Month: June 2010

Are Mama Grizzlies Going Extinct?

by digby

Not really. But their population isn’t growing either. In fact, they have a problem. They’re becoming outnumbered by that frightening predator, the Dirty Hippie:

Via Wolcott:

Daily Kos: Sarah Palin is an appealing figure to female evangelicals. Is this a rising demo, or is the “mamma grizzly” appeal a media creation?

Ruy Teixeira: Mama grizzlies seem likely to be just the latest in a long line of media-fueled electoral chimeras for the Republicans. The reality is that female evangelicals are not much of a growth constituency. And white evangelical protestants overall are roughly stable as a proportion of the population. They are no larger at this point than unmarried women—who are a growth constituency—as a proportion of eligible voters.

The growth action on the religious front is among unaffiliated or secular voters, who are the fastest-growing “religious” group in the United States. From 1944 to 2004 the percentage of adults reporting no religious affiliation almost tripled, rising from 5 percent to 14 percent. Projections indicate that by 2024 somewhere between 20-25 percent of adults will be unaffiliated.

This trend, combined with growth among non-Christian faiths and race-ethnic trends, will ensure that in very short order we will no longer be a white Christian nation. Even today, only about 55 percent of adults are white Christians. By 2024 that figure will be down to 45 percent. That means that by the 2016 election (or 2020 at the outside) the United States will cease to be a white Christian nation. Looking even farther down the road, by 2040 white Christians will be only around 35 percent of the population and conservative white Christians (a critical part of the GOP base) only about a third of that—a minority within a minority.

These developments will put increased pressure on the GOP to moderate its socially conservative stance. That stance may appeal strongly to a key segment of their base, but that segment will shrink substantially over time as religious diversity increases. A more moderate approach would have some chance of appealing to this diversity rather than leaving the field wide open for the Democrats. But of course Sarah Palin and her mama grizzlies takes the GOP in precisely the opposite direction

h/t to sleon

Peace Party

by digby

If any of you have been over the Daily Kos or many other progressive blogs recently you know that today is the day of Alan Grayson’s Peace Party — a fundraiser to help Grayson keep his seat in this fall’s election:

On JUNE 28, 1919, the United States put an end to a world war, after less than two years of fighting. In 1945, the United States ended another world war, after less than four years of fighting. But in 2010, we are embroiled in two wars, after almost nine years of fighting.

When will it end? When Blackwater and Halliburton say so? When we’re all broke?

It’s time that someone spoke out for peace.

Indeed. And it’s not surprising that the person speaking out for peace today is none other than the progressive congressman from Florida. I don’t know about you, but I am convinced that it takes political fighters to keep us out of war, and there’s no smarter or more effective fighter in the Democratic Party than Alan Grayson.

Who else says things like this?

“Imagine if we had decided after 9/11 to wean ourselves off oil and other carbon-based fuels. We’d be almost ten years into that project by now.

“Imagine if George W. Bush had somehow been able to summon the moral strength of Mahatma Gandhi, Helen Keller, or Martin Luther King Jr, and committed the American people to the pursuit of a common goal of a transformed society, a society which meets our own human needs rather than declaring “war” on an emotion, or, as John Quincy Adams put it, going “abroad, in search of monsters to destroy”.

“Imagine.

“Imagine that we chose not to enslave ourselves to a massive military state whose stated goal is “stability” in countries that never have been “stable”, and never will be.”

Blue America was the first Netroots PAC to endorse Grayson when he decided to run. None of the Very Serious People in politics thought he could win in what was a Republican district but we don’t base our endorsements solely on electability, so that wasn’t relevant. We felt he had a good chance and we knew that if he won, he would be an articulate and passionate advocate for our values. He has exceeded our expectations, to say the least.

One of the reasons Grayson can be so outspoken is that he takes no special interest money from businesses his committees oversee and so depends on small donations more than other politicians. So far, the netroots have come through for him, giving him an independent funding base and allowing him to operate with much more freedom than the average representative. Today, he’s asking for your help again. If you can spare a few bucks, now’s the time.

The world is full of supposedly indispensable men and women, virtually none of whom are actually indispensable. Grayson, in my view, is the exception. The progressive movement needs this man in congress, serving as an example of intelligent, aggressive, principled progressivism and hopefully building up a paradigm for others to follow.

Please donate to Grayson’s campaign and help keep the progressive movement’s most powerful spokesman in office for another term.

.

Depression

by digby

I said the “D” word in a conversation with my husband yesterday. Krugman says it today. It’s out there.

.

Late Night Chortle

by digby

Jamie Kilstein on Rick Warren, Ted Haggard,gay rights and more:

.

Word Salad Swimming in Oil

by digby

She can barely catch a breath she’s speaking so quickly:

Via Bob Cesca

“…I think Obama is kind of flirting with also, some government overreach. We are a rule of laws, not a rule of presidential fiats that I think President Obama would rather have sometimes, it seems.”

Honestly, who would actually pay money to hear this incomprehensible, babbling moron pretend to speak?

.

Virtually Speaking Sunday

by digby

On Blogtalk radio:

Call-in Number: (646) 200-3440
Upcoming Show: 6/27/2010 5:00 PM
Host Name: Virtually Speaking
Show Name:
Virtually Speaking Sundays: Digby and Avedon Carol

You all know li’l ole me. And:

Avedon Carol’s Sideshow has been snarking, and providing ripping good political analysis for as long as there has been a blogosphere. Mockery and thoughtful analysis will be featured.

I have loved The Sideshow from my earliest days of blogging. But I’ve never spoken to Avedon in person before, so this is going to be a real treat. She’s one of the very sharpest and most fearless bloggers around.

If you’re a Second Life type, you can join us here. 8pm edt, 5pm pdt

.

Populist Protests From The Left

by digby

People keep asking where “the left” is and why they don’t take to the streets in light of these neo-liberal policies wreaking havoc on working people everywhere. Where is the populist uprising from the left and why there isn’t more direct confrontation of the corporatist mindset. It’s a good question, but you have to wonder why we never cite these regular protests and why we don’t bother to comment on the tactics that are used against them. Are we on the American left really not part of this? Do we philosophically disagree with the critique, even now, after everything that’s been revealed during this economic crisis? Are these people wrong?

Now, I understand that these folks have gotten the reputation for being thuggish and destructive, largely based on the Seattle protests over a decade ago. But it’s quite clear by now that this is a phony image, conjured up by the authorities to justify their police state tactics against the protesters:

They call it the Miami Model.

But it could be called the Genoa model, the Pittsburgh model and, after this weekend, the Toronto model.

It refers to police tactics used in Miami seven years ago, during the Free Trade Area of the Americas summit, and, more importantly, the protests erupting on the streets outside.

Manny Diaz, Miami’s then-mayor, called the police methods exemplary — a model to be followed by homeland security when confronting protesters.

Human rights groups including Amnesty International called it a model of police brutality and intimidation.

Protesters were beaten with tear gas, sticks, rubber bullets . . . You can watch police stun cowering protesters with Tasers on YouTube. Last year, the city agreed it had trampled citizens’ right to free speech by forcing marchers back from planned protests and settled out of court with Amnesty International.

What is the Miami Model?

I called Naomi Archer to find out. She is an indigenous rights worker from North Carolina who happened to be giving a lecture on the Miami Model yesterday at the U.S. Social Forum — the G20 for community activists.

Archer, who was in Miami as a liaison between protesters and police, has a 40-box checklist to identify the Model. Here are the main themes.

• Information warfare. This starts weeks before the event. Protesters are criminalized and dehumanized, and described as dangerous “anarchists” and “terrorists” the city needs to defend against.

“Often, a faux cache is found,” says Archer. “They are usually ordinary objects, like bike inner tubes, camping equipment, but the police make them out to look threatening. It lays the groundwork for police to be violent and it means there’s a reduced accountability of law enforcement.”

• Intimidation. Police start random searches of perceived protesters before any large rallies. They are asked where they are staying, why they are walking around. Police raid organizer’s homes or meeting places, “usually just before the summit, so there’s maximum chaos organizers have to deal with,” says Archer.

“All this is meant to dissuade participants. The best way to make sure you don’t have a critical mass of people taking over the streets like in Seattle is to reduce the numbers at the outset.”

This is usually made possible by last-minute city regulations, curtailing the right to protest. In Miami, the city commission passed a temporary ordinance forbidding groups of more than seven to congregate for more than 30 minutes without a permit.

• “They threw rocks.” That’s the line police use after tear-gassing or beating protesters most times, Archer says. Urine and human feces are variations on the theme. But it’s always the protesters who triggered the violence. A popular police tactic is called “kettling.” Officers on bike or horses herd protesters into an enclosed space, so they can’t leave without trying to break through the police line. Take the bait; you provoke a beating or arrest. And of course, there are the famous agent provocateurs, outted publicly two years ago in Montebello. Police officers dressed up like militant protesters to protect the peaceful crowd, they say; Archer says it’s to instigate trouble.

In Montebello, one of the three cops dressed in black was holding a rock.

I suppose you could say that this is all self-justifying bs, until you consider this important fact:

More than 270 people were arrested in Miami during the summit seven years ago . How many were convicted, in the end? I called the American Civil Liberties Union to find out.

“None,” said lawyer Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, who was the president of the Miami chapter back then.

Odd, don’t you think?

So, are these G20 protesters part of the left, or not? And, if not, why not? With the G20 this week-end pretty much guaranteeing us a lost decade as a best case scenario, we all now have an obvious personal, direct stake in opposing these global elites and the policies they are imposing. You’d think that mainstream American liberals would at least take an interest in what these people are doing.

Unfortunately, it appears the protest impulse is actually fading rather than growing so the inattention of the liberal left and the strongarm tactics of the police may have succeeded in taming this leftist movement already. They’re now talking about “e-protests” which is pretty much waving a white flag.

BTW, for those of you who follow the modern police state “non-lethal” technology story, you’ll be glad to know that the G8 and G20 protesters continue to serve as lab rats:

A judge said controversial sound cannons can be used by police during the G20 summit, but with restrictions.

The ruling today means the voice function of the devices is OK to use, but only at lower decibels; protesters say the devices can damage hearing permanently.

Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair said his officers will abide by the court’s ruling.

Before today’s ruling police had said they would only use them as megaphones to broadcast pre-recorded voice messages to crowded demonstrations.

Also this morning Blair defended a law passed by the Ontario government to give police special detention powers during the G-8 and G-20 summits.

The regulation gives police the power to arrest anyone coming within five yards of the security fences erected around the summit site in Toronto if they refuse to identify themselves.

Blair said the regulation was passed under the Ontario Public Works Protection Act that dates back to 1939, and was simply extended to the G-20 security perimeter for one week.

Update: Ian Welsh on the G20

.

Leon Panetta: We must invade every country in the world to prevent Al Qaeda from having a safe haven

by digby

I’m with Atrios. WTF is Panetta going on about?

In an EXCLUSIVE interview on “This Week,” CIA Director Leon Panetta explained what winning in Afghanistan would look like.

“Winning in Afghanistan is having a country that is stable enough to ensure that there is no safehaven for Al Qaeda or for a militant Taliban that welcomes Al Qaeda,” Panetta told host Jake Tapper. “That’s really the measure of success for the United States.”

“Our purpose, our whole mission there, is to make sure that Al Qaeda never finds another safehaven from which to attack this country. That’s the fundamental goal of why the United States is there,” he said. “And the measure of success for us is: do you have an Afghanistan that is stable enough to make sure that never happens.”

That is completely meaningless. So, if Afghanistan is “stable” that means that Al Qaeda can’t find a safe haven from which to attack the US? Huh? What about Pakistan? Yo0u know, the place from where Al Qaeda actually is planning attacks right now. Or Yemen? Or how about Britain, the home of the shoe bomber? And why, exactly, does it take a “safe haven” to plan a terrorist attack anyway? Do they get cut rates on box cutters?

Ayeyayay. This is worse than I thought. They can’t even come up with a vaguely believable rationale for Afghanistan at this point — that reasoning makes the “he might someday get a weapon of mass destruction” argument look air tight by comparison.

.

Making Their Move

by digby

The insanity continues:

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) – G-20 countries are on the verge of reaching an agreement on common goals for deficit and debt reduction, a European regulator said late Saturday.

“The fact that the G-20 probably will be ready to accept some targets for deficit reductions and debt reduction is very encouraging,” European Commission President Jose Barroso told reporters. “I am encouraged by fact that there is a convergence about setting these minimum requirements on deficit and debt reduction. We expect it to be approved tomorrow.”

Barroso said the European Commission supports Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s proposal to have advanced economies of the G-20 member countries cut their deficits in half by 2013. He also expressed support for Harper’s proposal to have countries stabilize their government debt to Gross Domestic Product ratios, by putting them on a downward path, by 2016.

If you read Krugman, you know that this is simply batshit insane. Get ready for more recession, a lost decade or something worse. Apparently all we “small people” need to be taught a lesson in responsible fiscal management and we’re going to get it by sacrificing the dreams and futures of millions of people. I feel “cleansed” of my sins already.

The good news is that the US is the one country that doesn’t seem to be quite on the page:

G-20 observers contend that the U.S. may be the largest obstacle to reaching a common consensus on deficit and debt reduction. President Barack Obama warned fellow G-20 leaders in a letter last week not to withdraw fiscal stimulus and hurt a burgeoning recovery.

Huzzah. After blathering on about Grand Bargains and Deficit Panels for a year and half, the administration has finally figured out that thy might just be screwing themselves (much less the people) by putting deficit reduction on the table at a time of economic hardship.

Well, sort of:

However, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner disputed assertions that the U.S. is seeking a different fiscal direction for G-20 countries.

“If you look at the rest of the major economies you see more in common than different,” Geithner told reporters on Saturday.

He added that the U.S. announced measured path for deficit reduction over the next three years is actually more forceful that Germany.

“If you look at the announced measured path of deficit reduction for the US for the next three years relative to what the leaders are considering are appropriate for Germany.

“Look at the announced measured path of deficit reduction for the United States of America over the next three years relative to what the leaders of Germany are considering appropriate for Germany,” Geithner said. “And if you look at those together, you’ll see ours is much steeper, appropriately so.”

Awesome. And if we keep looking I’m sure we’ll find those WMD in Iraq too.

Update: More from Krugman on the Invisible Bond Vigilantes

.

In the short run they are cowards, in the long run we’re all dead

by digby

Krugman:

[T]he attempt to shift the discussion away from the short run is not, as often portrayed, an act of vision of courage. On the contrary, it’s an act of cowardice, an attempt to evade responsibility for a disastrous state of affairs that we could fix, but choose not to. Keynes had it right:

But this long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is long past the ocean is flat again.

Not just economists, but politicians too. It’s hard to do what has to be done to spare the pain that average people are going to endure. It requires a lot of explaining and persuasion and actually fighting the reactionary forces of the right and the Big Money Boyz at the top rather than trying to appease them. Much easier for these wealthy privileged leaders to call for the people to “sacrifice” rather than risk their own positions by doing what’s right. But I hate to tell them — in the long run they’ll all be dead too.

.