Month: March 2010

“That’s Life. It’ll Stop Bleeding”

by digby

Allison Kilkenny has written an interesting piece on “Normalizing the police state” in which she notes something that I hadn’t put together before: the treatment of children as suspects:

The officers are accused of detaining, searching, handcuffing, and arresting students for silly things like drawing on desks, or handling — not using, but handling — cell phones in school.

In one case, a safety officer kicked in the door of a stall in the boys’ bathroom, wounding a student’s head. The officer’s response to questioning about the matter was: “That’s life. It will stop bleeding.”

Another student, this time a 5-year-old, was shipped off to a hospital psychiatric ward for throwing a tantrum.

These absurd reactions to normal childhood behavior is all part of “Zero Tolerance.” Six-year-old Zachary Christie faced disciplinary action after bringing a Cub Scout utensil that can serve as a knife, fork, and spoon to school. Apparently, the state of Delaware is terrified of children shanking each other, and after all, it’s the era of Zero Tolerance.

Treating children as suspects is the new normal in American culture. There is something innately wrong with children. If they’re too chatty, they need to be medicated. If they’re too angry, they need to be suppressed by a “peace officer.” They are not to be trusted, and must be monitored at all times.

A school in Pennsylvania is accused of covertly activating webcams in school-issued laptops to spy on students. The accusations have generated a lot of outrage, but this is the logical conclusion of the country’s general movement toward a police state. If the NSA can wiretap citizens’ phones, the FBI can infiltrate protest groups, and the police can generally dominate and suppress any kind of protest, why shouldn’t schools be able to monitor student activity?

She goes on to note at some length the acceptance of tasering and the other forms of control technology as due punishment for exercising ones first amendment rights and writes:

Here we have the completion of the perfect police state. Citizens are monitored from cradle to grave. Any signs of anger or rebellion are swiftly squelched with medication or “peace officers.” The schools step in when the state cannot act to monitor and regulate every movement of students’ lives under the banner of “Zero Tolerance.”

When the medicated and monitored children grow into dysfunctional adults, some of who eventually realize their shitty circumstances (complete with shitty healthcare, outsourced jobs, limited resources, poisoned environment, enormous wealth disparity, etc.) and they think about rebelling, they are immediately lassoed with an anchor of bureaucracy. Should you want to protest, please fill out form AYT0754 five months prior to said protest, and pay this fee, and remain in this pen, and please don’t make too much noise…

This sort of thing doesn’t have to happen overnight with a burning of the Reichstag. I think it’s just as likely to happen so slowly that over time it just seems …. normal.

The whole article is worth reading.

.

Little Hoovers

by digby

Paul Krugman wonders why David Broder doesn’t understand why “cutbacks at the state and local level would tend to undermine fiscal stimulus at the federal level,” or even acknowledge that such a belief exists.

I would guess that he’s been listening to Pete Peterson’s lieutenant, David Walker, who let loose with this in his interview with Terry Gross:

WALKER: … I think it’s understandable to be able to provide some additional unemployment benefits, given the fact that unemployment is so high right now.

I think it’s also potentially acceptable to be able to take some additional steps to try to get unemployment down through timely, targeted and temporary infrastructure projects that actually will help grow the economy and improve our environmental and other situations and through targeted tax incentives that will encourage small business and other employers in the private sector to be able to hire people.

Those are the kinds of things that might be meritorious, but just spending without targeting or spending to try to be able to prop up unsustainable situations, such as the current problems with the states, doesn’t make sense.

GROSS: What are you referring to when you say spending on the current problems with the states?

Mr. WALKER: The states have their own fiscal problems, and they’re going to need to restructure what they do and how they do business, and in many cases the states have also grown larger in government employment levels than they should be, and they’ve also made promises with regard to their pension and health care programs that are much more lucrative than people get in the private sector, and taxpayers are not going to stand for higher and higher taxes to be able to pay for benefit programs that are much better than the average American gets.

Little Hoovers want to shock the states so they can break the state level public sector programs once and for all. At the very least, all those useless bureaucratic parasites living off the taxpayers need to be brought down to the level of the rest of the proles. Saving their jobs and the services they provide is counter-productive to the goals of the revolution.

And anyway, as any financially comfortable villager will tell you — suffering and sacrifice are good for the little people. It incentivizes them to work harder and expect less. They’re happier that way.

.

Transferring The Paranoia

by digby

Does it ever strike you that this raging wingnut paranoia about Obama’s allegedly radical agenda is just an extension of their raging paranoia about the terrorists? The whole thing just seems like one long primal scream to me.

What do you do with people who have so worked themselves up into a frenzy that they believe something as ludicrous as this:

In a March 9, post titled, “Obama’s war on fishing?!?!?!” Michelle Malkin posted the ESPN column’s claim that “[t]he Obama administration will accept no more public input for a federal strategy that could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing the nation’s oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters.” Malkin added, “Longtime readers know I love to fish and have been at war with the anti-fishing nuts at PETA for years.”

This is a woman who wrote book about liberals called “Unhinged” and she seems to believe that the Obama administration is secretly working as an agent of Code Pink and PETA. The Obama administration. At this point, they are so off the cliff that calling him a socialist is beginning to seem restrained. I’m expecting them to claim he’s literally Satan by the next election.

It’s too disorienting and weird to try to address rationally. The only thing I can do is shake my head and keep my fingers crossed that these people don’t ever get their fingers on the button.

On The Spirit Of Partisanship

by digby

A friend reminded me yesterday of this post I wrote some years back and when I went back and looked at it I realized that it’s even more relevant now that the Democrats are in power than when they weren’t:

Tooth And Nail, Might And Main

As we think about the relentlessness of the Republican machine and its propensity for playing hardball, it pays sometimes to remember that their ruthless tactics are actually a matter of temperament rather than ideology. Conservatives have always been this way. The problem today is that they are operating with a radical agenda, an incompetent president and a country with much too much power to be allowed to run wild with either.

This interesting post from Steamboats Are Ruining Everything takes us back to 1820 and reminds us that brutish conservatives are nothing new:

William Hazlitt explained the nature of it in his 1820 essay, “On the Spirit of Partisanship.”

Conservatives and liberals play the game of politics differently, Hazlitt wrote, because they have different motivations. Liberals are motivated by principles and tend to believe that personal honor can be spared in political combat. They may, in fact, become vain about their highmindedness. Hazlitt condemns the mildness as a mistake, both in moral reasoning and in political strategy. “They betray the cause by not defending it as it is attacked, tooth and nail, might and main, without exception and without remorse.”

The conservatives, on the other hand, start with a personal interest in the conflict. Not wishing to lose their hold on power, they are fiercer. “We”—i.e., the liberals, or the “popular cause,” in Hazlitt’s terminology—“stand in awe of their threats, because in the absence of passion we are tender of our persons.

They beat us in courage and in intellect, because we have nothing but the common good to sharpen our faculties or goad our will; they have no less an alternative in view than to be uncontrolled masters of mankind or to be hurled from high—

“To grinning scorn a sacrifice,
And endless infamy!”

They do not celebrate the triumphs of their enemies as their own: it is with them a more feeling disputation. They never give an inch of ground that they can keep; they keep all that they can get; they make no concessions that can redound to their own discredit; they assume all that makes for them; if they pause it is to gain time; if they offer terms it is to break them: they keep no faith with enemies: if you relax in your exertions, they persevere the more: if you make new efforts, they redouble theirs. While they give no quarter, you stand upon mere ceremony. While they are cutting your throat, or putting the gag in your mouth, you talk of nothing but liberality, freedom of inquiry, and douce humanité. Their object is to destroy you, your object is to spare them—to treat them according to your own fancied dignity. They have sense and spirit enough to take all advantages that will further their cause: you have pedantry and pusillanimity enough to undertake the defence of yours, in order to defeat it. It is the difference between the efficient and the inefficient; and this again resolves itself into the difference between a speculative proposition and a practical interest.

It is not fair play, and Hazlitt thinks that liberals who decline to fight fire with fire are fools. “It might as well be said that a man has a right to knock me on the head on the highway, and that I am only to use mildness and persuasion in return, as best suited to the justice of my cause; as that I am not to retaliate and make reprisal on the common enemies of mankind in their own style and mode of execution.”

Hazlitt was right. And never more than today when the stakes are so high.

As I said, we have been fighting this beast forever. Conservatives are just more inclined to fight and more serious about winning. But I have seen the Republican agenda change from conservative to radical in the last 30 years and their candidates from steady, stolid leaders to firebrands and incompetents. America is the most powerful nation on earth. If the modern GOP boasted prudent, tested leadership and a simple desire to avoid radical change, I would still oppose them but I would not be worried. But, these people want to wildly experiment on a global scale and their track record of the last three years is devastating. History proves that bad things do sometimes happen. Being barely left standing to say “I told you so” will be no compensation.

They’ve gotten even crazier. Being “right” is not going to help us.

.

Dead On Arrival

by digby

Ezra found an interesting nugget in the rahm profile in the NY Times magazine which he calls “the day bipartisanship died.”

At an August meeting in the Oval Office with the six leading Senate negotiators, three from each party, Grassley asked Obama if he would say publicly that he would be willing to sign a bill without a public option, according to Grassley aides. Obama demurred, knowing that would trigger a revolt among House Democrats. For his part, the president later told his own staff that he asked Grassley if he would support the health care plan if the president agreed to what the senator was asking for. As Obama later recalled the encounter, Grassley replied, “Probably not.” (Grassley aides dispute that Obama asked that question and they told me the senator said only that it would not be a bipartisan bill unless it had 70 or 80 votes.) Much later, both camps would cite this conversation as a turning point at which it became clear that there would be no significant bipartisan accord.

I actually think the day bipartisanship died was the day Barack Obama won the election. But it was certainly mouldering in the grave by the time Grassley was saying this at town hall meetings:

There is some fear because in the House bill, there is counseling for end-of-life,” Grassley said. “And from that standpoint, you have every right to fear. You shouldn’t have counseling at the end of life. You ought to have counseling 20 years before you’re going to die. You ought to plan these things out. And I don’t have any problem with things like living wills. But they ought to be done within the family. We should not have a government program that determines if you’re going to pull the plug on grandma.”

The article Ezra cites mentions that Pelosi and other House Democrats were telling the President to give up on the Republicans long before they did. I think most people who’ve been following politics closely for the past few years would have said the same thing. This was always going to be the Republicans’ reaction. They don’t do bipartisan unless it’s their initiative.

.

.

Declare Victory And Go home

by digby

Grayson on Afghanistan:

Lst year only 32 house members voted against the war supplemental request. Yesterday, 60 voted to end the war by year’s end. Baby steps.

.

Predictable As The Sun Coming Up

by digby

No surprise here:

All 41 Republican Senators vowed in a letter today to do everything in their power to kill Democrats’ health care legislation and vote en bloc against procedural motions Democrats want to use to fix the health reform bill passed Christmas Eve by the Senate.

This would include a scenario where the Republican Senators oppose language championed by anti-abortion rights Democrats in the House and side instead with abortion rights defenders.

The House moderates want to ban any federal money from going to insurance companies that offer elective abortions. The Senate-passed health reform bill would create pools of segregated funds with only private money going to cover abortions.

“So you’d be voting with Barbara Boxer on an abortion measure?” a reporter asked Sen. Tom Coburn, the OB-GYN and Oklahoma Republican who vehemently opposes abortion rights, at a press conference this afternoon. Boxer, a California Democrat, is a vehement supporter of abortion rights.

“Yes I would. I certainly would,” Coburn said, clarifying that he would oppose a procedural motion in the Senate to allow the stricter ban on federal funding for abortion from being added to the Senate health reform bill.

So what happens now? I’m assuming that they will use the “point of order” option that the Catholic Bishops are pushing and then the entire Democratic establishment will expend a great deal of pressure on pro-choice Democrats to vote for Stupak. If they can get the women to slit their own throats it would be especially delicious.

I keep hearing that the Republicans will pay a price for not voting for the amendment (or allowing it to proceed.) But that totally misapprehends how the right wing thinks. They don’t care if their representatives vote hypocritically, especially the social conservatives who care far more about defeating the godless liberals on health care than they do about the Stupak amendment. There will be no price. They will be cheered.

.

Where Will It End?

by digby

That Glenn Beck will stop at nothing. He’s going after everybody now.

.

If You Don’t Want To Die

by digby

… then just always obey instantly. That’s what freedom’s all about:

A simple early morning disturbance call ended with the death of a gay-porn actor.

And it was all captured on video.

Deputies with the Bay County Sheriff’s Department in Florida arrived at the Executive Inn after Andrew Grande (known professionally as Dustin Michaels), 23, allegedly got into a fight with a female friend, according to Panama City Beach’s WJHG.

Police attempted to handcuff Grande, who had reportedly swallowed a bag of marijuana. When he resisted, police Tasered him.

A camera crew from Zoo Productions was at the scene and captured the moments before the incident, as well as after.

Once he was struck by the powerful electrical jolt, Grande yanked the wires from his chest but showed signs of choking. Police tried to help, with one performing the Heimlich maneuver.

Every effort by police to remove the object from Grande’s throat failed. Paramedics later arrived and removed the bag, but it was too late.

Grande was pronounced dead at Bay Medical Center.

“It’s a tragic situation for our officers,” said Sheriff Frank McKeithen, and “a tragic situation for this young man and his family.”

However, he said, it never would have happened had Grande co-operated with police.

“If he’d … allowed them to handcuff him, it would have been over,” the sheriff said. “This would not have happened.”

Word to the wise. Not allowing yourself to be handcuffed is now a capital crime. So is being stupid.

.

Unreasonable Scold

by digby

David Walker of the Peterson Institute was on NPR’s Fresh Air yesterday, blowing smoke like crazy about deficits I don’t know if he’s deluded or dishonest, but either way his “Very Serious Person” routine is a disaster for the economic future of this country. It all sounds so reasonable, you see. Just like any household, the government can’t survive on borrowed money. So we need to tighten our belts.

That’s not to say we should end any of these wonderful entitlement that are going to put your children into forced labor camps. But adjustments must be made. And we should even raise taxes (except those that would impede investment and growth of course)on everyone. And some people are going to have to lower their expectations about retirement and elderly health care because we just can’t afford it. Again, those who don’t need the money will evidently continue to invest in produ8ctive ways, so we can’t ask them to pay higher taxes. They are the engine of our growth. It’s the “American people” who have to sacrifice:

Mr. WALKER: There’s no question that people are frustrated with their elected officials and they’re complaining about their elected officials, but we also have a societal problem. People are very short-term oriented. They want what they want, they want it now; they dont want to have to pay for it. That doesnt work. And so, as a result, we need to recognize the reality that if you want government to be able to do certain things, you have to be willing to pay for it. And that ultimately, if you dont pay for it today, your children and grandchildren are going to pay for it, with interest, tomorrow.

And so, we need to have an honest discussion and debate with the American people about how much government do they want and how much are they willing to pay for, and we have to reconcile the gap. And that hasnt been done, but it needs to be done.

Right. My entire generation just took the biggest financial hit since the Great Depression at a time when they probably can’t make it back. Their dreams of cushy retirement went in the same toilet that DOW 36,000 and credit default swaps were flushed down. Yes, they were probably stupid. Most humans are. But the idea that they have to be “willing to pay” really comes down to being willing to sacrifice promised benefits they spent their whole lives paying for their own parents to have.

I suppose we deserve it. But there’s an awful lot of people in this age group and if they are old, poor and sick it’s hard to see how they don’t burden this economy even more. Not to mention that it’s pretty heartless.

Dean Baker delivered a strong antidote to deficit fever in this piece last month, which I recommend you read in its entirety:

The country faces a serious crisis in the form of a manufactured crisis over the budget deficit. This is a crisis because concerns over the size of the budget deficit are preventing the government from taking the steps needed to reduce the unemployment rate. This creates the absurd situation where we have millions of people who are unemployed, not because of their own lack of skills or unwillingness to work, but because people like Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke mismanaged the economy.

The basic story is very simple and one that we have known since Keynes. We need to create demand in the economy. The problem is that as a society, we are not spending enough to keep the economy running at capacity. Prior to the collapse of the housing bubble, the economy was driven by booms in both residential and non-residential construction. It was also driven by a consumption boom that was in turn fueled by the trillions of dollars of ephemeral housing bubble wealth.

[…]

The answer in this situation should be simple: more stimulus. But the deficit hawks have gone on the warpath insisting that we have to start worrying about bringing the deficit down. They have filled the airwaves, print media, and cyberspace with solemn pronouncements about how the deficit threatens to impose an ungodly burden on our children.

This is, of course, complete nonsense. Larger deficits in the current economic environment will only increase output and employment. In other words, larger deficits will put many of our children’s parents back to work. Larger deficits will increase the likelihood that parents can keep their homes and provide their children with the health care, clothing and other necessities for a decent upbringing. But, the deficit hawks would rather see our children suffer so that we can have smaller deficits.

The story is that we are forcing people to be out of work — unable to properly care for their children — because people like billionaire investment banker Peter Peterson and his followers are able to buy their way into and dominate the public debate. The reality is that we have an unemployment crisis today, not a deficit crisis. The only crisis related to the deficit is that people with vast sums of money (i.e. the people who wrecked the economy) have been able to use that money to make the deficit into a crisis.

The problems with medicare are clear, but it’s not because it’s medicare, it’s because of health care inflation over all. That’s one reason why health care reform is necessary. Walker’s answers to that problem are things like means testing Medicare part B and electronic records all of which are neat ideas that will not do much in and of themselves. What he doesn’t cop to now is what he said two years ago:

News flash. The government has no money. The government is running huge deficits it’s tens of trillions of dollars in the hole in real accounting on an accrual basis and if there’s one thing that can bankrupt America, it’s health care and we’re going to have to make choices — and one of the choices we have to make is how do we ration, rationally.

I’m guessing he’s not going to suggest that millionaires be forced to use their ration coupons. What he wants to do is institutionalize our current system of rationing — by ability to pay.

And as for social security, the solvency of which he and the rest of the fiscal scolds just lie about, he wants to begin to substantially lower guaranteed benefits while creating some kind of new IRA, as if that will solove the problem for people who are out of work or underpaid.

And what’s next on his agenda? Public sector pensions:

Mr. WALKER: The states have their own fiscal problems, and they’re going to need to restructure what they do and how they do business, and in many cases the states have also grown larger in government employment levels than they should be, and they’ve also made promises with regard to their pension and health care programs that are much more lucrative than people get in the private sector, and taxpayers are not going to stand for higher and higher taxes to be able to pay for benefit programs that are much better than the average American gets.

I think that’s a really neat trick. Tell everyone they have to lower their expectations because social security is going broke (which it isn’t) and then tell the people who have good pensions that they have to give them up because everyone else has as bad one. It’s collectivism gone bad.

In fact, the entire Peterson strategy is to pit the have nots against the have even lesses. It’s a nice bit of misdirection, and if it works it will be a huge boon for people with money who will continue to see their incomes rise exponentially while everyone else fights over their scraps.

And if you want to read a really provocative essay on deficits by James Galbraith, who Walker called “out of touch with reality” in his interview, click here.

.