Skip to content

Month: December 2013

A Christmas present they won’t forget

A Christmas present they won’t forget

by digby

Would you like to give your family an amazing gift on Christmas morning? Make them this for breakfast:

Mascarpone-Stuffed French Toast

12 slices Texas toast (or thick slices of brioche)
1 8 ounce package cream cheese, softened
1/2 cup mascarpone cheese (4 ounces)
1/2 cup chopped pecans or macadamia nuts, toasted
2 tablespoons packed brown sugar
1 teaspoon ground cinnamon
1/4 teaspoon salt
6 eggs, lightly beaten
3 cups milk
1/4 teaspoon salt

directions
1. Arrange half of the bread slices in a single layer in a 3-quart rectangular baking dish. In a small bowl combine cream cheese, mascarpone cheese, pecans, brown sugar, cinnamon, and salt. Spread cheese mixture evenly over bread in baking dish. Top with the remaining bread slices to make six stacks.
2. In a medium bowl whisk together eggs, milk, and salt. Pour egg mixture evenly over bread stacks, covering all of the tops. Cover with plastic wrap. Chill for at least 2 hours or up to 24 hours.
3. Preheat oven to 375 degrees F. Line a 15x10x1-inch baking pan with parchment paper. Arrange bread stacks in the prepared pan. Bake about 1 hour or until golden, turning stacks every 15 minutes.

Serve with syrup and fresh fruit. It’s sooooo good.

You’re welcome…;)

Nudging secrecy

Nudging secrecy

by digby

I have to say that I’m just a teensy bit skeptical that the guy who obstructed massive amounts of regulation during the Obama administration’s first term is a guy we can trust to make adequate recommendations to “reform” the NSA policies.  But I guess he’s what we’ve got.  This interview with Cass Sunstein in the New Republic spells out his thinking on the matter and it’s quite interesting.  This speaks to one of my big concerns about the data collection:

JR: You say that if the government happens to collect the data of Americans when they’re communicating with non-Americans, it shouldn’t be allowed to use that data in any legal proceedings against the Americans. What was the thinking behind that recommendation?

CS: If an American is communicating with someone outside the country, which is hardly unusual, and if the government lawfully but inadvertently picks up the material and finds out something about the American, we recommend that it can’t use that as evidence against the American if there’s no national security rationale. The idea is that section 702, [the part of the foreign intelligence law that justifies the surveillance of non-Americans], was about national security and if Americans are incidentally swept up because they’re talking to other people, that’s not legitimately used as evidence against Americans. It wasn’t intended as a program for surveillance of Americans.

I wouldn’t have thought you’d have to be explicit about that but apparently you do.

After having read about the results of the Church Commission and the way the government set about immediately undermining the intentions of the reforms that came out of it, I don’t have a whole lot of faith that these “reforms” will fix the problem. As long as we are a powerful global military empire that organizes a large portion of its government and society around policing and national security, civil liberties will be challenged. But it’s important to at least slow it down when we get the chance and allow people the ability to think a little bit about what all this means. And I think that’s going to happen as a result of the Snowden revelations. That’s a good thing.

QOTD: Edward Snowden

QOTD: Edward Snowden

by digby

The oath of allegiance is not an oath of secrecy. That is an oath to the Constitution. That is the oath that I kept that Keith Alexander and James Clapper did not.

The Snowden interview with Barton Gellman in the Washington Post is fascinating from beginning to end. It’s important that you read it rather than simply accept what the talking heads on TV are saying about it. I watched Gellman on CNN this morning having to fend off some of the snottiest questioning I’ve ever seen a reporter have to put up with. He did well, but it’s clear that much of the establishment media is still simply incapable of seeing this through anything but official lenses.

Democrats looking for a war

Democrats looking for a war

by digby

I had hoped that the fight within the Senate Democratic caucus over the Iran sanctions and the nuclear talks was a good cop bad cop kabuki dance, but according to this article it’s for real. Which is pretty shocking:

In a blistering monologue, the Democratic senator from New Jersey let loose on two Obama administration officials, telling them exactly what he thought about their resistance to his plan for new sanctions on Iran. He had modified his proposal to make it a bit softer, he said at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in December 2011, only for the administration to “vitiate” his amendment.

The result, he said with typical bite, “really undermines, certainly as it relates to this member, your relationship with me for the future.”

Two years later, Menendez is now the chairman of the committee, and he is once again clashing with the administration on Iran, this time as a vocal skeptic on one of President Barack Obama’s most significant foreign policy breakthroughs—an interim deal to slow Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Only now Menendez has a more prominent platform for his aggressive approach, even as the White House again tries to dissuade him.

Working with 25 lawmakers from both parties, Menendez on Thursday rolled out a new round of provisional sanctions on Iran (set to take effect if talks fail), despite stern warnings from the White House and Secretary of State John Kerry—Menendez’s predecessor as the Foreign Relations chairman—that such steps could undermine negotiations aimed at reaching a long-term deal to stall Tehran’s march toward nuclear weaponry.

There are 15 Democrats backing this outrageous nonsense. This Huffington Post article names them and asks the obvious question: where’s the anti-war left? Most of the Senators on the list are the usual suspects but there are a couple with big ambitions, Kirsten Gillibrand in particular. She might want to think about the woman who had the senate seat before her and how her vote for the Iraq war affected her presidential prospects.

And everyone needs to think about this:

A senior Obama administration official [told] The Huffington Post that Senate action makes it “far more likely that we’ll be left only with a military option” regarding Iran.

Christmas eve cats featuring Jamie Kilstein, Penny and Rhubarb

Christmas eve cats featuring Jamie Kilstein, Penny and Rhubarb

by digby

That’s Jamie Kilstein with his cat.

Here’s mine lolling in the garden. (Rhubarb is 17, which is like 110 in cat years)


No big pitch today.  It’s Christmas eve.  But I did want to give a shout out to all of my pals in the lefty media fever swamp who inspire me with their great work all year. And I want to especially thank David Atkins and Dennis Hartley for their great work week after week. David is a provocative and original thinker who never fails to challenge the reader and I’m grateful for his contribution to this blog and my own understanding of our culture and our time.  And Dennis’ weekly movie reviews have been a favorite feature for many readers for over 7 years now — and a good friend since we were both young back in the dark ages. They add an important dimension to the voice of this blog and I truly appreciate their work and their dedication.

Merry Christmas everybody!

A pardon far too long in the making, by @DavidOAtkins

A pardon too long in the making

by David Atkins

It’s it’s about damn time:

Queen Elizabeth II granted a rare “mercy pardon” Monday to Alan Turing, the computing and mathematics pioneer whose chemical castration for being gay drove him to suicide almost 60 years ago.

Turing was one of the leading scientific geniuses of the 20th century — the man who cracked the supposedly uncrackable Enigma code used by Nazi Germany in World War II and the man many scholars consider the father of modern computer science.

By the time he was 23, Turing had hypothesized what would become today’s computers — the Turing machine, which could emulate any computing device or program. Almost 80 years later, Turing machines are still used in theoretical computation.

In 1950, Turing came up with the famous Turing Test to determine whether a computer can be considered to have attained artificial intelligence.

But Turing was also gay at a time when that was a crime in Britain, and instead of being hailed as one of the crucial figures in defeating the Nazis, he was convicted of “gross indecency” in 1952 for having had sex with a man.

Conservatives are always on the wrong side of history. Always.

As depressing as the news can be, it’s heartening to think that if Alan Turing had been born just a few decades later, he could not only have lived an open and fruitful personal life, but he could even have married the man of his dreams in the state of Utah if he so chose. Some things really do get better.

If anyone wants to send something via snail mail, the address is on the column on the left.

Grand Bargains featuring Dana Carvey and Paul Krugman

This post will stay at the top of the page for a while.  Please scroll down for new material.

Grand Bargains featuring Dana Carvey and Paul Krugman

by digby

Annual holiday fundraiser:

I will confess that when I first started writing this blog, it was Paul Krugman’s “shrill” columns on the insane Iraq invasion that led me to quote his work. He was, at the time, in a small minority of national columnists to take on the Bush administration’s blatant lies. Little did I know that in a few years it would be his economic expertise on which I would rely on nearly a daily basis.

He has been a good friend to this blog, linking up my writing and also David Atkins’ and dday’s before him on his own blog Conscience of a Liberal. You can imagine what a boost it gives to a little site like this to get a Krugman NY Times link. (And he has been very kind to me personally, even writing one encomium that left me breathless with bloggerly pride.)

I don’t think he ever wanted to be faced with writing two columns a week for years on what he calls the Lesser Depression, but that’s what happened.  What I found most interesting (aside from the trainwreck aspect of it) was the fact that so often my own laypersons instincts about this economic story seemed to track with what Krugman, the expert, was seeing as well. It turned out that anyone with common sense and a basic grounding in economic history could see that the austerity approach adopted to by Europe and to a slightly lesser degree by the United States was a mistake of epic proportions.

I first wrote about my fears concerning President Obama’s plan for a Grand Bargain in a post called “Obama goes to China” before he was inaugurated. My Cassandra piece warning of the dangers of deficit fever was greeted with an unprecedented level of hostility from readers.  I didn’t blame them really.  It was a euphoric time and the last thing anyone (any Democrat anyway) wanted to hear was criticism of the new president. But what was received by the establishment liberals as a thrilling roadmap to bipartisan “reform” looked very much to me like a shock doctrine style austerity program that would end up accruing only to the benefit of those who wanted to dismantle the New Deal. And when you look at charts like this, you can see that my dark prediction wasn’t all wet after all.

Luckily the worst aspects of the president’s Grand Bargain was stymied in most respects, at least so far. The best piece of it aspect of it, health care reform, was enacted and will likely turn out to be the president’s signature achievement. Many people are going to benefit from the Medicaid expansion or will be paying less for more secure insurance. (And hopefully the Republicans will, over time, learn to stop worrying and love Obamacare, at least to the extent that a few will be willing to cooperate on necessary fixes.) But his plan to “reform” Social Security and medicare was stopped in its tracks, largely because of Tea Party obstruction but in no small part because of outside organizing that, in the end at least, began to be formidable enough that the Democrats could expect a serious mutiny if it came to a vote. They don’t call it the third rail for nothing.

I certainly don’t take credit for that but I think it’s a small illustration of the value of commentary of the kind we do here. It is often unpopular and controversial — and I have the scars to prove it. But the independent blogosphere brings a unique perspective that can be important over the long haul — unique individual voices, outside the mainstream, that people can trust to simply be as honest as they know how. It’s never very popular to be the first to point out the foibles of people who should be allies, but somebody’s got to do it.

I couldn’t be happier that the Grand Bargain has not been enacted so far. But an awful lot of damage has been done — much of it by Democrats scrambling to prove their “grown-up” bona fides.  The elite obsession with deficits is never going to go away and there will continue to be pushes from some very powerful forces to degrade and eventually eliminate the American social insurance programs. It’s in the conservative DNA. There will always be a need for progressives to keep their eyes on the ball.

If you think what we’ve done here over the last few years to help spread the word about the dangers of Grand Bargains, austerity and dangerous elite consensus, I’d appreciate it if you could throw a few bucks into the kitty for the annual fundraiser. It ain’t over.  It’s never over.

If anyone wants to send something via snail mail, the address is on the column on the left.

Under the wire

Under the wire

by digby

It was touch and go for a while but we got ourselves signed up for new insurance through the Covered California exchange today. We’ll be paying a little bit less in premiums for similar coverage to what we currently have but now if something terrible happens to my husband or me we can see the best doctors LA has to offer. Like everything in life, there are trade-offs and we talked it all through, figured out what was most important for us and made a choice. It takes some effort but it’s worth it.

Huzzah. I think I’ll eat something unhealthy now just for the heck of it.

A Vicious Christmas. Sid Vicious that is.

A Vicious Christmas. Sid Vicious that is.

by digby

Here’s something I did not know, from Kathy Geier:

Cast your mind back to December 1977, At that time, the Sex Pistols were the most reviled rock band in English history — banned by the BBC and from most performing venues, sensationalized by the British tabloids (“The Filth and the Fury!” screamed an infamous Daily Mirror headline), even investigated by the MI5, Britain’s central intelligence domestic counter-intelligence and security agency.

At the same time, as Christmas approached in Huddersfield, in the north of England, firefighters were heading into the sixth week of a strike. The website Dangerous Minds fills in the background:

For two years, the fire fighters had waited for the Labour government to negotiate a pay raise, but nothing had happened. As the cost of food, fuel and taxes skyrocketed, the pay-in-the-pocket of the average worker was worthless. Therefore, a ballot of the 30,000 strong Fire Brigades Union was held, which received 97.5% support for strike action. On the 14th November, 1977, the fire fighter’s strike began.

It was looking like the striking workers and their families weren’t going to have much a Christmas that year. Workers were earning no wages and couldn’t even pay their bills, so how were they going to pony up the money for Christmas presents? One of the firefighters’ children remembered, “our parents were struggling and there were arguments, bills weren’t getting paid…”

This is where the Sex Pistols came in.

Click through to read the rest of the story. You won’t be disappointed. Even punks can be Santa Claus.

QOTD: Peggy Noonan

QOTD: Peggy Noonan

by digby

Reflecting on the year, Noonan makes a trenchant observation about the perils of living in this world today:

There aren’t really a lot of nice things about flying. It’s scary, germy, full of delays. They don’t clean the planes as they once did—the tray is not clean and as you open it and see the coke and coffee marks, you wonder if it was used on the last flight by a Senegalese tourist with typhus.

She also quoted a billionaire who says he is worried about the guillotine. As always, she has her finger on the pulse of Real America:

The most arresting words heard this year? A billionaire of New York, in conversation: “I hate it when the market goes up. Every time I hear the stock market went up I know the guillotines are coming closer.” This was interesting in part because the speaker has a lot of money in the market. But he meant it. He is self-made, broadly accomplished, a thinker on politics, and for a moment he was sharing the innards of his mind. His biggest concern is the great and growing distance between the economically successful and those who have not or cannot begin to climb. The division has become too extreme, too dramatic, and static. He fears it will eventually tear the country apart and give rise to policies that are bitter and punishing, not helpful and broadening.

This year I came to understand, at meetings and symposia, that this has become an ongoing preoccupation of the wealthy. They are not oblivious, they are concerned. And though they give away hundreds of millions of dollars to charities, schools and scholarships, they don’t know what can be done to turn the overall economic picture around. Globalization isn’t leaving, industrial manufacturing isn’t coming back as it was, technology will continue to give jobs to the educated, and the ever-evolving mischief of men and markets won’t change.

They are worried. They are right to be. They are trying to think it through, trying to find any realistic solutions, and words.

I think most of them — the ones that agree with Noonan’s politics anyway — know exactly what’s to be done: cut government spending and cut their taxes. That’s always what they think should be done, no matter what the circumstance.

But I’m quite sure they’re willing to support what they see as government’s primary purpose — police, military and “security.” That’s one thing they’re always willing to pay for. And for good reason.