Month: November 2011

Lurid hippie animal report of the day

by digby

A Nashville publication has released some official emails about the Occupy protests. Here’s one of them:

FYI, this is from a legislative staff member that has contacted the Assistant Comptroller:

“There is an orgy going on out on the plaza. Celeste just saw a girl give a guy a ——job [sic] right in front of her window. She banged on the window and they just looked at her and kept going. The smokers are saying the smell of urine is so strong out on the WMB plaza that it’s unbearable. These people have been smoking pot, defecating and urinating all over the place and from what we understand out security has it’s [sic] hands tied. People are getting upset. I think someone is calling the governor’s office. Celeste reported it to Metro police and she is calling the health department. Why can’t the powers that be run these law-breaking hoodlums off government property?”

Apparently someone did report some sexual activity behind a tree but when the police got there nothing was happening.

I’m always struck by the lurid imaginations of the Real Americans. Where does that come from?

Update: Tribal headline of the day:

Mayor Snubs Veterans to Attend Occupy Rally

.

Ideology Unbound

The New York Times reinforced yesterday something I said on Twitter as well: the fact that Perry’s debate “gaffe” was about a lot more than someone failing to remember a talking point. We’ve all had our embarrassing “duh” moments where we forget something simple–though Perry could certainly have handled the moment better. (In his place, I might have made a self-deprecating joke like “see, that’s the problem–so many of these agencies, sometimes it’s hard even for me to keep ’em all straight. Y’all know I’m not the best talker up here. I’ll leave the speechifying to Mr. Obama. But You can see my proposals on my website, all the details are there.” The fact that he couldn’t do even that to recover is a gaffe in its own right.)

But the problem is that eliminating a federal agency isn’t a minor talking point. It’s a big, big deal involving hundreds or even thousands of regulatory consequences and tens of thousands of jobs. It’s one thing not to remember the name of a world leader, or the precise percentage of a tax or benefit policy tweak. It’s quite another to forget an entire government agency you want to eliminate. In non-political terms, that’s not like forgetting the name of your coworker. For someone who wants to be President, that’s like forgetting the name of your kid. It defies credibility.

And it only goes to prove that more than anything, this is all an ideological act for Republican politicians. The big money men behind the scenes have deliberate and focused goals, but for GOP politicians it’s basically an indiscriminate hack and slash routine without even a regard for specific policy objectives. They’re just doing it for the sake of doing it, because it fits a “drown the government in the bathtub” ethic. It doesn’t even matter which part of government they’re drowning (unless it’s the military, of course, but even then a few of them have been getting more courageous about that, too.)

From the Times article:

The problem is that he didn’t seem to know the basic details of his own proposal. Here he was calling for what would be a truly radical restructuring of the federal government — involving many thousands of jobs and many billions of dollars in federal expenditures — and he didn’t have a grasp on which sprawling departments he would shutter. It seemed the idea was not his own, but rather something he had tried and failed to memorize.

And in this way, Mr. Perry violated one of the core tenets of modern politics, which is that you have to at least sustain the artifice of ownership. We know, of course, that presidential candidates don’t actually write their own speeches or stay up late at night tinkering with their own proposals to overhaul Medicare. We get all that.

But we do expect them to really believe in the things they propose — to have the requisite conviction to know and recite with passion the basic policies that someone on their team stayed up nights to craft. Say what you want about Mr. Bush, but no one ever doubted his deep well of resolve on tax cuts or education reform.

But this isn’t just limited to Perry. Mitt Romney’s 59 point plan isn’t much better, nor would he be able to name most of them off the top of his head, despite the enormous consequences they would have for America.

This isn’t about public policy for these guys. This is a religious exercise: one in which keeping the faith matters more than the specific practice of the dogma, and which has a lot more to do with Ayn Rand than with Jesus.

.

Populism for plutocrats

by digby

So I read this morning that the Republicans are finding their inner occupier? Sure they are:

The Occupy Wall Street movement has generated enormous media attention for its protests across the country as it tries to highlight income inequality — so much so that the language is creeping into Republican talking points and interviews.

What are they proposing?

“denying unemployment insurance benefits to millionaires,” “cuts to farm subsidies for the wealthy,” “limit[ing] Medicare payments for wealthy senior citizens,” and “new means tests for Social Security”

And what will they accomplish? According to Politico:

The proposals amount to largely nickel-and-dime savings, unlikely to make a significant dent in the federal deficit. An analysis by the left-leaning Center for Economic and Policy Research this year argued that means-testing on Social Security that limited benefits to the wealthy would save only a fraction of a percent of benefits. Citing government data, [Sen. Tom] Coburn said that millionaires earned more than $18.6 million in unemployment benefits in 2008, and rich farmers won $49 million in farm subsidies.

So they won’t raise any significant money and they’ll give Republicans a chance to sound like populists. Sounds like a big winner. I’m sure the Democrats are anxious to seize the opportunity.

But that isn’t all, is it? All of these chump change items are designed to change the fundamental nature of the safety net — the idea that everyone pays in and everyone benefits.

Keep in mind that these are people who are already shrieking like harpies over the progressive income tax and insisting that people who are too poor to pay federal income taxes that they must contribute their lunch money. So now they’re lobbying for means testing, which means that the rich who work pay in their whole lives and get nothing out? Sure they are.

In fact, what they are doing is lobbying for the nation’s safety net to be turned into a form of welfare. And I think we know what that’s all about, don’t we? (The shocking number of programs for the needy (welfare…)already on the chopping block in this insane drive to slash spending in the middle of a recession shows exactly what the end game is.)

Now, I don’t think they’ll be content to simply means test. That’s been on their agenda forever and it’s also useful in this populist moment. They will be seeking much deeper cuts — indeed, the Democrats have already offered them up on a silver platter. But this is one for the long game, the ultimate destruction of the programs altogether, which is their real goal. Up until now Democrats have been savvy enough to hold them off. But who knows if they will accept these token “revenue” hikes so they can say they were “tough” and forced concessions on the GOP? It certainly appears that’s all they really care about at the moment.

In the fog of these negotiations over the phony deficit crisis, it’s hard to see the true outlines of how significant this shrinkage of government will really be. But we know that it’s almost impossible to create any new programs and I see very little possibility that this will change any time soon considering the political environment. So these cuts will be permanent and the scope of what’s anticipated seems sure to change the fundamental relationship between the people and their government.

If they succeed this will be a hugely significant win for the right, which will reverberate for a long time to come.

What kooky thing did Ron Paul say now?

No, he’s not talking about foreign policy and the flouting of the War Powers Act. He’s talking to Fox Business News about the administration using executive branch agencies to create jobs since the congress won’t pass his plan. Seriously.

Homeschooling, Unschooling
by David Atkins

There’s a great article in the New York Times today about homeschooling and unschooling from a non-religious, non-fundie angle. It’s a really good read, and hits close to home for me, since I was liberally homeschooled right up until I entered UCLA.

Progressives tend to be open-minded about most things, but there’s a significant number of people on the left who are fiercely and dogmatically anti-homeschooling. It’s worth pointing out that homeschool isn’t all about religious fundamentalists, and that homeschooled children are very often well socially adjusted. I’m grateful every day that I wasn’t subjected to the same peer pressure that my age-mates were, that I was allowed to pursue less than socially popular interests without constant teasing and humiliation, and that my socialization examples were adults rather than other children.

Obviously, there needs to be regulation and oversight to make sure kids are learning what they are supposed to. There should be regular testing. But the homeschooling movement is much more diverse than the stereotypes suggest, and its products are often much better adjusted than people give it credit for.

As with so many other things in life, the issue is not what is done, but how it’s done.

.

“Keep it on the books long enough to star in attack ads”

by digby

There’s been a lot of head scratching over the latest Obamacare appeals court ruling, with people wondering why the panel headed by right wing warrior Lawrence Silberman wouldn’t strike down the law. It’s pretty to think this court isn’t at all political and just calls it like it sees it, but sadly, that’s just crazy.

This is the most interesting analysis I’ve heard:

Noah Feldman, a Harvard law professor and legal historian, pointed out that while the dissenting judge in the Appeals case, Brett Kavanaugh, is a conservative George W. Bush appointee, he didn’t strike down the Affordable Care Act. Instead, he argued the Court had no jurisdiction because the tax (or penalty) for not purchasing insurance had not yet kicked in, appealing to the Anti-injunction Act, which says citizens can only challenge taxes after they have paid them. He effectively outlined a way for even the most rock-ribbed conservative justice to delay the decision on the bill until after the presidential election.

“What Judge Kavanaugh is doing is sending a message to Kennedy saying, ‘You don’t have to decide the case. You can defer this thing.'” Feldman said. “The Obama administration [by pushing for a Supreme Court review early] was clever,” because Republicans have to choose between getting rid of a law they despise as soon as possible, and keeping it on the books long enough to star in attack ads.

This dynamic — where the president publicly spars with the judiciary on major policy matters — hasn’t really been witnessed since The New Deal. “This is the first time since the 1930s that you’ve had an extended clash between a progressive president and a narrow conservative majority on the Supreme Court,” said Jeff Shesol, an historian who wrote about FDR’s “court-packing” plan in his 2010 book “Supreme Power.”

“What the ruling today says, and what other rulings upholding the Affordable Care Act have suggested, is that it is within the power of Congress to deal in this way with this national problem. The national government has the ability to deal with an obviously national problem. Which is the fundamental question that gripped in the country in the 1930s.”

On the other hand, the comparison between Obama — who has disappointed much of the left with the relatively cautious nature of his agenda and a kid-gloves approach to negotiating with congressional Republicans — and FDR doesn’t quite work.

Whereas FDR had enormous personal popularity behind him, which helped turn public sentiment sharply against the high court as it began to strike down New Deal legislation, Obama’s poor approval numbers — and the even more tepid feelings of voters toward the health care law — mean the justices (and moderate “swing vote” Anthony Kennedy in particular) need not fear a populist uprising; they can make as deeply ideological a decision as they like.

“After Bush v. Gore, the most overtly political decision in Court’s history, the Court suffered zero dip in the public’s mind,” Feldman said. “If Kennedy wants to strike down the health care law, he’s not going to worry the Supreme Court’s legitimacy is in question.”

Sounds right to me.

.

Threats from The Godfather

by digby

I’ve kept my distance from the Cain sexual harassment scandal because I don’t think he’s a serious candidate and the Village feeding frenzy on these things makes me queasy. He certainly sounds like he’s a serial harasser on any number of levels. Obviously, I wouldn’t vote for him in any case, so it’s a story I’m only peripherally following.

But this is creepy:

L. Lin Wood, the lawyer hired by the Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain to fend off sexual harassment accusations, has warned that any other women who might be considering coming forward with similar allegations “should think twice.”

I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a blatant threat coming from a lawyer. He sounds like Tony Soprano.

They’ve also put up a web site apparently devoted to trashing the reputation of any women who come forward.

And there was this, which is really awful:

Rove tickles the id

by digby

And so it begins:

Karl Rove has always had a good sense of the right wing id so I’m guessing he senses this is a good line of attack.

Greg Sargent discusses this ad in terms of the GOPs overall OWS backlash strategy. It’s about as surprising as the fact that the sun came up this morning. (Indeed, I have been expecting it.)

This isn’t ideological. It’s sheer lizard brain tribalism. I don’t know if Rove has found the right buttons to push, but considering what we’re seeing and reading from Fox and the Murdoch papers (not to mention the blogospheric fever swamps like Powerline) I’d have to guess they know their audience. The questions is whether there are enough of them to make a difference. Massachusetts is obviously going to be one of the battlegrounds.

Today’s a good day to send Warren a little love if you were planning to You can do so here.

Painful

The interview between Jon Stewart and Nancy Pelosi was nothing short of painful.

Stewart asks smart, probing questions on a variety of subjects. Questions that journalists should have been asking for years, if we still had real journalists.

And Pelosi pretty much dodges every single one. All she had to do was essentially say,

“Yes, lobbying and money in the system are screwing everything up. Too many Democrats have succumbed to that, too, but it’s really hard because the system is broken and it takes money to get elected. The Volcker rule is a great idea, but we’re having trouble passing it in the form it should be passed because the banks have a lot of power in Congress. Yeah, America has a deficit problem and now there’s a commission to deal with it. But all we really need to do is end the Bush tax cuts for the rich and reduce our commitments overseas while cutting corporate welfare at home–but guess what, the Republicans will hold anything and everything hostage to stop us from doing that. So we’re sort of deadlocked. We got a lot of good stuff done between 2009 and November 2010, but we didn’t get a chance to do enough and we had to deal with the horrible economy Bush left us. And I think that if Americans give us the opportunity to get things done again, we need to focus on making changes to the system so that it isn’t as easy to corrupt the system as it is now.”

That would be so easy to say. It wouldn’t even be terribly controversial, nor would it even obligate her to act. But she couldn’t say it. And Nancy Pelosi is one of the better legislators out there, one of the most liberal Democrats in Congress.

It’s just…depressing.

.

Driving nervous

by digby

Here’s a little good news.

Refusing to get out of a vehicle during a traffic stop does not justify a search of the automobile, the California Court of Appeal ruled Friday. The three-judge panel further developed the US Supreme Court’s finding in Arizona v. Gant that arresting a motorist does not automatically authorize a warrantless search.

On September 27, 2009, Vernon Evans made a left hand turn from West Boulevard onto Slauson Avenue. Los Angeles Police Department Officer Kevin Currie and Officer Prodigalidad claimed Evans failed to signal and that his driving was erratic. When they pulled Evans over, he appeared nervous. Because the stop was at night and in “gang territory,” Evans was ordered out of the car. Evans rolled down his window and asked why he was being stopped, but did not exit.

After reinforcements arrived Officer Currie blasted Evans with pepper spray. Another officer busted a window and tasered Evans. He was yanked out of his car and tackled on the ground. Officer Prodigalidad searched the car and found eleven empty sandwich bags and $65 in cash. The automobile was impounded while Evans was treated at the hospital. At the impound lot, a more thorough search of the car turned up enough cocaine to earn him a four-day jail sentence, with credit for four days time served.

A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge found the search was justified under the “automobile exception” to the Fourth Amendment requirement that searches should be performed only after obtaining a warrant. The appellate court disagreed, citing the precedent set by the Gant ruling that a search incident to arrest is only valid if the suspect can reach his vehicle or there is some reason to think the car contains evidence relevant to the arrest.

“When the initial search of the vehicle was completed, Evans had been tased and detained, and was lying face down on the ground outside the vehicle, with officers on top of him,” Judge Richard D. Aldrich wrote for the court. “Plainly, he did not have access to the car’s interior.”

Prosecutors argued that the presence of drugs in the car would constitute his motive for his crime — refusing to comply with the police officers’ instruction for him to get out of the car. The appellate panel rejected this line of argument as justifying a search of any vehicle at any time.

No word on whether it’s ok to spray citizens in the face with pepper spray, taser them and drag them from their car for appearing nervous in “gang territory”, but one thing at a time.

.