Skip to content

Month: September 2013

Doomed flight of fancy: They’re shutting ‘er down

Doomed flight of fancy

by digby

They’re shutting ‘er down

House Republicans unveiled a plan on Saturday that would keep the government open until Dec. 15 in exchange for a one-year delay of Obamacare—an idea Democrats have vowed to reject.

That leaves Congress barreling toward a government shutdown on Oct. 1, the same day Americans can begin signing up for insurance under President Obama’s health care law.

Regardless of its prospects in the Democratic-controlled Senate, Republicans enthusiastically embraced the new plan in a special closed-door meeting on Saturday, breaking out into huge applause as members cheered “Let’s vote!”

“The whole room: ‘Let’s vote!’” Congressman John Culberson of Texas recalled. “I said, like 9/11, ‘let’s roll!’”

Culberson was referring to a quote from Todd Beamer aboard Flight 93, a plane hijacked by al Qaeda terrorists on September 11 that crashed in Pennsylvania after passengers fought to regain control.

Uhm, they do know what happened to Flight 93, right?

.

Chess master

Chess master


by digby

So the brilliant strategist Ted Cruz sent Mike Lee a tweet. Except …

This reminds me of one of my own favorite aphorisms (if I do say so myself) from way back about arguing with a libertarian:

After a while you realize that it’s like playing chess with a four year old. He gets a very intent look on his face and moves the pieces around the board with authority. But he isn’t really playing the game.

*And what with the Queen’s obscenely bodacious tatas? Is that godly?

.

Romanticizing War by tristero

Romanticizing War

by tristero

No doubt David Finkel is an excellent reporter, a good writer, and likely his heart is in the right place. Nevertheless:

Removed from the bonds of their unit — severed from the love of comrades that Finkel calls “the truth of war” — each soldier navigates the postwar on his own…”

Nope. War has exactly one fundamental truth: mass slaughter. All the rest – the bonding, the obscene justifications for war dreamt up by those who stand to gain from mass killing – they are all merely corollaries of that truth.

Of course, Finkel’s remark is just a literary flourish, something we notice, if at all, as simply a sign that the writer is intelligent and thoughtful. But micro-rhetoric matters. Tropes such as Finkel’s serve to romanticize war by locating war’s truth anywhere except in the killing. Often inadvertently, they help validate a pervasive mindset that considers the indiscriminate carnage of war a reasonable price to pay, even when other, more sensible and less bloody alternatives exist.

Robert Fisk is one of the few who understood war’s real truth.

.

Your move, John Boehner, by @DavidOAtkins

Your move, John Boehner

by David Atkins

Really, John Boehner?

House and Senate leadership aides in both parties are increasingly convinced the federal government will close for the first time in more than 17 years on Tuesday morning.

There is still time to avoid such a climactic stalemate, the aides acknowledged. But unless there is a dramatic change in momentum, the likelihood that a partisan showdown over government funding and the future of Obamacare could lead to a shutdown has increased dramatically.

With a special closed-door meeting meeting of House Republicans set for noon Saturday, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and his top lieutenants have not yet formulated their next play in their quest to keep the government open. It’s not even clear that the House will vote on Saturday.

There have been repeated contacts between GOP and Democratic leaders and senior aides in recent days but no negotiations of any sort – or sign those are about to start – to resolve the standoff. Both sides feel they have made their position known to the other side, and are unwilling to make any concessions at this moment.

Senior House GOP sources say Republicans are likely to send the Senate an amended government-funding bill, but not a proposed one-week stop gap measure. Without that one-week funding bill – needed while Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and the White House try to reach a compromise agreement – the federal government will beginning shutting down “non-essential” operations on Tuesday morning.

I could spend the next several paragraphs eviscerating Politico’s insultingly contrafactual “both sides do it” reporting, but it’s not even worth the effort. Let’s talk about John Boehner for the moment.

Until recently, the conventional wisdom was that Republicans would have their little farce, the Tea Party would fold its arms and hold its breath until it went blue, and then John Boehner would violate the Hastert rule and put something on the floor that Democrats and just enough House and Senate Republicans could vote for.

A government shutdown would mean one of two things: either there aren’t even a pittance of sane Congressional Republicans left to get a reasonable bill through, or John Boehner won’t violate the Hastert rule again lest it mean the end of his Speakership.

Either way it’s probably time John Boehner stepped aside. If he can’t avert a shutdown within his caucus, he needs to resign.

.

Over the cliff

Over the cliff

by digby

In case you were wondering whether this polarization is attributable to both parties, it’s not:

Below we use DW-NOMINATE scores updated through the August recess of the 113th Congress to plot the mean first dimension (liberal-conservative) scores of Republicans and Democrats and the difference in these party means over time. Using the difference of party means as a measure of polarization, we find that polarization ticked upwards from 1.09 in the 112th House to 1.11 in the 113th House. This increase is entirely attributable to a change in the House Republican mean from 0.69 to 0.71 on the liberal-conservative dimension. House Democrats in the 112th and 113th Congresses both occupied a mean position of -0.40.

.

At what point does even big business decide climate change is a problem? by @DavidOAtkins

At what point does even big business decide climate change is a problem?

by David Atkins

Despite the conservative climate denialists and venal fossil fuel conglomerate flacks, the banking and insurance industry isn’t taking climate change lightly:

Nick Robins, who heads the climate change centre at HSBC, said business leaders will be studying the findings closely – especially those involved in managing risk.

“The key thing now is taking this very high quality science and then translating it into a risk management strategy for business which is question both of size of impact and the probability of impact,” he said.”We actually need to avoid not just the most likely scenarios but those long tail high impact scenarios as well.”

Even if warming is kept to 2C – which the IPCC report made clear would only happen with extreme effort – the risk of climate disruption was still too high for the insurance industry and for investment managers, Robins said.

“If you look at those sectors they are well in advance of many sectors thinking about this issue. Those are the people in the economy we pay to manage risk for us,” he said.

Robins said the report is likely to provide further impetus for the move to a low-carbon economy – despite all the talk of a brief hiatus in warming.

“There are multiple drivers now that give us more confidence that we are going to accelerate the drive to a low carbon economy. We have much better science, and we are in a much better position to deploy solutions.”

The big question here has to be at what point big business, including the banking, food production and especially insurance industries decide that something must be done about this. Ever since the Powell memo big business has been united against long-term thinking progressive policy under the idea that if one business interest succumbs to regulation, every business interest will suffer. But there has to come a point at which the rest of the American business sector realizes that if the gas and petroleum industries get their way, their own bottom lines will be irreparably damaged.

The same could be said on other fronts, too. How long is American business going to suffer under the thumb of employer-provided healthcare just to let the health insurance industry avoid regulation? How long is American business going to put up with a sour economy and constant crisis economics just so Wall Street can try to steal more pension and Social Security funds?

American political battles are usually pitched between progressive interests using government as a regulatory force for the common good, against entrenched wealthy business interests. But when an entire political party goes far off the rails to harm 90% of the country to benefit just a few business interests, doesn’t the rest of corporate America have to stand back at a certain point and wonder if it’s all worth it? At what point does even Gordon Gekko decide it might be worth divesting from oil futures rather than resign himself to letting his beach house be swallowed by hurricanes and rising tides? Conscience be damned–even rational self interest should be kicking in here.

At some point the calculus for the majority of even American corporate interests has to shift. Most American businesses will be greatly harmed by the effects of climate change, while only the fossil fuels industry stands to lose from a shift to renewables. The demand-side effects of an Apollo Program for renewable energy would boost profits and sales. The Republican Party isn’t even serving the majority of big business well anymore, to say nothing of small businesses, microbusinesses or regular wage earners across the nation.

.

Dispensation for Newtie

Dispensation for Newtie

by digby

CNN is evidently so enamored of their new Crossfire host that they’ve changed the rules to accommodate him:

Yesterday we reported that Crossfire host Newt Gingrich may have broken ethical rules for conflicts of interest set forth by CNN’s EVP of standards and practices Rick Davis.

Today, those rules appear to have changed. In a statement to Media Matters, Davis clarifies the network’s new ethics policy for disclosing potential conflicts of interest:

We are clarifying the policy and making it clear Newt Gingrich is not in violation. The policy: If a Crossfire co-host has made a financial contribution to a politician who appears on the program or is the focus of the program, disclosure is not required during the show since the co-host’s political support is obvious by his or her point of view expressed on the program.”

This statement is quite the departure from an earlier interview Davis held with Media Matters ahead of Crossfire’s launch earlier this month.

“If Newt is helping fund a candidate and that candidate’s on the show, or being discussed on the show, of course he’ll disclose that,” Davis said at the time. “Disclosure is important when it’s relevant.”

But then, you wouldn’t want to lose an expert on government shutdowns at a time like this would you?

QOTD: James Fallows

QOTD: James Fallows

by digby

On the state of chaos:

The details are complicated, but please don’t lose sight of these three essential points:

As a matter of substance, constant-shutdown, permanent-emergency governance is so destructive that no other serious country engages in or could tolerate it. The United States can afford it only because we are — still — so rich, with so much margin for waste and error. Details on this and other items below.*

As a matter of politics, this is different from anything we learned about in classrooms or expected until the past few years. We’re used to thinking that the most important disagreements are between the major parties, not within one party; and that disagreements over policies, goals, tactics can be addressed by negotiation or compromise.

This time, the fight that matters is within the Republican party, and that fight is over whether compromise itself is legitimate.** Outsiders to this struggle — the president and his administration, Democratic legislators as a group, voters or “opinion leaders” outside the generally safe districts that elected the new House majority — have essentially no leverage in this fight. I can’t recall any situation like this in my own experience, and the only even-approximate historic parallel (with obvious differences) is the inability of Northern/free-state opinion to affect the debate within the slave-state South from the 1840s onward. Nor is there a conceivable “compromise” the Democrats could offer that would placate the other side.

As a matter of journalism, any story that presents the disagreements as a “standoff,” a “showdown,” a “failure of leadership,” a sign of “partisan gridlock,” or any of the other usual terms for political disagreement, represents a failure of journalism*** and an inability to see or describe what is going on…

This isn’t “gridlock.” It is a ferocious struggle within one party, between its traditionalists and its radical factions, with results that unfortunately can harm all the rest of us — and, should there be a debt default, harm the rest of the world too.

I doubt he’s specifically talking about Chuck Todd, but he could be.

.