Month: June 2012

Joke ‘o the day

DAVID BROOKS: Okay, so our act starts with us inflating a giant internet bubble. Then that collapses, taking the country’s economy with it, just as we massively cut taxes on millionaires because, we say, if we don’t the government will have too much money. Right after that we blow off warnings about terrorism and let 3,000 Americans get slaughtered. We use that as a chance to lie the U.S. into invading a country that had nothing to do with the attack, killing hundreds of thousands of people and turning millions into refugees. In the middle of all that we borrow torture techniques from the Inquisition and use them on people in secret sites around the planet. Then we make billions off another financial bubble, the biggest in human history, and do nothing as it collapses, plunging the world into the greatest economic calamity since the Great Depression. To fix that we open up the national bank vault and shovel out money as fast as possible to all the criminals who made it happen in the first place. Then—as the amazing finale—we refuse to prosecute anyone for that, for the war, or for torture, and we start killing U.S. citizens with flying death robots.

[LONG PAUSE]

AGENT: …That’s a hell of an act. What do you call it?

DAVID BROOKS: The Aristocrats!

I can’t believe nobody’s thought of it before.

The Icelandic Example

by David Atkins

Cenk Uygurdiscusses on The Young Turks how Iceland told the big banks to stuff it and saved their own economy:

To be fair, the bondholders can take the hit from the Icelandic economy and do fine, but not so much the bigger economies in Europe. The Icelandic solution wouldn’t necessarily work for every country in this situation without dumping the entire overleveraged international banking system overboard and giving fiscal sovereignty back to the nations involved.

On the other hand, what would be wrong with that?

.

Killing them over there so we don’t have to kill them over here

by digby

Greenwald makes an important point today which I had also been thinking is curiously missing from the currently debate:

Today’s defense of President Obama from Andrew Sullivan is devoted to refuting Conor Friedersdorf’s criticism of Obama’s drone program. Says Sullivan:

What frustrates me about Conor’s position – and Greenwald’s as well – is that it kind of assumes 9/11 didn’t happen or couldn’t happen again, and dismisses far too glibly the president’s actual responsibility as commander-in-chief to counter these acts of mass terror.

This is exactly backward. I absolutely believe that another 9/11 is possible. And the reason I believe it’s so possible is that people like Andrew Sullivan — and George Packer — have spent the last decade publicly cheering for virtually every act of American violence brought to the Muslim world, and they continue to do so (now more than ever under Obama). Far from believing that another 9/11 can’t happen, I’m amazed that it hasn’t already, and am quite confident that at some point it will. How could any rational person expect their government to spend a full decade (and counting) invading, droning, cluster-bombing, occupying, detaining without charges, and indiscriminately shooting huge numbers of innocent children, women and men in multiple countries and not have its victims and their compatriots be increasingly eager to return the violence?

During the Bush administration this was the lefty utilitarian argument. Sure, we talked a lot about the immorality of invading a country which didn’t threaten us and the horror of harming its innocent civilians based upon a lie. Then there was the illegality and the precedent setting and the usurpation of international law. But there was also this argument and it was persuasive, I think, to a whole lot of people.

Sure, the old “we’re fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here” was adopted by many. But I think the other argument, which was “we are creating more and more terrorists with these indecent acts and making ourselves less safe” made equal “common sense” to many Americans. And it’s completely dropped out of the dialog — for obvious reasons. The only people making that argument during the Bush years were liberals and today the only liberals who are prepared to oppose President Obama’s policies are those who disagree on strong moral grounds. The utilitarian argument isn’t made by anyone.

But it certainly should be. Warrior leadership is beloved and worshiped in most societies, but the United States is a special case and it needs to be very careful about how it indulges this primitive impulse. It’s a global imperial power and therefore provides a convenient target for all the world’s discontents (and not unjustifiably.) Its leadership has a responsibility to its people — us — to not create more enemies than already exist and to go to great lengths not to further provoke the already provoked.

A great nation would not delude itself into believing that it can kill its way to security. And that’s what this is — a violent version of security theater where we all feel soothed that the president is “taking out”, one by one, all the foreigners who want to hurt us. And it’s as ridiculous today as it was five years ago. Killing individuals, some bad I’m sure, along with innocents and lowly hangers-on cannot fix this problem. Indeed,as Glenn pointed out, it’s exacerbating it.

Pay equity: the bosses know exactly what they’re doing

by digby

Remember last week when Republicans tanked the Paycheck Fairness Act? The conservatives gave lots of reasons, from the specious claim that motherhood accounts for the differences to the absurd notion that women don’t want more money (After I wrote about it, my twitter feed went nuts for a while with conservatives insisting that the bill was all about paying uneducated women more money than men with better educations — obviously a talking point from somewhere.)

Anyway, today we have this:

Female physician researchers make less money than their male counterparts, researchers found.

Among recipients of National Institutes of Health (NIH) career development awards, the average reported annual salary was $167,669 for women and $200,433 for men, according to Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, and colleagues.

Even after adjustment for differences in specialty, academic rank, leadership positions, publications, and research time, there remained an absolute difference of $13,399 per year between the sexes (P=0.001), the researchers reported in the June 13 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The study, which is consistent with a previous study of life sciences researchers, “provides evidence that gender differences in compensation continue to exist in academic medicine, even among a select cohort of physician researchers whose job content is far more similar than in cohorts previously studied, and even after controlling extensively for specialization and productivity,” they wrote.

They controlled for everything including parenthood and there was still a discrepancy. The only way to account for it was bias or some unknown factor (like women turning down raises?)

Our culture both celebrates money and makes salaries the biggest secret in the workplace. I knew much more about my co-worker’s sex lives than I ever did about their incomes. It’s the one great taboo — talking about your salary can even get you fired in some places.

As I’ve mentioned before, it’s considered a truism among many male executives that you don’t have to pay women the same as men because they’re happy to take status (titles and offices) over salary. It’s not true, it’s just that nobody knows what anyone else is making so women don’t know they’re being bought off with something that costs the company nothing — and keeps them underpaid and endowed with less power because of it. (They are often laughed at by the bosses for being such fools, I’m sorry to say.)

Underpaying women is not always a case of subconscious or “institutional” bias. Often it’s a conscious decision to pay them less because they know they can get away with it. That’s why we need the Lily Ledbetter act and the Paycheck Fairness Act. You won’t change these practices without giving women the tools they need to fight for equal pay for equal work.

.

Changing the narrative

by David Atkins

Carville and Greenberg have done a few focus groups, and the conclusion is obvious: voters don’t believe that a recovery is actually happening, and messaging centered on economic improvements by the Obama Administration falls flat:

What is clear from this fresh look at public consciousness on the economy is how difficult this period has been for both non-college-educated and college-educated voters – and how vulnerable the prevailing narratives articulated by national Democratic leaders are.[1] We will face an impossible headwind in November if we do not move to a new narrative, one that contextualizes the recovery but, more importantly, focuses on what we will do to make a better future for the middle class.

It is elites who are creating a conventional wisdom that an incumbent president must run on his economic performance – and therefore must convince voters that things are moving in the right direction. They are wrong, and that will fail. The voters are very sophisticated about the character of the economy; they know who is mainly responsible for what went wrong and they are hungry to hear the President talk about the future. They know we are in a new normal where life is a struggle – and convincing them that things are good enough for those who have found jobs is a fool’s errand. They want to know the plans for making things better in a serious way – not just focused on finishing up the work of the recovery.

We are losing these voters on the economy, but holding on because Romney is very vulnerable. They do not trust him because of who he is for and because he’s out of touch with ordinary people; he is vulnerable on the Ryan budget and its impact on people; he is vulnerable on the choices over taxes. But in the current context, it produces a fairly diminished embrace of Obama and the Democrats, the lesser of two evils, without much feeling of hope.

But we underscore the sentiment they expressed in the postcards to the President they wrote at the end of the exercise: overwhelmingly, these voters want to know that he understands the struggle of working families and has plans to make things better.

I found the exact same thing in the few focus groups I’ve conducted on the subject as well, and polling backs it up. Voters know that George Bush and Wall Street are to blame for the economic downturn. They know that things are bad, the economy is fundamentally broken and that it’s not going to get better on its own. But unless Democrats are willing and able to come out and make the case for exactly what went wrong and how they plan to fix it, voters will not return them to power in significant numbers or at all. Progressives will stay home, and moderates will vote for Romney just to shake things up.

Protesting loudly about all the direct action the President has taken won’t do much good. The President has done many things: he saved the American auto industry in a very risky political gamble, and he did get a major stimulus passed, inadequate and tax-cut heavy as it was. But he’s not getting credit for it partly because it hasn’t been enough, partly because it hasn’t been visible enough, and partly because he has been unable or unwilling to provide a narrative explaining exactly why the economy is still struggling.

Any good story requires a villain. The Republicans are willing to provide that villain in the form of a spectral combination of deficits, bureaucrats and welfare moochers. It’s bullshit, but it will work in the absence of a countervailing narrative.

As Digby has written before, the Obama Administration has been unwilling to provide that counternarrative because 1) it can’t afford to upset the Wall Street donor base, and 2) the Administration really believed that the economy would get better over time and that they could run a “morning in America” campaign.

This is not to say that we’re doomed to a Romney presidency. As Carville and Greenberg point out, Romney is a very weak candidate. But the inability of the Obama team to craft a coherent reason for the failure of the economy so far and a coherent direct plan for the years ahead is creating major political problem that won’t be solved even if jobs numbers do improve over the coming months.

.

Getting the government our of our lives, Texas style

by digby

The Texas Republican platform is really something:

We support the definition of marriage as a God-ordained, legal and moral commitment only between a natural man and a natural woman, which is the foundational unit of a healthy society, and we oppose the assault on marriage by judicial activists.

We call on the President and Congress to take immediate action to defend the sanctity of marriage. We are resolute that Congress exercise authority under the United States Constitution, and pass legislation withholding jurisdiction from the Federal Courts in cases involving family law, especially any changes in the definition of marriage.

We further call on Congress to pass and the state legislatures to ratify a marriage amendment declaring that marriage in the United States shall consist of and be recognized only as the union of a natural man and a natural woman. Neither the United States nor any state shall recognize or grant to any unmarried person the legal rights or status of a spouse.

We oppose the recognition of and granting of benefits to people who represent themselves as domestic partners without being legally married…

The primary family unit consists of those related by blood, heterosexual marriage, or adoption. The family is responsible for its own welfare, education, moral training, conduct, and property.

We affirm that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society and contributes to the breakdown of the family unit. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans.

Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle, in public policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin.

Additionally, we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction or belief in traditional values.

Here’s the good news:

The party platform, adopted at a convention in Fort Worth, differs from the 2010 platform that would have made it a felony to issue a same-sex marriage license or perform a same-sex wedding.

Oh, and they’ve softened their previously harsh stance against strip clubs.

Is this two steps forward one step back or one step forward, two steps back? I can’t honestly tell.

.

People vs the corporations

It’s interesting that Warren is addressing Mitt Romney, isn’t it? I think that shows a lot of confidence. Good for her.

.

Hysterical liberals, ruining everything

by digby

Well hell. It turns out that the Presidency of the United States is not only a mere ceremonial office to which nobody pays attention on domestic policy — it’s powerless when it comes to foreign policy and national security as well.

According to Klaidman, part of the answer is that Obama changed as he learned more about the reality of the fight against al-Qaeda. Another part of the answer is that, like all presidents, he succumbed to institutional and bureaucratic pressure. But for my money, the most telling passage of the book suggests that an equal part of the answer is that he simply never received any serious support from his own party.

Klaidman relates an anecdote about Barbara Boxer and Barbara Mikulski allegedly pitching a fit in the White House over the deal that Rahm struck allowing 45 days notice before a prisoner could be transferred from Guantanamo. The liberal ladies were evidently on the verge of hysteria, shouting “where’s your plan, over and over again.” Klaidman archly observes:

These were the same representatives who had pilloried the Bush administration for its fear-mongering tactics in the war on terror, but behind the grand doors of the LBJ Room, all politics were local. We’re going to get clobbered back home, the Democrats protested.

Justice department officials stood by in dismay, worrying over the fate of our democracy.

Far be if from me to contest this version of events. I wasn’t there. But let’s review the events of late 2009 and early 2010 starting with this report from Dana Milbank (after the fact):

Emanuel bitterly opposed former White House counsel Greg Craig’s effort to close the Guantanamo Bay prison within a year, arguing that it wasn’t politically feasible. Obama overruled Emanuel, the deadline wasn’t met, and Republicans pounced on the president and the Democrats for trying to bring terrorists to U.S. prisons. Likewise, Emanuel fought fiercely against Attorney General Eric Holder’s plan to send Khalid Sheik Mohammed to New York for a trial. Emanuel lost, and the result was another political fiasco.

Keeping that in mind, recall that Rahm made a deal with Republicans for this 45 day notice of transfer from Guantanamo and his poison pill got a vote of 79-19. Now whether he did this to purposefully make it impossible to actually bring any trials to the US or because he genuinely thought this would bring Republicans on board for the whole plan is unknown.

The Bronx Is America

by tristero

Bloomberg’s proposed ban on super-size sodas strikes me as on the Big Brothery side – which Bloomberg has a propensity for, as those who protested the Republican Convention will recall. I think heavy taxes make more sense.

Then again, when i read that 70% of the Bronx is overweight and 1 in 3 Bronx residents is obese, Bloomberg’s proposal becomes a bit more comprehensible. Education and access to better food isn’t helping nearly enough as anyone would like.

I’d still like to see taxes instead. But at this point, it’s veering close to a public health emergency. I can’t condemn Bloomberg’s proposal, but if it ends up morphing into a tax instead, I’d be much happier.

Special note: Whenever I blog about this, the comments become peppered with food industry representatives masquerading either as lovers of freedom or experts on nutrition and biology. They deflect the conversation with ad hominems, non-sequiturs and irrelevancies and try to evade the basic issue.

That issue is very simple and it is not about freedom. It is about the incontrovertible fact that the modern food industries cynically and systematically manipulate basic human instincts in order to maximize profits. They do not, with any seriousness or consistency, take enough account of the effects that their often-dangerous products have on the health of the average American (and the environment).

The only issue of substance here is how to change the situation, to somehow get the companies to stop making money when they provide products – such as super-sized sodas – that injure their fellow Americans. This is not about the “freedom” to harm yourself. This is about industries exploiting deep basic desires that override both willpower and freedom of choice. No one who’s looked at this seriously argues the basic thrust of the science, that massive quantities of sugar and other empty calories are deeply unhealthy for humans The only issue, a very difficult issue, is how to stop the companies from providing Americans so many dangerous – and dangerously ubiquitous- food choices.

Someone is going to take the blame for this

by David Atkins

You think voters are angry? I do, and here’s why:

The recent economic crisis left the median American family in 2010 with no more wealth than in the early 1990s, erasing almost two decades of accumulated prosperity, the Federal Reserve said Monday.

A hypothetical family richer than half the nation’s families and poorer than the other half had a net worth of $77,300 in 2010, compared with $126,400 in 2007, the Fed said. The crash of housing prices directly accounted for three-quarters of the loss.

Families’ income also continued to decline, a trend that predated the crisis but accelerated over the same period. Median family income fell to $45,800 in 2010 from $49,600 in 2007. All figures were adjusted for inflation.

The new data comes from the Fed’s much-anticipated release on Monday of its Survey of Consumer Finances, a report issued every three years that is one of the broadest and deepest sources of information about the financial health of American families.

While the numbers are already 18 months old, the survey illuminates problems that continue to slow the pace of the economic recovery. The Fed found that middle-class families had sustained the largest percentage losses in both wealth and income during the crisis, limiting their ability and willingness to spend.

Surprise, surprise, that’s what happens when you trade real wage growth for illusory asset growth. Bubbles burst, and then all of that “wealth” disappears.

Beyond that, this sort of thing can’t happen without major voter outrage. They’re going to take it out on someone. Someone will be to blame.

And if it’s not going to be where it belongs on the top 1%, it’ll be on other people. Like people who have the audacity to receive a decent pension.

There’s an myth in American politics that all a president needs to win is optimism. Reagan is often cited as a prime example. But Reagan didn’t just win with optimism. He also won with a big dose of racism, lies about Jimmy Carter, and a radical ideology blaming government for everything wrong with the country. When times are tough, people will seek out a villain. If they’re not pointed in the right direction, they’ll find one in the wrong direction.

I suppose I should stop writing now before I confirm Godwin’s Law.

.