Month: June 2010

He Was Right Except When He Was Wrong

by digby

I don’t mean to impugn people’s religion, but you really have to wonder why it is that so many of them obscure the inconvenient parts of their sacred texts. This one is especially good since it’s modern, but it’s really no different than the ancients:

But what do you do when your founder drops this in a cheap-o paperback?

“A society in which women are taught anything but the management of a family, the care of men, and the creation of the future generation is a society which is on its way out.”

That’s from “A Woman’s Creativity,” a chapter omitted from reprints of Hubbard’s 1965 book Scientology: A New Slant on Life. In “A Woman’s Creativity,” Hubbard also observes,

“The historian can peg the point where a society begins its sharpest decline at the instant when women begin to take part, on an equal footing with men, in political and business affairs, since this means that the men are decadent and the women are no longer women. This is not a sermon on the role or position of women; it is a statement of bald and basic fact.”

And:

“If man is to rise to greater heights, then women must rise with him or even before him. But she must rise as woman and not as, today, she is being misled into rising – as a man. It is the hideous joke of frustrated, unvirile men to make women over into the travesty of men, which men themselves have become.”

Scientologists reprinted A New Slant on Life in 1988, two years after Hubbard’s death. “A Woman’s Creativity” and seven other chapters went missing in the new edition. This demonstrates rare sensitivity on the part of a church that once published photos of a guy dressed as the prophet Mohammad standing in a subservient position to a Scientology auditor.

The 2007 edition, which retails for $30, leaves out 17 of Hubbard’s original chapters, including paranoid gems “Records of the Mind are Permanent,” “Confronting,” and “Freedom vs. Entrapment.” These have been replaced by more conventional self-help claptrap (“How to Handle the Confusions of the Workaday World”) allegedly found in Hubbard’s papers. Not all Scientologists believe this.

You have to give them credit. They “find” new texts to replace the old ones which is an awesome way to do it.

Hubbard sounds like a real asshole btw. Of course, the world was full of sexist jerks like him in 1965. And there are plenty who are still around, although they’ve accepted the fact that women should be allowed to work outside the home while being responsible for the home duties as well, so progress has been made. Thank goodness there aren’t as many of those around as there used to be either.

.

Zombie Curmudgeon

by digby

Here are two important pieces today about the Alan Simpson comments from last week on social security. The first is from Krugman, who says that commission, a bad idea anyway, has been killed by zombie lies. He explains the facts:

Social Security is a government program funded by a dedicated tax. There are two ways to look at this. First, you can simply view the program as part of the general federal budget, with the the dedicated tax bit just a formality. And there’s a lot to be said for that point of view; if you take it, benefits are a federal cost, payroll taxes a source of revenue, and they don’t really have anything to do with each other. Alternatively, you can look at Social Security on its own. And as a practical matter, this has considerable significance too; as long as Social Security still has funds in its trust fund, it doesn’t need new legislation to keep paying promised benefits. OK, so two views, both of some use. But here’s what you can’t do: you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that for the last 25 years, when Social Security ran surpluses, well, that didn’t mean anything, because it’s just part of the federal government — but when payroll taxes fall short of benefits, even though there’s lots of money in the trust fund, Social Security is broke. And bear in mind what happens when payroll receipts fall short of benefits: NOTHING. No new action is required; the checks just keep going out. So what does it mean that the co-chair of the commission is resurrecting this zombie lie? It means that at even the most basic level of discussion, either (a) he isn’t willing to deal in good faith or (b) the zombies have eaten his brain. And in either case, there’s no point going on with this farce.

I’m of the opinion that zombies ate his brain some time ago and that he has never been willing to deal in good faith. He’s a misanthropic coot put on the commission to persuade his fellow seniors that they have nothing to fear from the reforms and reassure them that this is aimed at the ungrateful kids who were given everything in life and now can’t even find the time to call.

The other article surprisingly comes from Pete Peterson’s house organ, which is concerned that Simpson’s intemperate remarks let the cat out of the bag and will make it harder to dupe the liberals into going along with their own destruction. But it does very usefully unpack some of the lies and misapprehensions:

In the interview, Simpson maintained Social Security is already insolvent because it is paying out more than it is getting in tax revenue. It is not clear whether that will be true for the current fiscal year or the next few years, but it will be happening not too far in the future. Then Lawson asked, “But what about the $180 billion in surplus that [the trust fund] brings in every year [in interest payments on the Treasury securities it holds]?” “There is no surplus in there. It’s a bunch of IOUs,” Simpson said. “Listen. It’s two-and-a-half trillion bucks in IOUs which have been used to build the interstate highway system and all of the things people have enjoyed since it has been set up.” Since Social Security finances were overhauled in 1983, tax revenues have far exceeded costs. That surplus went into the trust fund, was invested in Treasuries and has been earning interest for almost 30 years. Those annual surpluses meant that the government did not have to borrow as much from the public to finance whatever it spend money on. (However, interstate highways have not been financed even indirectly by Social Security surpluses, but rather by motor fuel taxes.) Whenever tax revenues don’t cover Social Security costs, Simpson said, ” What do they do? They go to that trust fund and say, ‘We need the IOUs out of it.’ And they say, ‘You can have them, but you have to pay for them.’ So you’re taking a double hit on your own government. Makes no sense.” Indeed, Simpson makes no sense. What is the “double hit”? The government didn’t have to borrow in the past, or pay interest on what it didn’t borrow. Now it has to borrow from the public and pay the interest. There’s no “double hit” involved. Finally, Lawson said that his understanding was that part of the justification of the 1983 changes was “prefunding the retirement of the baby boom by building up that huge surplus.” Simpson responded, “They never knew there was a baby boom in ’83.” Well, Alan Greenspan, who headed the bipartisan commission that proposed the 1983 changes, would tell Simpson something different. The big demographic shift that began right after World War II was precisely why Social Security was expected to face a deficit as the number of workers relative to beneficiaries began to decline when the Baby Boomers began to retire. And that was why taxes were raised and benefits were cut then–to build up a trust fund surplus so benefits could be paid.

That last is why those of us who are of that age group are feeling burned at the idea that after paying in extra for most of our working lives to forestall cuts when we hit retirement, we’re now being told that we’re a bunch of scofflaws who have to live on catfood in our old age for the good of the children. It’s not exactly a persuasive case for planning ahead, being responsible and paying your way. We were, after all, paying for our own parents and grandparents while creating a surplus for ourselves so our own kids wouldn’t be overburdened. It’s not a great argument for trusting the government. But then, that’s the whole point is it not?

Update: Krugman’s NYT column on the deficit is also a must read. Why he should have to argue something as elementary as the idea that high unemployment is exploding the deficit and failing to deal with that through stimulus rather than magical thinking will only make matters worse is beyond me. But he does. Once again, we’re down the rabbit hole.

.
.

Solidarity Through Bigotry

by digby

I’m hard on journalists, but sometimes a reporter writes something sublime and it deserves to be complimented. This article appeared in the Denver Post about that that racist oddball Steve King coming to Denver for a 9-12 teabag rally after having been uninvited to two others. You just have to love the juxtoposition of the last two sentences:

King said he felt it was important to come to Colorado. “I’ve been through all kinds of controversy, and I always have to ask myself, ‘Did I say something that wasn’t founded in truth?’ No. ‘Did I say something that hurt someone’s feelings?’ I don’t think so.” King said Obama has misinformed the public about Arizona’s law. King said that under only one circumstance does he support amnesty for illegal immigrants: “Every time we give amnesty for an illegal alien, we deport a liberal.” Nancy Rumsfelt, who started the Loveland 9-12 group and organized the event, said the goal of the movement is to unite America the way it was immediately following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Brilliant. Hats off to Bianca David of the Denver Post.
.

Archaic Institutions Trying To Change

by digby

This is one of the most hilariously confusing controversies ever, filled with anachronisms and enlightenment in varying degrees of irrelevance .

The short version is that a Swedish princess married her commoner fitness instructor but insisted on having her father the King give her away even though the Swedes stopped doing that eons ago in recognition of the equal status of women in marriage and the fact that fathers don’t actually “give away” anything. Apparently, everyone in the country was upset about the princess’s sexist request, especially the clergy. The excuse the Royal Family gave was that the King was her monarch who was giving his sanction to his heir, the princess — which only became possible when the Swedes recently became the first monarchy to allow the succession to go to the firstborn regardless of gender.

What a case of archaic institutions colliding with modernity, eh? Wow.

BTW: they ended up compromising by having the King walk her halfway down the aisle and then meeting up with her groom to walk the rest of the way to the alter. I love those Scandinavians.

.

Priorities

by digby

Haley Barbour is nearly tongue-tied trying to explain why the moratorium is worse than the spill:

I’m surprised these conservatives haven’t used this argument when the food and drug companies when their products are killing people: sure, the e coli may be deadly but we can’t stop selling that tainted meat because it costs jobs and drives up prices.

I get that many people on the Gulf are freaking out about the twin crisis of the spill and the loss of oil jobs, but unfortunately, that can’t be the main concern at the moment. Money can and should be made available to compensate the people affected, but the bigger problem is the catastrophic harm that’s being done to the environment — which affects everyone. The oceans belong to everyone and we’re all screwed by their destruction.

Meanwhile, the NY Times touts this oleaginous whore as a bright new political star with a possible presidency in his future:

He is a former lobbyist, Republican National Committee chairman, White House political director and a familiar enough piece of the national political furniture to be known simply as “Haley” within certain Washington circles. Now, for the second time in five years, Mr. Barbour finds himself in a highly visible role during a Gulf Coast catastrophe. As he nears the end of his eight-year stint as governor, Mr. Barbour’s performance could help shift his political image from that of an insider party boss to an out-front crisis manager — and possible presidential candidate in 2012. […]

Mr. Barbour exudes a throwback vibe harking to a time when politicians were unafraid to call themselves “politicians” and could actually admit to being well-connected insiders who know people in Washington, tell the occasional dirty joke and sip a cocktail or three after hours. “Haley is on a neck-hugging basis with more people in politics than you will ever see,” said Martin Wiseman, the director of the John C. Stennis Institute of Government at Mississippi State University. Recently dubbed “the anti-Obama” by Newsweek, Mr. Barbour has attributes that could prove to be a counterintuitive asset for him if he decides to seek the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. “If you think ahead to 2012, we are not going to beat the president with someone who has the same M.O. as the president,” said Nick Ayers, the executive director of the Republican Governors Association, of which Mr. Barbour is chairman.

I’ve long thought that Barbour was destined to make a run. He’s the personification of the rump Southern Republicans. Why wouldn’t he run?

(And contrary to the assumptions of people quoted in the article, the fact that he’s fat is not a hindrance to his popularity. He jocularly describes himself as a “fat redneck” for a reason. It’s only fat liberals who are subject to mockery and dismissal. Remember, hypocrisy is not a recognized concept among Republicans.)

.

Sunday Talk Reminder

by digby

No, not bobbleheads. Bloggers.

If you are a denizen of Second Life you can attend the talk there as well.

.

Mining The Border

by digby

Maybe this is why the US has refused to ban land mines. We’re keeping our options open for the war with Mexico:

The Republican nominee for a northern New Mexico congressional seat suggested during a radio interview that the United States could place land mines along the Mexican border to secure the international boundary.

[…]

During the May 18 interview with KNMX radio in Las Vegas, N.M., Mullins said the U.S. could mine the border, install barbed wire and post signs directing would-be border jumpers to cross legally at designated checkpoints.

“We could put land mines along the border. I know it sounds crazy. We could put up signs in 23 different languages if necessary,” Mullins says in the radio interview, where he also expressed concern that terrorists could carry a nuclear weapon across the Mexican border.

He explained Monday the suggestion about land mines was something he’d heard while campaigning, and that it came in response to a complaint that nothing could be done to secure the border.

“When I heard it, I said, ‘Well, that’s an interesting concept,”‘ Mullins said.

As he did in the radio interview, Mullins went on to say the national laboratories could be directed to develop non-lethal detection equipment to improve border security.

“People are concerned about securing our borders,” Mullins said. “We’re hopeful we don’t have additional terrorist attacks. They expect our central government to actually do something and not avoid the problem.”

Why not just nuke Mexico and solve the problem once and for all? Poison gas? It worked for Saddam.

How many of these extremist nutballs are running for office anyway? Is there even one sane new Republican on a ticket anywhere?

.

Who Says The Ruling Class Is Oblivious?

by digby

I’m sorry I find this hilarious — in a nervous-laughter-going-into-hysteria sort of way:

Chris Ison/AP The 52-foot yacht “Bob,” left, owned by BP CEO Tony Hayward, prepares at the start of the J.P. Morgan Asset Management Round the Island Race off the coast of England on Saturday.

Were the ladies all wearing white wigs and eating cake?

I had heard he went to a yacht race, but didn’t know he was actually sailing in the J.P. Morgan Asset Management Round the Island Race. Seriously? Is he attending the AIG Credit Default Swap Regatta next week-end? Oh wait, that’s the fourth, so I’ll bet he’s going to be busy paying homage to the Gulf fishermen at the Annual Bernie Madoff Nantucket clambake. (Rex Tillerson’s going to sing Elvis songs and Lloyd Blankfein’s going to play the ukelele, so it should be fun.)

Honestly, the arrogance of the wealthy in this era is just breathtaking. I guess they figure they have nothing to worry about and that all the small people need to enjoy their value meals and shut up. They aren’t irrational to think this. What will happen to them for this behavior? We don’t look in the rear view mirror (and if we do all we see is a sky full of golden parachutes.) It’s not like they’re embarrassable. And even if they are socially shunned (which they won’t be), they can always comfort themselves by taking to their 55 ft Farr racing yachts and counting their money. Waddaya gonna do about it?

.

GOP Crisis Management

by digby

If they can’t invade or bomb with drones, this is all they have left.

.

Calling Out The Obstructionists

by digby

Good stuff:

President Barack Obama used his Saturday radio address to slam Republican “obstruction” in Congress, accusing the GOP of standing in the way of job-saving economic programs and saying, “Gridlock as a political strategy is destructive to the country.”

Obama unleashed a torrent of criticism against the Republicans – accusing them of blocking votes on bills that would save jobs for teachers, lift a $75 million liability cap for oil leaks like the BP spill and help people buy their first home.

“All we ask for is a simple up or down vote. That’s what the American people deserve. Just like they deserve an up or down vote on legislation that would hold oil companies accountable for the disasters they cause – a vote that is also being blocked by the Republican leadership in the Senate,” Obama said. “We should remove that cap. But the Republican leadership won’t even allow a debate or a vote.”

I like it. Unfortunately, the White House is also still actively intervening in primaries to help Blue Dogs who routinely join that Republican obstructionist agenda, so it’s hard to know how sincere those words are. Howie posted a depressing piece about the Democratic party activating the OFA in Utah’s primary on behalf of incumbent Jim Matheson, a disgusting Blue Dog who even refused to attend the Democratic Convention because he didn’t want to be see in his party’s company. (Of course Obama embraced Joe Lieberman who went even further and addressed the Republican convention, so obviously there’s no penalty for being publicly disloyal to the party even when it has nothing to do with policy.)

There is a progressive opponent in Matheson’s district, Claudia Wright, who surprised the establishment by forcing Matheson into a runoff. And they are going after her as if she’s the one who would vote against the president on health care reform when it was Matheson who did just that. Howie wrote:

OFA head Mitch Stewart, who reports to conservative Democratic shill Tim Kaine at the DNC– a bastion of people power under Howard Dean, now, once again, a failing cog in the corporate machine– sent out an emergency letter to Utah Democrats begging Obama to help save the mangy ass of anti-healthcare, anti-Choice, anti-gay, anti-environment, anti-reform corporatist and Blue Dog Jim Matheson, whose support has been crumbling as Tuesday’s primary nears. With Claudia Wright surging and Matheson panicking, OFA asked Democrats to forget Mathson’s putrid voting record– not putrid by GOP standards; he’s one of the original Boehner Boys– and remember that there was one vote sometime this year where Matheson voted with Obama:

President Obama needs us to elect strong allies who will help him continue his fight for change. This week, one of those allies– Utah Rep. Jim Matheson– needs our help. The primary election is June 22nd, so there’s no time to lose. [Please kick me if I vote for Obama in 2012, even if the GOP runs Palin or Romney.]

Rep. Jim Matheson stood with the President in support of the Recovery Act in 2009– creating or saving 25,000 jobs in Utah and helping millions more around the country. He fought hard for the recovery– and was a major reason we all won this huge victory for families and small businesses. Now, we need your help to fight for him.

Can you help us get the word out? With our Neighbor to Neighbor tool, you can easily make calls from home to voters in Utah’s 2nd Congressional District.

That OFA message is terribly misleading. The stimulus was the only vote Matheson took in support of the president’s agenda. This makes it sound as if he’s been a stalwart supporter and it’s just … a lie. If there’s one thing we should demand of the White House and Party if they intervene in primaries (which they shouldn’t do in the first place) it’s that they don’t pull that crap on their own voters. They can make the case that Matheson has seniority or that he’s more likely to beat the Republican if that’s what they think, but this is really dishonest. He is not an ally of the president unless the president is ready to concede that he’s working behind the scenes with Republicans to tank his own agenda. (Well …)

I hope the membership of the OFA is savvy enough to do their own research although you can’t blame them for trusting the Party and the White House not to lie to them in quite this way. Who would guess that they would try to elect someone who repeatedly votes with the Republicans over someone who will vote with the Democratic majority most of the time? To anyone who doesn’t subscribe to conspiracy theories, it just doesn’t make sense.

Howie says all you can say about this:

Defeating conservative corporate shills like Jim Matheson on Tuesday and John Barrow next month will help send Democrats in Congress a message they absolutely must hear to survive. Please send that message here.

Keep in mind that the White House has only managed to beat back one primary challenge in which they inserted themselves: Lincoln. They haven’t had as much luck with others. So it is possible.

.