Month: August 2010

The Church Of The VSP

by digby

A lot of smart people, Krugman in particular, are making the observation that the bankers, economists and Big Money Boyz are making it up as they go along and it certainly does seem that way. No matter what the circumstances, they profess that it’s impossible for the Fed or the government to do anything to help average people and that tax cuts for the wealthy are the answer to every problem in good times and bad.

Krugman writes:

Let me try to explain what bothers me about this sort of thing, aside from the fact that it would be an utter disaster for the economy: it’s the way Rajan — and many other economists — seem to be making up new doctrines on the fly to justify their policy prejudices. I’m all in favor of innovative thinking. But my view is that what you say about policy at any given time should be based on some kind of model — and furthermore, you should be willing to apply the same model to other situations, not make it a one-off used to justify what you happen to favor right now.

This discussion reminds me of the old perennial “why are we in Iraq?” The Very Serious people always had different reasons, but they supported the same conclusion: we just needed to be there. I don’t know if this comes from faith based ideology, herd instinct or conspiracy. It could also be class/social bias (village syndrome) or simple careerism. Whatever it is, it’s a problem.

Krugman thinks the economic elite are for for monetary tightening because they are biased against easy money and will find any basis they can to justify that. The question then becomes, why would anyone have an bias against easy money unless they are attaching a moral value to it? There can be no scientific basis for rejecting it. It’s just another tool in the central bank toolbox right? My guess is that they *believe* the little people must pay the price for the excesses of the elites because that’s their natural role in the economic scheme of things and that the economic elites must be left unfettered to “produce” lest they go on strike or otherwise refuse to do their part. (Bond vigilantes! Confidence fairies!) This also requires the little people to pay the price. This is theology not science and not even ideology. They simply believe.

Whether this comes from social or professional pressure or from true conviction is harder to know. But it doesn’t matter. Very Serious People agree and that’s all it takes for terrible decisions to be made and then compounded over and over. Perhaps we should deal with the root of that problem at some point.

.

Used Bridge For Sale! Cheap!

by tristero

The Pentagon was not behind the Assange accusations. How could anyone be so paranoid as to suspect they were?

It is crazy to speculate that Monsanto might be purchasing civil disobedience in Italy in order to plant Frankencorn. The farmer in this article is simply a humble idealist who believes in the freedom to do whatever he wants on his land. The fact that he name-checked Ron Paul means nothing. Every Italian farmer has heard of him: Ron Paul’s the most famous living American, after all.

And only the most unserious people question reports that most of the oil from the BP catastrophe in the Gulf has been dispersed and will not harm anyone or anything.

Ooops, okay, that last one may not be so crazy to doubt. But don’t blame me, if industry funded scientists tell me that poof! magically, 75% of the oil from the biggest drilling accident on record disappeared overnight, who am I to say no? Complicated statistics like that always confuse me. Math class is tough!

Regardless, there’s no reason not to trust the other stories. These are facts, people:

Assange/Wikileaks was absolutely not the victim of a dirty Pentagon trick. And Monsanto did nothing, not even indirectly, to fuel that Italian farmer’s innocent passion for their lousy, crummy-tasting, heirloom-wrecking corn.

Remember: Trust the authorities. What They say is authoritative.

Except maybe sometimes, when they lie with impunity through their fucking teeth and dare anyone to prove it.

Hate From All Directions

by digby

Abe Foxman must very be proud to have associated the ADL with the likes of the Teabaggers. You surely recall Mark Williams, the former Move America Forward and Tea Party Express spokesman who resigned recently after writing a racist screed in ebonics to the NAACP. He’s still at it:

Today he’s up with a new post calling New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg and Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer “Judenrats” for publicly supporting the proposed Cordoba House project in Lower Manhattan. “Politically correct Judenrats like New York Mayor Michael Boomberg and Scott Stringer (Manhattan Borough President) and domestic enemies who are supporting the mosque – with open ties to Islamic Terrorist organizations and supporting states are doing nothing more than erecting a giant middle finger to be trust at the victims of 911… which includes all of civilized Mankind,” Williams writes. It’s unclear exactly what Williams means by the term “Judenrats,” but as you can see from the context, it’s highly unlikely he’s using the word as a term of endearment. As you may or may not remember from your World War II history, a Judenrat were the local Jewish councils that Nazis put in charge of administering the ghettos. Not exactly the kind of thing most people often call American Jewish politicians like Bloomberg and Stringer.

I’m assuming that Pam Gellar has no problem with calling Bloomberg a Judenrat. She is, after all, a psycho who routinely associates with fascists. Real ones, as Joe Conason documents here:

Geller has declared herself a proud supporter of the English Defence League, a far-right street movement that sprang up in the United Kingdom earlier this year to protest planned construction of mosques and to stoke fear of Islam more broadly. She isn’t troubled by the EDL’s shadowy leadership, nor by its connections with English fascist organizations and propensity for violence against bystanders, counter-protesters and the police. Last May she wrote:

Free people should support the English Defence League in its efforts to stand for England and the West against the belligerent invaders and Islamic imperialists. The EDL is routinely smeared in the British media, as the Tea Party activists are smeared in the U.S. media. The corrupt, biased media defames any group, person, or organization standing against Islamic supremacism. They tar, feather, and destroy the good name of good people who stand for life, liberty, and individual rights. Libel and slander like “racist,” “fascist,” “bigot,” etc. color every news report of every counter-jihad action. The quisling media is the propaganda arm of jihad. It’s despicable. There is nothing racist, fascist, or bigoted about the EDL.

• Continue reading

The brutal bigotry of the EDL and its leaders was thoroughly documented by the Guardian in an undercover investigation conducted over four months and published last May with copious video footage. The Guardian report includes the voice of an EDL leader boasting about what might happen when his followers overpower the police and confront counter-protesters. “If them barriers break one day and our lads get through,” he said, “they will murder them all.”

Do yourself a favor and click over to that Guardian investigation and watch the video. It’s chilling to see this happening in England and now here. It sure doesn’t look like a “distraction” to me.

Maybe Gellar and her pals John Bolton and Newt Gingrich think this is a good idea, but I find it hard to believe that most of New York’s population wants to be associated with people who are in league with serious fascists. The acidic hatred is flowing in all directions now and once that happens it starts to get very, very messy. I have a feeling that some of the people who have thrown in their lot with these creeps are going to get splashed with it themselves before this is over.

.

Proposition, Opposition

by digby

Michael Tomasky says there are two reasons the Republicans are probably going to clean the Democrats’ clocks in a couple of months. The first is the obvious: 9.5% unemployment, 2.5 points higher than when the president took office in the midst of an economic meltdown. There’s no doubt that this is the primary source of voter anger. And why wouldn’t it be?

But there’s another reason, which Tomasky very deftly lays out:

The second reason is that the Democrats are terrible at countering Republican spin. On virtually every major issue, to put matters in debating society language, the Republican point of view is the proposition, the Democratic one the opposition. This may sound odd, given that the Republicans are the ones who are in opposition. But they almost always set the terms of debate in Washington. And so, Republicans began saying shortly after Obama took office that the midterm elections would be a referendum on Obama’s overreach. The Democrats countered with not much of anything.

Now, after a year-plus of that and just nine weeks away from the voting, the terms of debate are set. The Democrats are just now trotting out arguments. They’re tying the Republicans to George W Bush, who is still unpopular. This may work, but they should have been doing this from the beginning, as the GOP did to Carter in the early Reagan days, and as the Tories recently did with that arresting web ad about Labour’s Legacy.

But the bottom line is this: the Democrats are afraid of the Republicans. They – all of them, from Obama on down – are afraid of Rush Limbaugh and Michele Bachmann and you name it. You hear Democratic operatives talk strategy, and there’s always a “logical” reason why this or that aggressive attack might not work. But it’s nothing to do with logic. They’re just afraid. Bachmann, the Minnesota congresswoman who wants the government out of everything, is a good case in point. It’s been revealed that her family farm has received $250,000 in federal subsidies. If she were a Democrat, the Republicans would make sure the entire country knew it.

But the Democrats won’t do things like that. If they had for the past 20 months, Americans would be talking about a president who, all things considered, is doing his best against quasi-insane and hypocritical opposition. But they’re telling each other a different story. And the Democrats will go on not learning the lesson of the price of their fear.

Hey, we’ve unearthed dozens of examples of GOP perfidy and hypocrisy that the Democrats, in the main, just aren’t interested in pursuing. They get hooked on some lame strategist’s focus group pablum and don’t deviate from the path. As Tomasky says, they always find some logical reason not to aggressively confront Republicans and I’m afraid his reasoning is the only one that makes sense.

Not that we didn’t know this. However, people can testify that I would protest using that kind of language. I cringed at the constant “spine transplant” stuff because it sounded like Frank Luntz boilerplate. But there’s no point in trying to paper this over anymore. They just don’t have the stomach for a fight. In that one respect anyway, the Republicans are right.

.

The Poisonous Moron

by digby

If you want to know why teabaggers are dumb as dirt, this is all you need to know:

Why does that indict the knuckle dragging tea party?

Glenn Beck is the most highly regarded individual among Tea Party supporters of the people we tested. He scores an extraordinarily high 75 percent warm rating, 57 percent very warm. This affinity for Beck came through very clearly in the focus groups. The only news source that participants said they could trust was Fox. Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, and Sean Hannity were cited as people who “are not afraid to tell it like it is” and support their arguments with solid facts. Beck was undoubtedly the hero in these groups. Participants consider him an “educator” (in contrast to the popular Rush Limbaugh who is an “entertainer”) who teaches people history and puts himself at risk because he exposes the truth. In the words of a woman in Ft. Lauderdale, “I would trust my life in his hands.” Other comments are just as laudatory: I like the way he’s trying to get back to the basics of the Constitution of the United States because I think that’s where our government is losing focus. They’re trying to change the Constitution or somehow twist it… He brings out facts… And he actually shows the people saying the things. It’s not like just sound bites. It’s not chopped and really edited. And he is scary because every time I watch the show, which is pretty much every day, my heart feels…and I feel like I want to do something. I’m frightened for him… Because of the things that he says. I think that he is stepping on some big toes. He really does his research and he really lays it out to you well; a good professor.

One of the big problems, needless to say, is that this piece of offal is a liar of epic proportions as well as being a moron. It’s a problem.

.

Slick Paulitician

by digby

I know everyone is terribly impressed by Ron Paul’s statement supporting the so-called mosque, but it really should be noted that within that statement is a bunch of towering bullshit as well.

First of all, he says that the politicians are all fiddling as the economy burns, which is debatable since the politicians have been mostly issuing terse waffling statements in between campaign stops and golfing outings. And anyway, as Greenwald points out today, this is a real issue whether we want it to be or not and it speaks to some very dangerous and important cross currents in American political life. It’s not a distraction.

Moreover, Paul’s commitment to fixing the economy is hardly something to emulate. After all, he is wholly against any further stimulus, regulation of the financial sector or even allowing some tax cuts to expire on the wealthiest Americans even as they reap huge rewards from the taxpayer bailouts. So, unless he thinks that the congress would be busily working to dismantle the Fed and reinstating the gold standard if this mosque wasn’t being built, I’m not sure what he’s talking about.

He says that this should have offered conservatives an opportunity to make an argument on the grounds of property rights. Of course, that same argument tracks with his boy Rand’s view that we should allow any bigot who owns a restaurant in the area to refuse to serve Muslims because it offends his delicate sensibilities, so I’m not sure that’s the best one to use in this circumstance. This argument is a red herring. What’s at stake here is pluralism vs know-nothingism — and good old fashioned decency.

Obviously, I agree with him that this is useful to the neo-conservative imperial wet dream, but Paul neglects to discuss the economic incentives involved — namely our addiction to oil and the capitalist “producers” who profit from it. That seems to me to be a fairly important omission and it renders much of his otherwise inspiring anti-neocon rhetoric a little bit flat. Neo-cons are, after all, cons for a reason and it’s the same reason that animates Paul’s entire libertarian laissez-faire philosophy. Freedom defined as $$$ often leads to this sort of repressive activity. I wonder why?

Finally, there are his arrogant accusations against unnamed liberals as “sunshine patriots” who are supposedly agitating against the mosque:

But many conservatives and liberals do not want to diminish the hatred for Islam, the driving emotion that keeps us in the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.

There are certainly timorous Democratic politicians like Reid and Weiner, among others, who have taken a cowardly position on this mosque. But “the left,” both amateur and professional, has been alone in the country standing up to this madness and it’s outrageous to lump them in among the racist, xenophoic neanderthals on the right. It’s vintage libertarian arrogance — they position themselves as superior to all sides even if they have to make stuff up (although in Paul’s case it’s always important to remember that he is, after all, a Republican.)

His shot at Pelosi is just a lie:

Paul would benefit from paying attention to the news a little more closely.

The House Speaker is now treading on a slippery slope by demanding a Congressional investigation to find out just who is funding the mosque—a bold rejection of property rights, 1st Amendment rights, and the Rule of Law—in order to look tough against Islam.

Er, no. While Nancy Pelosi did call for “transparency” about the mosque’s funding, the only “investigation” she got behind (and not necessarily a Congressional one at that) was one into the funding of the mosque opposition. Just replace “the House Speaker” with Rick Lazio, Peter King, or George Pataki, and it makes more sense.

I am happy that he spoke out against Islamophobia. I would have hoped that it wouldn’t be an unusual position for members of either party and the fact that it is, is simply disgusting. But Paul is otherwise full of shit, as usual.

Give me Senator Merkley’s unambiguously principled, moral stand any day. Or for that matter, Greg Sargent, who took on one of his own paper’s treasured op-ed right wingers by name to defend the mosque. There are people out there who are taking the right position for the right reasons.

This isn’t tough. The anti-Muslim xenophobes are just dead wrong. And it’s not because they don’t respect property rights. It’s because they don’t respect common human decency.

.

My Life

by digby

Allison Kilkenny and Jamie Kilstein teach America how to write a blog by producing a shocking documentary about life in the trenches:

That’s pretty much it right down to the Scarborough monkey. It’s a dirty job but … well, you know.

.

Grayson

by digby

There are two groups in this country right now. I call those groups Us, and Them.

We want more jobs, better schools, better health, better pensions, and we want to keep our homes. We want not just jobs but jobs that mean something, jobs that pay a decent wage. We want to live a good life.

And then there’s them. They simply have one goal and one goal only. And that is to destroy the government. They’re not conservatives. They’re anarchists.

I don’t know why they want anarchy. In fact, they don’t know, either. Even they don’t know what kind of inner darkness causes them to seek wars without end, to burn the planet, to welcome poverty for so many, to leave the old and the sick helpless, to cheer oil in the Gulf. I’ve spoken to enough of them to be able to tell you that they themselves don’t know why.

But that’s what they want. So, now we have to decide who is going to run this country. Is it Us, or is it Them? And what’s at stake is the future. The future in a country that my five children will live in, that your children will live in, that you’ll live in for the rest of your life.

Are we going to have a country with a decent middle class life for everyone– jobs, health care, roads, schools? Or, are we going to have poverty, cheap labor, helplessness and hopelessness? The choice is yours.

Howie writes:

Congressman Grayson’s clip above is positively existential. It’s hard to believe it’s coming from a Member of Congress. Of course, it’s hard to believe there’s a Member of Congress of Alan Grayson’s calibre. And I get the feeling there are an awful lot of people in the Orlando area who know just how lucky they are. On the other hand, Alan has drawn a veritable circus sideshow of opponents, each one fringier and more insane than the other. Tomorrow is primary day in Florida and we’ll be watching with interest as a small number of disheartened and disillusioned Republicans pick over the 4th and 5th tier candidates hoping for the nomination– from Patricia Sullivan who (publicly) claims Sarah Palin as a role model, Dan Fanelli who proudly (and publicly) flies his racist flag for everyone to see, to the kook, Ross Bieling, who’s platform is impeaching President Obama and the hate talk radio guy, Todd Long, who was found passed out drunk one morning in front of a local elementary school to a state legislator, Kurt Kelly, who disgraced himself last month by interpreting Rep. Grayson’s efforts to bring the troops home to safety as wanting them to die and then to the feeble fave of the Establishment, Dan Webster, who’s best known for pushing a radical religious agenda that has included ending the right of divorce and introducing the legislation that started the whole tragic Terri Schiavo debacle. And on top of that the Florida TEA Party has nominated Peg Dunmire, someone even nuttier than that crew– well not nuttier than Fanelli– running as well.

I’m fairly sure that everyone who reads this blog knows how much I respect and admire Congressman Alan Grayson. He is one of the few Democrats who understands the polarized nature of our polity in 2010 and doesn’t shirk his responsibility to fight for our beliefs rather than obscure them.

Part of what makes that possible is the fact that Grayson has an army — us. But anyone who has his own national constituency is a powerful independent force that threatens the existing order. It’s why the Democratic Party gives money to corporate Democrats like Suzanne Kosmos in Grayson’s neighboring district so that she can run ads undermining Grayson’s progressive message in their shared TV market. (They give none to Grayson.)

But that’s also why Grayson can continue to speak the truth and operate independently from the corrupt system that’s killing our political culture — as long as we make up the difference.

Today’s the last day of a moneybomb his campaign launched a few days ago. Blue America has our own goal for Alan’s campaign, an even $50,000. As you can see from the thermometer on the right, we’re more than two-thirds there.

Please, if you only contribute to one campaign this year, it’s Alan Grayson who has earned that honor. he is our most powerful voice in the House of Representatives and if he wins re-election in his formerly Republican district in this year of Democratic paranoia, the message will be loud and clear — people want Democrats with guts.

Please join Howie, John and me in a live blogging session with Congressman Alan Grayson at Crooks and Liars at 10 am pdt, 1 pm edt.

Principled Leadership

by digby

This is how it’s done. Senator Jeff Merkley:

The debate swirling around the proposed mosque and Muslim community center in lower Manhattan near the World Trade Center site has, for many, tapped into strong emotions of a national trauma that is still raw. But in the churning political and constitutional arguments, one question has not been adequately addressed: what makes a mosque near ground zero offensive.

Nearly everyone in this debate affirms the constitutional right for the mosque’s construction. Indeed, that right is a cherished founding principle. As Thomas Jefferson said, “The constitutional freedom of religion [is] the most inalienable and sacred of all human rights.” It is no accident that the right to worship in accordance with one’s own conscience is enshrined in the First Amendment.

But, many mosque opponents argue, just because it can be built does not mean it should be. They say it would be disrespectful to the memories of those who died on 9/11 to build a Muslim facility near the World Trade Center site. I appreciate the depth of emotions at play, but respectfully suggest that the presence of a mosque is only inappropriate near ground zero if we unfairly associate Muslim Americans with the atrocities of the foreign al-Qaida terrorists who attacked our nation.

Such an association is a profound error. Muslim Americans are our fellow citizens, not our enemies. Muslim Americans were among the victims who died at the World Trade Center in the 9/11 attacks. Muslim American first responders risked their lives to save their fellow citizens that day. Many of our Muslim neighbors, including thousands of Oregon citizens, serve our country in war zones abroad and our communities at home with dedication and distinction.

Some have also argued that the construction of the mosque would hand a propaganda victory to Osama bin Laden. I think the opposite is true. Al-Qaida justifies its murder by painting America as a nation at war with Islam. Celebrating our freedom of religion and Muslim Americans’ place in our communities is a blow to al-Qaida’s ideology of hate and division. We strengthen America by distinguishing, clearly and unequivocally, between our al-Qaida enemy and our Muslim neighbors.

President Bush understood the importance of separating the terrorists from over a billion peaceful Muslims around the world whose faith has been used as an excuse by those bent on killing. Speaking at a mosque just six days after the World Trade Center attack, President Bush said, “These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith, and it’s important for my fellow Americans to understand that.”

I have great respect for the sentiments of the survivors and family members of those who died on 9/11, and understand that some may not regard the situation this way. But our fundamental religious freedom and our national security — in addition to fairness for our fellow citizens — will be well served by drawing a bright line between our Muslim friends and neighbors at home, and our al-Qaida enemy abroad.

That wasn’t so hard now was it?

.

Virtually Speaking

by digby

Jay Ackroyd and I are chatting about everything under the sun right now.

.