Month: June 2013

Deficit fever is definitely breaking. But we’re not out of the woods just yet.

by digby

Uh oh, here comes another shrill condemnation of deficit fever by a leftwing radical commie:

The International Monetary Fund chief criticized the U.S. on Tuesday for cutting back government spending too much too fast, saying it was taking a toll on growth in one of the world’s main economic engines.

Christine Lagarde also said upbeat financial markets are out of whack with a sluggish global economy that is showing signs of slowing even further.

In an overview of trouble spots around the world, Lagarde said the U.S. had come a long way in the five years since it triggered the global economic crisis with financial excesses.
“Despite this progress, the U.S. is not doing as well as it should, largely because of self-inflicted fiscal wounds,” she said, a reference to government belt tightening which the IMF says has gone too far too fast.

She particularly criticized across-the-board federal spending cuts imposed in March known as sequestration.

Unfortunately, she repeats other tropes about needing to deal with “entitlements” even though we’ve just instituted a massive overhaul of the health care sector and don’t know yet how much it’s going to affect costs. And Social Security projected shortfalls are still decades away and may very well be “fixed” by the passage of immigration reform. (Certainly, cuts are unnecessary and cruel — we actually need to raise benefits.)

Still, it’s another data point showing that deficit fever may have finally broken. We’re still weak and the infection could always come back. (The Pete Peterson bacteria can morph overnight…)  We must be vigilant. But it’s looking better.

Now if they could just get rid of sequestration altogether we’d be in good shape. Unfortunately, with everyone in both parties protecting the military cuts it looks as though the GOP won that round. The cuts are hurting all the people they love to hurt: children, the poor, the sick, the old and the disabled. They must be so happy.

.

What was that we were saying about paranoia?

by digby

Here it is at full boil:

I believe that the Obama administration is conducting psychological warfare on conservative Americans. Not only that but it is also waging this war on all Americans who previously viewed themselves, their country, their Constitution and their overwhelming belief in God as a force for good in the world.

The psychological warfare began with an apology tour in which President Obama publicly “confessed,” presuming to speak for all of us, for the shortcomings of America and our supposed contributions to tyranny and all manner of evils around the world.
This confession planted in the American mind the notion that our values and beliefs might not be in line with freedom and truth.

The president, with the help of his administration, is attempting to conduct psychological warfare on Americans who value autonomy and free will.

It was reinforced by the first lady stating during the 2008 presidential campaign that she had never felt pride in our country.

These statements were seemingly shrugged off by Americans who, collectively, seemed to be telling themselves that they were hearing discontent channeled from disenfranchised groups in our nation who, nonetheless, loved the country—and all of us, too.

But, deep inside the American psyche, something more malignant could have been planted—the seeds of self-hatred and self-doubt. And I no longer believe that those seeds were planted unintentionally by people as smart and capable as the president and first lady.

Of course not. It was obviously a Vulcan mind meld …. We always knew he wasn’t a Real American.

.

Paul Ryan, knight in shining armor. Would John Galt approve?

by digby

Isn’t he just dreeeeamy?

If anyone thinks the GOP doesn’t see this as a huge GOTV issue for 2014 doesn’t understand how they work. They finally found something to justify their persecution complex and they are going to milk it for everything they’ve got. The fact that it’s ridiculous isn’t relevant. 

Their testimony today revealed a group of people who believe that being required to fill out forms is exactly like having their doors kicked down by jack-booted thugs and being hustled off to FEMA camps. Yes, it was that horrifying. A Kristallnacht for paper work.This is the paranoia Mitch McConnell is feeding when he repeatedly goes on about “the culture of intimidation” — right wing victimization know no bounds.

Meanwhile, this is a real culture of intimidation:

A member of Moms Demand Action said that she felt unsettled by their presence and said that the organizers would have to think twice before holding another event, particularly one where children could be present.

That’s what they call “freedom.”

.

Honor among warmongers

by digby

A tribute to Henry Kissinger from St John McCain:

For several years, a long time ago, I struggled to preserve my honor in a situation where it was severely tested. The longer you struggle with something, the more you come to cherish it. And after a while, my honor, which in that situation was entirely invested in my relations and the reputation I had with my fellow POWs, became not just my most cherished possession, it was my only possession. I had nothing else left.

When Henry came to Hanoi to conclude the agreement that would end America’s war in Vietnam, the Vietnamese told him they would send me home with him. He refused the offer. “Commander McCain will return in the same order as the others,” he told them. He knew my early release would be seen as favoritism to my father and a violation of our code of conduct. By rejecting this last attempt to suborn a dereliction of duty, Henry saved my reputation, my honor, my life, really. And I’ve owed him a debt ever since.

So, I salute my friend and benefactor, Henry Kissinger, the classical realist who did so much to make the world safer for his country’s interests, and by so doing safer for the ideals that are its pride and purpose. And who, out of his sense of duty and honor, once saved a man he never met.

And yet Marines are bound to never leave a comrade on the battlefield, no matter what. I guess I’ll never understand this sort of thing.

And I have to wonder — was the honorable McCain the only one Kissinger refused to take with him or were there others who might have been a little less concerned about their honer and more concerned about their sanity? Did any of them suffer more terribly because Kissinger cared more about their “honor” than their lives? (Actually, I doubt very seriously that Kissinger gave a damn about McCain’s honer either — the POWs were just negotiating chips for him.)

I don’t think it’s dishonorable at all to want to get out of such a hellish situation and anyone who did would be just as heroic in my eyes as ones who were left behind. Indeed, John McCain could have come back and agitated against that sickening, stupid war — and all the sickening stupid wars that came in its wake — instead of becoming the fiercest warmonger in the US Senate for more than 30 years. (Really, I can’t think of a war he didn’t back, regardless of the party affiliation in the White House.) Perhaps that’s too much to ask of a man from an elite Naval family who never quite measured up, but he could have been a little less ostentatious in his blood lust over the years.

And the idea that the war criminal known as Henry Kissinger preserved his honor by leaving him in that hellhole is so twisted I can’t even wrap my mind around it.

They deserve each other.

Oh and by the way, the attraction so many erstwhile liberals are feeling for that creep Chris Christie draws from the very same yearning for a warrior chief that animated so much of the DC press corps in the 2000 election when they deified McCain as the one true, independent real man in politics. The signs of locker room appreciation are all over the place.

.

“All In” 6/3/2013 recap: “no more secrets”

by digby

Last night’s Chris Hayes show exemplifies what makes the show so special. The segment below deals with two hot stories, the Bradley Manning trial and the Supreme Court decision yesterday that allowed the government to DNA test citizens upon arrest for the alleged purpose of identification. The way he synthesizes these two stories in order to address the larger implications. He used the phrase “no more secrets” from the film Sneakers (which I’ve also used in the past, fwiw. Love that movie … )

This is some intelligent and interesting TV, folks:

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

I’ve been reading various iterations of Akil Reed Amar’s fourth amendment arguments for years and remain unconvinced. But like Barry Scheck, who has far more standing to do it than I do, I won’t deem to get into the debate between Amar and Scalia over constitutional originalism. For me, it’s pretty simple: I don’t trust the government not to do this for reasons other than very specific identification such as abusing their discretion in order to build the data base or solve other crimes. In fact, according the Scheck they are already misusing this power.

And I’ve never understood why the police shouldn’t have to persuade one lone magistrate that they have probable cause. In this case especially it seems ridiculous — they have the suspect in custody. There’s really no reason that they shouldn’t have to prove that DNA is the only way to identify them before they take it.

Anyway, it was a very interesting discussion all the way around and the way Hayes put together the fact that millions of people now have top secret clearances with Bradley Manning and the court’s indifference to privacy is something that should make us all think. Which TV rarely does.

He also held this really interesting discussion with the man who arranged for John McCain to go to Syria and meet with the rebels (some of whom turned out to have been kidnappers.) Just watch it:

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

After watching this, this imediately came to mind: Ahmad Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress.

Update: If anyone thinks that McCain’s involvement in Syria doesn’t portend a very big mess, get a load of this:

McCain has been a forceful advocate of U.S. military intervention in Syria and has spent months in television and other media interviews trying to make his case. The Arizona Republican continued that campaign last night during an interview with Charlie Rose on PBS, highlighting the war crimes Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s forces have committed to justify more U.S. intervention. When Rose noted that rebels are also committing war crimes, McCain brushed them off:

ROSE: But at the same time you do hear about atrocities on the other side as well. You know, wherever it’s coming from within the other side you do see not only stories but video?

MCCAIN: But you know, Charlie, you see that as isolated incidents of people who have just gotten so battle-hardened and angry and this happens in warfare. What you’re seeing from the other side is orchestrated training and tactics to intimidate and cow the population from the Bashar al-Assad side. So it’s — it’s dramatically, mind you, different. Horrible things are happening on both sides but with Bashar al-Assad’s forces it is a tactic that they use to intimidate and cow the population.

And probably a few bad apples, amirite?

Anyway, remember,Iran is everything:

Rose later challenged the idea of greater U.S. involvement in Syria’s civil war, noting that — because many of the forces battling Assad have strong ties to al-Qaeda — there’s a chance that those who take over in the event Assad would fall would be no friend to the United States. But McCain dismissed that concern as well, suggesting — most likely correctly — that any Sunni al-Qeada affiliated group won’t be allied with Shiite dominated Iran:

MCCAIN: So if Bashar al-Assad wins the connection to Hezbollah remains, Iranians mischief throughout the region continues. […]

ROSE: Notwithstanding that Syria might become a failed state and might be ruled by, you know, a group of people who have no interest in good relationships with the United States?

MCCAIN: But not an ally of Iran, seeking to facilitate their efforts to create mischief throughout the Middle East. I mean I’m not saying it will be a Jeffersonian democracy and it may be long and difficult. But there is no doubt of the relationship between Bashar al-Assad and Iran and Hezbollah, that’s why Hezbollah is in, because if they lose Bashar al-Assad Hezbollah loses their lifeline.

McCain and his allies are right back where we started with Iraq — they don’t care about al-Qaeda or terrorism. They care about American imperial supremacy and all that that implies. Terrorism is just a convenient excuse to do what they always wanted to do. You’ll recall the adorable saying they used to have: “Real men go to Tehran…”

This is why I don’t trust US foreign policy. Sure, the Obama administration may not be on board with this. This is a very unhealthy, twisted way to look at this problem. But our foreign policy and national security bureaucracies have been bipartisan for decades — and John McCain is a very influential player. Best stay out. No good will come of it.

.

Right wing reality

by digby

For those who doubt that the end of the world as we know it is nigh, take a look at this:

ABC PRIMETIME SCHEDULE FOR THE BROADCAST WEEK OF JUNE 17, 2013

SUNDAY, JUNE 23

(8:00-9:00 PM) CELEBRITY WIFE SWAP: Bristol & Willow Palin / Melissa & Joan Rivers — SUMMER PREMIERE

It should be noted that one of the “swaps” last season was Mrs. Ted Haggard (of meth and male hookers fame) and Mrs Gary Busey (of bizarro behavior and drug abuse fame) so the signs of the end of our way of life have been there for some time.

And when you think about it, it was always inevitable that the right wing culture war celebrities would find a home on reality TV. It’s conman nirvana.

.

Raptured to irrelevance

by David Atkins

This is funny:

he Boy Scouts of America’s decision last month to allow gay members was made with the blessings of many churches and religious groups—but not all of them. And here’s a pretty significant opponent: The Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in America with 45,000 congregations and 16 million members, says it will now urge its followers to leave the Scouts, reports CNN. The Boy Scouts says Baptist churches currently sponsor nearly 4,000 units, containing more than 100,000 kids.

The Southern Baptist Convention will vote on a resolution to disaffiliate with the Scouts this month, and a spokesperson says he expects 99% of people to vote in support of it. “Southern Baptists are going to be leaving the Boy Scouts en masse,” he says. The resolution will be non-binding, so it will still be up to individual congregations to decide whether to stay or leave. Southern Baptists have their own youth organization called the Royal Ambassadors, which awards merit badges for mission work and memorizing bible verses, in addition to camping and hiking. The denomination says it’s expecting a surge in new recruits.

I know it’s usual practice to wring one’s hands at developments like this, fearing the inevitable backlash of the religious right. While I can often be a grousing pessimist, I’m not so downcast in this instance.

There was a time in America not so long ago that people like this were mostly apolitical, choosing to devote their attention more to their warped version of the divine than to earthly affairs. It has only been in the last few decades that the religious right has been mobilized into an electoral force.

But now on every subject except perhaps abortion, they find themselves on the outside of civil discourse in America. Not even the Boy Scouts will abide by their prejudice anymore. The Republican Party is trying (somewhat unsuccessfully) to rebrand itself in a more libertarian vein, even as politicians like Bachmann and Santorum find cold shoulders within establishment circles.

As the reality of their defeat in the culture wars becomes increasingly apparent, I expect that many of them will abandon the political arena entirely, clinging bitterly to whatever fairy tales they tell themselves and grousing about how their glorious John Galt benefactors were subverted by those uppity hippies.

It hardly matters what they do in their own homes and communities, as long as they abandon the public square to the sane people. It was once thus, and shall hopefully be so again.

.

Time for an adorable baby

by digby

It’s gotta be done:

.

Here’s a truly heroic Navy SEAL

Now this is an amazing story:

The 2011 repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” ended the military’s official policy of discriminating against gays and lesbians in the armed services, but a ban on transgender service members remains in place, meaning that trans men and women are still barred from serving.

But some advocates say that may change, or may come closer than ever before to changing, with the release of a new memoir from a former Navy SEAL. Kristen Beck (formerly Chris Beck) was a SEAL for 20 years — and member of SEAL Team 6, the unit that killed Osama bin Laden — before retiring, coming out as transgender and beginning her transition from male to female in 2011.

And with all the ugliness in the world one could expect a huge backlash, especially among her former colleagues in the military. And there may be some.

But it isn’t across the board:

Soon, the responses from SEALs stationed all around the world suddenly started pouring in: “Brother, I am with you … being a SEAL is hard, this looks harder. Peace” * “I can’t say I understand the decision but I respect the courage. Peace and happiness be upon you…Jim” * ” … I just wanted to drop you a note and tell you that Kris has all the support and respect from me that Chris had … and quite possibly more. While I’m definitely surprised, I’m also in amazement at the strength you possess and the courage necessary to combat the strangers and ‘friends’ that I’m guessing have reared their ugly heads prior to and since your announcement. …”

I can only say hooyah! to that.

This woman is the same person who was member of Seal Team 6. Whatever “he” could do, she can do. Maybe this will make the military — hell, everybody — stop and think a little bit about gender roles and how essentially meaningless they really are.

Good for Kristen. She’s a real hero.

.

When Scalia’s right he’s really right

by digby

So the Supreme Court narrowly decided today that the government has a right to seize your DNA upon arrest. According to Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion, it’s all about the simple “intrusion” of the cheek swab, not the fact that the government is collecting the most personal information about its citizens even though they’ve not been convicted of a crime.

But the big surprise is that the scathing dissent issued from the bench today was from none other than Antonin Scalia:

“The Fourth Amendment forbids searching a person for evidence of a crime when there is no basis for believing the person is guilty of the crime or is in possession of incriminating evidence. That prohibition is categorical and without exception; it lies at the very heart of the Fourth Amendment. Whenever this Court has allowed a suspicionless search, it has insisted upon a justifying motive apart from the investigation of crime.

It is obvious that no such noninvestigative motive exists in this case. The Court’s assertion that DNA is being taken, not to solve crimes, but to identify those in the State’s custody, taxes the credulity of the credulous. And the Court’s comparison of Maryland’s DNA searches to other techniques, such as fingerprinting, can seem apt only to those who know no more than today’s opinion has chosen to tell them about how those DNA searches actually work.”

Scott Lemieux comments:

The key to Scalia’s absolutely devastating dissent is the point that the balancing test employed by the majority is inappropriate, because suspicionless searches are never permitted by the Fourth Amendment as ends unto themselves. This is particularly disturbing because, in the long run, such balancing tests tend to be employed with an anvil on the state’s side of the scale. The majority’s attempt to disown these potentially disastrous future consequences are highly unconvincing. As Scalia puts it, “[t]he Court hastens to clarify that it does not mean to approve invasive surgery on arrestees or warrantless searches of their homes. That the Court feels the need to disclaim these consequences is as damning a criticism of its suspicionless-search regime as any I can muster.”

Yes, I’m sure the authorities would never use such information in any nefarious way. There’s no need to worry our pretty little heads about it.

Lemieux also makes a good point about Stephen Breyer, who voted with the majority in this case:

As many readers will always be aware, the Clinton appointee Stephen Breyer is something of a throwback to Kennedy-era liberalism. On civil rights and national power issues, he’s outstanding. But on civil liberties issues, he too often lets “pragmatism” interfere with the Bill of Rights. This is another case in point. Breyer is certainly not as bad as Alito and Roberts on civil liberties questions, but he’s much worse than a Democratic nominee should be.

I’m afraid that when the political scale is tipped so far to the right it’s a good idea to watch your back anytime you hear the word “pragmatic.” It’s rarely good for the home team…

The good news is that Obama’s nominees Kagan and Sotomayor have been very good on these issues. But with “pragmatists” like Breyer unwilling to hold the line, it’s not helping much.

.