Month: October 2011

The FBI considers the fans of shticky rap group Insane Clown Posse to represent a threat on par with the Crips, Bloods, and Aryan Brotherhood, according to its annual report on gang activity.You might think Insane Clown Posse’s people — known as the Juggalos — are just a group of face-painting teenagers who wonder how magnets work. Not so, says the FBI’s 2011 National Gang Threat Assessment. To the feds, Juggalos are a “loosely-organized hybrid gang” that are “forming more organized subsets and engaging in more gang-like criminal activity.”Consult page 22 of the FBI’s brand new annual report on gang activity nationwide. (.PDF) Listed in the same breath as street gangs with ties to murderous Mexican drug cartels is the Juggalo threat…Other gangs cited in the report, like the Haitian Boys Posse or the Custer Street Gang, are linked to homicides, gun running, and drug trafficking. Juggalo gang activity cited by the FBI cites is a notably lower caliber: thefts, hand-to-hand drug sales and felony assaults. The FBI has recently had difficulty distinguishing ordinary American Muslims from terrorists; now it appears it has a similar problem distinguishing teenage fads from criminal conspiracies.

Why Talk to Third Way?
by David Atkins

I’ve written time and again about the useless concern trolling of Third Way. The organization is essentially a mouthpiece for conservative corporate pseudo-Democrats. Third Way’s motivations are simple: they provide a mechanism by which the Joe Liebermans of the world can try to pull the Democratic Party to the right, under the guise of appealing to “moderates.”

The more important question is why Third Way gets attention in the press. This National Journal article by Alex Roarty is just another example of the rote boilerplate “journalism” in which an infusion of progressive enthusiasm in the Democratic Party–for whatever reason–is countered with the tut-tutting of some hack from Third Way:

The dilemma is an old one for Democrats–as well as Republicans, for that matter. Political parties always have to balance the competing demands of their most fervent base of supporters with their moderate wings. But Democrats face fresh tensions this year because of the perilous state of Obama’s reelection bid and the evident fraying of their coalition, one inherently more dependent on moderates than the GOP coalition.

Some Democratic lawmakers are already carefully crafting their own messages, while taking a cautious course with OWS.

“They’re taking a wait-and-see approach with Occupy Wall Street,” said Lanae Erickson, deputy director of the Social Policy and Politics Program at think tank Third Way. “I think there’s a danger. It’s very difficult for a president to turn an angry populist movement into something positive for a campaign. The last president to do that was probably FDR.”

Actually, the last president to pull that off successfully was every single Republican president since Richard Nixon, playing off an angry movement of conservatives fueled by racial and religious resentment. That’s why they call them “Movement Conservatives” after all, and it’s been a very successful approach for them.

The Occupy movement is growing in both size and popularity. It is twice as popular as the Tea Party. While the movement is officially non-partisan, local, state and national Democrats have given the movement their blessing and encouragement. Even the DCCC, not known as a particularly progressive organization due to its obsession with expanding the map by electing and protecting Blue Dogs, has given full-throated support to the Occupiers. President Obama has pivoted off the genuine populist anger to grow significantly more aggressive in his own rhetoric. Obviously, Moveon.org and a large number of other left-affiliated organizations are right alongside the Occupiers.

What does Third Way bring to table? They bring no activists, no door knockers, no phonebankers, no silo of issue supporters. They don’t speak for Democrats. They don’t even bring in much money for candidates who back their corporate agenda. And the tide of public opinion is obviously against them right now, to say nothing of political momentum. So why are they and their media flacks relevant, again?

Those who resort to what I have called the Snidely Whiplash theory of politics and media will simply argue that the media is a conservative tool, bought and paid for by the right-wing corporate interests. While there is some truth to that, it’s too simplistic.

Most journalists are looking for a good story. Good stories have conflict. The Third Way is an easy play for a journalist looking to write a lazy, pre-templated story about “divided Democrats,” while blunting criticism by the howling mass of conservative hate mail writers about “liberal bias.”

But here’s a thought for “journalists” like Roarty: why not just write about the conflict that exists between the right and the left? Or between the 99% and 1%? Why not make it clear that America is, in fact, as divided as our politics suggest and leave it at that?

Ultimately, that’s a more truthful representation of the facts. It provides the conflict needed for an interesting story. And it avoids the perception of bias–save, of course, for the liberal bias that basic facts have a tendency to bring out.

There’s simply no reason for any journalist to talk to a hack at Third Way about anything.

.

Rubio the “Sexy Exile”

by digby

If you haven’t been following the saga of Marco Rubio’s family history “embellishment” this clip will fill you in:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Why is this important? As the reporter says, the distinction between being an Hispanic immigrant and a Cuban exile is significant among right wingers — and very significant among other Hispanic immigrants who are often held up in contrast to the “hard working” super-capitalist Cuban Americans. (By, for instance, Marco Rubio.)

There is nothing wrong with being a Cuban immigrant rather than an exile. There were lots of them. And why not? For centuries people from all over the world have come to America to seek a better life. But as that clip points out, it’s not quite as sexy to leave your country to make a buck as to be fleeing Communism to seek liberty in the US of A. In fact, if Rubio were to defend other Hispanic immigrants who come to America today to make a buck as his parents did, he would very likely be an exile for real — from the right wing of the Republican Party.(After all, the birthers have been the one’s ringing the bell first.)

On the other hand, you have to wonder if Rubio’s parents really did emigrate for political reasons, just not the reasons he claims. In 1956 plenty of Cubans fled the repressive rule of Fulgencio Batista, the right wing dictator Castro overthrew three years later. As Howie quips here:

The people who left Cuba right after the 1959 victory were basically all fascists, like the parents of the Diaz-Balart brothers. But the ones who were fleeing Cuba in 1956, were fleeing from the Batista dictatorship. How ironic if Rubio’s parents were trying to escape a right-wing fanatic only to get to safety and give birth to a pathetic caricature of Batista in Florida!

I assume that even being anti-Batista in Miami after the influx of “exiles” from Castro’s takeover was a very dangerous and unpopular thing to be. I also imagine that a whole bunch of Cuban immigrants who came before found that it was much better for their lives and businesses to melt into that crowd than fight it. (Imagine being pro-Castro anywhere in America in 1960!) If Rubio’s parents found themselves on the wrong side of that argument living in the US, I can certainly understand why they would alter their history — and their politics. Little Marco may not even have known about it.

Not saying that’s what happened, of course. They may have been raging anti-communists even before they came to the US in 56. But this story hits so many sweet spots in the right wing imagination, you can’t help but wonder …

.

Dana Milbank dissects the Super Committee in today’s column:

“Reasonable people” know that tax increases (on the wealthy) must happen and that “entitlement programs” must be cut. Democrats on the Super-Committee agree. The unreasonable Republicans will only agree to cut programs, no tax hikes.

It looks like the Religion Industrial Complex is still working the “common ground” gambit. Here’s Sarah Posner on the latest:

History lesson

by digby

I was looking around the internets this morning at the inevitable rightwing backlash against the marine who was injured in the Occupy Oakland crackdown got in the face of the NYPD at Occupy Wall Street. [Apologies for confusing this gentleman with the soldier who was wounded in Oakland…] You all knew they wouldn’t be able to tolerate this, didn’t you? Anyway, lots of loathing all around. (You can google the name Shamal Thomas if you’re interested.) Here’s a fairly typical comment:

Shamal Thomas is an a-hole for trying to promote a personal agenda WHILE HIDING BEHIND HIS SERVICE TO HIS COUNTRY. He’s just another malcontent paraded by the leftists who want to destroy our country and traditions, and want what doesn’t belong to them. HE was the obnoxious bully at the scene, NOT the police. Now he’s not only been promoted to “General”, but he’s a Wall St. expert, as well. I agree with the blogger who said he believes there’s a tasing in this man’s near future. If only……..There are marchers in the streets advocating the overthrow of our country, and this sap joins them? ALL THE A-HOLE AMERICA HATERS NOW HAIL THIS CLOWN AS A HERO. THAT’S ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW.

The usual.

But I love collecting conservative rationalizations and this one is just great:

Actually, this country was not founded on dissent. There were, however, colonists who dissented from the liberty-loving path the majority of Americans took. These dissenters remained loyal to the King of England. Most of the dissenters came around but some, such as Benedict Arnold, took their dissent to new depths.

Aren’t they cute?

By the way, I know it’s tempting to believe that these people are a minority and that their ideas are old and out of step, but recall that this happened only a few years ago:

Oh, and this is cute too:

“If you fuck with the cops they will beat your ass for being stupid. Like others here have said if they tell you to leave and you stand there — you need your ass beat.”

That was allegedly from one of the troops who fought for our “freedom” in Iraq…

Update:

Justified Rhetoric
by David Atkins

Paul Krugman wrote a marvelous post yesterday hitting on a theme that has been a pet peeve of mine for years: that a political attack is no less true for being “harsh” or “divisive”, as the pearl-clutcher brigade would say.

Krugman:

Greg Sargent takes us to Paul Ryan’s latest speech, in which Ryan expresses outrage over what President Obama is saying:

Just last week, the President told a crowd in North Carolina that Republicans are i favor of, quote, “dirtier air, dirtier water, and less people with health insurance.” Can you think of a pettier way to describe sincere disagreements between the two parties on regulation and health care?

Just for the record: why is this petty? Why is it anything but a literal description of GOP proposals to weaken environmental regulation and repeal the Affordable Care Act?

After briefly explaining that weaker environmental regulations would in fact mean dirtier air and water, and that ACA repeal would in fact mean more uninsured Americans, Krugman closes thus:

So Ryan is outraged,outraged, that Obama is offering a wholly accurate description of his party’s platform.

Let me add that this illustrates a point that many commenters here don’t seem to get: criticism of policy proposals is not the same thing as ad hominem attacks. If I say that Paul Ryan’s mother was a hamster and his father smelt of elderberries, that’s ad hominem. If I say that his plan would hurt millions of people and that he’s not being honest about the numbers, that’s harsh, but not ad hominem.

And you really have to be somewhat awed when people who routinely accuse Obama of being a socialist get all weepy over him saying that eliminating protections against pollution would lead to more pollution.

Honestly, the only things keeping Republicans politically afloat nationwide (outside of the gobs of money they’re able to spend on propaganda) are 1) their ability play victim and bully almost simultaneously without shame, and 2) the fact that a large number of self-professed liberals and left-of-center types go weak in the knees the first time anyone actually calls out Republicans for the actual consequences of their policies. Republicans can cheer the death of an uninsured man during debates, but the entire nation clucks in disapproval if Alan Grayson suggests that the Republicans want sick people without insurance to die quickly.

After trying to take the bread off the tables of America’s seniors while doling out big tax breaks to billionaires, Paul Ryan is whining about President Obama’s harsh rhetoric. And sadly, his whine will register with a lot of comfortable “moderates” who value “civility of discourse” over actually telling the truth or getting anything done.

Digby said it well yesterday:

And Lord help the poor Democrat who even timidly attempts to speak to those grievances — he or she is instantly attacked for “dividing the American people,” (unlike that congressman who giggled and smirked about “driving the liberals crazy.”) It’s an extremely successful gambit that’s deployed over and over again because liberals and establishment types invariably take the bait. For reasons best left to sociologists and psychologists, the mere hint from a right winger that a liberal might be divisive makes them run for cover.

Goodness knows I have more Democrats like that in my own local circles than I can shake a stick at. It’s easy for progressives online to get sucked into an echo chamber in which Democrats are fleeing Obama by the millions because of his lack of progressivism. But the reality is that there are also millions of people in this country who would otherwise vote Democratic on policy, but happily vote for a “nice” Republican if the Democrat seemed too “mean.”

It’s not just that Republicans have a lot of moneyed interests on their side. It’s also that the Republican base is simply much more politically belligerent than the Democratic base. In a perfect world, the entire Democratic voting bloc would laugh in Ryan’s whining face. In this world, sadly, a great many of them will listen with a “sympathetic” ear and an “open mind.”

.

No need for compromise when they’ve already agreed

by digby

So some of the Democrats on the Super Committee announced a “plan” today, which sounded an awful lot like the President’s Grand Bargain, including steep cuts to Medicare. And the Republicans predictably called it DOA because it contained some tax hikes on the wealthy. What else is new?

To those who wonder what the Democrats are smoking (giving the GOP yet another out on the Medicare issue)the explanation seems to be that they are putting forth a”reasonable” plan that includse Republican ideas knowing they will be rejected — and then won’t the Republicans look bad.

In other words, it’s the same plan they used with the jobs package. The one where they are going to end up passing all the noxious GOP proposals and none of the Democratic ones. Which the president has agreed to sign.

I don’t think the Democrats understand how the Republicans see this. I’m going to re-run this post from a commenter that explains it perfectly:

For months and months none of the Demo’s who matter would agree to any spending cuts at all without tax increases, which the GOP had made clear for some time were not on the table. Ie, they were in favor of the “balanced approach,” fetishizing tax hikes in spite of the fact that there was already $1T in cuts relative to the President’s February budget that was agreed to and more or less not controversial.

The reason this fetish exists because the Demo mentality has really strong hangups toward budget cuts. And psychologically, if they’re going to do budget cuts, they feel like they have to get something in return…

[But] you don’t have to compromise if both parties want the same thing. The Dems represented that they wanted, or at least were willing to accept budget cuts. Great, our team wanted budget cuts too.

See? There’s no need for compromise when you already agree.

And they don’t care about “looking bad” as long as they can make the Democrats look bad too. They don’t stay awake nights worrying about whether or not the Villagers love them.

.

99 Luftballons

by digby

Occupy the Boardroom decided to go over to Goldman Sachs and let them know that they have some emails they really need to read:

(And, by the way, no balloons or creatures were harmed and there was no litter. The balloons were tethered and brought down neatly.)

Reports are that people were staring out the windows taking pictures of the balloons and their messages. I would imagine that there are many of the 99% in the office worker ghetto who are more than happy to see their bosses getting this sort of attention.

If you haven’t sent your message to Wall Street, you can do so here. At least go and read some of the letters. They’re truly amazing.

.

On Nixon’s pardon — Greenwald’s latest

by digby

I was going to write a big thing about Greenwald’s new book, With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful, but after seeing this interview with Maddow, I think it’s better just to have you watch this:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I must admit that I was part of the “elite class” that backed the Nixon pardon, although I was an 18 year old college student at the time. Surprisingly perhaps, the people who influenced me the most in that direction were disillusioned left wing radicals who believed that Nixon inherited the baby killing Johnson’s war and got scapegoated. (They didn’t vote for him, but never thought of him as the villain Johnson and the Democratic hawks were. The reasons for that are complex and fascinating.) And I was led by my youthful, soft heart … which hardened for good somewhere around Iran Contra.