have to pay taxes on their medals:

You could see this coming the moment Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform put out its press release on the tax liability of U.S. Olympics athletes who win medals and the honoraria that go along with them: Sen. Marco Rubio has introduced a bill creating a brand new tax loophole for the stars who are dominating our TV screen this week. The Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf explains why this is an idea that is fully as stupid as it sounds:

[T]his is a perfect example of why the tax code is a complicated and burdensome mess. Guys like Senator Rubio stumble upon a category of earning that they regard as being “different,” whether because there are campaign contributions in it for them, or because it advances a larger ideological agenda or, as in this case, because the category of people being taxed are popular. This particular loophole accords with a widespread intuition that the prize money and medals from an Olympic victory are unlike “regular income” that is subject to routine taxes….

But these are bad reasons to create a special exemption. The fact is that prize money from athletic victories is income, and there is no good reason for the government to treat that income differently than the income of all the non-Olympic athletes who earn analogous types of income. Why should Olympic athletes be exempted from paying taxes on their prize money, but not professional golfers, or poker players, or winners of literary prizes, or folks who win the lottery?

Because USA! USA! USA!, that's why. And also they are heroes.

At least as long as they don't have to pay taxes. According to this fine fellow, if they do have to pay the tax, they're likely to throw their match to avoid it:

This is what we are going to call "Romney ethics" from now on: the belief that there is literally nothing more important in life than not paying taxes. Even winning an Olympic Gold medal or the presidency of the United States.

.

digby 8/02/2012 09:00:00 AM |

 
The choice

by David Atkins

If you've been watching the Olympics, you've probably seen this:



Barack Obama isn't the most progressive President the nation has had. There is still significant danger of some sort of Grand Compromise malarky in the lame duck session, and Clintonian concessions if the GOP takes the Senate and holds the House.

But the contrast with Romney and the Republicans is still enormous. If the Republican Party were sane, it could run a middle-of-the-road Eisenhower/Ford style candidate, focus on the bad economy, and probably slide into victory. But that's not who the Republicans are. They're wholly dominated by Objectivists and Dominionists. So instead, even as the Obama team runs devastating ads in primetime, they have to deal with stories like this:

A tax system overhaul along the lines that Mitt Romney has proposed would give big tax cuts to high-income households and increase the tax burden on middle- and lower-income households, according to an analysis from economists at the Tax Policy Center.

The researchers did not analyze the exact Romney plan, since it is incomplete and the researchers were reluctant to make assumptions until the campaign released more details.

Instead they created a model for a revenue-neutral income tax change that incorporates some of Mr. Romney’s proposals, which include lowering marginal tax rates, eliminating both the alternative minimum tax and taxation of investment income of most taxpayers, doing away with the estate tax and repealing the additional high-income taxes passed with the Affordable Care Act.

In a sane world this election wouldn't even be a contest. But in the real world, race resentment, sexism and bald-faced economic lies are making it a nailbiter.

It would be nice if all the Ayn Rand and Tim LaHaye worshippers would go found their own country and destroy it apart from the rest of us. Sadly, they're intent on dragging this country and the world down with them.


.
thereisnospoon 8/02/2012 07:30:00 AM |

Wednesday, August 01, 2012

 
Tea partying billionaires buy another seat

by digby

Amidst all the breathless Villager adoration for the new (Ivy league) "Tea Party" Senator from Texas, it's a good idea for less romantic types to step back and look at what really happened. Here's Adele Stan with the bracing splash of cold water:

During the presidential primary, on the national political stage, Texas Gov. Rick Perry often looked like a Tea Party dupe. But in his home state he's not quite Tea Party enough; his anointment of Dewhurst as the next U.S. senator from the Lone Star State didn't stick, once FreedomWorks came to town.

You remember FreedomWorks, right? The neo-libertarian outfit led by Dick Armey that spent the summer of 2009 encouraging Tea Partiers to go thuggy at town-hall meetings led by Democratic members of Congress? The organization that showed Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell who's boss when it supplanted McConnell's prodigy, Trey Grayson, with Rand Paul for the G.O.P. slot on the 2010 U.S. senate ballot is the majority leader's own state of Kentucy?

Yeah, that FreedomWorks.

Texas is a big, important state in Right-Wing-World, and it's the land from whence Armey hails. No way was Perry going to be allowed to make some namby-pamby G.O.P. establishment pick for U.S. Senate, for God's sake -- not when Armey has laid claim to the U.S. Senate as his own little electoral playground, where he's hard at work, as FreedomWorks spokesperson Adam Brandon once told me, building "a power center around Jim DeMint," the senator from South Carolina. Since the Rand Paul coup in Kentucky, the DeMint cabal has essentially set the Republican agenda -- and, through strong-arm use of the arcane rules of the deliberative body, that of the entire Senate.

Just imagine what DeMint will do with even more like him in the Senate.

As much as everyone would like to believe this bus is being driven by a bunch of rubes who will (naturally) get their comeuppance, it just isn't. There's a boatload of money behind all these guys. But they aren't just craven corporatists, although they are that. They are hardcore ideologues as well.

It's fun to pretend, (as "The Fix" did last night on twitter) that this is the result of a grassroots uprising. But unless you think that the billionaires who are funding Freedomworks are just good ole boys down to the townhall speakin' their minds, you're on the wrong track.

.
digby 8/01/2012 06:00:00 PM |

 
Jesus' favorite chicken sandwich

by digby

Those who read this blog know that I think it was wrong for certain Democratic politicians to threaten to block the building of Chick-fil-A on the basis of homophobic comments by its owner. And those politicians have since thought better of their comments. Free speech is free speech. Meanwhile, it's "Chick-fil-A appreciation day" around the country and conservatives are patronizing the restaurants as a sign of solidarity. Again, it's their right to do that and it's my right to never set foot in one of them. I hope it works out for them.

But regardless of everyone's free speech and "vote with your pocketbook" rights, it remains the case that Chick-fil-A is a very unusual company:

Chick-fil-A's corporate mission, as stated on a plaque at company headquarters (and by Cathy), is to "glorify God." It is the only national fast-food chain that closes on Sunday so operators can go to church and spend time with their families; franchisees who don't go along with the rule risk having their contracts terminated. Company meetings and retreats include prayers, and the company encourages franchisees to market their restaurants through church groups. Howe Rice, a franchisee in Glen Allen, Va., hosts a Bible study group in one of his two Chick-fil-A restaurants every Tuesday. He offers a free breakfast to all who attend. "You don't have to be a Christian to work at Chick-fil-A, but we ask you to base your business on biblical principles because they work," says Cathy.

Chick-fil-A is run by Cathy and his sons Dan T., chief operating officer, and Donald (a.k.a. Bubba), a senior vice president. They screen prospective operators for their loyalty, wholesome values and willingness to buy into Chick-fil-A's in-your-face Christian credo, espoused often by Cathy, an evangelical Southern Baptist who says "the Lord has never spoken to me, but I feel Chick-fil-A has been His gift."

Fifty employees and one franchisee grew up in one of 13 Christian foster homes in the U.S. and Brazil run by a nonprofit organization Chick-fil-A funds, the WinShape Foundation. Sixteen others were in Sunday-school classes Cathy teaches at First Baptist Church in Jonesboro, Ga. Cathy likes to give a leg up to people who have ambition but little else: The company asks operators to pay just $5,000 as an initial franchise fee. KFC, for example, demands $25,000 and a net worth of $1 million.

Chick-fil-A pays for the land, the construction and the equipment. It then rents everything to the franchisee for 15% of the restaurant's sales plus 50% of the pretax profit remaining. Operators, who are discouraged from running more than a few restaurants, take home $100,000 a year on average from a single outlet. A solo Bojangles' franchisee can expect to earn $330,000 (Ebitda) on sales of $1.7 million.

Loyalty to the company isn't the only thing that matters to Cathy, who wants married workers, believing they are more industrious and productive. One in three company operators have attended Christian-based relationship-building retreats through WinShape at Berry College in Mount Berry, Ga. The programs include classes on conflict resolution and communication. Family members of prospective operators--children, even--are frequently interviewed so Cathy and his family can learn more about job candidates and their relationships at home. "If a man can't manage his own life, he can't manage a business," says Cathy, who says he would probably fire an employee or terminate an operator who "has been sinful or done something harmful to their family members."

The parent company asks people who apply for an operator license to disclose marital status, number of dependents and involvement in "community, civic, social, church and/or professional organizations."

But Danielle Alderson, 30, a Baltimore operator, says some fellow franchisees find that Chick-fil-A butts into its workers' personal lives a bit much. She says she can't hire a good manager who, say, moonlights at a strip club because it would irk the company. "We are watched very closely by Chick-fil-A," she says. "It's very weird."

The article points out that federal law doesn't prohibit employers from digging into your personal business or firing someone who has "been sinful or done something harmful to their family members." (Hey Grover. How's that "leave us alone coalition" working out?)

But the company has been sued numerous times for religious and gender discrimination. In order to keep that from happening more often they put their employees and franchise owners through the ringer, sometimes dozens of interviews, to make sure they are a good fit for the cult, company.

"It is very difficult to get in, but once you're in, you're in for life," says Donald Elam, a Chick-fil-A franchisee in Superstition Springs, Ariz.: "I tell all my people, 'I'm not working for Chick-fil-A; I'm working for the Lord.'"

It's interesting that the Lord chooses to pay them a third of what they would get if they owned any other franchise. He does work in mysterious ways.

.

digby 8/01/2012 04:30:00 PM |

 
Counting on the end times

by David Atkins

Tom Friedman is actually coherent today for a change, and makes a good point:

I’ll make this quick. I have one question and one observation about Mitt Romney’s visit to Israel. The question is this: Since the whole trip was not about learning anything but about how to satisfy the political whims of the right-wing, super pro-Bibi Netanyahu, American Jewish casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, why didn’t they just do the whole thing in Las Vegas? I mean, it was all about money anyway — how much Romney would abase himself by saying whatever the Israeli right wanted to hear and how big a jackpot of donations Adelson would shower on the Romney campaign in return. Really, Vegas would have been so much more appropriate than Jerusalem. They could have constructed a plastic Wailing Wall and saved so much on gas.

The observation is this: Much of what is wrong with the U.S.-Israel relationship today can be found in that Romney trip. In recent years, the Republican Party has decided to make Israel a wedge issue. In order to garner more Jewish (and evangelical) votes and money, the G.O.P. decided to “out-pro-Israel” the Democrats by being even more unquestioning of Israel. This arms race has pulled the Democratic Party to the right on the Middle East and has basically forced the Obama team to shut down the peace process and drop any demands that Israel freeze settlements. This, in turn, has created a culture in Washington where State Department officials, not to mention politicians, are reluctant to even state publicly what is U.S. policy — that settlements are “an obstacle to peace” — for fear of being denounced as anti-Israel.

What Friedman only alludes to at a glance is the fact that while this pandering is partly to win over Jewish votes, it's primarily designed to appeal to evangelicals who desperately want a one-state "solution" wherein the Temple is rebuilt in Jerusalem so that the final prophecies of the Book of Revelation can be fulfilled. These are the same people--and there are many of them in the United States--who don't care a whit about climate change not because they believe it's a hoax or isn't man-made, but simply believe that the end of the world will come before it begins to matter.

These are the dangerous lunatics to which the Republican Party is pandering. People whose political philosophy is expressly designed to aid and abet their doomsday cult.

And yet rational people are supposed to come to some sort of centrist "compromise" with them.

.
thereisnospoon 8/01/2012 02:59:00 PM |

 
Li'l Luke is daddy's boy

by digby

The "sage of Capitol Hill" is a little bit testy today:

I'm not sure that Li'l Luke has learned even one small thing beyond the crappy, braindead "analysis" he learned from his father's stultifyingly shallow commentary: "working class whites (just like me!) don't like liberals (excuse me "ultra-libs") because liberals are all a bunch of girly-men." And that explains all you need to know about American politics. (Now let's all talk about sex!)

NBC wasn't kind to this boy when they put him on TV without any seasoning. It's possible that he would have turned out this way regardless, but once they made his wear his father's mantle there was never any chance for him to be anything other than king of the Village dipshits. It's kind of sad.

.
digby 8/01/2012 01:00:00 PM |

 

Huckleberry Graham's grown-up con

by digby

Everybody's all excited because Huckleberry Graham is being a grown-up:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Tuesday urged Mitt Romney to embrace revenues as part of a plan to stave off the automatic spending cuts set to take effect next year.

“If he gave his blessing, it would be easier for Republicans,” Graham said of the presumptive GOP presidential nominee.

In a discussion with reporters, Graham said his Republican colleagues are torn over whether to agree to consider revenues – such as tax loopholes and fees for government services – as part of a deal to avert the spending cuts, called sequestration.

Let's think about this. They (supposedly) need to find 1.2 trillion in cuts and revenue. And Huck is one of those angling to keep most of the defense cuts off the table. So, he's out there lobbying his brethren to "close loopholes" and raise "fees" for government services instead. And what about the cuts? Well, it goes without saying that they are written in stone.

There was a time when I would have assumed that this was baked in the cake. It's the smart move, after all. The Republicans agree to "sacrifice" by backing some meaningless "revenue", both sides protect their defense contractors and they get to cut a bunch of necessary and important services for average people and pretend like it hurts them more than it hurts us. It's a beautiful austerity package all dressed up as a "balanced approach." Why in the world wouldn't the Republicans eagerly take this deal?

Well, we've seen that they are just that obstinate. When offered a Grand Bargain to slash the hell out of everything for very little in return they walked away before so there's no reason to think they won't do it again. And perhaps that means they are a little bit smarter than we realize. Having walked away before, the Democrats have no illusions that the GOP will lose their nerve. So, if everyone agrees that the end of the world is nigh if they don't reach agreement, the Republicans are in a good position to extract every last concession for very little in return.

And since the Democrats have made it clear that the only hill they will die on is the "revenue" hill, the Republicans can probably get away with offering up Huckleberry's fake "sacrifice" and the Dems will sell it as a win. If the lame duck goes the way it has in the past, we'll probably see some unemployment insurance and maybe a payroll tax cut thrown in to trap the liberals. ( Who knows? Maybe they'll throw in some promise to repeal DOMA?) Just keep in mind that the price for those things is likely to be further degradation of the safety net and an immediate contraction of federal dollars at the worst possible time.

So, I don't care about this chump change he's talking about and neither should the Democrats. Raising some tip money and promising to close a loophole that will open up the next day somewhere else is not a win. If they do this thing I surely hope they don't insult us and ask us to clap louder this time. I might have to hurt somebody.

.

digby 8/01/2012 11:30:00 AM |

 
An American Elite In the 21st Century

By tristero


What's your definition of an American elite? Well, how about:

Lawyer. Check
Princeton and Harvard-trained. Check
Former Washington official. Check
Former solicitor general of a large state. Check
Argued cases before the Supreme Court. Check

Yep, whatever else you might think of this guy, he's unquestionably an elite, one of the most privileged individuals in the United States. He's clearly well-connected and has personally wielded considerable power, far more than most of us ever will.

And so, of course, he's the latest phony tea bagger to rise to national prominence by pretending to be an insurgent and a voice of change for the helpless, oppressed, powerless masses.

UPDATE: And now the Times is positioning him as the intellectual of the Tea Party. That's like calling Dick Cheney the St. Francis of torturers.

.

tristero 8/01/2012 09:15:00 AM |

 
RIP Gore Vidal

by digby

Now that was uncivil. In the very best way.

They don't make lefties like him anymore and more's the pity. He had none of that self-righteous priggishness that overtakes a certain kind of radical, and yet he was a fearless critic of the American system. But he always delivered the bad news with wit, style and an elegant coup de grâce, which is a real gift if you're telling people things they don't want to hear.

One summer, when I was young, I read all his books (up to that time.) And I came away from the experience reeling. It wasn't the historical fiction that blew my mind, it was his very interesting insights into human nature. I think it influenced my view of my fellow man in some ways I've never fully understood.

He remained relevant until the very end. Why it was only a few months ago that he was credited with turning Michele Bachman into a conservative. (She'd read Burr on a train and thought Vidal was "lying" about the founding fathers and decided to get involved.) He must have had a good laugh about that.


RIP
.

digby 8/01/2012 09:00:00 AM |