British Conservative government to squeeze the unemployed

If they were equally as harsh with the bankers it would be one thing but they're not. They're still dancing around and playing games, as if the bankers are critical to the success of the country. The obvious answer is that they're not. At least not the clowns that drowned the economy and that's who continue to run the banks. How is it that governments can invest so much time in being nasty with those at the bottom, yet give a free pass to those at the top who are much more costly to the system?

A tougher-than-expected squeeze on the unemployed is to be announced today as the jobless face the threat of losing all benefits for as long as three years if they refuse community work or the offer of a job, or fail to apply for a job if advised to do so.

In the most severe welfare sanctions ever imposed by a British government, unemployed people will lose benefits for three months if they fail to take up one of the options for the first time, six months if they refuse an offer twice, and three years if they refuse an offer three times.

Downing Street sources said the new "claimant contract" will come into force as soon as legislation is passed, and may not wait for the introduction of a streamlined universal credit system in 2013-14.

Read the rest of this post...

More people want HCR law strengthened than repealed

It sucks spoiling a good lie that the media so adores.

Only 31 percent of respondents said they want the law repealed completely. Twenty percent wanted it left as is. And 38 percent want it changed so it does more to alter the health care system.

Read the rest of this post...

Videos of troops surprising their loved ones on coming home

Try watching this one and not crying.



Dog flips out when owner comes home from Afghanistan:



This is a nice compilation of various surprises:

Read the rest of this post...

Cindy McCain does video opposing DADT, accusing 'our government' of sending signal that bullying is okay - her hubbie is the lead defender of DADT

John McCain is leading the filibuster against the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" "repeal" legislation in the Senate (it's not an actual repeal, but we'll leave that for another time).  Today, Cindy McCain joined a number of celebrities in a video about gay youth suicide and bullying.  Mrs. McCain's part of the video condemned DADT and then accused our government of sending bullies a message that what they do is okay.

The woman basically accused her husband of sharing the blame for gay kids killing themselves.

I'm astonished.  And impressed as hell.



CINDY MCCAIN:

Our political and religious leaders tell LGBT youth that they have no future.

They can't serve our country openly.

VARIETY OF SPEAKERS:

What's worse, these laws that legislate discrimination teach bullies that what they're doing is acceptable.

CINDY MCCAIN:

Our government treats the LGBT community like second class citizens, why shouldn't they?

Read the rest of this post...

Night Music

Open Thread, emphasis on smooth.

One of the best tenors, singing one of his best songs:

Vince Gill, If You Ever Have Forever In Mind

Read the rest of this post...

AT&T; fighting before Supreme Court to deny consumers class action lawsuits

Would it really be a surprise of the Roberts court allowed this? The corporate takeover of the country hasn't met much resistance so far, including from political leaders from either side. This has to stop.

If a majority of the nine justices vote the telecom giant's way, any business that issues a contract to customers — such as for credit cards, cellphones or cable TV — would be able to prevent them from joining class-action lawsuits.

Read the rest of this post...

Armistice Day

Poppies grow wild in fields heavily fertilized with corpses. It's the reason the poppy became the symbol of the old WWI Armistice Day.

I was tempted to print just the first part, leaving off the last stanza, the call to arms. Without that part, the voice of the endless Dead is poignant, evocative. But in these times, I think we need the call to arms.

We face an emboldened implacable foe, pounding us into dust, it seems, and the fate of the new century truly hangs in the balance. What will the world be like, for example, when four giant corporations own 80% of all fresh water on the planet — free in a "privatized" world to do whatever they like — responsive only to their dreams of wealth and their ego-driven Galtian erections? What will the resistance — you know there will be resistance — look and feel like? (You know the answer; that war has already started.)

Take up our quarrel with the foe: to you from failing hands we throw the torch. Our thanks to Ian Welsh, a Canadian of course, for reminding us of this great poem on this day of remembrance.

GP Read the rest of this post...

Dick Van Dyke saved by porpoises

Seriously.  And seriously weird.  (Oh come on, I had to post this.) Read the rest of this post...

A comparison of Ds and Rs when it comes to compromising

Fascinating Gallup poll. And, ironically, it reflects how Democrats and Republicans act in Washington.

Americans think it is generally more important for political leaders to compromise to get things done (47%) rather than sticking to their beliefs (27%), but Republicans and Democrats hold differing views on the matter. Republicans tilt more toward saying leaders should stick to their beliefs (41% to 32%), while Democrats more widely endorse compromise (by 59% to 18%).

As Peter Daou tweeted this morning, "is it really 'compromise' when only one side is doing it?" Read the rest of this post...

There is such a thing as 'the Latino vote' -- and Republicans should be scared

Stanley Renshon at the "Center for Immigration Studies," which masquerades as a mainstream think tank but is really just another front for the anti-immigrant movement, takes issue with a Politico story by Ben Smith about the Hispanic electorate and the influence anti-immigrant laws like SB 1070 in Arizona have had on their voting patterns. It's an incoherent, rambling critique that seeks to downplay Hispanics as a voting bloc and the importance of immigration issues to this community.

As any immigration researcher knows, "Hispanic" is a made-in-America term, not one that persons from the various countries and cultures that make up the category use. They do not all think alike, regardless of what the Robert Menendezes of the world would have us believe. ...

Americans, and this includes "Hispanics," are fair people and it would be very hard to sustain the view that "our people" ought to have a primary role in immigration policy, almost to the extent of exclusivity.

Just as a factual matter, the term "Hispanic" -- like "Latino" -- is indeed used by people who hail from different parts of Latin America. I can say this as the child of Hispanic immigrants, but you needn't look any further than any of the numerous Spanish-language publications that cater to this community -- El Hispanico, Tiempo Latino, Hispanidad, or even the Washington Hispanic. It's true that it's a term used primarily in America, but that's because in Latin America, most everyone's Latino. But that's beside the point. What Renshon is really railing against is the idea that people who hail -- or whose parents hail -- from Latin America form a cohesive class that will punish either the Republicans or Democrats for failing to reform the immigration system, which includes a plan to give people who've come here illegally the chance to become citizens. That's a scary thought to those who oppose comprehensive immigration reform.

To a certain degree, Renshon has a point. Latino voters do not all think alike; for instance, the Cuban population in Florida has for some time skewed to the right, whereas voters of Mexican descent tend to vote for Democrats. You can't just gloss over the fact that those who hail from Colombia have an affinity for, and a shared cultural understanding with, their fellow Colombians that they don't share with someone who grew up in, say, Argentina. It's also true, as the post says, that Latino voters care about education, the economy, and all the other issues that the rest of Americans do.

But if there's a surefire way to make groups forget their differences and band together, it's to attack them, which is exactly what laws like Arizona's SB 1070 have done. Those who have defended the law claim that Latinos who are here legally have nothing to worry about. But that's not true for two reasons. One, the law -- which the overwhelming majority of Latinos see as a racially motivated attack -- requires the police to check the immigration status of anyone they "suspect" is here illegally. And who do you think they're going to check? Unless a police officer knows beforehand whether someone is here legally or not -- which would defeat the entire purpose of asking -- it's going to be anyone who "looks" Latino. Indeed, when the law was first written it explicitly allowed officers to take race into consideration. It was amended thereafter to include factors that are a rough proxy for race, including (from the state's training manual) trouble speaking English, "being in an overcrowded vehicle," "being in a location known for unlawfully present aliens," and "dress." (According to California's Brian Bilbray, "They will look at the kind of dress you wear, there’s different type of attire, there’s different type of…right down to the shoes, right down to the clothes.") Were it really not about racism, we'd be talking about identifying people based on how they say the word "about," but we're not.

But Latinos who are here legally are also worried about their family members who may be here illegally; you don't just cut off all ties with where you came from once you become a citizen. And in many cases, someone who is here legally will be joined by a spouse who has chosen to break the law rather than wait several years to be reunited with their loved ones (this is also why many of my friends who have married a noncitizen -- and these are people with Ph.D.s -- have preferred to move to Israel or England with their spouse instead of going through our dysfunctional immigration process).

So sure, all Latinos don't think alike, but the vast majority don't think, as the people at CIS do, that they deserve to be targeted because they look or dress differently, and many know through first- or second- hand experience that the problem with the immigration system is not that we're not deporting enough people. (If you want to know what the real problems are, look at this report from the Immigration Policy Center).

I'll of course agree that I'm a unique little snowflake. But as someone who grew up on the U.S.-Mexico border, speaks Spanish, and quite often gets asked where I'm "from," I can't help feeling some solidarity with those who weren't, by pure luck of birth, born on the U.S. side of the border. And when I go to the voting booth, I keep in mind who's been trying to repeal birthright citizenship because "anchor babies" are about to take over the country. Read the rest of this post...

Stiglitz critical of Fed QE policy, suggests cooperation to avoid another bubble

There continues to be a lack of seriousness in Washington about the economy. It's also a mystery why this administration prefers listening to the likes of Summers and Geithner over people such as Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman. Caution and staying the course with the same people who led us into this economy isn't what most would consider "change." Then again, even the White House stopped talking about "change" long ago.

Much like other recent administrations, the plan is to kick the can down the road a bit more and hope that the problem is pushed out to the next administration. Rinse, repeat.

A harsh critic of the finance-industry rescue package under the Bush and Obama administrations, Stiglitz said it was entirely reasonable for the Federal Reserve to do what it can to stimulate the U.S. economy after the bursting of the property bubble – “particularly since they caused the problem.”

After the tech bubble burst, the low interest rates designed to alleviate that recession led to the property bubble. And today’s low interest rates will surely cause another bubble, he cautioned.

“I’m not sure where or what, but it’s probably going to be in emerging markets, and not going to be good for the world,” he said. “There is a real risk this is going to end badly, as the two previous bubbles ended badly.”

Only global cooperation, and a new standard for a global currency that moves away from the U.S. dollar, will help the world move away from a constant cycle of boom and bust, Stiglitz said.

Read the rest of this post...

Chairman and co-founder of VoteVets, Jon Soltz, going back to Iraq

On this Veterans Day, we learn that Soltz is going back on active duty and returning to Iraq:

One of the most outspoken critics of the war in Iraq is heading back there on military assignment, likely as part of the last arm of a U.S. mission he has vehemently opposed.

Jon Soltz, the chairman and co-founder of VoteVets.org, a leading critic of the Iraq war, told the Huffington Post on Wednesday that he was taking a year of absence from the group to deploy to Iraq as part of Operation New Dawn.

"This has always been a possibility," he said. "I have always been a member of the army reserves, it is just not anything I talk about for legal reasons. The bottom line is, I can't if I'm on active duty, be in charge of VoteVets anymore."

"I'm not an idiot. I've known the possibilities of this for a long time," he added. "I get the honor to be probably in the last rotation in Iraq. My order is for 12 months and if you take a look at that timetable, December 2011 will be when all U.S. troops come out anyway."

Jon Soltz is a good friend of AMERICAblog. He has been a tenacious and eloquent advocate. He's fearless. And, he's been a stalwart ally in the effort to repeal DADT.

More at VoteVets blog:

In an email to the over 100,000 supporters of VoteVets.org, Iraq War Veteran and Chairman of the group, Jon Soltz, announced he is taking a one-year leave of absence from the organization to deploy to Iraq, as part of Operation New Dawn. He will reassume his position upon his return....

The group, however, won't miss a beat - continuing its work on the same issues of importance to veterans - from veterans health care, to energy independence - with interim Chairman, and Iraq War Veteran, Ashwin Madia, who has been the group's Vice Chairman since 2009. The rest of the VoteVets.org infrastructure will remain the same.

High profile members of the Board of Advisors expressed appreciation for Soltz's service, and the strength of the organization he helped to build.

"I'm proud of Jon for going back to lead the Soldiers in his unit in Iraq, and just as proud of what he's built and will leave behind," said retired General Wesley Clark. "VoteVets.org has cemented its place in the veterans community, and the organization that Jon started from nothing now has over 100,000 members, and an infrastructure that will allow it to continue its strong work, while Jon is in Iraq. I look forward to my continued involvement with VoteVets.org in the coming year, and well into the future."

Read the rest of this post...

Damage control: Axelrod now denies caving on tax cuts (kinda)

The White House is in damage control mode in the wake of the Huffington Post article that reports Obama is caving on the Bush tax cuts, which Chris posted below.

Greg Sargent has the statements from Axelrod and Dan Pfeiffer:

Axelrod emails:

There is not one bit of news here. I simply re-stated what POTUS and Robert have been saying. Our two strong principles are that we need to extend the tax cuts for the middle class, but we can't afford a permanent extension of the tax cuts for the wealthy.

And White House comm director Dan Pfeiffer adds:

The story is overwritten. Nothing has changed from what the President said last week. We believe we need to extend the middle class tax cuts, we cannot afford to borrow 700 billion to pay for extending the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and we are open to compromise and are looking forward to talking to the Congressional leadership next week to discuss how to move forward. Full Stop, period, end of sentence.

What should really concern the White House is that absolutely no one was surprised to hear that the President was capitulating on tax cuts. We actually more or less expected it. That's what he does.

Despite these new statements, Greg notes:

The question remains, though, whether the White House will hold fast to Obama's demand last week that the extension of the tax cuts for the middle class remain permanent while extending the high end ones temporarily. The main sticking point is that Republicans won't allow the two categories to be extended for different durations, because that would force them to push for just an extension of the cuts for the rich later.

Via email, PCCC's Adam Green sent his statement, which captures how the White House operates -- and what the appropriate response should be:

The White House saying 'we support' a policy is meaningless -- they 'supported' the public option and then let it die without a fight. The White House and congressional leaders need to say we are scheduling one vote, one vote only, and that vote is on renewing the middle class tax cuts -- and if Republicans want to oppose tax cuts for 98% of Americans, we dare them to and will pummel them politically if they do. That's how you fight and put Republicans on defense.

Let's revisit what Sam Stein and Howard Fineman at Huff Post wrote this morning:

Although the president "took the position he felt was the right position" -- favoring a continuation of the cuts only for families earning up to $250,000 -- Axelrod portrayed this "optimal" stance as unrealistic in the lame-duck Congress that begins next week.

For one, time is not on the administration's side. All of the tax cuts, enacted in 2001 and 2003, will expire at the end of this year unless Congress acts. The Republicans in effect "built in tax increases," Axelrod said. And separating out different categories of tax cuts now -- extending some without extending others -- is politically unrealistic and procedurally difficult, he added.

"We don't want that tax increase to go forward for the middle class," he said, which means the administration will have to accept them all for some unspecified period of time. "But plainly, what we can't do is permanently extend these high income taxes."

In other words, the White House won't risk being blamed for raising taxes on the middle class even though, arguably, it is the GOP's refusal to separate the categories that has put Obama in this bind. The only condition, at least initially, seems to be that the tax cuts for the wealthy not be extended "permanently."

It sure sounds like the President we know.

We can wish that the President would ever be so bold about something he purports to believe. As John has said repeatedly, Obama doesn't do bold. Read the rest of this post...

Report: White House collapses on tax cuts, will go along with GOP

Good grief, not again. During my recent visit to the US, everyone that I spoke with complained about Obama being weak and not having the stomach for a fight. If this report is true, it looks like there's no end to the ongoing problem. As a liberal, I'm really bracing myself for a painful two years with plenty more moments like this.

President Barack Obama's top adviser suggested to The Huffington Post late Wednesday that the administration is ready to accept an across-the-board continuation of steep Bush-era tax cuts, including those for the wealthiest taxpayers.

That appears to be the only way, said David Axelrod, that middle-class taxpayers can keep their tax cuts, given the legislative and political realities facing Obama in the aftermath of last week's electoral defeat.

"We have to deal with the world as we find it," Axelrod said during an unusually candid and reflective 90-minute interview in his office, steps away from the Oval Office. "The world of what it takes to get this done."

NOTE FROM JOHN: If this is true, then what was the point of the President saying all along that he wouldn't accept extending the tax cuts for the rich?  Why make a threat  - well, there was no threat, just a demand - that you don't intend to follow through on?  We'll need to hear more about this story today, and let's hope the White House got something hugely important in exchange for caving on the tax cuts.  And finally, what kind of bs is this?

"We have to deal with the world as we find it," Axelrod said...

That's the line the White House gave us when we had only 59 votes in the Senate, then when we had 60 they said the same thing, then again when we had 59, and now it's their argument when we "only" control the Presidency and the Senate, while the Republicans control the House.  When won't President Obama feel that all the cards are stacked against him?

The GOP claimed their number one issue as the deficit, and then wanted to extend tax cuts to the right that would cost a trillion dollars.  They pretty much handed the President an early Christmas gift.  And rather than fight, when the had the messaging and the American people on his side, according to this report, Barack Obama caved - again.

Why not force the GOP to filibuster an extension of the middle class tax cuts?  Can you imagine the television that would make?  When will this White House and this Senate ever - ever - force the GOP to have a real filibuster?

If the President didn't get some huge concession in return, then this does not bode well at all for the next two years.  Obama already caved far too easily on pretty much every issue.  Now that he thinks he's neutered by the loss of the House, it's almost unimaginable to think how he could cave even further - but that seems to be the plan. Read the rest of this post...

Thursday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

It's Veterans Day. We honor the men and women who put their lives on the line for the rest of us.

In my family, my grandfather, Festus, who immigrated to the U.S. from Ireland in 1910, joined the Army and fought in World War I. That's how he became a U.S. citizen. That's how many immigrants still become citizens, fighting for their new country. They're willing to die for us -- and many do.

This photo is my Uncle Joe, for whom I am named. He's the son of Festus. He served his country during World War II, but he didn't make it home alive. He was killed in France in 1945.

UPDATE: After I posted these photos of her father and brother, my mother sent me a picture of my dad from when he was in the Navy. He served from 1955-57:

That's an American story. Vets are our family. We need to honor them -- today and every day. Read the rest of this post...

Surprise opera flash-mob in a Pamplona café

How much fun would it have been to be there? Read the rest of this post...

Met to return 19 Tutankhamen artifacts to Egypt

It's the right thing to do, so well done by the Met. Modernizing the facilities and security at the Egyptian Museum in Cairo would be a good idea as well rather than moving everything out to a new building at Giza would also be the right thing to do.

Zahi Hawass, the secretary general of the Supreme Council of Antiquities in Egypt, was scheduled to announce the transfer in Cairo on Wednesday. The 19 objects are small in scale. Among the more significant are a tiny bronze dog, less than three-quarters of an inch tall, and a small sphinx from a bracelet. The objects will be on display until January as part of the Tutankhamen exhibition in Times Square, which was organized by a company working with the Egyptian government. After that, they are to be exhibited at the Met for six months and then sent to Egypt to be shown at the Egyptian Museum in Cairo and the Grand Egyptian Museum at Giza when it opens in 2012.

Read the rest of this post...