Month: March 2011

It’s Complicated

by digby

Middle east expert Fawaz Gerges,a fierce critic of the Iraq invasion, was on CNN this morning talking about the dynamics in the middle east and Libya:

Halla Gorani:Why not more of an active role by these members of the Arab league to give this more of an Arab flavor than a western one?

Fawaz Gerges: Well I think that’s what Secretary Clinton is trying to say. That the Arab states are active players. What she really means is the United Arab Emirates and Morocco and Iraq to a lesser extent. But remember she also spent a great in the press conference talking about Bahrain, and how the Unites States has impressed on the Gulf Cooperation Council that they should really engage the opposition in Bahrain.

Here you have the United States is coalescing with the United Arab Emirates to take part in the war in Libya, while the United Arab Emirates forces intervened in Bahrain to suppress the opposition. it tells you a great deal about the predicament of the United States and that’s why the United States is very conscious about not wanting to take the lead in this campaign because of sensitivities. The United States wants to support the campaign the campaign as opposed to taking the lead in this fight.

Gorani: So this is very interesting. Because on the one hand you have the United States speaking out against Muamar Qaddafi, supporting an effort to protect civilians in Libya. On the other, they have allies in Gulf countries such as Bahrain as you mentioned, where some of these forces, including the UAE are doing seemingly contradictory things.

Where will this all go from a regional perspective?

Gerges: Absolutely, the United Arab Emirates, you’re talking about Saudi Arabia, you’re talking about Quattar which supported the intervention of the Gulf Cooperation Council in Bahrain. Let’s take a look at the scenario. Once you start military operations, there are unforeseen consequences. The question on the table are the following: How many civilian casualties in Libya will the international community tolerate? As you know, Qadaffi has already inserted his forces in the urban areas. That is the air power alone will not decide the outcome in Libya.

Muamar Qaddafi controls more than 80% of the territories. He controls more than 80% of the population. Second you will see Qaddafi saying today, tonight and tomorrow that this is all about Western imperialism and American imperialism. Once you have American casualties in Libya, it will change the dynamics regionally and internationally.

You can imagine Qaddafi taking a CNN reporter to show him an operation, a military campaign, that basically results in civilian casualties in Libya. The result is that even though Secretary Clinton and the President have made it very clear, and even president Sarkosy have made it very clear that the goal of the campaign is to protect civilians, look at what Secretary Clinton has said: the goal is to create conditions in Libya that will bring about the toppling of Muamar Qaddafi. These are the conditions. Very ambitious goals…

They go on to talk about the fact that it’s inevitable that air strikes will kill civilians and that Qaddafi will exploit that situation for his own gain. Gerges continues:

Gerges: You asked me a question about the Arab states. Look at the position of the Arab League. The Arab league has made it very clear. Support a no-fly zone over Libya. But at the same time the Arab league has made it very clear they are against western intervention in Libya. What this tells you is that the Arab leaders are very aware of sensitivities in their own countries. That is that Arab public opinion could easily change and shift and I think here President Obama was extremely sensitive to the resistance of Arab nations to intervene militarily.

I fear even though the United States is not leading the operation now, as the conflict escalates, the United States will own this operation. That’s my fear. In the next few days this will become and American operation consciously or unconsciously the United States will own the war in Libya… that’s why President Obama was very resistant initially to any military intervention and that’s why secretary Clinton has insisted that the Arab world take an active role in this war.

The Arab world will not take an active role in this war. It’s a European campaign plus Canada plus the United States and a symbolic role for the Arab League.

Fredericka Whitfield: So I also hear you saying then that these initial efforts from this coalition then will ultimately backfire.

Gerges: My fear and as we have seen throughout major military campaigns in the middle east, the middle east is a highly fragile, highly volatile, highly complex with a great deal of anti-Western sentiments. My fear is that Qaddafi, who is a thug and a nasty man has already positioned himself and his forces to say that he is fighting Western imperialism and American imperialism, and if civilian casualties occur in Libya, you’re going to see public opinion on shifting in the world. And my fear is also that the opposition in Libya might be tainted if the intervention leads to a great number of civilian casualties…

People would like Qaddafi to go, there’ no question about it. But they are very suspicious basically of a more potent Western operation. This is why it tells you a great deal about how difficult the Arab position is. “We support a no-fly zone but we do not support western military operations.”

He supports the Libyan intervention, by the way.

I wish I didn’t feel so cynical about this. But evoking the R2P (Responsibility to Protect doctrine) in this instance just strikes me as a recipe to undermine it. You cannot separate what’s happening in Libya from what’s happening in Bahrain or Yemen or the horrors of Cote D’Ivoire or any number of other places except for their various strategic (or non-strategic) value. To wrap the Libyan intervention in the concept of humanitarianism cheapens humanitarianism. (But then it wouldn’t be the first time, would it?)

Yes, it may the case that in Libya our values and our strategic interests intersect, although this kind of intervention so rarely works out well even without all the complications that it’s hard to see what the end game will be. But it is equally true that in Bahrain, our values and our strategic interests don’t intersect. Guess which one wins?

Update: And it should not be overlooked that this is happening in the middle of a huge push to cut back on basic services for American citizens reeling from the economic meltdown. It’s been hard enough for the Democrats to make a coherent argument after having extended tax cuts for millionaires, but I’m guessing it’s going to be even harder now.

Update II:Here’s an article on the major oil company holdings in Libya. I don’t know if it includes the various Libyan subsidiaries. For instance France Total reformed itself into a company named Al-Mabrouk Oil. It’s possible that these are all included, however.

.

Incentives

by digby

Sometimes you just have to love Newt. He can’t help himself:

ThinkProgress asked Gingrich about these corporate tax-dodgers this week at a St. Patrick’s Day breakfast in Nashua, New Hampshire. Gingrich defended Arch Coal and other corporations who avoided paying income taxes because “they don’t owe that” to the U.S. government. Striking an anti-populist note, the former House Speaker also praised the fact that even though many corporations were avoiding taxes, their employees would still be forced to contribute to the government’s coffers. Gingrich concluded by enthusiastically championing corporate tax loopholes, telling ThinkProgress that corporations were using “an incentive…not a loophole.” “We should celebrate that as a good thing,” Gingrich added:

KEYES: There have been a lot of complains from the left and right about corporations not paying their fair share in taxes. For instance, Arch Coal in 2009 made $42 million but paid nothing in corporate income tax. What are your thoughts on that? GINGRICH: My thoughts are I’m opposed to tax increases. I want to create more jobs in America, not fewer. KEYES: But they’re not paying anything right now in corporate income tax. GINGRICH: But you don’t know why they’re not paying anything. Did they buy new equipment? Did they do things that actually create jobs? I can’t give you an answer for any one company. KEYES: But in general, corporations who are making millions and millions in profit but then not contributing anything to the United States government. Do you think that’s fair? GINGRICH: First of all, if they make millions and millions in profit, they probably employ thousands and thousands of people and those thousands and thousands of people are contributing a lot to America. I am for the maximum job creation in the United States and I think that means lower taxes, not higher taxes. It means less regulations, not more regulation. KEYES: But you don’t think we should try to be forcing them to pay what they owe? GINGRICH: First of all, they don’t owe that. If what they did was legal, and if it was designed to create more jobs. For example, if we gave you 100 percent write-off for new equipment so you could compete with China, and you use that 100 percent write-off, you actually did what we wanted you to do. […] You have to go ask Arch [Coal] “what is it they did right in order to lower their tax liability and did it create jobs in America?” KEYES: Would you like to see those corporate tax loopholes closed though? [crosstalk] GINGRICH: I just want to say this because it’s an important difference in how we approach this. If we give you an incentive to do something right that creates more jobs, that is not a loophole. That’s an incentive. If you then intelligently follow that incentive and create more jobs, we should celebrate that as a good thing.

Randian gobbledygook at its finest. If only the corporations and the wealthy are “set free” to “create jobs” we’ll all be rich. The fact that they’ve actually managed to convince a whole lot of the working people of this country that this makes sense just proves that PT Barnum was correct.

.

Friends, Enemies and Humanitarianism

by digby

Gosh, it sure is complicated over there:

In 2007, when American combat casualties were spiking in the bloodbath of the Iraq War, an 18-year-old laborer traveled from his home in eastern Libya through Egypt and Syria to join an al Qaeda terrorist cell in Iraq. He gave his name to al Qaeda operatives as Ashraf Ahmad Abu-Bakr al-Hasri. Occupation, he wrote: “Martyr.’’

Abu-Bakr was one of hundreds of foreign fighters who flocked into the killing zones of Iraq to wage war against the “infidels.” They came from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Oman, Algeria and other Islamic states. But on a per capita basis, no country sent more young fighters into Iraq to kill Americans than Libya — and almost all of them came from eastern Libya, the center of the anti-Gaddafi rebellion that the United States and others now have vowed to protect, according to internal al Qaeda documents uncovered by U.S. intelligence.

The informal alliance with violent Islamist extremist elements is a coming-home of sorts for the United States, which initially fought on the same side as the Libyan fighters in Afghanistan in the 1980s, battling the Soviet Union.

Haven’t we seen this movie before?

Almost one in five foreign fighters arriving in Iraq came from eastern Libya, from the towns of Surt, Misurata and Darnah.
[…]
Today, there is little doubt that eastern Libya, like other parts of the Arab world, is experiencing a genuine burst of anti-totalitarian fervor, expressed in demands for political freedom and economic reforms. But there also is a dark history to eastern Libya, which is the home of the Islamic Libyan Fighting Group, an anti-Gaddafi organization officially designated by the State Department as a terrorist organization.

Ah, irony.

Who’s killing their own people today? A friend?

Penniless, unmarried and unemployed, 30-year-old Ali Farhan embodied many of the grievances that propelled Bahraini Shi’ites to protest in the street — only to be buried in a sandy grave.

Thousands shouting “Down with the regime” watched as his wooden coffin was lowered into a rocky plot on Friday among nameless graves overrun with brittle weeds and faded flags.

Farhan is one of eleven demonstrators to die in clashes with security forces since protests first rocked Manama last month.

He was one of the thousands of mostly Shi’ite protesters from ramshackle suburbs that ring the capital, who complain they are neglected by their Sunni rulers on the island, a regional financial hub where the U.S. Navy houses Fifth Fleet.

An Enemy?

Yesterday, there were reports of snipers taking up positions around peaceful, unarmed pro-democracy demonstrators, then firing into the crowd, inflicting fatal headshots and hitting other victims in the neck. At least one journalist was killed and another injured in the crackdown, and dozens of journalists have reportedly been targeted —detained, beaten, shot at— since the Saleh regime’s crackdown began.

The violence yesterday has reportedly left at least 40 people dead, and Pres. Saleh has used the killings to declare a state of emergency. Critics say the snipers were plainclothes government agents sent to kill and to terrorize peaceful demonstrators. It now appears the Yemeni government has been involved in deliberate crimes against humanity, using lethal violence against unarmed civilians.

Iraq?:

Protesters in Iraq are jeering Saudi Arabia’s king as a slave of America and Israel for sending troops into Bahrain.

A Saudi-led force entered Bahrain earlier this week to support the nation’s Sunni monarchy. More than a month of protests by majority Shiites are seeking to break the dynasty’s grip on power.

On Saturday, 2,000 Iraqis in the capital carried Bahraini flags and chanted “Yes, yes to Bahrain!” in Baghdad’s Shiite Sadr City area. Some 4,000 gathered in the second-largest city, Basra, and carried an effigy of Saudi King Abdullah through the crowd.

Iraqi leaders fear the clashes in Bahrain could fuel sectarian violence across the Mideast.

Why do I keep thinking of this?

Jensen: You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale, and I won’t have it!! Is that clear?! You think you’ve merely stopped a business deal. That is not the case. The Arabs have taken billions of dollars out of this country, and now they must put it back! It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity! It is ecological balance!

You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars. Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, reichmarks, rins, rubles, pounds, and shekels.

It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today! And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and YOU WILL ATONE!

Am I getting through to you, Mr. Beale?

You get up on your little twenty-one inch screen and howl about America and democracy. There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and ITT and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today.

What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state — Karl Marx? They get out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, minimax solutions, and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments, just like we do.

We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable bylaws of business. The world is a business, Mr. Beale. It has been since man crawled out of the slime. And our children will live, Mr. Beale, to see that perfect world in which there’s no war or famine, oppression or brutality — one vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock, all necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused.

And I have chosen you, Mr. Beale, to preach this evangel.

Beale: But why me?

Jensen: Because you’re on television, dummy. Sixty million people watch you every night of the week, Monday through Friday.

Beale: I have seen the face of God.

Jensen: You just might be right, Mr. Beale.

.

So Easy A Three Year Old Can Sign Up

By tristero

Anyone have a three-year-old they can spare? I can’t make head or tails out of this.

Stoned

by digby

Good Lord:

Authorities in Delaware County say a 70-year-old man was stoned to death with a rock stuffed in a sock by a younger friend who alleged the victim made unwanted sexual advances.

According to the criminal complaint, 28-year-old John Thomas of Lansdowne has told police he killed 70-year-old Murray Seidman because the Old Testament refers to stoning homosexuals.

This is still a crime in America, although with all the Christian Reconstructionists in congress these days, that might not last forever.

Great Game redux

by digby

This is an interesting behind the scenes report on the decision to endorse military action in Libya. An excerpt:

At the start of this week, the consensus around Washington was that military action against Libya was not in the cards. However, in the last several days, the White House completely altered its stance and successfully pushed for the authorization for military intervention against Libyan leader Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi. What changed?

The key decision was made by President Barack Obama himself at a Tuesday evening senior-level meeting at the White House, which was described by two administration officials as “extremely contentious.” Inside that meeting, officials presented arguments both for and against attacking Libya. Obama ultimately sided with the interventionists. His overall thinking was described to a group of experts who had been called to the White House to discuss the crisis in Libya only days earlier.

“This is the greatest opportunity to realign our interests and our values,” a senior administration official said at the meeting, telling the experts this sentence came from Obama himself. The president was referring to the broader change going on in the Middle East and the need to rebalance U.S. foreign policy toward a greater focus on democracy and human rights.

But Obama’s stance in Libya differs significantly from his strategy regarding the other Arab revolutions. In Egypt and Tunisia, Obama chose to rebalance the American stance gradually backing away from support for President Hosni Mubarak and Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali and allowing the popular movements to run their course. In Yemen and Bahrain, where the uprisings have turned violent, Obama has not even uttered a word in support of armed intervention – instead pressing those regimes to embrace reform on their own. But in deciding to attack Libya, Obama has charted an entirely new strategy, relying on U.S. hard power and the use of force to influence the outcome of Arab events.

“In the case of Libya, they just threw out their playbook,” said Steve Clemons, the foreign policy chief at the New America Foundation. “The fact that Obama pivoted on a dime shows that the White House is flying without a strategy and that we have a reactive presidency right now and not a strategic one.”

This article represents the argument as essentially between the humanitarian interventionists, which includes SOS Clinton, and the “realists” including Robert Gates, who worry about American being drawn into yet another war:

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon also said on Thursday that the justification for the use of force was based on humanitarian grounds, and referred to the principle known as Responsibility to Protect (R2P), “a new international security and human rights norm to address the international community’s failure to prevent and stop genocides, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.”

“Resolution 1973 affirms, clearly and unequivocally, the international community’s determination to fulfill its responsibility to protect civilians from violence perpetrated upon them by their own government,” he said.

Inside the NSC, Power, Smith, and McFaul have been trying to figure out how the administration could implement R2P and what doing so would require of the White House going forward. Donilon and McDonough are charged with keeping America’s core national interests more in mind. Obama ultimately sided with Clinton and those pushing R2P — over the objections of Donilon and Gates.

Right. And the fact that similar circumstances are happening all over the middle east and Africa and the US isn’t chomping at the bit to intervene on the people’s behalf doesn’t strike anyone as suspicious? R2P is a noble concept. But the fact that it is only being invoked when France Total, ENI Italy, Conoco Phillips, Exxon and all the rest of the usual suspects are involved is curious to say the least.

Well-intentioned people who want to intervene on behalf of the rebels in Libya. Qadaffi is a madman. And there was a time when I would have wanted to do the same thing. But I have come to believe that we usually make things worse. It’s always possible that it won’t this time, but it’s a long shot.

More importantly, as I wrote yesterday, I think the rationale in this case is nonsense. The entire Middle East and several African countries are in turmoil and there are many places where the international community could have decided to intervene on this humanitarian R2 basis. The only one that has any “strategic” value is Libya, and that value is based upon its oil fields.

Maybe everyone agrees that it’s a good reason to go to war, but the people of this country deserve to have a debate about it so that they can understand the price they are paying for their dependence on oil (and stop thinking they are the world’s great saviors out of decency and altruism.)

Obama seems to be doing everything he can to keep the US brand off of this, but since we spend more on military than all other countries of the world combined, nobody’s going to believe it. This is the Great Game redux and the sooner we deal with that reality the sooner we’ll be able to make some rational decisions.

I hope more than anything that this can work very quickly and they can make a quick getaway. If it goes on for very long, I’m afraid we’re in for another extremely expensive and lengthy oil field protection operation. It’s a big risk.

.

Tea Party Shark Jumping?

by digby

You’ve probably already read this letter from a conservative, Tea Party husband to his schoolteacher wife, but if not it’s worth passing around to your friends.

Dear Honey,

I’m sorry.

I am a conservative husband, belong to the Tea Party and I voted for John Kasich. I have been married to a Cleveland teacher for almost 14 years and my vote let her down.

I apologize:

For letting people tease you about having the summer off and not asking them to thank you for the tough days ahead that begin in early August. I know for a fact you work more hours in those 10 months than many people do in 12. All those hours are earned.

For complaining that my Sunday is limited with you because you must work.

For making you think you have to ask permission to buy a student socks, gloves and hats.

For not understanding that you walk through a metal detector for work.

For leaving dirty dishes in the sink [when you awoke] for your 4 a.m. work session. I should know you have to prepare.

For thinking you took advantage of the taxpayers. Our governor continues to live off the taxpayer dole, not you.

For counting the time and money you spend to buy school supplies.

For not saying “thank you” enough for making the world and me better.

I love you.

The columnist who featured this in the newspaper, concludes:

In this husband’s apology, we learn a lot about the remarkable teacher who is his wife. Her students sure are lucky. Every day that she shows up with such optimism is another day her students get a chance to believe in a better version of themselves.

Thankfully, this teacher is not an anomaly. Despite recent attacks on their pay, motives and even their supposed lifestyle, the majority of public school teachers across the country continue to bring their talent and high ideals to some of our most troubled districts.

When it gets to the point where you are attacking kindergarten teachers as the destroyers of the American way of life, you’ve effectively jumped the shark.

.

Happy Days Are Here Again?

by digby

Well gosh, who says the whole world is going to hell in a hand basket?

Profit margins are expected to climb nearly 9% this year among companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index, marking an 18-year high.

The third consecutive year of the bull market will see profits increase 8.9% in 2011, which would be the highest level since 1993. That’s good news for investors, who could see higher dividends. Bloomberg reports that of 380 companies in the S&P that pay dividends, 378 are projected to maintain or increase them.

The situation is less encouraging for non-investors. Back in that banner year of 1993, the unemployment rate fell from 7.3% to 6.5%. According to the most recent figures released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate is 8.9%.

Yeah, it’s less encouraging all right.

.

Gearing Up For The Grand Bargain

by digby

60 Senators sent this letter to President Obama today:

Dear President Obama:

As the Administration continues to work with Congressional leadership regarding our current budget situation, we write to inform you that we believe comprehensive deficit reduction measures are imperative and to ask you to support a broad approach to solving the problem.

As you know, a bipartisan group of Senators has been working to craft a comprehensive deficit reduction package based upon the recommendations of the Fiscal Commission. While we may not agree with every aspect of the Commission’s recommendations, we believe that its work represents an important foundation to achieve meaningful progress on our debt. The Commission’s work also underscored the scope and breadth of our nation’s long-term fiscal challenges.

Beyond FY2011 funding decisions, we urge you to engage in a broader discussion about a comprehensive deficit reduction package. Specifically, we hope that the discussion will include discretionary spending cuts, entitlement changes and tax reform.

By approaching these negotiations comprehensively, with a strong signal of support from you, we believe that we can achieve consensus on these important fiscal issues. This would send a powerful message to Americans that Washington can work together to tackle this critical issue.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

In addition to Johanns and Bennet, the letter was signed by the following Senators:
Republicans:

Lamar Alexander (R–TN), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), John Barrasso (R-WY), Roy Blunt (MO), John Boozman (R-AR), Scott Brown (R- MA), Richard Burr (R -NC), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Dan Coats (R-IN), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Bob Corker (R-TN), John Cornyn (R-TX), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Mike Enzi (R-WY), Lindsay Graham (R-SC) John Hoeven (R-ND), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Mike Lee (R-UT), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Rob Portman (R-OH),? James Risch (R-ID), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Richard Shelby (R-AL), John Thune (R-SD) and Roger Wicker (R-MS).

Democrats:
John Kerry (D-MA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Joseph Lieberman (ID-CT), Kay Hagan (D-NC), Mark Begich (D-AK), Thomas Carper (D-DE), Mark Udall (D- CO), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Jon Tester (D-MT), Christopher Coons (D-DE), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Joe Manchin (D-WV), Benjamin Cardin (D-MD), Al Franken (D-MN), Mary Landrieu (D-LA) , Kent Conrad (D-ND) , Mark Warner (D-VA), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Patty Murray (D-WA), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Tom Udall (D-NM) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH).

Looks like we’ve got us a Grand Bargain in the making.

Just keep in mind that “tax reform” and tax hikes aren’t the same thing. In fact, if the unsuccessful deficit commission report (as predicted, used as the “new bipartisan baseline”)is any guide, the things they will agree upon are the elimination of arcane loopholes which will swiftly be replaced by new ones and ending middle class breaks like the mortgage interest deduction. But don’t let that get in the way of a glorious agreement that will really start hurting citizens long after most of these people are well in their retirements, comfortably counting their millions, or in their graves.

But golly, I sure hope it “sends a message” to the market Gods and so they’ll cure everything that else ails us in the mean time as the Republicans and Obama’s economic advisors are betting on. Otherwise, I suspect we’re going to come up a bit short in the WTF department.

This is not looking good in my opinion. They are determined to push this and there is almost no energy directed toward cutting defense. Medicare is probably off the table because of the recent health care battle and the GOP’s ruthless, hypocritical attack on Democrats. That leaves discretionary spending and Social Security, the issue which the country has been prepped to believe is going broke unless something is done.

The Democrats will pay the price for this, but I’d guess most of the people who signed that letter are fine with that. I’m not sure about the others. And if anyone thinks this is designed to get the president to cover for their “tough choices” they’re cracked. This is about doing Obama’s dream, the Grand Bargain that only wealthy millionaires and Villagers could love. There is no political upside for anyone but him — and that’s only because he’s probably going to be running against some unelectable Tea Partying wingnut. The rest of these Dems may not be so lucky.

.

e coli Conservatism Wins Again

by digby

The GOPs war on animals continues. (BTW, who aren’t they at war with these days besides rich white guys?)

The Iowa House approved a bill Thursday to prevent animal rights activists from getting hired on farms just so they can secretly record what they believe is the mistreatment of livestock.

The bill has had strong support from farmers angered by repeated releases of secretly filmed videos claiming to show the mistreatment of farm animals. It was introduced after groups around the nation released videos showing cows being shocked, pigs being beaten and chicks ground up alive.

The Republican-led House approved the measure 65-27. It must pass the Democratic-controlled Senate and be signed by Republican Gov. Terry Branstad to become law.

The bill would make it illegal to secretly record and distribute videos and punish those who take jobs on farms only to gain access to record animals’ treatment. Penalties include up to five years in prison and fines of up to $7,500.

But secretly filming ACORN workers and then editing the tapes to make them look like criminals is obviously a-ok.

This is really awful. Those films show real animal cruelty on a level that shakes Americans in a primitive way. Most people eat meat, but they are not comfortable with factory farms treating animals cruelly and putting diseased and dirty product into the food supply. And obviously the government isn’t doing its job adequately or they wouldn’t be able to produce this footage.

I wouldn’t eat any meat from Iowa from now on. They obviously have something to hide or they wouldn’t have felt it necessary to pass this law.

.