Skip to content

Month: March 2014

Fun with taser drones

Fun with taser drones

by digby

Spocko wrote up the SXSW taser drone stunt:

)

What I love about this stunt is that it was designed and developed to be the perfect news story and that William “Whurley” Hurley, chief innovation officer, understood that it would be a conversation starter.

Because military drones are a hot topic and SXSW is a large global event, Hurley said they decided to bring to life the “fantasy of some people and nightmares of others.”

“We wanted to have an educated, well-informed discussion about how people feel about this as a society, or whether you’re a police officer or private citizen,” Hurley said. – ABC News

So, maybe we should have that discussion.

Fat chance. It appears that the company was being facetious in its portrayal of taser drones as “awesome” but I have no doubt that a whole lot of people will find them super awesome. And tasering people is always good for a chuckle.

As Spocko rightly points out in his piece, despite a few local victories in the drone sphere, there are a whole lot of conversations we desperately need to have about drones and tasers. But first we should probably try to stop using torture as entertainment.

.

What is this “full employment” you speak of? @EconomicPolicy

What is this “full employment” you speak of?

by digby

Not that very many people seem to give a damn, but we’re nowhere near full employment. In January: 10.2 million job seekers were competing for 4 million job openings. 60% of job seekers weren’t going to find job no matter what. (But by all means, let’s cut benefits for these lazy sods. Don’t they have the entrepreneurial energy to become criminals and prostitutes?)

EPI has issued a long report on the flailing job market with accompanying charts. Here’s one:

This recovery’s really roaring, isn’t it? There’s a lot of important information in this report, including policy recommendations that everyone should read.

I found these charts about how wrong the CBO projections have been to be particularly interesting:

They made their best guesses at the time. Nobody can accurately tell the future. But it’s interesting that the deficit hawks live and die by the projections of debt as far as the eye can see, but are untroubled by the inaccuracy of the growth and unemployment projections.

.

Feinstein vs Brennan

Feinstein vs Brennan


by digby

Say what you will about Dianne Feinstein’s less than stellar oversight performance (and I have said plenty) on torture, at least, she has been better.  And she’s had it.  She made a speech n the floor of the Senate  today about the CIA’s outrageous spying on Senate staffers and uncooperative behavior with the Senate Intelligence Committee. The speech is long and filled with details. She discusses the torture allegations and the horrific history that led up to this moment:

On March 5, 2009, the committee voted 14-1 to initiate a comprehensive review of the CIA Detention and Interrogation Program. Immediately, we sent a request for documents to all relevant executive branch agencies, chiefly among them the CIA.

The committee’s preference was for the CIA to turn over all responsive documents to the committee’s office, as had been done in previous committee investigations.

Director Panetta proposed an alternative arrangement: to provide literally millions of pages of operational cables, internal emails, memos, and other documents pursuant to the committee’s document requests at a secure location in Northern Virginia. We agreed, but insisted on several conditions and protections to ensure the integrity of this congressional investigation.

Per an exchange of letters in 2009, then-Vice Chairman Bond, then-Director Panetta, and I agreed in an exchange of letters that the CIA was to provide a “stand-alone computer system” with a “network drive” “segregated from CIA networks” for the committee that would only be accessed by information technology personnel at the CIA—who would “not be permitted to” “share information from the system with other [CIA] personnel, except as otherwise authorized by the committee.”

It was this computer network that, notwithstanding our agreement with Director Panetta, was searched by the CIA this past January, and once before which I will later describe.

In addition to demanding that the documents produced for the committee be reviewed at a CIA facility, the CIA also insisted on conducting a multi-layered review of every responsive document before providing the document to the committee. This was to ensure the CIA did not mistakenly provide documents unrelated to the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program or provide documents that the president could potentially claim to be covered by executive privilege.

While we viewed this as unnecessary and raised concerns that it would delay our investigation, the CIA hired a team of outside contractors—who otherwise would not have had access to these sensitive documents—to read, multiple times, each of the 6.2 million pages of documents produced, before providing them to fully-cleared committee staff conducting the committee’s oversight work. This proved to be a slow and very expensive process.

The CIA started making documents available electronically to the committee staff at the CIA leased facility in mid-2009. The number of pages ran quickly to the thousands, tens of thousands, the hundreds of thousands, and then into the millions. The documents that were provided came without any index, without organizational structure. It was a true “document dump” that our committee staff had to go through and make sense of.

In order to piece together the story of the CIA’s detention and interrogation program, the committee staff did two things that will be important as I go on:

First, they asked the CIA to provide an electronic search tool so they could locate specific relevant documents for their search among the CIA-produced documents—just like you would use a search tool on the Internet to locate information.

Second, when the staff found a document that was particularly important or that might be referenced in our final report, they would often print it or make a copy of the file on their computer so they could easily find it again. There are thousands of such documents in the committee’s secure spaces at the CIA facility.

Now, prior removal of documents by CIA. In early 2010, the CIA was continuing to provide documents, and the committee staff was gaining familiarity with the information it had already received.

In May of 2010, the committee staff noticed that [certain] documents that had been provided for the committee’s review were no longer accessible. Staff approached the CIA personnel at the offsite location, who initially denied that documents had been removed. CIA personnel then blamed information technology personnel, who were almost all contractors, for removing the documents themselves without direction or authority. And then the CIA stated that the removal of the documents was ordered by the White House. When the committee approached the White House, the White House denied giving the CIA any such order.

It has up to this point failed to intervene on behalf of the Senate, however.

Read the whole speech. And then ask yourself why citizens should be so willing to trust these secret agencies with all of our personal information.

Someone should also ask Dianne Feinstein why average citizens who have done nothing wrong shouldn’t be as outraged by the government collecting private information about them simply because it might become useful later on as she is about the Senate staffers’ computers being monitored by the CIA? It sounds like she’s plenty angry. Like many people, even Senators sometimes don’t understand the implications of certain government actions until it happens to them personally. Maybe she now has an inkling of how unprincipled this whole regime is.

Update: John Brennan responded at the Council on Foreign Relations

Brennan says the reason the Senate report on CIA torture has not been released is because the committee itself has not submitted the report to CIA for declassification review.

“It’s not as though we’re holding it back… it’s up to them,” Brennan says.

“I think they missed a lot of important points. … It’s their prerogative. I’m not going to stand in the way. However I am going to protect sources and methods…”

“Render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s,” Brennan says, showing off his knowledge of the gospels and revealing in his tone that the yoke of oversight does chafe a bit.

I guess he sees himself as Jesus.

.

Dusting off the old Clinton character assassination manual

Dusting off the old Clinton character assassination manual

by digby

Roger Simon has a Politico piece up about the latest Hillary scandal-mongering. As a public service, as these things crop up I’ll try to interpret for you what they’re really saying (aside from simple character assasination, obviously.)

If you are not familiar with the lurid particulars of the past claims about the Clintons, just wait. As 2016 draws closer, the right wing will provide a refresher course for you.

In fact, it is starting already. In case you haven’t heard, Hillary Clinton may have a secret, terrible illness that will prevent her from running for president in 2016. Rush Limbaugh, The Daily Caller, Matt Drudge and Roger Stone, often described as a “self-admitted GOP hit man,” have spread the rumor.

On Feb. 24 of this year, Stone, who now says he is a Libertarian, tweeted: “@HillaryClinton not running for health reasons. Remember you heard it first from the #StoneZone.”

Four days later, Rush Limbaugh began a broadcast: “Whispers are persisting, whispers — there’s a whisper campaign, folks — that Mrs. Clinton is sick; that she will not run for the presidency because she is sick.”

Limbaugh went on to speculate that it was Democrats and not Republicans who were behind the “rumor campaign” because Republicans lacked the guts for it.

“Do the Republicans have the gonads to do something like this?” Limbaugh asked. “Do the Republicans have the gonads to start a rumor that Mrs. Clinton is ill? It’s Drudge’s lead story there with a picture of Hillary looking like she’s in great stress and distress. The headline is: ‘Is She Sick?’ That’s all it takes, and people start wondering, ‘What kind of sick?’’’

Limbaugh concluded: “If this, indeed, is established as a rumor campaign, my prediction is that a Democrat is behind it. There will be a lot of Republicans trying to take credit for it if it’s a rumor campaign that ends up being successful in terms of damaging her chances to win the presidency.”

Interpretation: She looks like a hag and is too old to run for president. Also too, her husband is obviously schtupping a younger woman (and really, can you blame him?) See: hag, old.

It’s just the beginning folks. Whether anybody cares about this crap anymore is another question, but there’s no doubt the wingnuts are going to dust off their Clinton character assassination manual. Those were their glory days. And just think,  they won’t be called racist for doing it. (Sexist yes, but I don’t think that carries quite the same punch…)

.

Up for Climate: a filibuster worth holding, by @DavidOAtkins

Up for Climate: a filibuster worth holding

by David Atkins

Call it an empty gesture if you will, but given the utter callousness and anti-science bent of the Republican House it’s the best the Senate can do on climate at the moment:

Democrats took to the Senate floor Monday night to talk about global warming and planned not to let up until morning. By midnight, lawmakers had been talking for nearly six hours.

Leading off the dusk-to-dawn talkathon, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., called climate change “a question of our own survival” and said the United States and other countries have a responsibility to act “before it is too late.”

At least 28 senators were expected to participate. But several Democrats who face tough re-election fights in the fall opted to skip the session. Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Mark Begich of Alaska were among them.

Democratic leaders have no plans to bring a climate bill to the Senate floor this year, so the speeches were about little more than theatrics. House Democrats pushed through a bill to limit greenhouse gas emissions blamed for global warming in 2009, then lost their majority the following election. A climate bill led by then-Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry collapsed in 2010 without a vote in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, one of the organizers, said the all-night session showed that a growing number of senators are committed to working together to confront climate change.

“Climate change is real, it is caused by humans, and it is solvable,” Schatz said.

But Sen. James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican who has written a book denouncing global warming as “the greatest hoax,” said Democrats would not convince anyone with their stunt. “They’ll have an audience of themselves, so I hope they enjoy it,” Inhofe said. Indeed, he was one of only a few Republicans who engaged in the debate. None sided with Democrats.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., retorted that Democrats had received two separate petitions urging them to act, with a total of about 100,000 signatures.

“The American people are listening,” Boxer said. “They care.” She added that the event should “wake up Congress to the dangers of climate change.”

It’s up to the voters and activists to roust the GOP out of the House Leadership so that we can take action on climate change.

There are skeptics out there, of course, who believe that Democrats won’t do it. But that’s hard to know unless we have the chance to act and see who the cowards are.

At any rate, congratulations to Senate Democrats for making a ruckus about climate change. It’s about time that the future of the planet came off the backburner and was made a top priority.

.

A counterintuitive liberal argument for how to save America

A counterintuitive liberal argument for how to save America

by digby

Emulate the military.  No, not by trying to turn this bunch of TV watching mall shoppers into Spartans:
Do what the military does:

Build socialism. Life in the US military is much like life in Sweden (unless you’re off in Afghanistan spreading democracy). The officers in my seminars spent a quarter of their careers in education, because the US military believes in life-long learning. The military also provides socialised healthcare, subsidised childcare, early pensions etc. I’ve never seen a socialist paradise like it, and I grew up in the Netherlands in the 1970s. Most of the military’s entitlements will survive the budget cuts now being proposed by Chuck Hagel, the defence secretary.

Also, if one were to emulate the military in larger society we’d ban guns (no guns on military bases) believe in science,fight racism, make love not war, ditch macho patriotic posturing. And:

Cut military spending…Admiral Mike Mullen, former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was part of a group that in 2012 took out newspaper ads saying that “increased defense spending” was no longer “required to maintain security”. Now Hagel has outraged congressional Republicans with his plan to shrink the army to 440,000-450,000 personnel. That would be its lowest level since 1940 – but exactly the number the army’s chief of staff Ray Odierno described last month as “right”. To save America, shrink the military.

Finally:

Embrace big government. You get what you pay for. That $646bn in taxpayers’ money created the world’s strongest military. If the US lavished similar sums on trains or schools, they might be pretty good too.

h/t to jbf

They’d rather die than be wrong about Obamacare

They’d rather die than be wrong about Obamacare

by digby

It doesn’t matter if they’ll save money and get better coverage they just know they’re going to die:

A Dexter cancer patient featured in a conservative group’s TV ad campaign denouncing her new health care coverage as “unaffordable” will save more than $1,000 this year under the plan, The Detroit News has learned.

Julie Boonstra, 49, starred last month in an emotional television ad, sponsored by Americans for Prosperity, that implied Democratic U.S. Rep. Gary Peters’ vote for the Affordable Care Act made her medication so “unaffordable” that she could die. Peters of Bloomfield Township is running for an open U.S. Senate seat against Republican Terri Lynn Land.

Boonstra said Monday her new plan she dislikes is the Blue Cross Premier Gold health care plan — which caps patient responsibility for out-of-pocket costs at $5,100 a year, lower than the federal law’s maximum of $6,350 a year. It means the new plan will save her at least $1,200 compared with her former insurance plan she preferred that was ended under Obamacare’s coverage requirements.

A Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan spokesman said the insurer welcomes a chance to help members understand their benefits and alleviate concerns.

“We are here to help people like Ms. Boonstra to work their way through adjusting to the health plans we are now offering them,” the Blue’s Andy Hetzel said. “If there are questions … they should call.”

Boonstra’s old plan cost $1,100 a month in premiums or $13,200 a year, she previously told The Detroit News. It didn’t include money she spent on co-pays, prescription drugs and other out-of-pocket expenses

By contrast, the Blues’ plan premium costs $571 a month or $6,852 for the year. Since out-of-pocket costs are capped at $5,100, including deductibles, the maximum Boonstra would pay this year for all of her cancer treatment is $11,952.

When advised of the details of her Blues’ plan, Boonstra said the idea that it would be cheaper “can’t be true.”

“I personally do not believe that,” Boonstra said.

You know, I probably have as much disdain for Republicans as they have for me. But if one of them were to show me irrefutable proof that say, America has fewer gun deaths than other places due to our proliferation of gun ownership, I would have no choice but to believe it. These people simply put their fingers in their ears and sing “lalalalala”.

It reminds me of this moldy trope:

The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality …That’s not the way the world really works anymore.”

It sure doesn’t.

.

Fracking revolt is the big story coming out of the CA Democratic convention, by @DavidOAtkins

Fracking revolt is the big story coming out of the CA Democratic convention

by David Atkins

The California Democratic Party’s convention in Los Angeles just wrapped up. It was a great gathering as usual, with activists up and down the state getting energized to expand and defend the Congressional map, as well as retain and make gains in the statehouse. While all of that is extremely important, of course, it’s not exactly newsworthy. Two things of greater interest to the general public did happen, though: first, the state Democratic Party expressly voted to put marijuana legalization into the party platform, validating the forward thinking of activists on that front.

But there was a second, even bigger story of more bleeding edge activism involving fracking. California has a lot of oil deep underground. That oil is hard to reach, dirty, and difficult to refine. In order to get to it, oil companies have to use a process called hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” injecting toxic chemicals deep underground to help reach and extract the oil. That process has terrible environmental impacts, including groundwater pollution and seismic destabilization. But on a larger level, the carbon impact pulling all of the dirty oil out of California’s deep reservoirs and burning it would be essentially game over for the climate, pushing CO2 levels into irreversibly destructive territory endangering civilization itself. Unfortunately, Governor Jerry Brown has been unwilling to sign a fracking moratorium bill into law despite his other excellent, forward-thinking positions on climate change.

In response, activists across the state have become vocal about banning fracking in California–none more so than RL Miller, a Ventura County native, former Ventura County Democratic Party Executive Board member, and good friend who was elected to be Chair of the California Democratic Party’s Environmental Caucus two years ago in a contested grassroots surge.

RL Miller took the lead in organizing a silent protest targeting Jerry Brown on his arrival at the Los Angeles Convention Center to speak to the assembled delegates. Protesters carried small anti-fracking signs outside the convention hall, and a large number of delegates also had signs inside the hall.

Hullabaloo vet Dave Dayen was also there and described what happened next:

The activist work on fracking was in evidence in Los Angeles. A packed Environmental caucus on Friday night featured an unlikely set of establishment politicians supporting the moratorium, including Eric Bauman, Vice Chair of the state party, and John Perez, speaker of the Assembly last year when the weaker regulations passed. Perez, now running for state Controller, told the caucus he would push the moratorium through the Assembly this year. Some activists viewed this with skepticism. “When I went to Perez’ office a year ago to ask him to put the moratorium back in the bill, his staff said he had no power to do it,” said Dorothy Reik, a state party delegate and anti-fracking activist. Now when he’s a lame duck, all of a sudden he has the power.”

Miller and her colleagues targeted Governor Brown’s Saturday keynote address, printing up signs that read “Another Democrat Against Fracking” and planning a silent protest, holding up the signs during the speech. Security personnel at the morning session confiscated a number of the signs, but many made their way through to the convention floor. Miller herself was briefly asked to leave the hall but returned without the signs.

Brown, who announced and will likely win a bid for an unprecedented fourth term as governor, began his address amid a smattering of anti-fracking signs in the audience. Still, Brown’s speech was well-received, until he began to discuss the state’s historic drought. Stressing the importance of water conservation, when fracking is incredibly water-intensive, struck some as discordant. “Fracking uses millions of gallons of water and then pollutes that water so it cannot be reused,” Dan Jacobson of Environment California told Salon. “Do we want to start to invest in an industry that uses so much water?”

The expected silent protest suddenly became vocal. Persistent shouts of “No Fracking!” seemed to rattle the normally sure-footed Brown. “All you guys who like to make noise, just listen a moment,” Brown said, trying to steer the audience back around to his points about fighting climate change with a range of solutions. But he had lost the crowd by then, as the slogans and shouts increased. He concluded by saying, “Thanks a lot, and keep protesting, but add a bunch more stuff.” You can watch video of the speech here.

It’s doubtful whether the protest will have a direct impact on Governor Brown during the course of this election year, but the tide of Democratic base opinion, including among major party leaders, has definitely turned hard against fracking–thanks in great part to the work of RL Miller and fellow anti-fracking activists.

On a larger level, this is also a testament to the key value of having a progressive inside-outside strategy. When I go to a local protest against fracking, chanting and holding signs, it’s more meaningful, impactful and newsworthy if I’m doing so as the leader of the county Democratic Party than as a random citizen. Without becoming delegates to the state Democratic Party, those activists would not have been able to be inside the convention hall, but would have been a wholly ineffective presence outside the hall. RL Miller’s activism is far more effective–and newsworthy–because she is not only a fracking and climate activist, but the leader of the California Democratic Party’s Environmental Caucus.

A few hundred key people in the inside of the hall can be–and were–far more effective than potential thousands and thousands marching outside of it.

Getting on the inside is a lot of work, and sometimes requires making compromises. But it’s worth it. RL Miller did the hard work to organize not just outside of the Party but inside of it, and it paid off by delivering one of the year’s most important stories of climate and environmental activism.

.

Their wisdom makes them weary

Their wisdom makes them weary

by digby

There are a whole lot of people to whom we could apply this headline, no?

Leon Wieseltier’s Moral Posturing on Crimea Suggests He Learned Nothing From his Moral Posturing on Iraq

I can think of quite a few right off the top of my head. But this piece by Jim Sleeper is so good, so right, that I won’t belabor that point:

…Already I’m swaying gently in anticipation of this week’s rendering of the liturgy. Wieseltier, a celebrant of other people’s courage in Baghdad, Teheran, Hamza, Beijing, and Kiev, rocks himself regularly into supplications for strong American leadership, with rhythmic incantations that aren’t practical or even intellectual but are clearly self-pleasuring. Sometimes they even arouse readers like me:

“Having deceived the country into believing that almost everything may be accomplished, [Obama] is deceiving it into believing that almost nothing may be accomplished. He is not raising the country up, he is tutoring it in ruefulness and futility. In our foreign policy, we are abandoning the world to its chaos and its cruelty, and disqualifying ourselves from acting on behalf of the largest and the most liberating ideals.”

That was Wieseltier two weeks ago, admonishing the President to respond somehow to Xi Jinping’s vicious crackdown on brave Chinese dissenters such as Xu Zhiyong, who is now a political prisoner following a trial at which he was stopped from reading a statement of liberal-democratic aspirations as eloquent as any that might have come from Wieseltier himself.

But what would Wieseltier have Obama do? “We must mentally arm ourselves against a reality about which we only recently disarmed ourselves: the reality of protracted conflict,” he advises, this time apropos of Russia’s encroachment upon Ukraine. “The lack of preparedness at the White House was not merely a weakness of policy but also a weakness of worldview,” he explains. “The president is too often caught off guard by enmity, and by the nastiness of things. There really is no excuse for being surprised by evil.”

So we must get better at recognizing evil when we see it. Wieseltier anticipated and applauded the preparedness and strong worldview of George W. Bush who, although surprised on 9/11, was never again caught off guard by enmity or evil.

In fact, even as Ground Zero lay smoking only days after 9/11, Wieseltier joined 42 other armchair warriors in delivering prescient strategic and moral advice to Bush in a letter sent Sept. 20, 2001 on the letterhead of William Kristol’s neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC): “[E]ven if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.”

That’s preparedness for you!

Read on. You won’t regret it. Everything from what I’ve excerpted to the following conclusion is just great:

There are indeed times when liberals must fight to defend liberalism, to defeat enemies who’ve arisen, as did fascism and much of Communism, from within the interstices and contradictions of liberal capitalism itself. But Wieseltier lives for those times. Somewhat like Robert Kagan, who exulted, “The world has become normal again” in 2007 when the neoliberal global village started to resemble a painting by Hieronymus Bosch, Wieseltier finds his most reliable coordinates in imagining American face-offs with Iraq, with Iran, with Syria, with Russia — anything to dispel the specters of Munich, 1938 and Yalta, 1945.

Fortunately, not much is at stake in Wieseltier’s contributions to the House of Columns that passes for commentary in Washington. Singing of scars still doing the work of wounds, he might as well be intoning an epitaph for himself:

I am so wise,
That my wisdom makes me weary.
It’s all I can do
To share my wisdom with you.

They have always been wrong about everything.

.

Checking out the white Bro Vote

Checking out the white Bro Vote


by digby

Alex Pareene points out one of the more inconvenient findings in the new Pew Poll about the “liberal” millenials. It depends on which millenials you’re talking about:

The Republican Party will need to [become less conservative] to survive. Most of the serious members of the party know that. But they are also asking themselves exactly how long they can hold out. It might be a bit longer than this report suggests. 

There is still a strong attitude divide among millenials along racial lines. A majority of white millennials disapprove of Barack Obama, a majority of white millennials think government should be smaller and provide fewer services, a majority of white millennials think the government has no responsibility to provide health insurance for all (white millennials are even a tad more conservative on this one than the oldest, most conservative group in Pew’s report). On most of these issues, the white millennials are more liberal than older whites — and the millennial generation is less white than prior generations — but the racial divide that defines our politics stubbornly remains.

Now the numbers are the number sand the fact remains that there will be fewer of these conservative white people than there has been in the past. But it’s still quite a large faction.

Pareene thinks that because many of these conservatives are dovish libertarian types that the GOP just needs to become less hawkish to keep them. I wrote about this yesterday — I don’t actually think the GOP needs to become less hawkish. I think all these white libertarians who hate taxes and love their guns will happily toe the line when their own “enemies” present themselves. Why do I think this? Because it’s happened before. There have always been times when foreign affairs were of little concern, even among the hawkish conservatives — until something happened.

Here’s an example from 1998:

Worry about foreign policy, international relations or war is almost totally missing from the forefront of American concerns today. This stands in sharp contrast to many other periods since World War II when foreign policy issues dominated the public’s responses to this most important problem question. In the early 1950s, the Korean War was the nation’s top problem. The threat of war, nuclear proliferation and communism dominated in the mid to late 1950s, and into the 1960s. The Vietnam War moved to the forefront of the public’s concerns in 1965, and remained a dominant problem well into the early 1970s. War and peace issues also were highly likely to be top-of-mind through the mid-Reagan years of the 1980s, and again in 1990 and 1991 at the time of the Gulf War tensions. Today, in an environment in which communism as a threat has essentially evaporated, only 4% of Americans mention international issues or foreign affairs concerns in response to the most important problem question.

I just have a feeling that the libertarian “bros” will fall in line when they’re needed by the coalition. They’re Republicans, which means that they’ve knowingly joined the more warmongering, anti-abortion party. And that’s because what they really care about is a laissez-faire, low tax agenda which they are required to fatuously proclaim as the ultimate definition of “freedom”. After all, if they really cared about staying out of foreign wars, they’d logically join the Party that at least boasts a majority of anti-war elected leaders and has a long-standing faction of committed anti-war activists and voters.

(ICYWW, in the Senate 21 Democrats voted against the resolution.  All Republicans voted for it, along with a bunch of cowardly Dems who wanted to run for president.)

I just have a feeling these millenial libertarian Paul followers will be happy to wave the patriot flag when the hawks begin to shriek. Defending your country against the foreign boogeyman is so much more satisfying to a macho believer in “liberty” than impotently shaking your fists at IRS clerks and health care providers.

.