Suicides increasing in Greece as election nears

Following the stock market crash of 1929, there were plenty of rumors of bankers and the 1% of the time committing suicide by jumping out of windows on Wall Street. Never happened. Fast forward to the modern economic crisis and there are real stories of real people - regular people, not the 1% - who are committing suicide. In March, a Greek retiree shot and killed himself in a public square in Athens and now more reports of suicide are being reported, out of a country that is not known for suicide. And still no justice with the bankers? Why does everyone else have to pay the price for the crimes of the banks?

On Monday, a 38-year-old geology lecturer hanged himself from a lamp post in Athens and on the same day a 35-year-old priest jumped to his death off his balcony in northern Greece. On Wednesday, a 23-year-old student shot himself in the head. In a country that has had one of the lowest suicide rates in the world, a surge in the number of suicides in the wake of an economic crisis has shocked and gripped the Mediterranean nation - and its media - before a May 6 election. The especially grisly death of pharmacist Dimitris Christoulas, who shot himself in the head on a central Athens square because of poverty brought on by the crisis that has put millions out of work, was by far the most dramatic.

Read the rest of this post...

Teabagging GOP sucking on teat of Big Government

Surprise, surprise. The Teabaggers really do love Big Government bailouts. If they didn't, they would not be accepting this money and they would have already forced legislation to break up the too-big-too-fail. More on the fraudulent Teabaggers from Bloomberg:

Republican freshmen have made clear their disdain for expanding government, and openly opposed a financial regulatory overhaul enacted by Democrats in 2010 before the newcomers arrived in Washington. Their ranks include 10 Tea Party-backed freshmen on the House Financial Services Committee, part of a force that won election in a populist backlash to government spending that included emergency lending to major banks and bailout of firms including U.S. automakers. Still, the lawmakers haven’t passed, considered or even introduced legislation to address concerns about “too-big-to- fail” banks voiced by members of both parties and such Federal Reserve bank presidents as Richard Fisher of Dallas and Jeffrey Lacker of Richmond, Virginia. “I haven’t seen any of them putting forth legislation on breaking up the big banks or on other things that would genuinely prevent a bailout next time,” said Marcus Stanley, policy director of Americans for Financial Reform, a Washington- based umbrella group of organizations that supported the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act and other financial regulations.

Read the rest of this post...

Video: World's fastest everything

Read the rest of this post...

Obama approves drone strikes where identity of target is "unknown"

I hate to keep harping on this, but it's unavoidable. Our testosterone-drunk nation is now (apparently) just fine, as in totally on board, with Obama using drones to kill the unknown, based only on a "signature" — a pattern of data in the intel matrix.

How is this not murder?

(This is the same way the NSA fingers your phone calls and email for permanent capture and storage, by the way — by matching the data in your call with a "signature" or profile related to word usage and other parameters.)

Here's Cenk Uygur to explain:



Here's the Washington Post story, if you want to read on.

You remember drone warfare, don't you? It's video games with a meat strike at the end. Obama seems especially fond of them.

Soon these deaths be telecast live on their very own cable network — The Coliseum Channel.

I hate to say it, but I do think Krugman is right, but for a different reason. There will be a Night of the Krell, when all of this mayhem turns against us. The dawn of that understanding will be dark indeed.

Sad days.

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
  Read the rest of this post...

Obama calls out Romney for chickening out on going after Osama bin Laden

Meow.  Now that's the guy I voted for. Here's Obama today:

As far as my personal role and what other folks would do, I'd just recommend that everybody look at people's previous statements in terms of whether they thought it was appropriate to go into Pakistan and take out bin Laden.

I assume that people meant what they said when they said—that's been at least my practice. I said that I'd go after bin Laden if we had a clear shot at him, and I did. If there are others who have said one thing and now suggest they would do something else, then I'd go ahead and let them explain it.

Here's Romney in 2007:

"I do not concur in the words of Barack Obama in a plan to enter an ally of ours... I don't think those kinds of comments help in this effort to draw more friends to our effort," Romney told reporters on the campaign trail....

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.

Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who is one of the Republican front-runners, said U.S. troops "shouldn't be sent all over the world." He called Obama's comments "ill-timed" and "ill-considered."

I do get a kick out of how the Republicans are all upset that the President is taking credit for the Obama kill. And they should be upset. It was one hell of a victory, and something George Bush failed to accomplish in eight years in office (not to mention, Bush actually let Osama get away at Tora Bora). So it's understandable, and typical, that the GOP would freak out over Obama even mentioning Osama. It's what they do - go after you on your strengths so you're afraid to mention them. Remember who the Republican party demonized John Kerry for being a war hero? That was his strength, so they had to take it down. Same goes for Obama taking out Osama.

Romney didn't even want to go after Osama in the first place, he said he wouldn't go into Pakistan to get him, and that's exactly what Obama did, go into Pakistan and kill him. So the Republicans need to do everything they can to neutralize the issue lest the public catch on that under President Romney Osama bin Laden would have gotten away again.

  Read the rest of this post...

Is Obama-Romney Kerry-Bush in reverse?

Jonathan Chait at New York Mag:

The parallels between this year’s presidential election and the one we had eight years ago are striking. Incumbent president with middling approval ratings faces rich guy from Massachusetts with a reputation for flip-flopping. Hilarity ensues. By “hilarity” I mean, specifically, that people get extremely worked up about a series of procedural controversies, and then the two parties trade places on them the next time around.

Yes, but. John Kerry was, in my view, a weak candidate. I don't think he exuded much strength or personality, and came off as a bit of a patrician as well. Romney has far more personality than Kerry, on "strength" the jury is still out, though Romney has done a pretty good job selling himself as an elitist. So perhaps the comparison is valid. Read the rest of this post...

Getting away with public endorsement of religion

John recently wrote about Ron Brown, an assistant football coach at the University of Nebraska who ruffled feathers recently when he testified against a non-discrimination ordinance which extended protections to gay and transgender people. And his reply to those who ask him if he's worried about losing his job? Bring it on:

To be fired for my faith would be a greater honor than to be fired because we didn't win enough games...I haven't lost any sleep over it.

But calls for Brown's resignation do not stem from his comments alone. Many who wish to see Brown go take issue him making his comments while acting as an agent of the University of Nebraska (which has a non-discrimination policy that includes protections for sexual orientation, gender and genetic information), not as an individual. From ESPN:

Brown -- in a decision he said he now regrets -- gave Memorial Stadium in Lincoln as his address of record...people could have inferred he was representing the university, not just himself, when he [testified].

Despite Brown's misuse of his public status, it appears that his job is, at least for now, safe:

Chancellor Harvey Perlman admonished Brown for giving the stadium address, but he said Brown's personal views do not reflect those of the university.

Ron Brown is only the most recent example of religious individuals working for public institutions claiming the right to endorse religious beliefs on behalf of the taxpayer. A few years ago, the issue was put in the spotlight just down the road from Kenyon College.

John Freshwater was an 8th grade science teacher at the local middle school in Mt. Vernon, Ohio. He was a local hero in the religious community for keeping a Bible on his desk and religious posters in his classroom, as well as making statements such as these in the classroom:

Science is wrong because the Bible states that homosexuality is a sin, and so anyone who is gay chooses to be gay and is therefore a sinner.

Freshwater was also reported to have told students to refer to the Bible for scientific research material and to have either ignored or intentionally mis-taught certain areas of the school's curriculum for years, particularly the section on evolution. But those actions were not deemed sufficient cause for his dismissal from the public school system. He was finally fired only after accidentally burning what appear to be crosses into the arms of two students with a tesla coil in a lab experiment.

Both Mr. Freshwater and Mr. Brown are entitled to their homophobic and anti-scientific beliefs as individuals. But when they leave their homes, churches and weekend communities to go to work they are no longer acting as individuals; they are acting as agents of the government they work for. For public institutions to allow their own employees to endorse religious beliefs - let alone bigoted ones - on the taxpayer's dime represents a dangerous and illegal encroachment of religious ideology that must be pushed back against.

Ron Brown violated the University of Nebraska's non-discrimination policy when he testified under his capacity as a representative of the school. It's shameful that he has yet to be held accountable for his actions. Read the rest of this post...

Pelosi endorses Obama's safety net cuts (2013 alert)

It's a target-rich environment here at la maison chez nous, choosing this morning's post. Google (the company, not the tool) is hitting the radar big time, and will soon get its share of attention.

But Nancy Pelosi, our "progressive" fierce defender, has center stage this morning with her recent announcement that she (and by the way, Obama) are still on board with a Grand Bargain — you know, the one where you trade away your children's safety net so long as you keep your own.

Ryan Grimm at the Huffington Post:

Two progressive organizations have found themselves in the unusual position of being on the opposite side of House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. Over the course of the past two years, the former House Speaker has been the most significant obstacle to the ongoing effort to slash entitlements and cut social spending.

But a series of recent comments, and reports that Pelosi was willing to accept draconian cuts as part of a debt-ceiling deal, have liberals worried that their most powerful and passionate defender may be buckling on the issue.

During a recent press conference, and again during an interview with Charlie Rose, [Pelosi] said that she would support what's known as the Simpson-Bowles plan, a budget proposal that was created by the co-chairs of a fiscal commission set up by President Obama (dubbed the "Catfood Commission" by progressives).

Ignore the accurate but yes-butish first paragraph, and the praise in the second. The meat is in the third paragraph.

It takes a layer to unpack that, which Grim provides a few paragraphs later:

The Simpson-Bowles plan is a mix of tax increases and spending cuts that trims four trillion dollars off the deficit in ten years. Its cuts to social spending and entitlement programs made it "simply unacceptable" to the Democrats' liberal base almost as soon as it was announced. Pelosi's rhetorical retreat from that hard-line position has progressives worried they'll have nobody left to defend the social safety net, even Medicare and Social Security.

And for good measure, there's this to worry about as well:

They are also worried by the willingness Pelosi expressed during the manufactured debt-ceiling crisis to agree to cuts much greater than Simpson-Bowles was going for, as reported by the Washington Post.

There's more in Grim's reporting, but I won't belabor the point.

The article includes many kind words for Pelosi, from Grim and from others such as CREDO — hoping I'm sure to shame her back to her former position (meaning, of course, her former words).

There's also prose and a video at the HuffPo site that explains this isn't a cave since she supported "real" Simpson-Bowles, just not the bill that made it to the House floor last time the subject raised its ugly head. Read and watch if you wish. (If you want even more on Pelosi, try this. It's not just one source.)

Since they're all being so nice, I can be direct. Here's me:

■ Don't trust Nancy Pelosi. She's trying to sell out the safety net. All that verbal obfuscation simply means she's also protecting her "San Francisco liberal" brand in the process. She can't have both, but she's trying.

GP's rule for dealing with Dems:

If you want something from them, threaten what they're desperate to keep.

This usually means their jobs (primaries anyone?), but in a few cases it's their "brand" — their "unique selling point" — the persona (the mask) that allows them to fund-raise.

What does Pelosi want? To be the "liberal" face of the Pelosi-Hoyer axis. Threaten to take that away and you get her attention. (Which means, Mr. CREDO Action Arm — With all respect, confirming her liberal brand may have the opposite result of the one you want.)

Side note — How to deal with Obama in his "legacy" years? How about threatening his legacy as the next Bill Clinton? Here's a start.

■ Simpson-Bowles was designed to attack the safety net. Read here for what the chairman's report wanted to do (note the new lower tax rates, offset by revenue that will never happen). Putting it more simply, Alan Simpson said:

We are going to stick to the big three [Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid].

Got that? The rest is just words, the fog. Krugman calls Simpson-Bowles a "wealth transfer" and faux-progressive Pelosi's on board.

■ Obama still wants to sell you out as well. As we reported here in March (all of a month ago):

Working late into the evening, Obama asked someone to get Boehner on the phone. [Obama's] message: I’ll take your last offer. “Mr. President,” Boehner answered, “we don’t have time to reopen these negotiations.”

White House officials said this week that the offer is still on the table.

"Still on the table" means still on the table.

■ Don't forget this:



As Uncle Straight Talk says, "An unfettered Obama is a dangerous Obama."

■ And never forget this:



All you need to know? Our Betters are joined against us, all of them. They just need an opening to kill the New Deal and they're on it.

What can you do? Maybe rebrand Nancy Pelosi. She's acting like Steny Hoyer; let her fundraise as Steny Hoyer.

Time to fight, folks.

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
  Read the rest of this post...

UK rich, now even richer despite double-dip recession

Recessions are for the little people. Read the rest of this post...