Month: April 2013

My God, will no one think of the Villagers?

by digby

Naturally, Politico found the right angle to show that no matter what happens, it’s all about the Villagers:

Two weeks before Conan O’Brien was set to headline the White House Correspondents Association’s annual dinner, a deadly terrorist attack took place on American soil, riveting the nation’s attention and sending the country in mourning.
The year was not 2013. It was 1995.

In an odd coincidence, the Correspondents annual dinner finds itself under remarkably similar circumstances as it did 18 years ago. Then, it was the Oklahoma City bombing and, when President Bill Clinton took to the Washington Hilton’s podium for remarks traditionally tinged with humor, he decided that the occasion was better for somber reflection than silly ribbing.

“You know, I practiced for this night. I had all this humor and everything,” said Clinton. “But I think you will all understand that—and I hope my wonderful comedy writers will understand—if I take a few moments tonight not to be too funny here at the end because of the tragedy in Oklahoma City, which has captured us all and which still is the focus of our efforts, for understandable reasons tonight, as the rescue workers are still laboring and as the law enforcement officers are still working,” Clinton told the guests.

I don’t know about you but the question of how the White House correspondents dinner would cope with the bombing has been plaguing me since the moment I heard about it. “Oh my God,” I thought, “I was already freaking out that Kim Kardashian wasn’t going to show up in a suitable maternity outfit for the event and now this!” How much more can these people take??

The good news is that they’ve taken control of the narrative and are properly counselling tjhe president not to be a big old bring-down like Clinton was:

U.S. News & World Reports’ Kenneth Walsh, who presided over the White House Correspondents Association during that 1995 dinner, said that, in 1995, he was not alerted to Clinton’s change in remarks beforehand.

Walsh thinks that, this time around, President Barack Obama won’t forgo humor as much as Clinton did.
“I think with the sense of the country and the atmosphere we have now, I think that we’re coming out of the Boston Marathon in a different way than we came out of Oklahoma City,” Walsh told POLITICO. “There’s a tremendous sense of relief in Boston and around the country and the mood is more of a positive one, that our law enforcement system worked and that Boston is now safe. So I think that’s an important tone that I think might make it a little bit easier to deal with this because I think people feel positive that our law enforcement system worked.”

While Obama may tweak his comedic stylings, Walsh thinks he’ll still adopt the tone that perhaps suits him — and this moment — best: Uplift.

Yes, we wouldn’t want any mopey old political leadership interfering with the WHCD hijinks.

I sure hope the president is paying attention to this directive. They’re going to be very upset if he doesn’t follow Village orders on this one. They really couldn’t be any clearer.

.

It’s all we’ve got

by David Atkins

This is where you live:

It’s where we all live. There’s nowhere else we can live. Please try to spend today doing something that will help make sure we can keep it livable, with dignity and respect for every creature living here. It’s ultimately what the fight is all about.

.

That was the week that was


by digby

The week in fail:

And that’s not all. As Tom Tomorrow writes:

This is by no means intended as a comprehensive overview. From the citizen detectives of Reddit to Pete King’s remarks on immigration reform, there was a lot more #fail last week than I could ever fit in a single cartoon.

This article in the NY Times on the CNN debacle last week is also informative and reflects my own early whine about really wanting a good CNN when braking news happens. I am happy that MSNBC has become a home for (mostly) left leaning opinion and analysis, something that’s been lacking for a long while. And some of the shows did an admirable job of covering the breaking news and putting it into some perspective. But I think we still need a credible 24 hour news network so I’m not crowing about CNN’s terrible week. It makes me sad.

.

It’s hard out here for an austerity pimp

by digby

David Frum published an interesting letter from one of his readers the other day on the Reinhardt-Rogoff brouhaha. It provides a fascinating rundown of all the cracked economics that have dominated the debate for the past few years:

The Reinhart- Rogoff paper that has been ruthlessly critiqued in the past few days had long been cited as an example of how to make a “not crazy” argument about deficit reduction.

Their arguments made intuitive sense: it was not absurd to think that high debt could slow down growth, especially when you looked at countries like Japan and Italy. But now that Reinhart & Rogoff’s standing in the fiscal debate is in doubt, we may soon discover that are very few “not crazy” deficit reduction advocates left to find.

Reinhart & Rogoff were not gripped by the pseudo-science-economics that has ensnared so many on the right. If we remove Reinhart & Rogoff from the scene, what’s left does not inspire a lot of confidence. Since 2008 we have had economists, pundits, and politicians argue:

1. That America needs to go back to gold.

2. That cutting spending stimulates growth, despite the evidence to the contrary.

3. That tax cuts must always create growth as a law of nature. (The Congressional Research Service disagrees.)

4. But that the Payroll Tax should not be cut because a tax cut that benefits the working class is just a “sugar high.”

5. That inflation is just around the corner, even though it is not.

These are just arguments about how to fix our present crisis. There is also the conservative economic revisionism which claims that FDR made the Great Depression worse (that debate summarized in chart form here) and that all of American economics has been an unmitigated disaster since advent of the Federal Reserve. (Read David Stockman if you want a rambling rant on that topic.)

The longer you look at it, the more you can’t shake the feeling that some economists treat their job like a never-ending #slatepitch with arguments like “income inequality is justified because it gives us better soda cans” (This is the thesis of Edward Conard’s book.)

That’s all true and it presents quite an indictment of the austerity crowd, in my opinion. But lest you think this huge pile of evidence has shaken this person’s belief that deficit reduction is the right policy, think again:

Reinhart & Rogoff’s entry into the debate was substantial (even Paul Krugman still approves of their book, This Time is Different). Since they will now have to exit the debate, the quality of who is left is frankly depressing. Sure there are sane cases for deficit reduction to be made, and there are bloggers and writers who will make them, but I bet they won’t be dominating the debate going forward.

Hey, just because virtually everyone who has been arguing the case for deficit reduction for years has been shown to be a crank, a charlatan or shockingly bad at arithmetic is no reason to question your beliefs. Of course austerity is sane!  It just must be!  Clearly the problem isn’t that austerity is the wrong prescription, it’s that now only bloggers will be making the case and they won’t dominate the debate like the long, long line of discredited analysts and economists who history has proven to be asses. It’s tough times for austerians.

.

Ridiculous right wing headline ‘o the day

by digby

Courtesy Glenn Beck’s The Blaze

DIANNE FEINSTEIN PREFERS MASSIVE POLICE PRESENCE TO INDIVIDUALS WITH ASSAULT RIFLES DURING BOSTON MANHUNT

I agree that it’s too bad that even more bullets weren’t flying in all directions on the streets of Watertown that night. Sure, a lot more people would probably have been shot, but that’s a small price to pay for … I don’t know.

.

The good news and the bad news: civilian court and the inevitable backlash

by digby

The administration confirmed this morning that they will try the Boston Bombing suspect in federal court. Huge sigh of relief. He’s been charged with using a weapon of mass destruction against persons and property which I believe means he’s subject to the federal death penalty. I’m doubtful that this will be good enough for the wingnuts who have worked themselves into a fine froth but then, nothing would.

I do think this “weapon of mass destruction” phrase is ridiculous, particularly in light of the fact that someone with semi-automatic weapons that mows down 20 to 30 children would not be subject to this charge, but some homemade pressure cooker bombs are considered right up there with a loose nuke. It’s irrational, as this Spencer Ackerman piece from a month or so ago demonstrates. It’s basically a way to keep “terrorism” as a vague, catch-all term the authorities can use at their discretion, which isn’t a good idea.

And I’m against the death penalty as a matter of principle, so I can’t say this makes me want to fist pump “USA! USA!” But I’m grateful the administration didn’t succumb to the pressure that rose almost immediately from the right wing to throw the constitution out the window. (It’s amazing how often I’m grateful for things I never would have even thought were a question not that long ago.)

Update: From what I just heard on the Teevee, the Benghazi Shrill Band (McCain, Graham, Ayotte and King) are about to launch a full-blown hissy fit over this, so get ready.

Update II: Emptywheel has the latest on the complaint:

It charges Dzhokhar with two counts: unlawfully conspiring to use a WMD (which is a terrorism charge) and maliciously destroying, by use of an explosive, property used in interstate and foreign commerce, resulting in death. The WMD charge is completely consistent with past charges, though it is used more consistently with Muslim terrorists than with white terrorists (though it was used, then plead down, against the Spokane MLK bomber, who used a bomb similar to the one Dzhokhar allegedly used).

The complaint describes what surveillance footage of Dzhokhar shows just after he dropped his knapsack on the ground outside the Forum Restaurant: read on

Obviously, the presumption of innocence is important here. We don’t know the whole story by a long shot. But that criminal complaint is very damning. They even have the white cap.

.

From the “hate us for our freedom” files

by digby

In case you missed it:

RAMALLAH, West Bank — With the Boston Marathon bombings on their mind, hundreds of Palestinian and international runners participated Sunday in what was billed as the first Palestinian marathon.

The Right to Movement Palestine Marathon kicked off in front of the Church of the Nativity in the biblical city of Bethlehem in the West Bank.

Before it began, Jibril Rajoub, head of the Palestinian Olympic Committee, asked runners to bow their heads in silence for one minute in remembrance of the Boston Marathon victims.

“As we stand here at the Nativity Square, we should bow in silence for one minute for the victims who died in the terrorist act last week in the Boston Marathon,” he said.

He went on to say that he wanted freedom. Which means, I guess, that he hates America. Or something.

.

The principled libertarian Rand Paul wets his pants

by digby

For anyone who ever expects the allegedly principled libertarian Rand Paul to be anything more than an ephemeral civil liberties ally to be used for your own purposes and nothing else, here he is in all his glory, letting his little white slip show once again:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Majority Leader Reid,

As our thoughts and prayers continue to go out to those affected by the tragedy in Boston, I urge you to incorporate the following national security concerns into the comprehensive immigration reform debate. Before Congress moves forward, some important national security questions must be addressed.

I believe that any real comprehensive immigration reform must implement strong national security protections. The facts emerging in the Boston Marathon bombing have exposed a weakness in our current system. If we don’t use this debate as an opportunity to fix flaws in our current system, flaws made even more evident last week, then we will not be doing our jobs.

We should not proceed until we understand the specific failures of our immigration system. Why did the current system allow two individuals to immigrate to the United States from the Chechen Republic in Russia, an area known as a hotbed of Islamic extremism, who then committed acts of terrorism? Were there any safeguards? Could this have been prevented? Does the immigration reform before us address this?

There should be hearings in the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee that study the national security aspects of this situation, making sure that our current immigration system gives individuals from high-risk areas of the world heightened scrutiny.

In the wake of 9/11, there was a comprehensive reform of our intelligence gathering system, yet our improved intelligence gathering system did not adequately detect these extremists. We need to understand possible intelligence failures and craft solutions.

Media reports indicate that the deceased bombing suspect was interviewed by the FBI two years ago at the request of a foreign government. We need to know the details of this interview. We need to know if this interview might have given investigators any reason to conclude that this individual might be dangerous or at least worthy of further inquiry. If so, was there an intelligence failure? At the very least, it should be examined.

Media reports indicate that both the bombing suspects were legal permanent residents and one is reported to be a naturalized citizen. We need to make sure that we have safeguards against this type of situation happening again.

In 2002, Congress set up the National Security Registration System (NSEERS), yet it was suspended in 2011 by Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. That system had problems, yet was still based on the practical idea that extra screening is necessary from nations that have a higher population of extremists. Congress might need a similar system updated for current circumstances to be rolled into comprehensive immigration reform.

I would like the US-VISIT/OBIM program studied to see if it actually works, or at least study the process by which we collect and analyze biometric data on immigrants. [freedom!…]

Our refugee programs have proven to be a problem. On, January 29, 2013, two Iraqi citizens living in Bowling Green, in my home state of Kentucky, were sentenced to long prison terms for participating in terrorism and providing material support to terrorists while living in the United States. How did this happen? Does the current immigration reform address how this might have happened? We may need more scrutiny when accepting refugees from high-risk nations.

I want to make sure that any new bill addresses the visa entry and exit programs, in addition to refugee programs that have proven problematic in Bowling Green and possibly, if media reports are correct, in Boston.

Finally, do we need to take a hard look at student visas? Should we suspend student visas, or at least those from high-risk areas, pending an investigation into the national security implications of this program?

I respectfully request that the Senate consider the following two conditions as part of the comprehensive immigration reform debate:One, the Senate needs a thorough examination of the facts in Massachusetts to see if legislation is necessary to prevent a similar situation in the future. Two, national security protections must be rolled into comprehensive immigration reform to make sure the federal government does everything it can to prevent immigrants with malicious intent from using our immigration system to gain entry into the United States in order to commit future acts of terror.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

Rand Paul, M.D.

This is what “liberty” looks like to the poster boy for libertarian freedom. Funny, it looks very much like a standard issue, right wing, pants-wetting, panic artist to me. They all seem to believe that we will be so much freer if only we allow the authorities more “freedom” to decide who does and doesn’t hate us for our “freedom” and make sure they don’t get into our “free” country. Because that’s totally doable.

Meanwhile, freedom loving Americans must be “free” to buy as many guns as they want, no matter the carnage gun violence causes. That’s the American way. Because they’re fighting tyranny. You know, like when the government uses “biometrics” to track people.

We have lost our bearings again (if we ever had them.) And sadly, I’m going to guess we’ve lost our chance at an immigration reform for the time being. Clearly, the Republican party has lost its nerve. And the Democrats never had much to begin with. I’m sure everyone’s relieved.

By the way: Ted Cruz at today’s immigration hearing said that a pathway to citizenship is “divisive” and “jeopardizes the likelihood of passing any immigration reform”

.

Fred Hiatt’s red-and-blue colored glasses

David Atkins

Poor Fred Hiatt. Even when he’s right, he still wrong.

Consider his Sunday column, in which he mourns the death of the background checks bill in the Senate as the byproduct of an increasingly divided America:

In the week since modest gun control died in the Senate, those of us who don’t think guns make the country safer have been inclined to blame a few cowardly senators whose votes could have shifted the outcome.

Unfortunately, the problem is bigger than that. Contrary to what then-Sen. Barack Obama told us in his inspiring breakout speech to the Democratic convention of 2004, there is a blue America and a red America. And the colors have been deepening over the decade since Obama spoke.

It is nice to see Hiatt concede that most divides in Washington aren’t so much a product of Washington politics as they are of fundamental value differences between Americans. That’s a step forward for him.

But on the background checks issue specifically, that argument simply doesn’t wash. Over 90% of Americans, including majorities of Republicans, support background checks. The Republicans and the few Democrats who voted against the bill did so not because their constituents wanted them to, but because of both fear of the NRA and more importantly the far-right ideological capture of Republicans in Congress. Background checks aren’t so much a red-and-blue issue as a green one, as in NRA greenbacks.

.

This is where fetal “personhood” inevitably leads

by digby

Here’s a terrible story you probably missed in the last terrible week. Let’s put it this way, if anti-abortion terrorists like Eric Rudolph and Scott Roeder have their way, America will be like this:

The 22-year-old mother of one, identified only as Beatriz, is four-and-a-half months pregnant, but her doctors have confirmed that the fetus has anencephaly (developing without a brain and certain parts of the skull) and that the pregnancy is nonviable. In addition to the fetal diagnosis, Beatriz is experiencing critical health complications related to her lupus and kidney disease.

The hospital treating Beatriz requested legal permission to perform the abortion more than a month ago, but authorities have still not agreed to let them proceed. Now, if government policy and religious ideology interfering with a woman’s right to access abortion care or a doctor’s ability to exercise medical judgment and save a woman’s life sounds familiar, it should.

As reported by Amnesty:

Doctor say Beatriz could die if she continues with the pregnancy, but have not yet treated her because they fear that if they end the pregnancy they might be prosecuted under the country’s total ban on abortion…

The country’s Penal Code states that anyone seeking or carrying out an abortion could be given a long prison sentence. This means both doctors and Beatriz would be at risk of imprisonment if a termination is carried out.

“Beatriz’s situation is desperate and must not wait any longer. Her very chances of survival depend on a decision from the authorities,” Esther Major, Amnesty International’s researcher on Central America, said in a statement.

Beatriz has taken her request for medical services to El Salvador’s Supreme Court, where it is currently being considered.

I’m fairly sure this proves just how unimportant women are to the anti-abortion zealots. If you believe the fetus is a person with the same rights as the body in which it resides, this is where it logically leads.

.