The Vergara trial and the billionaire assault on public education: Netroots Radio edition
by David Atkins
I went on Netroots Radio this morning with Justice Putnam to talk about the Vergara trial and the assault on public education broadly by Wall Street and Silicon Valley.
Give it a listen if you have some time free…
.
The can see Russia from their house
by digby
… and they like it when Putin rears his head:
Now that Putin has successfully annexed Crimea, another group of disgruntled Russian descendants is hoping to return to the Kremlin’s dominion. As of Monday morning, a petition entitled “Alaska Back to Russia” has garnered more than 17,000 signatures since it launched Friday.
An unnamed Anchorage resident created the WhiteHouse.gov appeal, citing the state’s historic and ancestral ties to the world’s largest country. Unfortunately, it’s impossible to determine exactly how many of the signatures are authentic—as opposed to being Putin-employed bots or a ploy to exile Sarah Palin—but the surrounding chatter on Twitter confirms that at least some Russian-Americans are dead serious about secession.
There aren’t a lot of Russian-Americans in Alaska, but it definitely was once a Russian territory.
Oh, and it has oil. Lots of it.
.
The Hobby Lobby Slippery Slope
by digby
No, it’s not just about birth control:
As we noted yesterday in our post about Bryan Fischer interviewing Rep. Michele Bachmann, a group of conservative leaders – including Bachmann, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, Haley Barbour, and David Barton – have gathered for a Religious Right event in Iowa aimed at mobilizing pastors called “Rediscover God In America.”
The event is being webcast by the American Family Association and last night David Barton got the festivities underway by explaining to the audience that all of our economic and tax policies ought to be dictated by the Bible … and that means getting rid of the minimum wage because it was opposed by Jesus (Barton didn’t actually cite the passage he uses to support this claim in this presentation, but it is Matthew 20:1-16)
And that’s not all:
Religious Right activist David Barton promotes his version of American exceptionalism (America was created by its divinely inspired founders as a country of, by, and for evangelical Christians) and b iblical capitalism (Jesus and the Bible oppose progressive taxes, capital gains taxes, estate taxes, and minimum wage laws). Claiming divine backing is a long-standing Religious Right technique with a powerful political edge: if God supports radically limited government, then progressive policies are not only wrong but evil, and liberals are not only political opponents but enemies of God.
On a conference call with pastors two days after the November 2010 elections to celebrate conservative victories, Barton asserted a biblical underpinning for far-right economic policies: Taxation and deficit spending amount to theft, a violation of the Ten Commandments. The estate tax is “absolutely condemned” by the Bible as the “most immoral” of taxes. Jesus had “teachings” condemning the capital gains tax and minimum wage.
Barton also enlists Jesus in the war against unions and collective bargaining. According to Barton, a parable from the 20th chapter of the book of Matthew about the owner of a vineyard making different arrangements with workers was about “the right of private contract” – in other words, the right of employers to come to individual agreements with each employee. Jesus’ parable, he said, is “anti-minimum wage” and “anti-socialist-union kind of stuff.”
I am going to guess that if the Supremes rule that corporations have a right to refuse to follow laws if they believe they interfere with their “religious liberty” they will be able to find a Bible verse supporting every single item on the 1%’s agenda. It’s a big book.
.
Childish, nasty and dishonest
by digby
The Texas blogger was visiting Las Vegas for a bachelorette party this past weekend, and woke up on Saturday to find that she’d become the latest anti-Obamacare posterchild.
The thing is, Helene never signed up for the job.In fact, she told me yesterday that she’s quite happy with the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and with the “affordable” health care it helped her find.
“Not only do I not agree with what the image is portraying,” Helene wrote me, “I actually have Affordable Healthcare!”
So, if anything, Helene is an Obamacare success story.
But that didn’t stop over 17,000 people on Facebook from sharing an image of her face, posted just days ago, with a caption complaining about Obamacare. To add insult to injury, the people who stole her image couldn’t even spell “conspiracy” right.
It’s true. They didn’t spell conspiracy right.
Not to mention that nobody ever promised it would be free. Only morons would believe this crap.
.
Memo to Rand Paul: you’re spitting into the wind
by digby
Regarding that allegedly newly isolationist GOP that’s going to vote en masse for civil liberties and a dovish foreign policy, it looks as though that might be a bit premature. Their usual hawkish tendencies are already coming alive:
It must be noted that even among Republicans the appetite for military action in Russia is very mild. And overall, only a quarter of the nation sees Russia as an enemy. But the number of Republicans who are dusting off their old anti-communist playbooks is growing very fast. Others, not so much.
A majority of Americans are fairly warlike and both parties, as well as independents, get themselves all over-stimulated at the prospect of war. But only one political party makes a fetish of it. It’s definitional.
.
Venture Capitalist shocked that not everyone is a selfish jackass like him
by David Atkins
The venture capitalist who wants to turn California into six different states is shocked that the wealthiest, most liberal parts of the state want nothing to do with his plan:
Venture capitalist Tim Draper says he is getting “close” to collecting the necessary 800,000 signatures needed to get his “Six Californias” measure before state voters in 2014 — but he acknowledges his own internal polling shows Silicon Valley is most opposed to the idea of splitting the state into six parts.
“You’d think that Silicon Valley would benefit” greatest from the plan, said Draper, whose plan calls for the foundation of a state of Silicon Valley, which economists suggest would likely be the richest state in the nation. But “Silicon Valley is the least likely to vote for this,” Draper acknowledged Tuesday. “It’s bizarre.”
Draper made the statements at a salon before a crowd of tech insiders, journalists and San Francisco business insiders Tuesday night. The evening of discussion to explore the idea of California secession was hosted in the San Francisco home of public relations guru Susan MacTavish, founder of the Living Mactavish fashion, food and design website…
Draper on Tuesday would not reveal his internal polling — other than to say generally that numbers in Silicon Valley are strongly opposed to the plan and other more conservative parts of the state, like the Central Valley, are in favor. “This is not going to happen overnight,” he said.
It’s always a big shock to selfish rich people that most other well-to-do people aren’t as selfish as they are. It’s important to remember that many of the very wealthy are like Warren Buffett, people who vote primarily for Democrats and aren’t afraid to pay a little more in taxes to have a fruitful, stable and fairer society. It’s not even the 1% that are ruining things for the rest of us; it’s a very sociopathic, very energetic fraction of that 1%. And they’re really shocked when other people don’t behave as asininely as they do.
Meanwhile, it’s no surprise that the most conservative–and poorest–parts of the state are in favor this guy’s plan. The rubes who get the most from government services always believe that some poorer, darker city dweller is getting their hard-earned money. It’s the oldest con in the book, and they buy into it every time.
.
Right wing humor
by digby
Where’s Dennis Miller when you need him?
And yes, that’s Dinesh D’Souza, who is currently under indictment for illegal campaign contributions doing what he obviously thinks is a hilarious send-up of the viral Funny or Die video with Zach Galifianakis.
D’Souza has long seen himself as the right’s Jonathan Swift. As an example, consider this famous satirical misfire:
… the Democrats could become the party of moral degeneracy. In recent years the Democrats have not embraced moral degeneracy outright. They have contented themselves with hiding behind the slogan of “liberty.” If accused of encouraging pornography, the Democrats have said, “No, we are for liberty of expression.” Charged with supporting abortion-on-demand, the Democrats insist, “No, we are the party that gives women freedom over their own bodies.” Caught distributing sex kits and homosexual instruction manuals to young people, the Democrats protest, “We are merely attempting to give people autonomy and freedom of choice.”
But what is the need for this coyness? The Democrats should stop hiding behind “freedom of choice” and become blatant advocates for divorce, illegitimacy, adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, and pornography. Indeed the Democrats could become the Party of the Seven Deadly Sins. The political advantage of this approach is that the Seven Deadly Sins are immensely popular. Imagine the political opportunities if all vices were associated with the Democratic party!
Yes, right now President Bush and the Republicans are riding high. But just wait until 2004, when the party of fighting terrorism, promoting economic growth, and fostering traditional moral values, meets its match in a party that stands for anti-Americanism, economic plunder, and moral degeneracy.
As hard as it is to believe, he really is about the best they have to offer.
.
Still beating the old gray mare
by digby
This from the party that worshipped that sprightly young fellow Ronald Reagan (and a media that remains as ageist as ever):
Does age matter when it comes to who occupies the White House? That’s a question that could be asked with more frequency should Hillary Clinton decide to seek the Democratic nomination for U.S. president, as she is widely expected to do, and as the Republican field of potential candidates fills up with 40-year-olds.
The former first lady and secretary of state will turn 67 in October, meaning she would be moving back into the White House at 69 if she won the 2016 election. Most U.S. presidents have been in their 40s or 50s when they took office, including the current president Barack Obama who was 47 when he won, so Clinton would be one of the oldest.
What role, if any, Clinton’s age might play — in her decision and in the race if she does go for it — has already been the subject of some debate. It may be rude to talk about a woman’s age, but politics plays by different rules.
Fox News host Mike Huckabee, who hasn’t ruled out another run at the Republican nomination (he tried in 2008), said last month that he’s not sure Clinton will run.
“I think everybody assumes she will but look, she’s going to be at an age where it’s going to be a challenge for her,” he said before going on to criticize her record as the U.S.’s top diplomat.
[…]
Howard Kurtz noted in a Media Buzz column on Foxnews.com on the questions being raised about Clinton’s age that women politicians are scrutinized more than men when it comes to their birthdays.“Hillary — she of the ever-changing hairstyles — has to worry about wrinkles in a way that male candidates do not.” …
“Don’t tell me that Democrats are the party of the future when their presidential ticket for 2016 is shaping up to look like a re-run of The Golden Girls,” Sen. Mitch McConnell told last year’s Conservative Political Action Conference.
“We’ve got Rand Paul, we’ve got Marco Rubio, we’ve got Paul Ryan and a slew of smart, young and energetic governors. And the other guys? They’ve got Hillary and Joe Biden,” he said.
Democrats have ‘old, tired candidates’
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, a 42-year-old Republican who is said to be interested in running for president, has said the Democrats have “old, tired candidates.”
Oh let’s not forget the real wingnut argument shall we?
Noting that “the presidency ages the occupants of that office rapidly,” Limbaugh asked, “Will Americans want to watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis?
Of course, if the last go around is any guide, it will be much, much worse than that. So get ready for some sexist, ageist insults that will make your gray hair fall out completely.
Still, I have to laugh at the idea that Rand Paul or Mike Huckabee are the Republicans’ offerings to the hipster bro crowd. But hey, maybe if they grow beards and start playing the banjo …
.
And why shouldn’t the government force corporations to cover abortion?
by David Atkins
Justice Anthony Kennedy, on whose vote the Hobby Lobby SCOTUS case rests, seems very concerned about the government forcing corporations to cover abortion:
WASHINGTON, DC — Justice Anthony Kennedy thinks gay people are fabulous. All three of the Supreme Court’s most important gay rights decisions were written by Justice Kennedy. So advocates for birth control had a simple task today: convince Kennedy that allowing religious employers to exempt themselves from a federal law expanding birth control access would lead to all kinds of horrible consequences in future cases — including potentially allowing religious business owners to discriminate against gay people.
Kennedy, however, also hates abortion. Although Kennedy cast the key vote in Planned Parenthood v. Casey upholding what he called the “essential holding of Roe v. Wade,” he’s left no doubt that he cast that vote very grudgingly. Casey significantly rolled back the constitutional right to choose an abortion. And Kennedy hasn’t cast a single pro-choice vote in an abortion case in the last 22 years.
So Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood, the two companies claiming that they should be exempt from the birth control rules had an ace in their pocket as well. Their path to victory involved convincing Kennedy that their cases are really about abortion — and it looks like Kennedy convinced himself of that point on his own.
It was clear from the get go that the Court’s liberals understood that their best course involved highlighting the dangerous consequences of a victory for Hobby Lobby. Paul Clement, the de facto Solicitor General of the Republican Party who argued the case on Hobby Lobby’s behalf, barely uttered his first sentence before Justice Sonia Sotomayor cut him off to ask what other medical procedures religious employers could refuse to cover in their employee health plans. Justice Elena Kagan quickly joined the party. If Hobby Lobby can deny birth control coverage, Kagan asked, what about employers who object to vaccinations? Or blood transfusions?
When Clement tried to deflect this list, Kagan came armed with an even bigger what. What of religious employers who object to gender equality, or the minimum wage, or family medical leave, or child labor laws? If the Supreme Court agrees with Hobby Lobby’s brief, which argues that laws burdening a corporation’s purported religious faith must survive the “most demanding test known to constitutional law,” then there would be few laws corporations could not exempt themselves from following.
Clement’s argument time then took a number of detours, with the Court’s three women dominating the questioning. Justice Kagan pointed out that religious liberty cases have never applied the same strict constitutional rule applied in race cases. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wondered how the federal religious liberty law at issue in this case — the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) — could have passed almost unanimously if it lead to the deeply controversial results advocated by Clement. Justice Sotomayor wondered how it is possible for a corporation to exercise religion.
The justices also spent a good amount of time discussing whether Hobby Lobby faces any real burden at all, since they could always simply stop offering health benefits and pay a tax — a position first articulated in a blog post written by Professor Marty Lederman.At the end of Clement’s first turn at the podium, Kennedy asked the question that will probably give most hope to Team Birth Control. What about the rights of employees who may be hurt by their employer’s decision not to follow the law? For the moment, it appeared that Kennedy was worried about the parade of horribles that could follow a decision for Hobby Lobby.
Indeed, not long after Solicitor General Don Verrilli took the podium to argue the government’s case, it appeared that he may ultimately emerge victorious. Clement spent much of his argument on his heels. The three women on the bench appeared quite confident in their questioning. Kennedy was silent for much of Verilli’s argument.
But then he made a statement that will likely doom the government’s case. “Your reasoning would permit” Congress to force corporations to pay for abortions, Kennedy told Verrilli. This was not the Anthony Kennedy that worried about conservatives imposing their anti-gay “animus” on others, this was the Anthony Kennedy that views abortion as a grave moral wrong. Shortly after Kennedy made this statement, Justice Kagan’s face dropped. It appeared that she’d just figured out that she would be joining a dissenting opinion.
It’s worth noting that Kennedy expressed a different concern than one offered shortly thereafter by Chief Justice John Roberts. Hobby Lobby objects to four forms of contraception on the mistaken ground that these contraceptive methods are actually forms of abortion — a brief filed by numerous medical organizations explains that they are not. Roberts, however, suggested that someone’s mere belief that something is an abortion is enough to trigger an religious exemption to federal law.
I will never understand this reasoning. I don’t get to restrict the compensation I pay to my employees based on their political views. No Muslim or Jewish employer gets to demand that their employees not get coverage for, say, illnesses resulting from eating pork. No Hindu employer gets to restrict health coverage for people who eat beef or were born to the wrong caste. If I found a religion stating that guns are the Devil’s tools, I still don’t get to restrict medical coverage for my employees based on their gun ownership–even if they shoot themselves.
Abortion isn’t some special category of religious exemption. Objections to abortion are based on the entirely doctrinally speculative ground about fetuses having “souls.” The Hobby Lobby case goes further: Hobby Lobby wrongly believes that certain forms of birth control are abortifacients, despite the rejection of that premise by serious medical organizations.
But what of it? Abortion rights are the law of the land. Hobby Lobby’s rejection of abortion rights as against their religious principles is no more valid a reason to deny an employee compensation than any other form of religious discrimination. The Constitution grants the owners of Hobby Lobby to exercise their own religion as they see fit. It doesn’t grant them the right to pay their employees unequally on the basis of their religious beliefs if we’ve passed a law stating that employees have a right to equal compensation (which is what the ACA essentially does.)
But abortion has been set up in its own special category by conservative male legislators in this country. I am forced to support corporate welfare, Creationist schools and immoral wars with my tax dollars. But for some reason my conservative neighbor doesn’t have to support abortion rights with his tax dollars. And if Hobby Lobby gets their way, my conservative neighbor will be able to pay any potential employees differently based on whether they use birth control.
That’s not justice. If this country wants to move in that direction, then perhaps progressives nationally should reorganize into a “religion.” Sounds like a pretty cool perk: organize politically without the pesky IRS, and enshrine a bunch of political beliefs into a discriminatory legal code. But somehow I don’t think the Supreme Court would go for that. “Religious freedom” only goes in one direction: whatever misogynistic conservative men want.
.
The Big Fix
by digby
The Obama administration has offered up its NSA “fix” at the same time that the proposed GOP House reform plan is leaked to the press, so we have an idea of what the parameters of the NSA debate are going to be. From what I gather, as you might expect, the administration’s fixes are a slight improvement (possibly) over the status quo while the Republican plan actually makes things worse. I’d guess that the Villagers will all proclaim that somewhere in the middle — aka the status quo — would be juuust right.
I won’t go into the details here because Emptywheel is doing her usual thorough job of breaking it all down. Suffice to say that it’s complicated. But all of this points out the vital importance of the Snowden leaks. The government is forced to confront the fact that these programs were outpacing its own understanding of the implications and the citizenry is at least aware of the implications. If things proceed as they normally do, we’ll probably see much of what we object to “legalized” in some way and the best we can hope for is a record of what’s been done and to register at least some objection from those who care about civil liberties. It may give the overseers some temporary courage and could crate at least a little restraint for a while.
But let’s not overlook another benefit of these leaks that even the veriest Snowden/Greenwald hater should be able to acknowledge: the government would not understand just how insecure their programs are or be aware that someone unlike Snowden, who actually did have hostility to American interests or a desire to use their access to make money for themselves, could easily have accessed this information for truly nefarious purposes and no one would be the wiser. Knowing that seems quite valuable, especially since our history is rife with examples of real spies who didn’t give their information to the press in the name of civil liberties but but rather sold it to foreign governments. (Like this fine fellow. A staunch conservative, by the way.)
Andrea Mitchell and Chuck Todd assured me that this was going nowhere but that the President will be fine because he’s tossed the hot potato to congress. Chuck did point out that people in Europe care about this more than the US so that explains why he’s doing it now. But he shrugged and said that the congress will not act and neither will the president because … well, just because. So there you have it.
.
