Join Email List | About us | AMERICAblog Gay
Elections | Economic Crisis | Jobs | TSA | Limbaugh | Fun Stuff

Tuesday, August 09, 2011

UPDATED: The polls have closed in Wisconsin in recall elections for Six GOP Senators



View Comments | Reddit | Tumblr | Digg | FARK
UPDATE @ 12:28 AM: Looks like the GOP will retain control of the Wisconsin Senate by a margin of 17 - 16. In the 8th District, it appears that incumbent Alberta Darling (R) has defeated Sandra Pasch (D). There are still a few precincts left to count, but most are in. Democrats picked up 2 seats tonight.

UPDATE @ 11:44 PM: More good news. The AP has called the 18th Senate District for Democrat Jessica King. She beat the incumbent Republican Randy Hopper. Just waiting on District 8, which includes Waukesha. You remember Wauskesha where the GOP clerk found 7,500 votes during the Supreme Court election in April.

UPDATE @ 11:10 PM: The first Democratic win tonight in the 32nd District. AP has called the race for Jennifer Shilling. She beat incumbent Dan Kapanke. Two more to go -- District 8 (Alberta Darling (R) v. Sandra Pasch (D)) and District 18 (Randy Hopper (R) v. Jessica King (D).) Right now, Dems lead in both race but both are close. King is up by 137 votes with 14 precincts left to report, all from Winnebago, which has been going her way tonight.

UPDATE @ 10:53 PM: In the 14th District, looks like Republican incumbent Luther Olsen has been declared the winner. He's a real creep. Read about him here. Democrats need to pick up all three remaining races to take control of the Senate.

UPDATE @ 10:22 PM: In the 10th District, The Journal Sentinel has declared incumbent Sheila Harnsdorf (R) the winner.

UPDATE @ 10:15 PM: In the 2nd District, AP has declared Robert Cowles (R) the winner over Nancy Nusbaum (D).
______________
Six Republican State Senators are facing the voters in the recall elections today. The polls closed at 8 PM CT. Dems. needed to pick up three seats to take control of the Senate. The key races are (and all the Rs are incumbents):
2nd District: Robert Cowles (R) v. Nancy Nusbaum (D)

8th District: Alberta Darling (R) v. Sandra Pasch (D)

10th District: Sheila Harnsdorf (R) v. Shelly Moore (D)

14th District: Luther Olsen (R) v. Fred Clark (D)

18th District: Randy Hopper (R) v. Jessica King (D)

32nd District: Dan Kapanke (R) v. Jennifer Shilling (D)
We'll post updates as results roll in.

The crew at DailyKos Elections are liveblogging and PCCC is providing live updates.

On twitter, follow the hashtag #WIRecall.

Also, Nate Silver has an analysis titled, Reading the Wisconsin Recall Vote.

And, the (Milwaukee) Journal-Sentinel will be compiling results here. AP has its results here (with County breakdowns.) Read the rest of this post...

Americans are really hating on the GOP these days



View Comments | Reddit | Tumblr | Digg | FARK
So, this whole GOP "destroy the economy" agenda isn't sitting well with the American people. They're unfavorable ratings are hitting new highs. Oh well:
Voters are more unhappy with the Republican Party now than they were when the Republican-led House voted to impeach then-President Clinton, according to a new CNN poll released Tuesday.

Fifty-nine percent of voters polled said they had an unfavorable opinion of the Republican Party, with 33 percent calling their opinion favorable. The Tea Party did not poll well, either, with 51 percent saying they have an unfavorable opinion of the movement.

The last time CNN polled the GOP out of favor with more than 50 percent was in 1998.
Don't get too excited. It still took until 2006 before voters dumped the GOP from control of the House and Senate.

Congress has hit a new low in Gallup's polling, too:
About one in five U.S. registered voters (21%) say most members of Congress deserve re-election, the lowest percentage Gallup has found in the 20-year history of asking this question. The prior lows of 28% were recorded in 2010 and earlier this year.
Read the rest of this post...

Why is England burning?



View Comments | Reddit | Tumblr | Digg | FARK
With all the oxygen that Obama-nalysis is sucking out of the air, I think we're missing a major story — riots by the underclass in England. There's a lot to this, and it's developing (as they say).

First, the latest on the ground. In London (all emphasis mine):
16,000 police to take to streets as Parliament is recalled

The number of police officers on the streets of London is to be almost trebled tonight to 16,000 to deal with the "sickening" scenes of violence ... Parliament will also be recalled for a day on Thursday[.]
And also:
'Mindless violence' spreads to Liverpool, Leeds and Birmingham

Embattled police struggled to contain a third night of riots, looting and arson as David Cameron cut short his holiday to chair a session of Cobra, the emergency co-ordination committee, scheduled for this morning.

As darkness drew in last night violence broke out in so many parts of London that it began to read like an A to Z of the capital. Peckham, Ladbroke Grove, Ealing, Catford, Chalk Farm, East Dulwich, Bethnal Green, Lewisham, Clapham and Croydon – where one person was shot and wounded – were all affected. In Hackney police fought for much of the day with rioters who hurled shopping trolleys, bins and pieces of concrete at officers, and set fire to vehicles.
"Mindless violence."

Here's the latest on the proximate source of the riots, the police killing last week of Mark Duggan (my emphasis):
Fragments of a bullet modified to maximise its destructive power were last night being analysed to cast crucial light on what happened at around 6.15pm last Thursday when police marksmen surrounded the minicab carrying Mark Duggan alongside a north London reservoir and shot him dead. ... Investigators yesterday refused to confirm reports that initial results from the tests by the National Ballistics Intelligence Service suggested that the bullet fragments were from police-issue ammunition, meaning they could not have been from a weapon fired by Mr Duggan and casting doubt on claims that he was killed in an exchange of gunfire.
Well, that sounds familiar. More "mindless violence"?

Now the larger cause, per Howie Klein at DownWithTyranny (I added some paragraphing, since our columns are narrow at Casa AmericaBlog):
Didn't David Cameron looked pissed off having been dragged back to gritty, sweltering, seething, burning London from his lovely £10,000/week 18th Century Tuscan holiday villa near Montevarchi!

His answer to the rioters who have spread from Tottenham to almost every corner of London and up to Birmingham and Liverpool is one dimensional: he's going to go all Bashar al-Assad on them. Tonight the police on the streets of London will increase from 6,000 to 16,000.

As he said he's recalling Parliament-- no doubt to force Labour to embrace his harsh plans for repression-- he muttered something about rebuilding the burning communities... but nothing about the roots causes of the three days of rioting. It surely went beyond one instance of police brutality in the extra-judicial murder of community activist Mark Duggan. That was a spark in Tottenham-- a spark that set off hours of peaceful-- if unreported-- protest.

But the conflagration that followed, there and beyond, has much more to do with a breakdown of social cohesion in the U.K. There's a hopelessness brought on by Cameron's enthusiastic buy-in to world capital's insistence on an Austerity Regime. Cameron was the first major embraceor of the concept, a concept that the GOP feels will serve their nefarious purposes here in the U.S. as well, regardless of how disastrously it has failed-- in every way-- in the U.K.
Or, as I said a year ago:
When the social contract breaks from above, it breaks from below as well.
That's "mindless violence" on both sides; not purposeless, mind you, but mindless. The rest of Howie's post is excellent as well. (And don't forget to click the wicked video.) He's certainly not alone in his thinking.

The reaction to ugly is almost always ugly. We focus, for example, on the short, brutal years of the guillotine, and somehow forget ten centuries of ugly, brutal, predatory, self-serving abuse of literally millions of souls that spawned that briefer moment.

Or, in more modern terms: Every now and then we get a Cairo. But mostly we get either Libya (blood-ugly on both sides) or Syria (that's the "Bashar al-Assad" reference above). That's what "doing the time" usually looks like if a society decides to "do the crime" of destroying the social contract.

And we're kinda getting there too. Will it be just "Cairo" for us? We should be so lucky. Finding the next FDR — the real one this time — would help an awful lot in that regard.

GP Read the rest of this post...

Perception



View Comments | Reddit | Tumblr | Digg | FARK
Regardless of whether critics of the President, myself included, are correct or incorrect about our negative assessment of him, that negative impression has continued to grow over time.

I remember two years ago asking a DC-based reporter for the MSM if it was just me, or were people starting to feel like the President was a bit of a wimp. He said it wasn't just me. The impression of the President was that he was afraid of a fight. This was the summer of 09. Just six months in office, and a very bad impression of the President was starting to grow.

It's worse now. It's spread to more people - including far too many people who raised money for, and donated their time to, the President's campaign - and just as bad, the assessment has gotten harsher, and continues to harshen.

My point is that a lot of us saw this coming. And rather than deal with it, in some way, the White House has only reinforced the negative image of the President. And negatives, if given time to sink in, are awfully hard to turn around.  At some point, far too many people believe the negative for you to simply write them all off as ex-Hillary supporters, racists, the professional left, or the Internet left fringe.  And by the time the President starts dealing with this reality, it may too late change it.

Here's Dana Milbank on yesterday's White House briefing.

Various reporters tried to elicit more information about Obama’s economic plans and deficit-reduction proposals, but Carney declined again to take the lead.

“I don’t want to get too far ahead of the process,” he explained to the Wall Street Journal’s Laura Meckler, adding that Obama “will be contributing to that process, not driving it or directing it.”

“Why?” inquired Politico’s Glenn Thrush. “He’s the leader of the free world. Why isn’t he leading this process?”

That is the enduring mystery of Obama’s presidency. He delivered his statement on the economy beneath a portrait of Abraham Lincoln, but that was as close as he came to forceful leadership. He looked grim and swallowed hard and frequently as he mixed fatalism (“markets will rise and fall”) with vague, patriotic exhortations (“this is the United States of America”).

“There will always be economic factors that we can’t control,” Obama said. Maybe. But it would be nice if the president gave it a try.
Read the rest of this post...

When did the end begin?



View Comments | Reddit | Tumblr | Digg | FARK
Michael Moore (per Avedon Carol) on what many don't know we had, and when it all began to end. (I added all the paragraphing; I wanted to emphasize that great list of lost benefits in the now-gone post-war world.)
From time to time, someone under 30 will ask me, "When did this all begin, America's downward slide?"

They say they've heard of a time when working people could raise a family and send the kids to college on just one parent's income (and that college in states like California and New York was almost free).

That anyone who wanted a decent paying job could get one.

That people only worked five days a week, eight hours a day, got the whole weekend off and had a paid vacation every summer.

That many jobs were union jobs, from baggers at the grocery store to the guy painting your house, and this meant that no matter how "lowly" your job was you had guarantees of a pension, occasional raises, health insurance and someone to stick up for you if you were unfairly treated.

Young people have heard of this mythical time - but it was no myth, it was real. And when they ask, "When did this all end?", I say, "It ended on this day: August 5th, 1981."
Read that list again; it's worth your time. This really is a lost world, isn't it, a world long gone.

Moore goes on to talk about the PATCO strike, and how striking a move (no pun intended) the Reagan decision to fire all the strikers was, considering that the union supported Reagan in 1980.

By the way, notice the complicity of the AFL-CIO in that anti-union coup:
The biggest organization of unions in America told its members to cross the picket lines of the air traffic controllers and go to work. And that's just what these union members did. Union pilots, flight attendants, delivery truck drivers, baggage handlers - they all crossed the line and helped to break the strike. And union members of all stripes crossed the picket lines and continued to fly.
They did it to themselves. (This, by the way, is why the "hippies" of that day had trouble with union members. Contra Kevin Drum's analysis, hippies reached out and were rejected; welcome to the world of Reagan Democrats.)

But I want to focus primarily on that list — on the archeology of it. Again, what a stunning array of benefits. And for anyone thirty years old or less, it describes a time they've never even seen — and never will.

GP Read the rest of this post...

Should Fed leave markets on their own?



View Comments | Reddit | Tumblr | Digg | FARK
CNBC:
“This correction was long overdue and it is healthy, as it allows assets to pass from weak into stronger hands and to be more fairly priced” said [Pedro Noronha, a fund manager at Noster Capital in London].

The problem for Noronha is that attempts to stop the market reacting to events via intervention mean the market cannot find its footing.

“It is important that the market learns how to find its own footing again without the constant band aids and quick fix medicines that quickly alleviate the pain but do nothing to solve the issues at hand” said Noronha.
Read the rest of this post...

Thom Hartmann: What we can learn from the Tea Party



View Comments | Reddit | Tumblr | Digg | FARK
Something that merits serious consideration, excellently put (h/t David Atkins at Digby's place). Thoughts about winning now from Thom Hartmann:



Control the primaries, and you control the candidates. How often have we talked about primaries as the only way to mount electoral challenges (as opposed to extra-electoral ones)?

Infiltrating an organization from below is how the Southern Baptist Convention fell to Movement Conservatives. It's how Texas school book contents are controlled. And it's how the Democratic party can be brought to heel — perhaps the only way.

Note the time-frame — starting now could pay off big next year. Seriously.

Playing to win means — actually playing, and actually winning. Many do neither, and some do just the first. Just sayin'.

GP Read the rest of this post...

Another "wave" election may be building for next year



View Comments | Reddit | Tumblr | Digg | FARK
USA Today:
Only 24% of those surveyed say most members of Congress deserve re-election, the lowest percentage since Gallup began asking the question in 1991. Fifty-six percent say their own representative deserves another term, similar to the levels just before tumultuous elections in 1994, 2006 and 2010 that changed control of the House or Senate.

And a majority of Americans, 51%, say President Obama doesn't deserve re-election; 47% say he does. Obama bests an unnamed Republican presidential candidate by 49%-45%, though he remains below the 50% threshold.
Read the rest of this post...

Ken Silverstein on Obama in 2006: Barack Obama, Inc.



View Comments | Reddit | Tumblr | Digg | FARK
Here's that Ken Silverstein piece from Harper's in 2006 I keep referring to. I'm quoting (with permission) the introduction in full, since that story tells the tale. Note two things:
    Obama uses a green event to paint himself freely with liberal cred (look familiar?)

    The only call to action from Obama is to support his BigAg corn state ethanol agenda. The only one.
For Silverstein, Obama is a known made man at that point, and Silverstein wrote this in 2006, way before Obama announced for president. A great story and a great read (my emphasis):
Barack Obama Inc.:
The birth of a Washington machine

In July, on a typically oppressive summer day in Washington, D.C., roughly a thousand college students from across the country gathered at a Marriott hotel with plans to change the world. Despite being sponsored by the Center for American Progress, a moderate think tank founded by one of Bill Clinton’s former chiefs of staff, John Podesta, the student group—called Campus Progress—leans decidedly farther to the left. At booths outside the main auditorium, young activists handed out pamphlets opposing nuclear power, high pay for CEOs, excessive profits for oil companies, harsh prison sentences for drug users, and Israeli militarism in Gaza and the West Bank. At one session, Adrienne Maree Brown of The Ruckus Society—a protest group whose capacious mission is to promote “the voices and visions of youth, women, people of color, indigenous people and immigrants, poor and working class people, lesbian, gay, bisexual, gender queer, and transgendered people”—urged students to “break the fucking rules.” Even the consummate insider Podesta told attendees, with unintended ambiguity, “We need more of you hanging from trees.”

Around noon, conference participants began filing into the auditorium; activists staffing the literature booths abandoned their posts to take seats inside as well. The crowd, and the excitement, building in the hall was due entirely to the imminent arrival of the keynote speaker: Illinois Senator Barack Obama. Having ascended to political fame through a stirring and widely lauded speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention, Obama, the U.S. Senate’s only African-American member, is now considered to be the party’s most promising young leader—especially among those who, like the student organizers present, are seeking to reinvigorate its progressive wing. In terms of sheer charisma, Obama is certainly the party’s most magnetic leader since Bill Clinton, and perhaps since Robert F. Kennedy.

The senator was running a bit late; but when he finally glided into the auditorium, escorted by an assortment of aides, he was greeted by a tremendous swell of applause as he took to the stage. Dressed in a brown jacket and red tie, Obama approached the podium, flanked by two giant screens enlarging his image, and began a softly spoken but compelling speech that recalled his own days, after his graduation in 1983 from Columbia University, as a community organizer in poor neighborhoods of Chicago. “You’ll have boundless opportunities when you graduate,” he told the students, “and it’s very easy to just take that diploma, forget about all this progressive-politics stuff [his phrase], and go chasing after the big house and the large salary and the nice suits and all the other things that our money culture says you should buy. But I hope you don’t get off that easy. There’s nothing wrong with making money, but focusing your life solely on making a buck shows a poverty of ambition.”

Obama complained of an American culture that “discourages empathy,” in which those in power blame poverty on people who are “lazy or weak of spirit” and believe that “innocent people being slaughtered and expelled from their homes halfway around the world are somebody else’s problem.” He urged the assembled activists to ignore those voices, “not because you have an obligation to those who are less fortunate than you, although I think you do have that obligation . . . but primarily because you have that obligation to yourself. Because our individual salvation depends on collective salvation. It’s only when you hitch yourself up to something bigger than yourself that you realize your true potential.”

It was a rousing speech, and Obama is probably the only member of Congress who could have delivered it with any conviction or credibility. When he left the stage and headed toward the hotel exit, he was trailed by a pack of autograph seekers, picture takers, and glad-handers.

Despite its audience and ostensible subject matter, however, Obama’s speech had contained just a single call for political action. This was when he had introduced Mark Pike, a law student who then came bounding across the stage in a green one-piece mechanic’s outfit. As part of a campaign called “Kick the Oil Habit,” Pike was to depart directly from the conference and drive from Washington to Los Angeles in a “flex-fuel” vehicle. “Give it up for Mark!” Obama had urged the crowd, noting that Pike would be refueling only at gas stations that offer E85—which Obama touts as “a clean, renewable, and domestically produced alternative fuel.”

Although the senator did not elaborate, E85 is so called because it is 85 percent ethanol, a product whose profits accrue to a small group of corporate corn growers led by Illinois-headquartered Archer Daniels Midland. Not surprisingly, agribusiness is a primary advocate of E85, as are such automobile manufacturers as Ford, which donated Pike’s car. The automakers love E85 because it allows them to look environmentally correct (“Live Green, Go Yellow,” goes GM’s advertising pitch for the fuel) while producing vehicles, mostly highly profitable and fuel-guzzling SUV and pickup models, that can run on regular gasoline as well as on E85.[1]

Obama had essentially marshaled his twenty minutes of undeniably moving oratory to plump for the classic pork-barrel cause of every Midwestern politician.
Ken adds in a footnote:
[1] Since producing most domestic ethanol requires large amounts of fossil fuel, and regular gasoline provides about 30 percent more mileage per gallon than E85, it’s arguably preferable from a conservation standpoint to drive a standard gasoline car rather than a flex-fuel vehicle.
Then, after lauding Obama's early Senate advocacy of leftish causes, Silverstein notes this stunning list of Beltway integration moves:
Yet it is also startling to see how quickly Obama’s senatorship has been woven into the web of institutionalized influence-trading that afflicts official Washington. He quickly established a political machine funded and run by a standard Beltway group of lobbyists, P.R. consultants, and hangers-on. For the staff post of policy director he hired Karen Kornbluh, a senior aide to Robert Rubin when the latter, as head of the Treasury Department under Bill Clinton, was a chief advocate for NAFTA and other free-trade policies that decimated the nation’s manufacturing sector (and the organized labor wing of the Democratic Party). Obama’s top contributors are corporate law and lobbying firms (Kirkland & Ellis and Skadden, Arps, where four attorneys are fund-raisers for Obama as well as donors), Wall Street financial houses (Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase), and big Chicago interests (Henry Crown and Company, an investment firm that has stakes in industries ranging from telecommunications to defense). Obama immediately established a “leadership PAC,” a vehicle through which a member of Congress can contribute to other politicians’ campaigns—and one that political reform groups generally view as a slush fund through which congressional leaders can evade campaign-finance rules while raising their own political profiles.
In other words, Obama built a Washington machine, just like the one he built to defeat Bobby Rush in Illinois, once he realized he needed one. The whole piece makes a fine read; it's a remarkable bit of original reporting.

Is it possible that Obama's just a machine politician in the generic sense, but a machine he's at the top of, not in the middle of? (Remember how he shut down outside funding groups like MoveOn in the 2008 election? It's not your machine if you're not in charge.)

If so, Obama's loyalties are, to all appearances, to his machine and his own career. Something to think about when you think about Obama and his motives.

You can always do what many do and excuse him for weakness (this comfortingly assumes he's on your side, but not good at it). Or you can go with Drew Westen's kind assessment, that perhaps Obama "does not know what he believes or is willing to take whatever position he thinks will lead to his re-election." Or Westen's slightly less kind assessment that "he has already been consciously or unconsciously corrupted".

But for me, that 2006 story tells the whole tale. How hard is it to believe that the politician Barack Obama is, and always was ... a politician?

He paints himself green when he can because that's his "brand" — for as long as he can get away with it anyway — and shills for corporate and special-interest donors, just like Mitch McConnell or Kent Conrad do.

The only difference is in the branding, the same as with most mass market, nationally advertised products. Dish soap is dish soap. Some is "enhanced with space-age enzymes" and some is "made from herbs and tea." Some is "attractively priced" and some "smells like a garden in your kitchen."

But it's just product differentiation. McConnell has his brand, Conrad his, and Obama has his — each tailored to a different target market. You and me, we're part of Obama's target market; we're the left-liberals hungry for hope. ("Hope? Can we build a theme around that?" "Sure boss; I'll get back to you.")

How hard is that to believe? For me, not hard at all. I'm an Occam's Switchblade guy—he does what he wants to; it's that simple. I'm glad to let others do the Voyage Round My Father thing. It's just possible those are comfortable — and reality-avoiding — delusions.

That said, it's your call of course, what to think and do. (And I think it's safe to say I'm now off the White House Christmas list; I'm expecting nothing but Grinch-gifts this year.)

Mes centimes,

GP Read the rest of this post...

Nate Silver on S&P;: Their scores predicted none of the crisis



View Comments | Reddit | Tumblr | Digg | FARK
Nate Silver:
But the fact that the two sets of ratings are so closely related is troublesome. It suggests that S.&P. is making a lot of judgment calls about countries they have no particular knowledge about. Keep in mind that even when it comes to the United States, S.&P. made a $2 trillion error that reflects their lack of understanding of the way that bills are scored by the Congressional Budget Office. Are we to expect that they add value based on their perceptions of the political climate in Kazakhstan, or Cyprus, or Uganda?
S.&P.’s bond ratings from five years ago would have told you almost nothing about the risk of a default today. They had no insight about the threats in European markets, nor about which countries in Europe were relatively more likely to default. (Norway, which remains among the most solvent countries in the world, had a AAA rating in 2006, but so did Ireland and Spain.)

By comparison, simply looking at a country’s ratio of net debt to G.D.P. would have been a better predictor of default. It wouldn’t have done well by any means: it only explains about 12 percent of default risk. Still, this simple statistical indicator does better than the S.&P. ratings.
Read the rest of this post...

Stiglitz: A contagion of bad ideas



View Comments | Reddit | Tumblr | Digg | FARK
By Nobel economist Joe Stiglitz:
The Great Recession of 2008 has morphed into the North Atlantic Recession: it is mainly Europe and the United States, not the major emerging markets, that have become mired in slow growth and high unemployment. And it is Europe and the US that are marching, alone and together, to the denouement of a grand debacle. A busted bubble led to a massive Keynesian stimulus that averted a much deeper recession, but that also fueled substantial budget deficits. The response - massive spending cuts - ensures that unacceptably high levels of unemployment (a vast waste of resources and an oversupply of suffering) will continue, possibly for years.
But, even as Europe's leaders promised that help was on the way, they doubled down on the belief that non-crisis countries must cut spending. The resulting austerity will hinder Europe's growth, and thus that of its most distressed economies: after all, nothing would help Greece more than robust growth in its trading partners. And low growth will hurt tax revenues, undermining the proclaimed goal of fiscal consolidation.
The end of the stimulus itself is contractionary. And, with housing prices continuing to fall, GDP growth faltering, and unemployment remaining stubbornly high (one of six Americans who would like a full-time job still cannot get one), more stimulus, not austerity, is needed - for the sake of balancing the budget as well. The single most important driver of deficit growth is weak tax revenues, owing to poor economic performance; the single best remedy would be to put Americans back to work. The recent debt deal is a move in the wrong direction.
But the real problem stems from another form of contagion: bad ideas move easily across borders, and misguided economic notions on both sides of the Atlantic have been reinforcing each other. The same will be true of the stagnation that those policies bring.
Read the rest of this post...

Riots spread through UK cities



View Comments | Reddit | Tumblr | Digg | FARK
Looters are apparently now going into people's home to loot, according to a friend of mine over there.  More from NPR:
A wave of violence and looting raged across London and spread to three other major British cities Tuesday, as authorities struggled to contain the country's worst unrest since race riots set the capital ablaze in the 1980s.

In London, groups of young people rampaged for a third straight night, setting buildings, vehicles and garbage dumps alight, looting stores and pelting police officers with bottles and fireworks. The spreading disorder was an unwelcome warning of the possibility of violence during London's 2012 Summer Olympics, less than a year away.

Police called in hundreds of reinforcements and volunteer police officers— and made a rare decision to deploy armored vehicles in some of the worst-hit districts — but still struggled to keep pace with the chaos unfolding at flashpoints across London, in the central city of Birmingham, the western city of Bristol and the northwestern city of Liverpool.
I've never understood the public's reticence about taking on looters/rioters with force. Especially once they start breaking into private homes, with people living there, all bets are off in my book. You no longer have a social justice gripe when you're breaking into private homes, and smashing the window on the local Foot Locker because you want to grab ten pairs of sneakers.  And yes, there's the concern of "police violence creating even more rioters", but that's not what I'm talking about. I've been surprised in the past, when these situations arise, when I ask friends, why don't the police tell the looters to stop or they'll shoot?  And friends say that shooting them wouldn't be right.  Why?  And again, we're not talking about peaceful protesters here, or some folks holding a sit in.  We're talking setting things on fire, looting and burning down someone's livelihood, and breaking into your home in the middle of the night.  Is it acceptable, morally, to use violence to stop that (regardless of whether it's wise, in terms of fomenting more violence)? What do you think?

Here's at least one photostream I found on flickr of some amateur shots. More here. And another. Read the rest of this post...

White teens in Mississippi took drive to beat up 1st black person they saw. Found 49 y.o. auto wkr, beat him, then ran him over, dead. And there's video.



View Comments | Reddit | Tumblr | Digg | FARK
NOTE FROM JOHN: This story comes across far worse when you watch CNN's video.  Watch the video.  These are cute little pretty suburban white boys, who did this. First they all beat the guy, a 49 year old auto worker who was coming out of a motel at 5am, then when the man stumbled away for help, the one kid gunned his engine and ran the man over, dead.  It's all on video.  Speechless.

This is beyond disturbing. From Pam Spaulding:
I caution you to think about whether you want to watch this video, since it's graphic, but honestly, if you want to see what racism breeds.

In Mississippi, young men decided that their entertainment for the evening was to go for a drive and kick the sh*t out of the first black person that they came across. (CNN):

Read Pam's full post. Seriously.
The fact that these teens were ready to kill any black person they came across is chilling; it is very hard for me not to project myself in that situation - my life is worthless to people like this. Life snuffed out in an instant.

You have to ask yourself -- what kind of home life did these teens have? Was there bold and open racist talk by their parents that sowed the seeds of hate? What kind of diversity existed in their school lives? Mississippi has to own this kind of cultural nightmare; but so do a lot of states, eve ones with diverse populations, that still deal with racism, colorism and violence over cultural differences.

We have come a long way in terms of laws on the books to address discrimination, but in other, darker corners of society, nothing much has changed at all for a slice of the population that sees people of color as expendible, exploitable, and an obstacle to their desire to remain socially segregated.

Read the rest of this post...

Digby is annoyed too



View Comments | Reddit | Tumblr | Digg | FARK
See, it's not just me.  Digby:
The President is on TV right now going on about deficits and compromise and blaance and all the usual ineffectual bromides and endorsing the Gang of 6, Simpson and Bowles and his own aborted Grand Bargain with John Boehner. He does say that he wants to extend the payroll tax cut and Unemployment Insurance and something, something about bridges and roads, so that's good.

As far as laying the blame for the debacle at the feet of the lunatics who have promised to hold the debt ceiling as a hostage for all time, he had this to say:
This is the United States of America and no matter what some agency may says we always have been and always will be a triple A country. Despite all our challenges we still have the best universities, some of the most productive workers, the most innovative companies, the most adventurous entrepreneurs on earth. What sets us apart is not only that we have the capacity but also the will to act. The determination to shape our future. The willingness in a democracy to work out our differences in a sensible way. And move forward not just for this generation but for the next generation. And we're going to need to summon that spirit today.
I'll bet the Republicans are so grateful that the President didn't blame them for the debt ceiling debacle that they will happily cooperate in future legislative initiatives. Like passing free trade deals. And cutting spending, regulations and taxes.
Read the rest of this post...


Site Meter