Month: August 2012

You Have To Start Somewhere

By tristero

Reading the horrific stories in this article, I came away more convinced that, while far from ideal, one tiny first step towards tackling America’s eating disorder is to support Michael Bloomberg’s proposal to ban large soda portions. Yes, I would prefer a soda tax, but that is not feasible.

Will a large-soda-size ban in NYC help people in Appalachia in any substantive way? Not immediately, but it will start to turn the national discourse away from the conclusion that “nothing can be done” towards the notion that something must be done.

Note to those opposed to the Bloomberg ban: it is very easy to complain about the problems with it – and everyone probably agrees with you. But given the epidemic of purely-preventable, diet-related diseases, what would you propose instead as a practical, plausible, feasible, easily implemented and practical first step? I’m not asking you to “solve” the national eating disorder. I’m asking very specifically for your thoughts as to what, if not a ban on large sodas, would be a reasonable and practical first step towards addressing the problem.

I would happily abandon my support for the Bloomberg proposal if there is a better and more practical idea. But education doesn’t work. Better food industry regulation will take years and years of vicious fights that few politicians have an interest in waging. And a soda tax simply is impossible in the current political climate.

Extra points if the idea you propose has actually been tried somewhere and shown to work.

Cruel but brilliant

by David Atkins

In case you missed it, this piece from The Onion was one of their best ever:

A survey released Wednesday by researchers at the University of North Carolina found that despite the many challenges they face, the nation’s lowest-income individuals are nonetheless thankful they don’t have to endure the unique hardships of the nation’s long-suffering middle class.

According to the report, the 46 million Americans who fall below the federal poverty line, though struggling mightily, are at least glad they don’t have to live up to some rapidly vanishing American dream of advancing in their career, making more money, and improving their lifestyle, the way their middle-income counterparts do.

“The unrealistic expectations and false hope they experience must be unbearable,” Camden, NJ hotel clerk Allison Jacobsen told researchers, noting that while her $22,000 annual salary barely covers her rent and groceries each month, at least she doesn’t operate under the flawed assumption that her situation will ever improve. “A life spent constantly stressing out over a dead-end job or struggling to pay off a fixed 30-year mortgage on a continuously depreciating three-bedroom townhouse? It’s horrific.”

…

“I can’t even fathom what it would be like to drag yourself to work every morning actually believing that someday it will all pay off,” said Bronx, NY substitute teacher David McGrath, who along with his wife and 2-year-old son survives on food stamps. “Or to practically kill yourself for a job promotion or meager raise while under the delusion that you can work your way to the top. People waste the best years of their life doing that, and it’s a goddamn tragedy.”

…

Researchers also found that people who were once part of the nation’s middle class experience a profound sense of relief upon moving down the country’s socioeconomic ladder and finding themselves on the bottom rung.

“Honestly, I can’t tell you how much better I feel these days,” said 42-year-old former IT technician Ryan Tunnicliffe, who last April lost his job and, subsequently, his house. “Just knowing I no longer have to strive for something completely and utterly out of reach is such a load off my mind.”

“I’m poor, and I’m going to stay poor,” Tunnicliffe continued while staring at his $320 weekly unemployment check. “It’s been very liberating.”

Reached for comment, several members of the nation’s upper class said they are “equally grateful” to have been spared the hardships of the middle class.

All dark comedy aside, this feeling is all too real. The left and right have dealt with it in different ways. Part of the left has re-adopted the “small/simple is beautiful” ethic as a way of dealing of loss of standard of living, while part of the right has eagerly embraced hardship and humiliation as a moral or religious test in service of the rightful, hierarchical order of things.

But most people who aren’t on the activist edges aren’t so keen to rationalize away and embrace that slow decline into lower expectations. They get angry. They’re going to blame someone year after year until it gets better, or until there is a violent breakdown. The only question is when it will happen–and who will get the blame.

.

Rogue Justice

by digby

Dday writes:

The Supreme Court justices have jurisdiction over various regions of the country when it comes to injunctions, particularly when it comes to stays of execution. In the case of Marvin Wilson, the mentally retarded man with an IQ of 61 and an intelligence level of a 6 year-old, set to die today in Texas in conjunction with a murder conviction, that appeal had to go through none other than Justice Antonin Scalia.

Justice Scalia wrote a dissent in the case of Atkins v. Virginia, which established the ban on executing the mentally retarded (Texas, like other states, got to set their own standards for what constitutes “retarded,” and as such plowed ahead with the execution of Wilson today). Scalia wrote that, because “Only the severely or profoundly mentally retarded, commonly known as ‘idiots’, enjoyed any special status under the law” in 1791, around the time of the establishment of the Eighth Amendment, he disagreed with the ruling. And so it should come as no surprise that he submitted this short response to the stay of Marvin Wilson today.

The application for stay of execution of sentence of death presented to Justice Scalia and by him referred to the Court is denied. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Well of course he did. Unless we can find a medium to channel the founders and get a precise meaning of the word “idiot” there’s nothing he can do. (I have a sneaking suspicion that if we could, he wouldn’t like the answer.)

In fact, he’s proud of it:

I can imagine that Perry and Scalia will both toast to their respective kills tonight, proud as can be.

*By the way: is there a good reason why there isn’t an impeach Scalia movement? Even a tiny one?

Update: This was not decided by Scalia, but by the whole court. They pretty much nullified their own decision.

.

Kabuki on acid

by digby

I don’t know how this will end up, but it sure looks like they’re getting their ducks in a row for some sort of Lame Duck Grand Bargain. With virtually every liberal in the universe giddy with excitement at the prospect of “winning” by getting fabulously wealthy people to throw in tip money in exchange for agreeing to begin the process of cutting the monthly stipend for 90 year old ladies, it looks like we’re gonna have ourselves a deal:

The very real possibility that defense programs will suffer deep, across the board spending cuts early next year has major defense contractors and their allies making an unusual plea to members of Congress: Put everything on the table to avoid the so-called sequester — including higher taxes.

That might not sound like an extraordinary ask. But it’s typical for incumbent interests to leave all questions of ways and means to Congress. And given the defense industry’s enormous power and historic alignment with the GOP, it could have enough force to finally break the GOP of its anti-tax absolutism.
[…]
“Compromise will be necessary to avoid sequestration,” NAGC’s VP for communications Simon Brody said in a statement to TPM. “Considering whether to increase revenues or make funding cuts will require careful consideration by legislators, but examining all alternatives is certainly preferable to letting sweeping automatic cuts take effect.”

That’s a real break with the prevailing GOP insistence that higher taxes must not be part of any plan to avoid the sequester. And it’s the rift Rep. Andrews was hoping to expose in his line of questioning.

“I was very pleased with that answer,” Andrews told TPM in a hallway interview Thursday. “I think the defense leaders have been really public spirited and open-minded about this, and I think they’re acting very responsibly and I trust and hope that they will speak favorably about a balanced approach that includes revenue and spending cuts that neither side wants but that will avoid the sequester and reduce the deficit.”

Andrew’s said he’s had private discussions with other senior defense executives who shared the same view, but declined to provide further details.

“I do think you’re going to see a coalition of responsible people emerge — unfortunately it’s going to be in the lame duck, not prior — that’s going to support entitlement support[cuts] that Democrats don’t want, revenue increases that Republicans don’t want, but deficit reduction that everybody wants, without mindless, across the board cuts in programs.”

Early indications support that view. A group of Republicans led by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) have proposed staving off or eliminating the sequester with a package that could include revenue from higher service fees and tax loophole closures, but not from rate increases.

Oooh, that’s quite the sacrifice. Be sure to clap much, much louder that you ever have before when it happens.

And once again, keep in mind that this alleged “necessity” to cut trillions from the budget is completely arbitrary. It wasn’t sent down from Mt Sinai or written into the constitution. It’s a thuggish demand that the wingnuts made during the debt ceiling talks last summer and they could easily just pass a bill negating the sequester and, assuming the president would sign it, start all over. This is the most elaborate kabuki I’ve ever seen … and I’ve seen some kabuki.

.

An efficient way to help elect some progressive Democrats

by David Atkins

Very rarely do I make a personal plea for help. It’s not easy for me: I hate asking for things from people. But this is really important.

A few years ago I decided to follow Howard Dean’s advice and get involved in making my local Democratic Party a more progressive place. One thing led to another, and on July 24th I was elected Chairman of the Ventura County Democratic Party after serving for two years as a vice chair. As it turns out, I’ve taken the helm at an extraordinary time when Ventura County (just northwest of Los Angeles County) is nationally watched and going to have a dramatic impact on national politics.

Unfortunately, most even political people don’t pay much attention to their local county parties. They’re seen as dull backwaters where people focus on silly things and get together for coffee. Or worse, establishment centers that negate progressive power. But in this case nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I can guarantee that there is nowhere in the country that your money could be put to better use than right here to elect progressive candidates and support progressive causes. I really mean that. Why?

Because right here in Ventura County, we have three hotly contested, nationally watched races for Congress, two huge State Senate races that may make the the difference between whether we get single-payer healthcare in California or not, a potentially close Assembly race, and our part in defeating one of the most damaging laws to ever hit organized labor. To win all these races, Ventura County Democrats will need to make at least 100,000 voter contacts throughout the County spread out across allof them. But we can’t do it without YOUR help.

Keep in mind that we have no paid staff, so literally every single dollar will go directly into the resources needed to make the phone calls and knock on the doors. So what are the races? Let’s start with:

Congress:

• CA-26: Progressive Democratic Assemblymember Julia Brownley will be going up against oil, tobacco and insurance Tea Party State Senator Tony Strickland. Julia Brownley is one of the best we have in the entire state, and this race is an epic showdown between one of the more conservative Republicans and progressive Democrats in the state. Right now Julia has a slim lead in the polls, and voter turnout will make all the difference. Your help in turning out the vote will be crucial here.
• CA-24: Another hugely watched, tight contest between Democratc Congresswoman Lois Capps and tax cheat/Republican-in-moderate’s-clothing Abel Maldonado. As in CA-24, the Democrat has a slim lead and voter turnout will be crucial to success. Again, your help could make the difference.
• CA-25: Blue America-endorsed Democrat Lee Rogers is fighting an uphill but winnable battle against the incredibly corrupt Republican Buck McKeon. Normally this wouldn’t be a high-level contest, but McKeon’s corruption could turn this seat blue for a great candidate in Lee Rogers. Again, turnout will the issue.

State Senate:

• SD19: Currently “represented” by the same execrable Republican Tony Strickland who is running for Congress and narrowly won by less than 900 votes in 2008, this district has been redrawn in a much more favorable light for Democrats. Hard-working progressive Hannah-Beth Jackson is running here again, and leads Republican Mike Stoker by a decent margin. This is a pickup opportunity in the California State Senate, where single-payer healthcare fell just two votes in the State Senate short of passage. That’s a very big deal.
• SD27: Senator Fran Pavley is up for re-election against formidable Republican Todd Zink in a much more difficult district than she has dealt with in the past. Fran is well-liked in local progressive circles, and holding her seat is a must if we want to pass progressive budgets and enact single-payer healthcare in California.

And, of course, we also have to stop Proposition 32, the most dangerous threat to organized labor in the country this side of Scott Walker. Every single dollar you can spare for the Democrats in Ventura will go toward making phone calls and knocking on doors, and sending out literature on behalf of these crucially important races. There is no better return on donor investment in the country right now for electing progressive candidates and advancing progressive causes at the same time. Please help if you can, and we can help turn the tide in California and across the country. It starts here:

Volunteers at the Ventura County Democratic HQ phonebank this June.

Thanks so much!

.

He was running for president for Pete’s sake!

by digby

A while back the Romney campaign filed a complaint in Virginia over a voter registration group’s methods. The complaint was rejected when the group agreed to alter its practices and it’s all good. But this comment by the Romney campaign caught my eye:

“The Romney campaign supports efforts by private groups to register all those who are eligible to vote. Such organizations must take responsibility to ensure that they conform to the letter and spirit of the law. Unfortunately, the Voter Participation Center’s conduct has not met this standard to date.“ Romney Campaign Spokesperson Amanda Henneberg

Hmmm. I could easily paraphrase that in this way:

Everyone supports efforts by private citizens to save money for their retirement through Individual Retirement Accounts. Such citizens must take responsibility to ensure that they conform to the letter and the spirit of the law. Unfortunately, it appears that Mitt Romney’s conduct has not met that standard to date (since the law was never intended to serve as a tax shelter for hundred million dollar fortunes.)

These people only seem to honor the spirit of the law when it doesn’t interfere with their vast wealth. When it comes to that you’re a chump if you leave even one penny on the table, no matter how filthy rich you are — or even if you want to be president of a country in which you are a card carrying member of the 001%.

This is not adhering to the spirit of the law:

“If you say to your tax people, as he seems to have done, ‘I want every trick in the book. I want to push this to the edge,'” Rattner said during an appearance on “Fareed Zakaria GPS” on CNN. “I will tell you that as a private equity guy, I’m familiar with many of the things that he did. And I know many people who have done many of the things that he did. I do not know anyone who did everything that he did.”

“Some of what he did, like the IRA, I have asked fellow private equity guys,” Rattner said, referencing the account in which Romney has stored up to $100 million tax-free. “None of us had even known this was a possible trick, if you will. He has pushed the envelope all the way to the edge, to his benefit, and I think that Americans would find that pretty distasteful.”

You would think that the man would have had enough respect for the process of running for the presidency, his Party and the people of this country to tell his tax lawyers, “no tricks, no fancy tax avoidance, I’m running for president for Pete’s sake.“

This is what he did say:

I don’t pay more than are legally due and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due I don’t think I’d be qualified to become president.

That’s the philosophy of the 1% — you’re a sucker if you abide by the spirit of the law. At least when it comes to money. Even if you’re running for president. Especially if you’re running for president.

.

Men with guns instilling cultural taboos

by digby

Following up on David’s post below, I think it’s probably important to also note that while the NRA is hoodwinking its members, it’s also running roughshod over our national discourse. The newest strong arm tactic is to insist that it’s rude and improper to even talk about gun violence in the wake of mass shootings.It’s “politicizing” the tragedy and cruel to the victims to question the fact that lunatics and terrorists are mowing down innocent citizens because of easy access to deadly weapons.

On the other hand,this is a-ok:

Three days after a gunman calling himself the Joker from the Batman series shot dead 12 people in a suburban Denver movie theater, the National Rifle Association sent out a letter asking for money.

“The future of your Second Amendment rights will be at stake,” the letter said. “And nothing less than the future of our country and our freedom will be at stake.”

The letter was dated July 23. The Aurora Colorado massacre was July 20th.

Basically, we are now at a point at which the NRA has decreed that it’s only acceptable to talk about phantom gun confiscation in the wake of mass murders committed with guns. Can we all se what’s wrong with that picture?

The libertarians all base their fear of government on the fact that it enforces its will at the point of a gun. I’ve got to say that at this point, I’m equally fearful of all the other “men with guns” who are enforcing their will on the culture and the government. I don’t know who’s going to win this shoot-out at the OK Corral of the 21st century, but it’s a sickening comment on our society that innocent people are being killed by dozens in the crossfire.

.

Meet Romney Girl

by digby

She’s got a crush on the Mittster:

.

I hadn’t been following closely this Ohio military voter dust-up assuming that the notion that only citizens who are in the military deserve to have the early, in person voting right that everyone enjoyed in 2008 was so discriminatory that it would never get anywhere. But apparently, military groups believe they should have this right above everyone else and are arguing for it.

.

Hoodwinking gun owners

by David Atkins

Joshua Holland at Alternet has a great piece today on how the NRA deceives its membership. First, it’s important to note that most gun owners do not buy into the NRA’s extremism:

As Cliff Schecter noted last month, studies of public opinion find that a majority of gun-owners are in favor of closing the gun-show loophole the NRA championed (85 percent of all gun owners, and 69 percent of NRA members). Eighty-two percent of NRA members believe that people on the federal terror watch list should be barred from buying firearms. Almost seven in 10 NRA members disagree with the organization’s efforts to prevent law enforcement from determining the origins of weapons used in crimes.

Schecter writes that the NRA has “fought all efforts to make reporting lost or stolen guns to the police a requirement,” and in some cases has “actually threatened to sue to overturn these laws.” But 88 percent of gun owners – and 78 percent of NRA members – think that requiring people to report lost or stolen weapons is a pretty good idea.

The uptake from all this is that we can have reasonable, commonsense restrictions on firearms, but we’ll never achieve that until people realize that nobody’s trying to ban all firearms, and that the NRA in no way represents the interests of most gun owners.

So why does the NRA take such extremist positions? For money, of course:

The NRA president’s motives for lying to his members are clear: his fearmongering brings a windfall of fundraising to the organization and expands the market for the arms manufacturers — his true base — that finance much of the lobby’s work. As Alan Berlow wrote in Salon, “The only way to avert this calamity, the NRA’s 4 million members are told in daily email alerts, the organization’s various magazines and regular fundraising appeals, is if they all dig deep into their pockets and send money to the NRA.”

While a lot of gun owners are quite concerned, the arms industry is laughing all the way to the bank. Just after the 2008 election, the New York Times reported that “sales of handguns, rifles and ammunition have surged in the last week, according to gun store owners around the nation who describe a wave of buyers concerned that an Obama administration will curtail their right to bear arms.” A year later, CNN noted that “Gun shops across the country are reporting a run on ammunition, a phenomenon apparently driven by fear that the Obama administration will increase taxes on bullets or enact new gun-control measures.”

There will come a day when our descendants look back in amazement at a culture that placed the pursuit of reckless profits ahead of all other goods and freedoms. Those who stand up to it will be honored. Those who helped perpetuate it will be the shame of posterity.

.