Month: June 2012

Negotiating in gibberish

by digby

Brian Beutler reports on the rather silly brouhaha over Bill Clinton allegedly saying that he thought the tax cuts should be extended. (He sort of did and sort of didn’t but who cares really?)

Anyway, Beutler talks about the so-called “fiscal cliff” that awaits the congress and the president after the election and explains how the two parties are approaching it:

Avoiding this so-called “fiscal cliff” is thus a top priority for policymakers of both parties. So is devising legislative strategy to maximize each individual party’s chances of using the cliff to make major ideological advancements.

For the Republicans, this means making the Bush tax cuts permanent; for the Democrats it means breaking the GOP’s anti-tax absolutism, and drawing down future budget deficits with both higher taxes and lower spending, without making radical changes to safety net programs.

I’ve written about my problem with this approach ad nauseum so I won’t do it again.
But let me ask you: which of the above arguments would you want to make, the one that simply says, “we want tax cuts for everybody!” or the one that says “we want to draw-down-future-budget-deficits with both-higher-taxes-and-lower-spending without making-radical-changes-to-the-safety-net (while also breaking the GOPsantitaxabsolutism)?

Right. One side is staking out a negotiating position. The other side is trying to be all things to all people. Which one do you suppose is likelier to win?

Deficits shouldn’t be a priority right now. The economy is very weak. So, let the GOP argue for their tax cut extension. The Democrats should argue for protecting all programs that benefit real people. If there has to be a deficit deal (and honestly, there shouldn’t be one at all) they can cut useless defense spending. That’s your compromise. If they won’t go along, then just agree to extend the tax cuts for two more years and protect the programs. This whole fiscal cliff nonsense is a kabuki pageant and from the sound of the dialog, the Democrats are playing the role of the designated losers again. They are good at it, you have to admit.

.

But watch even Jon Stewart argue with Thomas Mann in the second part, insisting that Democrats’ favored programs are secure and that the real problem is that both parties have what they want but they just can’t exist together. (It’s an extension of the Villager trope that Americans are selfish children who refuse to accept that they can’t have it all.) He just can’t hear what Mann and Ornstein are saying:

Lot’s of people are talking about this piece by Martin Wolf, particularly this part:

Bizarroworld Pulitzers

by digby

Ok, this is happening:

The Heritage Foundation and Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity ask for your assistance in paying tribute to the monumental achievements of Andrew Breitbart’s work, and the recognition of those who continue his legacy by carrying the torch for freedom and truth.

We will honor three individuals — from the realms of professional journalism, blogging, and citizen activism — whose efforts advance the spirit of Andrew Breitbart’s work. Nominations will be accepted for individuals who are driven by an indomitable pursuit for truth and accountability, and whose work has broken meaningful ground in advancing those causes on behalf of the public good.

Full-time reporter: In a media environment that tells reporters to go along to get along, a few still consider it a sacred trust to keep the people informed. A few still recognize the awesome responsibility in belonging to the only profession to be enshrined in the Bill of Rights. We’ll present one Breitbart Award to a full-time news reporter to honor courage and honesty in telling the real stories that matter to people’s lives.

Blogger: 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.

Citizen: The fight for freedom requires a constant stream of new recruits willing to make time in their lives to serve as watchdogs in their local communities. We’ll honor an information activist committed to digging up the truth.

Journalism is now so far down the rabbit hole that Andrew Breitbart can be considered a mainstream example of journalistic integrity, and the mainstream media reports it as if it’s perfectly normal.

Something has gone terribly wrong.

.

Wednesday hangover

by digby

It was a bad night for the good guys, no doubt about it. Progressive super Tuesday was a flop.

I’m not going to do a postmortem on Wisconsin. There are enough gasbags doing that already. But I’ll just say a few words about the congressional primaries. For the most part we lost because several candidates split the progressive vote.

Here in California we are still awaiting the final vote count of provisionals and absentees in the Norman Solomon race, but it’s a long shot.(He’s behind by about 1400 votes at the moment.) Unfortunately, because of our jungle primary system, it’s probable that three candidates ended up splitting the progressive vote allowing an establishment Dem and a Republican to make it into the top two.

Similarly, two candidates split the progressive vote in Montana leaving the establishment Dem with a plurality win. And in New Mexico Eric Griego lost to a moderate backed heavily by Emily’s List. (The good news is that the corrupt, establishment choice Marty Chavez lost as well — a small sign of sanity in a sea of bad news.)

The progressive Democratic vote, which is substantial, is being diluted by too many candidates, some of whom are abusing the brand. The result is that the small amount of non-corrupt, progressive money we have is being spread too thinly and the slick establishment candidate with corporate, Party or personal funds slips past the goal line, even if the district clearly prefers a stronger progressive message overall.

There is a silver lining. When these establishment Dems look at those numbers, they know that their constituents are more liberal than they are. Congresswoman Janice Hahn’s record, for instance, was far more progressive in her first term than anyone expected, largely as a result of the progressives who turned out for her opponents. And the message overall is clearly affected when you have a bunch of progressives in a Dem primary race, tilting the whole campaign further left than it otherwise would be.

It’s thin gruel, I know. Progressives just don’t have the organization or the money to narrow the field before the primary, and I’m not sure it fits with our principles even we did. People have a right to run. This is a democracy.

But money is scarce and unfortunately, and it’s more important than ever these days. The Party is relying on self-funders or people with access to the 1%, which leaves out most middle and working class people, thus making the whole system even more tilted to the interests of the wealthy. And so the cycle begins again. We need to figure out a way to deal with this.

It’s still possible that Norman Solomon will pull it out so I don’t want to write him off. Also, powerful GOP incumbent Buck McKeon made a surprisingly poor showing in CA-25 and will face off against progressive Lee Rogers in the fall. And Blue America does have some other wins this year — outside the box candidates like Cartwright, Gill, O’Rourke won their primaries. But there’s no way to spin yesterday. It was a big disappointment.

But what can you do? Well, you do this:

Darcy’s polling way ahead of the other Democrats in her race, including the self-funding establishment choice. Here’s hoping she’ll be an exception that proves the rule this year.

Update: And by the way, David Atkins won his race, so huzzah for the Hullabaloo contingent.

.

Michael Lewis on wealth and luck

by David Atkins

I’m thoroughly exhausted after a very, very long election night here in my backyard and, of course, in Wisconsin and elsewhere. I’ll have more thoughts about all of it later, but for now I wanted to share the final paragraphs of Michael Lewis’ excellent commencement speech to Princeton graduates:

[D]on’t be deceived by life’s outcomes. Life’s outcomes, while not entirely random, have a huge amount of luck baked into them. Above all, recognize that if you have had success, you have also had luck — and with luck comes obligation. You owe a debt, and not just to your Gods. You owe a debt to the unlucky.

I make this point because — along with this speech — it is something that will be easy for you to forget.

I now live in Berkeley, California. A few years ago, just a few blocks from my home, a pair of researchers in the Cal psychology department staged an experiment. They began by grabbing students, as lab rats. Then they broke the students into teams, segregated by sex. Three men, or three women, per team. Then they put these teams of three into a room, and arbitrarily assigned one of the three to act as leader. Then they gave them some complicated moral problem to solve: say what should be done about academic cheating, or how to regulate drinking on campus.

Exactly 30 minutes into the problem-solving the researchers interrupted each group. They entered the room bearing a plate of cookies. Four cookies. The team consisted of three people, but there were these four cookies. Every team member obviously got one cookie, but that left a fourth cookie, just sitting there. It should have been awkward. But it wasn’t. With incredible consistency the person arbitrarily appointed leader of the group grabbed the fourth cookie, and ate it. Not only ate it, but ate it with gusto: lips smacking, mouth open, drool at the corners of their mouths. In the end all that was left of the extra cookie were crumbs on the leader’s shirt.

This leader had performed no special task. He had no special virtue. He’d been chosen at random, 30 minutes earlier. His status was nothing but luck. But it still left him with the sense that the cookie should be his.

This experiment helps to explain Wall Street bonuses and CEO pay, and I’m sure lots of other human behavior. But it also is relevant to new graduates of Princeton University. In a general sort of way you have been appointed the leader of the group. Your appointment may not be entirely arbitrary. But you must sense its arbitrary aspect: you are the lucky few. Lucky in your parents, lucky in your country, lucky that a place like Princeton exists that can take in lucky people, introduce them to other lucky people, and increase their chances of becoming even luckier. Lucky that you live in the richest society the world has ever seen, in a time when no one actually expects you to sacrifice your interests to anything.

All of you have been faced with the extra cookie. All of you will be faced with many more of them. In time you will find it easy to assume that you deserve the extra cookie. For all I know, you may. But you’ll be happier, and the world will be better off, if you at least pretend that you don’t.

Never forget: In the nation’s service. In the service of all nations.

Thank you.

And good luck.

Lewis is asking for noblesse oblige from a world of rapacious people who think they earned everything they have. It probably won’t work, but at least I’m glad he’s trying, and eloquently at that.

.

Who bought the Wisconsin election?

by digby

Scott Walker survived his recall. In case you were wondering whether our democracy is totally fucked, read this about the last minute ads that poured into Wisconsin:

CAV describes itself as a “grassroots advocacy organization created by leaders from a wide array of issue interests.” It’s unclear who’s really behind the group—and it has seemingly taken measures to keep it that way. The local address CAV lists on disclosure forms appears to trace back to a Milwaukee UPS Store. Same goes for the Arlington, Virginia, address it provides on its bare-bones website.

State and federal records list Brent Downs as CAV’s treasurer, but an online search reveals nothing about who he is. (CAV did not respond to multiple phone and email messages for comment.) Federal Election Commission records list Illinois attorney James Skyles as CAV’s general counsel. Skyles’ online résumé says he formerly worked for the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity. The Virginia-based think tank is part of the State Policy Network, a national web of free-market outfits that promote anti-union, pro-privatization policies. Reached at his office, Skyles said CAV is “a very new organization” devoted to “social welfare and public education.” But he repeatedly declined to identify the people behind the group, citing attorney-client privilege. CAV’s Facebook page, created less than two weeks ago, includes a handful of links to recall-themed news stories, but no information about runs the group.

The FEC warned the group in May that it could face “civil money penalties” or “legal enforcement action” for its failure to file a disclosure report.
The Center for Responsive Politics’ website lists just one donor to CAV’s associated PAC: Rebekah Mercer of New York City, who gave $50,000 in November 2011. Mercer has given tens of thousands to conservative candidates such as Reps. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Steve King (R-Iowa) and groups including the Club for Growth.

A search of FEC records turns up just a handful of documents for CAV. The most recent is a May 3 letter (PDF) from the commission warning the group that it could face “civil money penalties” or “legal enforcement action” for its failure to file its April quarterly disclosure report. In late May, CAV registered with Wisconsin’s elections agency to make independent expenditures supporting Walker in the recall.

Along with its recall efforts, CAV operates a website called ProtectSandMining.com, which says it was created to dispel “a vast amount of misinformation” about the practice. Sand mining has boomed in northern Wisconsin as the use of “hydraulic fracturing,” or fracking, has grown. Fracking is the process by which a mix of chemicals, water, and sand are blasted into the ground to access natural gas reserves. CAV’s site touts the potential jobs created by sand mining in Wisconsin, while downplaying concerns about its sizable environmental impact. (Additionally, the group has also sought to raise money for Samuel “Joe the Plumber” Wurzelbacher’s Ohio congressional bid.)

That’s very inspiring. I feel all patrioticlike just thinking about it.

Scott Walker will be the new GOP prototype. Their worst impulses have been validated.

Still waiting for returns on Wilmer in Montana, Griego in New Mexico, and Solomon in California among others. It’s going to be a long night. It isn’t over. In fact, it’s never over.

I’m going to have a shot of Patron right now in honor of the all the people who worked so hard in Wisconsin to put a stop to this. I salute you.

.

The wimmins are distracting us from real issues again

Tyrants in the gardens

by digby

Ok, I’m officially starting to get very, very creeped out by these plutocrats:

Mitt Romney’s two-day fundraising waltz across Texas begins today in Dallas with a pair of high-dollar events — one for $2,500-givers at the Belo Mansion and for the really big donors – those who cut a check for $50,000 for the GOP or bundle $200,000 from others — dinner with Romney at the Highland Park home of developer Harlan Crow. What better place for Romney to get a Texas-size sense of the American spirit than Crow’s spacious estate.

Crow is quite a collector. His personal library would rival a small college, complete with first editions on American history, several original Gilbert Stewart paintings decorating the walls and, under long glass displays, letters of famous people from Thomas Jefferson to the Wright brothers. Then there’s the room mementos of the principals of World War II – on one wall, a painting by Winston Churchill, on another wall a landscape by Dwight Eisenhower and, on a third wall, two original paintings of a European city scene by Adolph Hitler. On an antique table is a signed copy of Churchill’s book on fly fishing.

Outside, should Romney get an opportunity to wander the grounds, is a garden of tyrants. Crow has collected busts and statues of famous dictators of the past, which he displays with a certain elan on the lawn. There’s a head of Stalin, a rare statue of Fidel Castro, a towering Lenin and various other bad guys expropriated from their countries of origin.

Uhm. I don’t know what to say. He’s not the first right wingnut to revere historical tyrants. But I’m not sure these wierdos have ever been in a position to buy the office outright before.

.

Meet the Contraception “immiseration” Guru

by digby

Sarah Posner’s profile of the most important right wing anti-feminist you’ve never heard of is must read. I think Phyllis Schlaffly may have found her successor:

When I first saw her speak at a panel discussion on the HHS mandate and religious freedom at Georgetown University in March, Alvaré crammed 50 years of legal, medical, Catholic, sexual and sociological history into a breathless dissertation about how the availability of contraception has led to the “immiseration” of women. She accused the Obama administration, through its reliance on the Institute of Medicine’s recommendations on contraception coverage, of being motivated by possible anti-Catholic “animus,” and dismissed out of hand the relevance of the scientific and medical evidence the IOM report presented. For Alvaré, the medical evidence is purely ideological and untrustworthy, precisely because it is premised on the usefulness of contraceptives and compiled by people who favor the availability of contraception and abortion.

At the heart of Alvaré’s persistent arguments are what she presents as two essential truths: Birth control is bad for women’s health and well-being, and the government’s effort to legislate insurance coverage for it by religious institutions represents a violation of both religious freedom and the separation of church and state.

Alvaré and her cohorts might seem absurd — after all, having sex isn’t like jumping out of an airplane — but in conservative circles, both academic and political, her views are given currency. She contends that what she calls “sexuality-ism” — essentially, sexual freedom — is “the most pronounced opponent of religious freedom right now.” But, she adds, with both honesty and portent: “Who is the biggest opponent of sexuality-ism? It’s us.”

Read the whole thing. It’s actually quite bracing. The years of fighting against being portrayed as heartless baby killers has demoralized many feminists and made them forget what these people really care about. It’s a testament to the power of the propaganda — and women’s primal understanding of and sensitivity toward their role in human reproduction — that this has worked so well in spite of the obvious hypocrisy. After all, these are the same people who believe that there should be no food, shelter, health or education guarantee for actual children, which should give the game away.

It’s long past time we put away the sanctimony about “life” and got down to the real argument. Are women fully human or aren’t they? Do they have the right to physical pleasure, personal freedom, bodily autonomy or don’t they? Historically the answer has usually been no, or at best, a very qualified yes. We have begun to think differently these last few decades and some people don’t like it, which is what this is really all about. I’m happy to see it out in the open. Now we can have a fair fight.