Skip to content

Month: June 2012

Keeping it classy: Heritage joins the mudwrestlers

Heritage joins the mudwrestlers

by digby

It appears that the Heritage Foundation’s prestigious Breitbart Awards will live up to their name. Via LGF I find out that Ace of Spades is winning their blogger award.

This is how they define it:

When the legacy media fails to do its job, we are fortunate to have an army waiting on the Internet to hold the institutions of power accountable. We’ll honor a blogger for intrepid reporting that goes over the heads of the legacy media to communicate directly to the people.

That must be this sort of “intrepid reporting.” It’s not like he produces any other kind:

.

Loving the NRA: How everyone stopped worrying and learned to love guns

Loving the NRA

by digby

Adam Weinstein at Mother Jones has written a riveting story about the history of the “stand your ground” law:

THE FLORIDA LAW MADE INFAMOUS this spring by the killing of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin was conceived during the epic hurricane season of 2004. That November, 77-year-old James Workman moved his family into an RV outside Pensacola after Hurricane Ivan peeled back the roof of their house. One night a stranger tried to force his way into the trailer, and Workman killed him with two shots from a .38 revolver. The stranger turned out to be a disoriented temporary worker for the Federal Emergency Management Agency who was checking for looters and distressed homeowners. Workman was never arrested, but three months went by before authorities cleared him of wrongdoing.

That was three months too long for Dennis Baxley, a veteran Republican representative in Florida’s state Legislature. Four hurricanes had hit the state that year, and there was fear about widespread looting (though little took place). In Baxley’s view, Floridians who defended themselves or their property with lethal force shouldn’t have had to worry about legal repercussions. Baxley, a National Rifle Association (NRA) member and owner of a prosperous funeral business, teamed up with then-GOP state Sen. Durell Peaden to propose what would become known as Stand Your Ground, the self-defense doctrine essentially permitting anyone feeling threatened in a confrontation to shoot their way out.

Or at least that’s the popular version of how the law was born. In fact, its genesis traces back to powerful NRA lobbyists and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a right-wing policy group. And the law’s rapid spread—it now exists in various forms in 25 states—reflects the success of a coordinated strategy, cultivated in Florida, to roll back gun control laws everywhere.

Read the whole thing. This is largely the baby of a specific NRA lobbyist who worked on this stuff for years down in Florida and created the template for doing it all over the country. It’s chilling, honestly.

And guess what?

In April, a Reuters/Ipsos poll found that the National Rifle Association was viewed favorably by 68% of Americans, and unfavorably by 32%. Unlike most polls, the Reuters poll apparently did not allow “unsure” or “undecided” as a choice. In each of the demographics which the poll provided–Republicans, Democrats, independents, whites, and blacks–the NRA was viewed favorably by at least 55%.

A 2005 Gallup Poll had found a 60/34 favorable/unfavorable view of the NRA. Previous Gallup results were 52/39 (May 2000), 51/39 (April 2000), 51/40 (April 1999, right after the Columbine High School murders), 42/51 (June 1995), and 55/32 (March 1993)[…]
There are many causes for the evolution, but it seems plausible that at least part of the cause has been the increasing effectiveness of the NRA itself. To the extent that the NRA has convinced some Americans that handguns in the right hands are beneficial, then those Americans may have become more likely to view the NRA favorably. To the extent that popular NRA spokesmen (such as three-term NRA President Charlton Heston) or popular NRA programs (such as Eddie Eagle Gun Safety) have made some Americans view the NRA favorably, some of those Americans may have become less inclined to support handgun prohibition.

Because the NRA has (despite some fierce criticisms by Republicans, including in 2010) continued to support Democrats with good records on the Second Amendment, and to oppose Republicans with bad records, the NRA has avoided the problem of being identified with only a single political party. When an interest group supports only one party, that group will inevitably be viewed unfavorably by most members of the other political party.

And now that even long-time anti-gun advocates such as Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer have been affirming their support for the Second Amendment individual right, the basic premise with which the NRA is identified has become so widely supported that only politicians in very safe districts dare to dispute it publicly.

Founded in 1871, the NRA views itself as “America’s oldest civil rights organization,” an embodiment of American freedom values. These days, it seems that most Americans tend to agree.

Also, too, the elected Democrats made a strategic decision to simply fold, which made it completely useless for their membership to even think about an alternative to the NRA. And now we have no argument at all — it’s a free fire zone on American streets (as long as you cross your heart and promise that you really, really felt threatened.)

It’s an interesting view about special interest “bipartisanship.” Oddly, it only seems to go one way. Take, for instance, the abortion question. Once again we have the Democrats with “good records” being supported by the anti-abortion lobby and it’s dragging the party to the right on the issue. (Look for “religious liberty” to go the same way.) Can we think of even one liberal interest group that’s successfully doing the same thing with the Republicans? I can’t.

.

Devolving, by @DavidOAtkins

Devolving

by David Atkins

Depressing numbers from Gallup, via the FailBlog:

Never forget that a society can move backward as easily as it can move forward. It’s happening right now.

.

Supplementing the kill list

Supplementing the kill list

by digby

I’ve been contemplating the NY Times kill list story again over the last couple of days. (Or maybe haunted by it is more apt.) Among many other fleeting impressions and thoughts when I first read it, I had meant to mention this:

[S]ome officials felt the urgency of counterterrorism strikes was crowding out consideration of a broader strategy against radicalization. Though Mrs. Clinton strongly supported the strikes, she complained to colleagues about the drones-only approach at Situation Room meetings, in which discussion would focus exclusively on the pros, cons and timing of particular strikes.

At their weekly lunch, Mrs. Clinton told the president she thought there should be more attention paid to the root causes of radicalization, and Mr. Obama agreed. But it was September 2011 before he issued an executive order setting up a sophisticated, interagency war room at the State Department to counter the jihadi narrative on an hour-by-hour basis, posting messages and video online and providing talking points to embassies.

How is it possible that this wasn’t done earlier? I guess I knew the Bush administration’s disdain for anything short of a full military response would have led them to ignore something this “soft” but I did expect that the tech-savvy, “global messenger” Obama administration to have been doing this from the beginning.

It’s a small thing, of course. But the fact is that the National Security apparatus moved very quickly to secure the president’s full cooperation with their War on Terror strategy and the administration apparently jumped into it with both feet. But I would have thought they’d at least have been supplementing their assassinations and drone strikes with something more civilized at the outset.

Part of the problem here is seems to be a lack of imagination — these surveillance toys and flying kill robots have blinded our government to the fact that humans are complicated and can be motivated by something other than fear or that the only method of is to “kill ’em over there so they don’t come and kill us here.”

Seriously, what could it possibly have hurt to put a serious effort behind making the argument against jihadism (even as they pick off alleged terrorists one by one in some quixotic quest to “get ’em all”?) It’s almost as if the government, for reasons of its own, is radicalizing Muslims so it has something to keep shooting at.

.

“That’s what freedom is all about: taking your own risks” — (Ya feel lucky punk?)

“That’s what freedom is all about: taking your own risks” — (Ya feel lucky, punk?)

by digby

Blitzer asked what Paul would prefer to having government deal with the sick man.

“What he should do is whatever he wants to do, and assume responsibility for himself,” Paul said. ”My advice to him would have a major medical policy, but not before —”

“But he doesn’t have that,” Blitzer said. “He doesn’t have it and he’s — and he needs — he needs intensive care for six months. Who pays?”

“That’s what freedom is all about: taking your own risks.,” Paul said, repeating the standard libertarian view as some in the audience cheered.

“But congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die,” Blitzer asked.

“Yeah,” came the shout from the audience. That affirmative was repeated at least three times.

Here’s Lance Mannion, talking about what these people really have. (It’s not freedom.)

[A]t their wake some Republican friend looks down into their coffin and says, “Your own fault, pal.”

“You should have planned better. You should have made smarter decisions. You should have managed your money more wisely. You should have taken better care of yourself, and don’t give me any crap about genetics. You should have lived your life the way I lived mine. You should have arranged things so that you were as lucky as I’ve been.”

Well, no they don’t.

At least not that very last bit.

You’d never hear one say, “I’ve been lucky.”

They haven’t been lucky.

They’ve been deserving.

They’ve deserved everything they have because they’ve earned it.

They earned having the parents they had. They earned being born in the richest, freest country in the world. They earned having no genetic predispositions to high blood pressure, arthritis, depression, schizophrenia, cancer. They earned not being hit by a bus when they were in grade school. They earned having a roommate in college who was able to explain general relativity or Hamlet to them the night before that midterm. They earned not having the plus sign turn blue. They earned that the company they went to work for didn’t go belly up when the market crashed or let them go in the round of mass layoffs that followed. They earned having children who didn’t get deathly sick or have disabilities or develop emotional problems or drug habits that required them to take their focus off their jobs, take time off work, and cause their bosses to say, “We feel your pain, but we can’t afford to carry you anymore if you’re not here to pull your weight. Here’s your hat, don’t let the door hit you on the way out. Make sure you give your cell phone to security. And, no, we don’t have any idea what you’re going to do about insurance now and we don’t care and we don’t have to care and anyway you should have planned better. You should have saved more. You should have worked harder. You should have been luck…You should have deserved not to have what’s happened to you happen to you.”

They deserve it. They earned it. You? You didn’t. If you had, you’d have it. QED. And what you didn’t earn and don’t deserve, you don’t get. Simple as that. You suff.

That’s right. “Freedom” means being able to take your own risks lucky.

I think from now on when anyone asks me why I support universal health care, I’m just going to say (in my best Clint Eastwood,) “Bad things can happen to anyone, even a hard working, all-American success story like you. Ya feel lucky, punk?”

Mannion’s piece is worth reading in its entirety. O’ Lucky us.

.

Pollit updates the Bei Bei Shuai case and it’s depressing

Pollit updates the Bei Bei Shuai case and it’s depressing

by digby

Katha Pollit follows up on the Bei Bei Shuai case and it’s depressing:

Bad news came from Indiana on May 11. The state Supreme Court has refused to review charges of attempted feticide and murder against Bei Bei Shuai. Just before Christmas 2010, Shuai, who was thirty-three weeks pregnant, attempted to kill herself by consuming rat poison after her boyfriend, father of the baby, abruptly announced he was married and abandoned her to return to his family. Rushed to the hospital, she had a Caesarean section, but her newborn daughter died after a few days of life. (Here’s my column on the case.) Despite amicus briefs from eighty respected experts and relevant medical and social organizations—the state of Indiana, for reasons best known to itself, will do its best to send Shuai to prison. Potential sentence: forty-five to sixty-five years.

It’s becoming more and more obvious that we need to find a better way to protect fetuses from the monsters who gestate them inside their bodies. They obviously are far too flawed and human, with all sorts of so-called “problems of their own” to be trusted.

Pollit says suicide is the 5th leading cause of death for pregnant women, which means many innocent victims are at the mercy of these savages. (Sure, they are awash in strong hormones that affect their emotions, but that’s not the fetuses fault, now is it? …. oh wait.. never mind.) Whatever the reason for their failure to be perfect, these “mothers” are going to need much, much more supervision and control lest this sort of thing happen to other valuable persons who are imprisoned inside the wombs of such weak vessels. (What in the world was God thinking putting our innocent babies inside such creatures in the first place?)

Seriously, this is really yet another step in the long term plan to outlaw abortion. As Pollit explains, it goes all the way back to a 1979 law, which, as she puts it,”seemed like a good idea to a lot of well-meaning people.” (They always do, don’t they?)

The state law under which Shuai is charged was passed in 1979, as part of a post-Roe wave of “unborn victims of violence” laws that made the fetus a separate victim in crimes against pregnant women that caused her to miscarry or die—for example, attacks by muggers or abusive partners. Pushed by abortion opponents as part of their strategy of building up the legal “personhood” of the fetus, it nonetheless seemed like a good idea to a lot of well-meaning people: shouldn’t there be some acknowledgment that assaulting a woman and causing her to miscarry was a special kind of awful? According to Lynn Paltrow, executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women, which has taken on Shuai’s case, the legislative record clearly shows that lawmakers did not intend for the Indiana law to target pregnant women themselves. But that is what is happening.

Right. It may be that Indiana lawmakers and citizens in 1979 didn’t intend to target pregnant women themselves, but anti-abortion zealotry is leading to that conclusion whether they want to admit it or not.

What you can do:

Sign the petition to Free Bei Bei Shuai.

Donate to National Advocates for Pregnant Women and help fund Shuai’s defense.

Watch a video of Bei Bei Shuai speaking about her case here.

Read Pollit’s original column about Bei Bei Shuai.

.

Mitt Romney’s kinky uniform fetish

Mitt Romney’s kinky uniform fetish

by digby

Ok, this is just creepy:

When Mitt Romney was a college freshman, he told fellow residents of his Stanford University dormitory that he sometimes disguised himself as a police officer – a crime in many states, including Michigan and California, where he then lived. And he had the uniform on display as proof.

So recalls Robin Madden, who had also just arrived as a freshman, the startling incident began when Romney called him and two or three other residents into his room, saying, “Come up, I want to show you something.” When they entered Romney’s room, “and laid out on his bed was a Michigan State Trooper’s uniform.”

The funny thing (odd, not haha) is that if Romney liked wearing uniforms so much the country was more than happy to legitimately issue him one at the time and he didn’t take them up on it. In fact, he seems to have gone out of his way not to, as did his father and his sons. It isn’t a Mormon thing —there are plenty of them in the military. For some reason though, the Romneys, despite claiming to be uber-patriots who fervently support all of America’s wars, choose not to join up. It’s a little bit odd.

And it’s more than a little bit odd that young Mitt liked to parade around in a cop costume and scare his female classmates in high school, and then took the uniform with him to college. Considering that police uniforms carry with them automatic authority that make people submit in ways they normally wouldn’t, you can’t help but wonder what he did with it.

See also: The empty boys

.

You are not normal, by @DavidOAtkins

You are not normal

by David Atkins

I’ll be writing a number of posts over the next few days with thoughts and analysis from the June election. The first point I want to make won’t be new to many of you, but is often forgotten by even seasoned political professionals: you are not normal. That phrase is constantly repeated at election trainings put on by Democracy for America, Howard Dean’s spin-off organization now run by his brother Jim. You are not normal. What that means here is that activists often assume that the general electorate has something approaching their own level of awareness of campaign issues and news stories.

This happens a lot. Activists will make arguments about how the President’s approval numbers will go up or down based on his support or lack thereof for some specific policy, or because that activist’s own pet issue, when in reality it has much more to do with a voter’s overall sense of personal and national well-being, and their ability to see themselves hanging out with the politician. Or one might see activists insist that the polls are all wrong, because the GOTV ground game will overwhelm the opposition–after all, everyone they know is fired up and ready to go, so that enthusiasm must be everywhere. Confirmation bias plays a big role there, and it was quite prevalent among progressives leading up to the Wisconsin vote.

Then there’s the assumption that voters are deeply aware of the intricate arguments and fights leading up to a campaign. I’ve posted before about Linda Parks, the Republican-turned-independent Supervisor in Thousand Oaks who ran for Congress in the CA26 top-two primary against a field of four Democrats (including progressive Assemblymember Julia Brownley) and a very conservative Republican State Senator, Tony Strickland. Almost every organization on the left endorsed Brownley, and there was a massive outpouring of local Democratic activism on her behalf. The DCCC came in heavy for Brownley with a slew of mailers in the final three weeks, some of them a little over-the-top and cartoonish but none of them dishonest, tying Linda Parks’ deficit obsession, refusal to repeal the Bush tax cuts, and refusal to condemn the Paul Ryan budget to Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and George Bush.

The entire local press establishment took umbrage against the DCCC’s mailers, decrying them as unfair attacks. Local papers were swarmed with letters to the editor, and the comments section of the local papers were filled with comments decrying the negative attacks. Two or three phone calls came ringing in every day to our local Democratic headquarters from people claiming to be disgusted Democrats who were planning to change parties. Everywhere you went in political circles, there was talk of the “backlash” that would almost certainly come from the attacks. I myself was somewhat worried about the effect it might have.

Nothing of the sort actually happened. But that didn’t stop Parks from believing it would even when the results were clear. As of late election night when it was readily apparent that she was losing big, she was still saying this:

Parks could not be reached late Tuesday night, but earlier in the evening after just the mail-in ballots had been counted she expressed hope that the later returns would swing in her favor.

“These are the first ones coming in and this is before the smear campaign really hit and Julia Brownley’s supporters changed their position,” she said.

But they didn’t, they weren’t, and nothing of the sort was actually happening in statistically meaningful numbers. That entire conversation was happening in the political activist bubble, divorced from any reality on the ground. Which, honestly, would have been clear to anyone actually talking to voters. I personally made over 700 phone calls and knocked on over 500 doors in advance of this election to likely June primary voting Democrats, and most of them were clueless–in spite of the daily barrage of mail–that there was a major contested congressional race happening. If they knew anything, it was that Brownley seemed to be competent and a good Democrat, and that they had heard some negative stuff about Parks. But most didn’t even have that level of awareness. I wasn’t normal. And neither were Linda Parks and the barrage of backlashers in the political bubble. In the real world where people actually vote, none of that mattered.

It was an important lesson in Wisconsin. A lot of progressives blame the amount of money spent by conservatives in the race, but it’s important to remember that Walker was ahead and ahead big for a long time. Most people’s minds had been made up already, and they weren’t changing them. The campaign such as it was appeared to be mostly noise.

And it was an important lesson in Ventura County, too. We’re not normal, and we need not to read too much into why election and poll results are the way they are. Usually, the simplest and dumbest explanations are the right ones.

.

What Bittman Said

by tristero

Food stamps are currently used to purchase $4 billion worth of soda a year, a nice subsidy for soda and commodity corn producers, as well as for makers of insulin…

We should be encouraging people to eat real food and discouraging the consumption of non-food. Pretending there’s no difference is siding with the merchants of death who would have us eat junk at the expense of food and spend half our lives earning enough money to deal with the health consequences.

This has been another edition of What Bittman Said.

Uncertainty Trope

Uncertainty Trope

by digby

Corporate America is sitting on massive amounts of cash. But companies are not investing that capital back into their businesses in search of growth. Instead, yields on stocks continue to climb at a time when America needs jobs not dividends[…]

So why aren’t companies investing for growth? One answer ringing from the C-Suites of corporate America (and their Washington megaphone, the Business Roundtable) is uncertainty. Specifically, uncertainty brought on by government actions (regulation) and inaction (debt ceiling and tax expiration procrastination)[…]
The problem with the idea that uncertainty is killing the economy is that it’s false. Bloomberg’s editors do an admirable job dismantling the argument...The question remains what kind of certainty these CEOs are really after.

If you can’t remove uncertainty that isn’t there, lower rates any more, or reduce non-existent inflation, there’s a strong case for fiscal stimulus. But since these CEOs have Peterson Institute-ingrained aversion to deficits and debt, they aren’t advocating for that. Rather, this crowd seems to be holding out for corporate welfare: changes to rules and regulations that would help specific companies outperform the market.
[…]
Companies are sitting on their hands and not investing in their businesses while the economy wilts, waiting for the kind of low-risk, above-market-return investment scenario that rentiers love. After four years of dealing with the after effects of a crisis brought on in part by providing an the securities business with precisely those type of opportunities, that should be off the table.

It should be. But it isn’t. These corporate elites are either stupid or venal or both. They can argue for government stimulus to create demand for their products or they can argue for corporate welfare. They prefer corporate welfare. I’m voting for venal. They don’t want win-win. They just want win.

Read the whole column to find out which CEOs are complaining the loudest …
.