Month: December 2012

Your moment of zen

by digby

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

That is all.

.

Blue America was on to this weirdo years ago

by digby

She’s such a lovely lady:

More House staffers are coming forward with cautionary tales of their members-only elevator rides with Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.).

ITK last week brought you one tipster’s claims of Foxx laying the verbal smackdown on a female staffer for taking a ride on a members-only elevator. The congresswoman’s office said the story — which involved Foxx questioning the staffer’s literacy vis-à-vis the “members-only” sign — was an “exaggeration” by “disrespectful junior staffers” who will go to great lengths “just to read about themselves in the paper.”

Now more elevator horror stories are coming in.

One tipster recalls it was either the first or second week of his congressional internship in October of last year when he was running an errand to a committee room, and still had a “healthy fear of the members-only elevator.”

But after seeing a parcel deliveryman hop on one of the lifts in the Longworth House Office Building, our source stepped on, too. The deliveryman got off on the next floor, and that’s when Foxx got on.

Our insider says the congresswoman asked if he had seen the “members-only” sign outside the elevator before demanding his name and the office he worked for. “She was very intimidating, especially for a brand-new intern,” he tells ITK.

As our elevator rider describes it, “She walked up to a [Capitol] police officer and told on me for riding on her elevator, and he was as dumbfounded as I was.”

The former intern says Foxx later called the office he revealed he worked for to rat him out for riding the members-only elevator and for not being dressed in proper attire — he says he had taken off his jacket to run errands. The tipster claims Foxx said she thought of filing an “official complaint” but that she had “visibly frightened me and felt like I wouldn’t do it again.”
[…]
Another House employee says he had his own elevator encounter with Foxx last year in Longworth while taking a members-only ride with a custodial staff member.

This staffer tells ITK, “It wasn’t a voting day, so we figured we were safe.” But when Foxx stepped on the elevator, he contends she asked him whether he could read and demanded his congressional ID.

“She was actually in the process of writing the [other rider’s information] down when the elevator stopped and I stepped out.” Our spy says his quick maneuver enabled him to “escape her wrath.”

Foxx’s office didn’t respond to ITK’s request for comment on the latest elevator accounts.

Back in 2010, Blue America launched a contest to determine who was the craziest Republican. Guess who won?

At the end of July, Blue America and our pals at the Americans Fir America PAC launched the first in a series of videos that highlights what kind of people now lead the Republican Party. We featured Sarah Palin, Rand Paul and John Boehner. And we asked the readers at DWT, C&L and Digby’s Hullabaloo to tell us who to do the next ad for. Lots of votes for Ken Calvert and Michele Bachmann but it was North Carolina reactionary Virginia Foxx who got the most “support.”

This was the ad:

She won of course. Apparently they like ’em mean and looney in that district.

.

A memo to journalists on the fiscal cliff

by David Atkins

Reporting on the fiscal cliff tends to follow a standard pattern: negotiations toward an agreement are considered “progress” and “moving forward.” Negotiations away from an agreement are considered “stalled” or a “step back.” The argument is presented as a negotiation in which both sides are encouraged “to give something up”, with tax increases being the sacred cow on the Republican side and benefits the sticking point on the Democratic side.

So the public gets fed a constant line about Democrats and Republicans being too childish to act in the best interests of the nation to “move forward” toward a deal.

Taken completely out of context, that sort of reporting might be excusable. In context, however, it’s a travesty.

The crucial context here is income inequality. Corporate profits and income inequality are at record highs while median incomes are abysmally low. Unemployment is still ridiculously high given the glut of cash held in corporate coffers. The minimum wage hasn’t been indexed to inflation in years. Median income in the United States is at its lowest point since 1969. The stock market sits above 13,100 as of this writing, a statistic considered good news to those with investments, but outrageous and offensive to working people struggling to get by given the unemployment and underemployment rate.

Any story about who should “sacrifice” given these realities must contain this context, or the journalist tells a gross lie of omission. When the poor and elderly on fixed incomes are asked to give up needed benefits in exchange for pittance tax increases on the wealthy, it’s not a fair trade. It’s not even close to a fair trade.

Good journalism tells the truth by providing context. The journalist needn’t even dwell on whether deficit cutting is even an intelligent move given economic conditions. The journalist need only provide the barest glimmer of the record-setting economic realities at play.

.

Tasering is as American as Apple iPhones

by digby

What could be a better reason to shoot someone full of electricity than committing the heinous crime of trying to buy too many iPhones?

“She was scared, she didn’t understand,” said John Hugo, who said he was Li’s fiance’. “I was outraged. You go into a store, and you end up getting brutalized by the police.”

A Boston area family says a language barrier may have resulted in police using a Taser on a woman after she tried to buy too many iPhones at a local mall.

Hansen said the woman had been resisting arrest for about 15 minutes before a second officer arrived at the scene.

“So then the police took my mom’s phone and tried to take my mom’s bag. And my mom tried to ask them why, and they just threw her to the ground,” Jay said.

The 44-year-old mother of two was charged with trespassing and resisting arrest.

“My mom feel really upset with what they did,” Jay said.

Nashua police see the situation differently.

“She wasn’t mistreated in any way. If she left the store when she was told to leave the store, it would’ve been done at that. She was told she was under arrest after repeatedly being told to leave the store. She didn’t submit to the arrest. The officer used the Taser on her to get her to submit to the arrest,” Hansen said.

According to Nashua police policy, Tasers may be used “when the subject has signaled his/her intention to actively resist arrest in an aggressive, hostile manner or when a need arises to incapacitate a dangerous, combative, or high risk subject where other use of force techniques exposes the officer, the subject or the public to unnecessary danger, or when other force techniques have been or may be ineffective.”

The policy continues, “The weapon is a level of force normally required to overcome passive, defensive, or offensive resistance that is intended as an act of overt aggression toward the officer where an individual refuses to comply with verbal instructions.”

Sure, there’s nothing wrong with that at all. A women who doesn’t speak English is suspiciously buying iPhones and doesn’t understand why the police are trying to arrest her so she gets shot through with 50,000 volts.

Take a look at that policy:

The weapon is a level of force normally required to overcome passive, defensive, or offensive resistance that is intended as an act of overt aggression toward the officer where an individual refuses to comply with verbal instructions.

Are we feeling free today? Like super-duper free? Do you think it’s a good idea to give the police a torture weapon which they are authorized to use in cases where they have divined that a person is intending to be “overtly aggressive” by being passive or defensive?

Are you feeling free today? Really, really free?

.

More fiscal cliff notes — 12/13

by digby

First this good news. This is so unequivocal that I have to think it must be the case:

One of President Barack Obama’s top Senate allies says he’s been assured by the White House that the president won’t yield to GOP demands to increase the eligibility age for Medicare.

Fellow Illinois Democrat Dick Durbin made the revelation to reporters after a Capitol Hill news conference.

Increasing the eligibility age is a key demand by Republicans seeking cost curbs in popular benefit programs in exchange for higher tax revenues.

Durbin said he’s been told that increasing the eligibility age from 65 is “no longer one of the items being considered by the White House.”

Considering that he admits that it was under consideration, I we blew up that trial balloon successfully. Huzzah. Unfortunately, there’s still a whole boatload of odious cuts to fight against.

Democrat Xavier Becerra: We are willing to make sure that everyone in America sacrifices a little bit. Even though who have been struggling.

Democratic Senator Ben Cardin: If speaker Boehner exercises the leadership and brings in a balanced program, he can pass that don’t do it by getting the support of within your own party, you need reach out to Democrats.

Republican Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers: To get something through the house and the senate it’s going to take both. The revenue and the spending cuts.

How soothing.

NBC yesterday made a fetish out of their new polling which allegedly showed that Americans are desperate for “compromise” which is increasingly defined by the pundits as a tax hikes and cuts to the so-called entitlement programs. (Everyone in America has to sacrifice a little bit — the millionaires have to give up some tip money and the poorest seniors have to give up medication and eating breakfast.)

Anyway, here’s how it’s being interpreted by the Villagers:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Tamron Hall: House members are willing to compromise to avert the fiscal cliff. what are the people at home thinking of their actions. we have a preview for a poll that debuts tonight. part of that is compromising what folks want to see from the lawmakers. Mark Murray: A lot of Americans want to see compromise. According to the poll, 65% want a compromise balanced deal to reduce the deficit. Even if they have to reduce the entitlement program like Medicare and Social Security and the Republicans on have to support increase in tax rates for the wealthy. Of course you were playing a lot of clips from people open to compromise. It does seem to be the broad parameter that want a balanced deal. That’s what John Boehner and President Obama are currently arguing about.

That’s not true, actually. Everyone wants compromise in theory, but in reality they don’t want vital programs cut. From the Pew Poll also released yesterday:

The polling also suggests that the public generally supports the budget priorities that have been outlined by Democrats. Nearly seven in 10 voters want to raise income tax rates on incomes of more than $250,000, while 54 percent support limiting deductions and 52 percent want to raise the tax rate on investment income. The only entitlement reforms to receive support from more than half of all Americans are reductions in Medicare and Social Security benefits for high income seniors. Majorities of those surveyed oppose raising the Social Security or Medicare eligibility age, and 52 percent say they do not want to limit the home mortgage interest deduction. Also unpopular are opposed cuts to the defense budget and welfare programs. More than two-thirds of Americans also object to infrastructure and education cuts.

The confusion is among the Villagers. They seem to think that the proper “compromise” must consist of millionaire chump change in exchange for suffering from the elderly and the sick. (And apparently, many Democrats have signed on to that too — “everyone has to suffer sacrifice a little bit.”) Sure people want compromise — if it ends up with policies they like. When it doesn’t, they think it was a sell-out. The politicians usually know this even if the pundits don’t. And this is one reason why I’ve been pessimistic that the Democrats were going to hold a tough line on the “entitlements.” They’ve been signaling for months that they would be willing to cut them if they can only get these tax hikes from millionaires. And yet, the tax hikes that were going to happen anyway. Can we all see the problem with that? I suppose that’s a smart thing to do: set yourself as winning a big victory even if it was inevitable. That way you really can’t lose. But it also begs the question: why put spending cuts on the table in the first place? True, much of that came out of the failed debt ceiling talks in 2011, but that was the result of a proposed Grand Bargain that was endorsed by the Democratic leadership. You can call that a mistake, but I don’t think it makes a lot of sense to get back in the same position unless this is a result you truly seek. Whatever, it is what it is and there’s no going back in time to change it. But if we could, this might be the better way to frame this negotiation:

The New Mandate on Defense No, it’s not to spend more—it’s to spend less, and liberals should not flinch from that position. Barney Frank There were so many encouraging signs for liberals in the election results this year that one of the most significant has been overlooked. For the first time in my memory, a Democratic candidate for President argued for less military spending against a Republican candidate who called for great increases—and the Democrat won. George McGovern was the last Democratic candidate to talk about spending less on the military. Subsequently, every Democratic presidential candidate was told that he had better look sufficiently tough on national security because a perception that Democrats were too weak vis-à-vis the Soviet Union was a major point of vulnerability. That is why Michael Dukakis, a public official with an extremely distinguished record, and a man of great dignity and integrity, staged an ill-conceived photo-op of himself wearing a helmet and riding in a tank, which became a negative factor in his campaign. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 reduced this pressure to some degree. Indeed, Bill Clinton was able to follow George H.W. Bush in beginning to reverse the enormous buildup in military spending dating to the Reagan Administration. The restraint on military spending that occurred was a significant factor in Clinton’s ability to reach balanced budgets in his last years. And then came September 11, which had two significant—and very adverse—budgetary impacts. First, we entered two wars—financed, in a novel economic approach, by several large tax cuts—which led to upwards of $150 billion a year over and above the base military budget. (The public does not fully understand that the defense budget is paid for to a certain extent as people pay lawyers who are on retainer, but who then get extra funds if they have to go into court.) Secondly, the base budget itself was sharply inflated, and the moderating trends implemented by George H.W. Bush and Clinton were reversed as terrorism was cleverly used by the neoconservatives in the Bush Administration to substitute for the Soviet Union as an existential threat to the United States. Under President George W. Bush, the base budget steadily rose from $287 billion in fiscal year 2001 to $513 billion in fiscal year 2009, and this increase continued in President Obama’s first term, reaching $530 billion in fiscal year 2012. The combination of the two—the base budget and “emergency” war spending—led at the height of the “surge” in Afghanistan in fiscal years 2010 and 2011 to yearly military spending totaling about $700 billion, far more than Medicare outlays, which totaled $452 billion in 2010 and $486 billion in 2011. In fact, of course, the terrorists are murderous thugs whom we must combat, but who do not remotely present the kind of threat to our national security that came first from Hitler and then Stalin and his successors—the reason historically that America got in the position of being by far the world’s major military power. I have been greatly frustrated in the conversation about the need to do long-term deficit reduction by the extent to which establishment opinion focuses on “entitlements”—namely efforts to provide decent means of support for Americans in our retirement years—as a major cause of the deficit, and ignores the extremely large contribution made to this problem by military expenditures that are far beyond any rational assessment of our national security.

Read it all, it’s just great. The president said quite openly that “as commander in chief” he couldn’t stomach big cuts to defense, so that’s that. And while people will almost certainly argue that the Democratic party under Obama has finally shed its reputation as a bunch of hippie cowards and it can’t afford to go back now (talk about a slippery slope ..) the truth is that raising taxes on the rich and cutting the bloated defense budget are the obvious first step to deal with the debt, if that’s what concerns you the most. (I’d add the almost completely unaccountable Homeland Security police apparatus to that as well.) Unfortunately, these are areas of the budget that are the real third rails — they are considered to be so dangerous that cutting them makes SS and Medicare look like expendable foreign aid programs by comparison. So much so, that it never even comes up in the public conversation around this allegedly perilous deficit, while starving grannies is considered simple common sense. And yet …. the level of corruption and waste in that sector is almost unimaginable, not to mention that its very existence creates the motivation for expanding the American Empire beyond all rational — and affordable — bounds. It’s nuts. This entire discussion about debt shouldn’t even be considered without a deep and serious look at the amount of money we have been throwing away on “national security” over the past decade. You’d think anyone with a heart would at least put the killing machine on the table before they start contemplating cutting back on the old and the sick. But the sad truth is that because of the mere possibility of defense cuts happening, the sequester has always been a joke. Nobody from either party would ever let that happen. And that’s the problem.

.

Losing our democracy

by digby

The radical agenda being rammed through in the Michigan lame duck session signals quite clearly that the Republicans are are emboldened to move as quickly as possible to enact laws that serve their electoral interests.

This sobering report from the Maddow show shows just how dangerous this is:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economyVisit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

.

Fiscal cliff notes 12/13

by digby

Who knows what “fiscal cliff” reports are true and which are just trial balloons or public negotiation strategy, but this one from Greg Sargent is interesting:

I spoke this morning to an official familiar with the fiscal cliff talks. He tells me that ever since Republicans rejected the first White House fiscal offer, White House negotiators have been asking Republicans to detail both the spending cuts they want and the loopholes and deductions they would close to raise revenues while avoiding a hike in tax rates for the rich.

According to the official, Republicans continue to refuse to answer.
“No answer ever since the Geithner meeting,” the official said. “To date they have been unwilling or able to identify a list of specific cuts or changes they would like or a single loophole they are willing to close.”

This is borne out by reporting in both the New York Times and Politico. How on earth can there be any progress under these circumstances?

There can’t. Which indicates that either there is a separate negotiation going on about which Sargent’s source is in the dark — or the Republicans have decided to go over the cliff.

I cannot see why they wouldn’t. They get to blame the Democrats for raising taxes. And then they get to vote for cutting taxes. And they get to take another whack at “entitlement” spending around the debt ceiling and sequester and blame the Democrats for that as well. What’s not to like, from their perspective? (And I think the argument that they won’t be able to make Obama “own” the entitlement cuts from a debt ceiling standoff is thin — they haven’t had any problem doing it before.)

The Democrats will get their holy grail — tax hikes — either way and will then have to stare down the ever more unpopular Republicans over spending cuts to popular programs. The only question is if they have what it takes to stand up to the Villagers who will insist that the Republicans gave in by “hurting” their constituents on the tax hikes so now it’s time for the Democrats to hurt old and sick people in return. (As an act of good faith, don’t you know?) It would have been easier if Democrats had put even half the energy into the defense of vital programs that they’ve put into their quest for higher taxes to fix the deficit, but it’s certainly not impossible. After all, the people are behind them. If I didn’t think they wanted some kind of “entitlement reform victory” I’d say the people could get out of this mess relatively unscathed if everything fell just right.

But again, who knows? I still think that a Grand Bargain, perhaps broken into several parts, is the desired outcome for the White House. But in the end, as with all negotiations, both sides just both want to be perceived as the winner. The Democrats are already there — tax hikes will happen and they’ve masterfully set that up as the only thing that really matters. (They can do it when they want to!) But the Republicans have a higher hill to climb — they need to score a huge win on spending cuts or look like real losers in this thing. And unfortunately for them, the only truly big scalps out there are either programs their own base values or Obamacare, which will not be on the table. So they’re going to push hard for what Pelosi calls a “trophy.” The question remains if the Democrats are going to give it to them.

Update: FYI — Boehner: “debt limit should be used to bring fiscal sanity to DC”

.

The power of government to do good, TV edition

by David Atkins

Most political arguments take place in a realm at least somewhat divorced from the everyday experience of average Americans. Complex changes to social insurance programs, civil rights, healthcare benefits and tax rates don’t register on the radar of many people going about their daily lives. These things affect them greatly at a remove, of course, but most of the time it often comes off as two sets of angry people yelling at each other for no very good reason.

So when conservatives make statements about the failure of government regulation to achieve stated goals, the arguments often move into a realm of competing theoretical or historical claims. Generally, the bigger and more important the issue, the more obscured it is by garbage talking points.

So it’s often the little things that make the most salient points about ideological stances. Today’s argument in favor of government intervention for good? Those obnoxiously loud TV commercials are about to go the way of the dodo:

Listen up, TV advertisers: Big Brother is muting you! Well, not entirely. But beginning at midnight tonight, new Federal Communications Commission rules will bar television networks from blasting viewers with those excessively loud, screamy commercial breaks…

Adopted a year ago Thursday, the rules “will require commercials to have the same average volume as the programs they accompany,” the FCC says. The commission was prompted to action last year when Congress passed the “Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act”—the CALM Act.

This is the sort of thing that all but the most ardent libertarian can get behind, and is a real-world example of a minor but real annoyance almost everyone has experienced.

You can help enforce the new law, as well. If you think a channel is violating the law, just call 1-888-TELL-FCC to report the violation.

.

What Real Americans?


by digby

One of the more positive consequences of this ridiculous fiscal cliff fight seems to be a growing awareness that the beltway is out of touch with the concerns of ordinary Americans. For those who’ve read Chris Hayes’ brilliant book Twilight of the Elites, this is well-trod ground and his analysis explains quite well how this came to pass.

And if I can toot my own horn just a little bit, I’d offer that this is one of the foundational critiques of the online left, going all the way back to Media Whores Online and Bartcop. And my own little contribution to the understanding of this speaks directly to the idea.  It goes back to about 2004.

Le Hameau de la Potomac




















The term “The Village” does stem from the notorious Sally Quinn article about the Clintons. But it’s more than that. It’s shorthand for the permanent DC ruling class who have managed to convince themselves that they are simple, puritanical, bourgeois burghers and farmers, even though they are actually celebrity millionaires influencing the most powerful government on earth.


It’s about their phoniness, their pretense of speaking for “average Americans” when it’s clear they haven’t the vaguest clue even about the average Americans who work in their local Starbucks or drive their cabs. (Think Tim Russert, good old boy from Buffalo, lately of Nantucket.)It’s about their intolerable sanctimony and hypocritical provincialism, pretending to be shocked about things they all do, creating social rules for others which they themselves ignore.


The village is really “the village” an ersatz small town like something you’d see in Disneyland. And to those who argue that Versailles is the far better metaphor, I would just say that it is Versailles — a very particular part:

A Picturesque Little Village
Part of the grounds near the Trianon were chosen by Marie-Antoinette as the site of a lakeside village, a crucial feature of picturesque landscape gardens then so fashionable among Europe’s aristocracy. In 1783, Richard Mique built this amusement village where the queen played at being a shepherdess.

In 1784, Marie-Antoinette had a farm built, where she installed a farming couple from the Touraine region, along with their two children. They were charged with supplying the queen with eggs, butter, cream and cheese, for which they disposed of cows, goats, farmyard animals.

The Village is a metaphor for the faux “middle class values” that the wealthy, insular, privileged, hypocritical political celebrities (and their hangers-on and wannabes) present to the nation.



Update: Reader JW writes in with this as well:

Everything you say about the term is true, but I also feel it is appropriate to add one additional association: Kafka’s “Das Schloss.” There is “The Village” and there is “The Castle.” The Villagers are supposedly people just like the narrator, but he can never seem to understand them, and they block his access to the Castle and its inhabitants. They are not IN the administration, but they are its minions, almost unconsciously.

yes.

Mann and Ornstein might as well be speaking swahili

by digby

This is a fascinating exchange between Mann and Ornstein and Chuck Todd talking about  “he said/she said” media coverage of “asymmetric polarization”:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Chuck Todd’s a funny guy. He actually uses “he said/she said” to explain why they have to use “he said/she said”. It’s fairly clear that he doesn’t have a clue about what they’re talking about. He thinks that the smug Russertesque “they’re all playing games” attitude equals getting out the facts. They’ve got their work cut out for them.

By the way, he’s recently noticed activists are trying to delegitimize the press (on both sides, natch!) and he thinks that’s not healthy. Apparently, he never heard the term “liberal media” or met Brent Bozell until day before yesterday. Imagine that.

.