Month: April 2014

True Believer

by digby

Charles Koch explains that it’s all about the most freedom his billions can buy:

I have devoted most of my life to understanding the principles that enable people to improve their lives. It is those principles—the principles of a free society—that have shaped my life, my family, our company and America itself.

Unfortunately, the fundamental concepts of dignity, respect, equality before the law and personal freedom are under attack by the nation’s own government. That’s why, if we want to restore a free society and create greater well-being and opportunity for all Americans, we have no choice but to fight for those principles. I have been doing so for more than 50 years, primarily through educational efforts. It was only in the past decade that I realized the need to also engage in the political process.

A truly free society is based on a vision of respect for people and what they value. In a truly free society, any business that disrespects its customers will fail, and deserves to do so. The same should be true of any government that disrespects its citizens. The central belief and fatal conceit of the current administration is that you are incapable of running your own life, but those in power are capable of running it for you. This is the essence of big government and collectivism.

More than 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson warned that this could happen. “The natural progress of things,” Jefferson wrote, “is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” He knew that no government could possibly run citizens’ lives for the better. The more government tries to control, the greater the disaster, as shown by the current health-care debacle. Collectivists (those who stand for government control of the means of production and how people live their lives) promise heaven but deliver hell. For them, the promised end justifies the means.

It’s absurd to think that the only possible form of oppression comes from government, but a billionaire born to a millionaire would likely think that. He’s never had to work for anyone. He’s never been subjected to the tyranny of the workplace or the shackles of poverty. That experience tends to give you a different perspective on what “freedom” actually means.

But never let it be said that he has no feelings for the oppressed. He does. In fact, he’s very sensitive. It turns out nobody will listen to him and nobody understands him:

Instead of encouraging free and open debate, collectivists strive to discredit and intimidate opponents. They engage in character assassination. (I should know, as the almost daily target of their attacks.) This is the approach that Arthur Schopenhauer described in the 19th century, that Saul Alinsky famously advocated in the 20th, and that so many despots have infamously practiced. Such tactics are the antithesis of what is required for a free society—and a telltale sign that the collectivists do not have good answers.

Rather than try to understand my vision for a free society or accurately report the facts about Koch Industries, our critics would have you believe we’re “un-American” and trying to “rig the system,” that we’re against “environmental protection” or eager to “end workplace safety standards.” These falsehoods remind me of the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s observation, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”

He then goes on to regale his readers with a sanitized recitation of his company’s virtues. Koch Industries, rather than being a polluting, exploiting, destroyer of the land and the planet, is actually more akin to UNICEF, a caring and gentle caretaker of all the earth’s children.

He’s lying, of course, but I’m not even sure he knows it. I think he really believes that he is helping people:

Instead of fostering a system that enables people to help themselves, America is now saddled with a system that destroys value, raises costs, hinders innovation and relegates millions of citizens to a life of poverty, dependency and hopelessness. This is what happens when elected officials believe that people’s lives are better run by politicians and regulators than by the people themselves. Those in power fail to see that more government means less liberty, and liberty is the essence of what it means to be American. Love of liberty is the American ideal.

If more businesses (and elected officials) were to embrace a vision of creating real value for people in a principled way, our nation would be far better off—not just today, but for generations to come. I’m dedicated to fighting for that vision. I’m convinced most Americans believe it’s worth fighting for, too.

He simply cannot understand why anyone would think there is a need for government functions beyond the most rudimentary form of security. After all, Charles Koch doesn’t need them. In fact, he thinks they hurt him. If they didn’t exist he would have more freedom, which is the only thing he could possibly believe he doesn’t have enough of in this world. (Sometimes I think these guys confuse freedom with time, but that’s another story …) He’s just a regular guy like you and me, right? We’ll all be free if only the government would take its jackbooted foot off the necks of good job-creators like the Koch Brothers.

It always amuses me to see billionaires talk about “those in power” as if it’s someone other than themselves. I’d love to see Charles Koch have to spend a month in the life of a secretary who works in one of his offices. Then let’s see what he thinks about “power” and “freedom” and who has it and who doesn’t.

.

A heartbeat away from Armageddon

by digby

The potential 2016 GOP candidates all trudged out to Vegas last week-end to kiss Shelly Adelson’s ring. And some, like Chris Christie, weren’t all that well schooled in how you’re supposed to talk about foreign policy to win over the GOP faithful.

This guy showed them how it was done:

Mother Jones has obtained a recording of Cheney’s talk, during which he once again derided President Barack Obama on foreign policy, blasted the isolationists within his own party, assailed critics of the National Security Agency, and seemingly endorsed the idea of an Israeli strike against Iran.

Speaking about the possibility of Iran developing a nuclear weapon, Cheney dismissed Obama’s negotiations with Tehran, and he recalled a dinner meeting he had in 2007 with Israeli General Amos Yadlin. Yadlin had flown in the Israeli Defense Force’s mission in 1981 that destroyed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, and he was the country’s military intelligence chief in 2007 when the Israel Defense Forces obliterated Syria’s nuclear reactor in the Deir ez-Zor region. Recalling his conversation with Yadlin, Cheney said, “He looked across the table over dinner, and he said, ‘Two down, one to go.’ I knew exactly what he meant.”

“One to go” was an obvious reference to bombing Iran’s nuclear program. The crowd responded approvingly with laughter and applause. (Last October, Adelson publicly proposed that the US drop a nuclear bomb in the Iranian desert to show Tehran what will happen to Iran if it develops nuclear weapons.)

A mere five years ago this man was the most powerful man in the world. (Let’s not kid ourselves about Junior.) He was barely restrained by a system that anticipated the inevitable symbiosis of sociopathy and power, which put some roadblocks in the way. He has admitted to war crimes (“it’s a no-brainer”), has expressed no remorse and says he would do it again.

But never let it be said that there is no basis for bipartisan agreement with this fine fellow. There are many Democrats who apparently support this Cheney position with no qualms:

Cheney devoted much of his speech to defending the National Security Agency and its massive collection programs. There is the belief, he said, “that we have created in the National Security Agency this monster bureaucracy that’s reading everybody’s mail, listening to everybody’s phone calls, infringing upon our civil liberties and civil rights. Hogwash.” He claimed that there has not been a single case of NSA abusing its authority. (Cheney must have missed this and this.) And he asserted that if these programs had been in place, “it probably would’ve allowed us to stop 9/11.”

He then said that President Obama can’t defend the program because nobody believes him. Which is just silly. Millions of people believe him. Mostly Democrats, of course, but you’d think Cheney would be happy about that.

You can hear all his remarks at the link. It will make you sick. It’s hard to trust politicians or either party. But Dick Cheney is uniquely evil. It says something about us as a nation that he’s still running around giving speeches and being lauded as a respected elder statesman.

.

Four more casualties of the Iraq War and the NRA perished at Fort Hood yesterday

by David Atkins

It’s looking like the Fort Hood shooter yesterday was an Iraq War vet suffering from PTSD:

Milley said the suspected guman served in Iraq in 2011, was married and was being evaluated for a post-traumatic stress disorder diagnosis. He used a .45 caliber Smith and Wesson that was purchased recently, Milley said.

There was no motive identified, and Milley said there was no indication that the incident was related to terrorism, though it hasn’t been ruled out. Federal and state authorities are investigating the attack.

We don’t know all the details yet, but if these details are true here’s what we can say:

1) The immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq is directly responsible for these deaths. Soldiers returning with PTSD is an almost inevitable consequence of the decision to go to war with ground forces. Some soldiers with PTSD will commit violence acts on their return home. Any decision to go to war must bear that in mind, and victims of soldiers with PTSD must be considered domestic casualties of that war.

2) A man known to have PTSD was apparently legally allowed to purchase a handheld firearm. Because this is America, where allowing the mentally ill to buy death machines is defended tooth and nail by politicians corrupted by the NRA’s blood money.

3) There apparently aren’t enough “good guys with guns” to stop a “bad guy with a gun” even on a military base. If, that is, you consider a suicidal vet with PTSD a “bad guy” rather than another victim.

4) There were, as so often happens in these cases, reports of a second shooter who actually turned out to be a responder. So I suppose we can all be grateful that the people who reported the second gunman weren’t trigger-happy “good guys with guns” or even more people would have been killed.

So yes, the shooting was a tragedy. But the responsibility for it lies squarely on the shoulders of the villains who lied this country and this soldier into a needless war, and the gun nut organizations that continue to allow the mentally disturbed to legally own firearms.

.

See, all old people aren’t jerks

by digby

From Jezebel:

Good Morning America’s Lara Spencer went to the White House on Monday with several women who worked in the factories during World War II who had been trying to meet the President and Vice President for many years. One of them was so excited she decided to kiss President Obama.

There were hugs all around from Biden, a notoriously friendly dude, but one woman set her sights on the top dog. “I hope Michelle forgives me for it,” she said with a cheeky grin.

Back in the day, they looked like this:

Those little old ladies were bad-asses.

.

Word ‘O the Day

by digby

“Abortofascism”

Of course. 

Via Edroso who explains:

Kirk Kelsen believes birth control is “ABORTIFASCISM” and that the ACA decrees “you must, under the law, dine exclusively at the government buffet serving up abortifacients,” which I guess will be their next legal argument if this one fails — isn’t being forced to eat at the same table as abortion cruel and unusual.

Edroso also does the definitive round-up of the right wing reaction to the Hobby Lobby case. Honestly, it’s way worse than you thought:

Well, the Hobby Lobby lawsuit somehow made it all the way to the Supreme Court. The glue and glitter chain’s argument, and that of other religious employers, that providing health care which might tempt their employees into pregnancy-free sex was against their religion was put forward last week by lawyers from the Becket Fund, named after Thomas Becket, who like Hobby Lobby was persecuted for his religion by a tyrant.

As typically happens when birth control is mentioned in their presence (see Fluke, Sandra) rightbloggers portrayed the case as one in which sluts forced the innocent to buy them slut pills.They also promoted stranger ideas — for instance, that liberals were trying not just to enforce their so-called “law” but also to destroy religion, using health care coverage to that purpose (because what other purpose could it possibly have?).

No really:

Because Justices Elena Kagen and Sonia Sotomayor had the temerity to ask questions during the hearings, Jeff Goldstein of Protein Wisdom madsplained what they actually said: “fuck the First Amendment. And fuck natural, unalienable rights. We’re in charge here, not some airy fairy notion of rights that we are not allowed to provide or take away,” etc. After this lengthy monologue, Goldstein told us that “what we’re witnessing is a coup” and that the Court’s Obamacare decision in 2011 — in which you will recall the Justices did not order Obama to be executed by Jeff Goldstein, but upheld most of the law — “may prove to be the very last tug on the thread that unravels Constitutional protections, individual autonomy, and the entire Bill of Rights.” Don’t worry, folks, he does this every week, the prankster! (Amy Ridenour noticed Sotomayor asking Hobby Lobby about paying the fine, and portrayed it thus: “Justice Sotomayor may be willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater.” What is it about liberals and murdering babies?)

When Kagan “asked whether a victory for Hobby Lobby would invite employers to object to other treatments, such as blood transfusions and vaccines,” professional health-care-system wrecker Elizabeth McCaughey said at the New York Sun that “[Kagan’s] vision of a uniform society where all are forced to put aside their diverse beliefs and march in lockstep with the government’s mandates, sucked the oxygen out of the courtroom.” Next thing you know they’ll be putting fluoride in our water. McCaughey followed up, “What a contrast to the six male Justices, who, despite their ideological differences, searched for a way to accommodate the administration’s goal without injuring the Greens and other employers spiritually opposed to abortion drugs.” Lady justices ruin everything!

That’s right.  A woman writer was horrified by the uppity commie women justices and very impressed by all the men who were much more civilized. Don’t ever believe that women are a political monolith.

.

Countering the GOP’s double-down on white

by David Atkins

Joan Walsh has an excellent summary in Salon about the GOP’s strategy to restrict minority votes and maximize their share of the white vote:

Three stories in the last three days brought into focus exactly how Republicans plan to tough out the demographic extinction that is eventually coming for them, if they remain a 90 percent white party in a country that will be less than half white within 25 years. One, they’re doing as Wisconsin did, and ramming through voting restrictions in states controlled by Republicans. As the New York Times reported Sunday, Wisconsin is only one of nine states have made it harder to vote since Obama’s re-election (18 states had already made it tougher after he won the first time, according to the Brennan Center).

Two, they’re working hard to demoralize the Democratic base by blocking policies Democrats promised to enact, like immigration reform. Another Times piece showed how Latino activists are finding it hard to register and motivate Latino voters, because the failure to make good on immigration legislation has them convinced anew that voting doesn’t matter. Of 50 people approached by a young Latina organizer, “not a single person” was interested. “They were like, ‘Why? Why would I bother to vote?’” the organizer told the Times.

Finally, an AP story detailed how a combination of geography and gerrymandering let Republican state legislatures draw congressional district lines that will let the GOP control the House, even as Democrats get millions more votes in House races overall…

The truth is, most Republicans don’t think they have to “attract more people,” if they limit those who can vote to the people they already attract: older, wealthier white people. They don’t need “ideas” either; they can go without their own immigration reform bill, or a plan to “replace” Obamacare, as long as they’re playing the trifecta of voter suppression, voter demoralization and gerrymandering. If Republicans hit that trifecta, they don’t have to worry about being overwhelmingly outnumbered by Democrats. They can steamroll the midterms, when the electorate is reliably older and whiter, and lock up state houses by spending big money in a low-turnout year.

They even have a shot at the White House, though that route is harder, because Democrats are developing an electoral-vote lock, thanks to the combination of big states turning deeper blue and higher presidential-election-year turnout by young and nonwhite voters. But winning the White House is worth less and less if a president is thwarted by Republican nihilists, and the cynicism that results could ultimately overwhelm the Democrats’ demographic advantages.

Joan lists some things Democrats can do to attempt to mitigate this dynamic, among them focusing more on midterm elections than presidentials, and ending the large scale of deportations.

But there’s one other thing that Democrats can do that she doesn’t mention: get aggressive about progressive policy at a state level. If Democrats in blue states prove what is possible when Republicans aren’t in the way, that would serve as a way to counter cynicism and bring a broader electorate to the polls. It would also emphasize the importance of voting in every race all the way down the ballot.

Maybe we can’t bring single-payer healthcare to the entire country, or nationalize parts of the banking system. But that doesn’t mean that blue states can’t bring single-payer care to their own states, and create statewide banks. Some things are possible in spite of Republican nihilism.

.

They’re busy with breaking news about nothing

by digby

THIS is CNN:

CNN devoted less than two minutes to a report by top international climate experts, who warned of hunger problems, coastal flooding and other calamitous impacts if climate change is left unchecked. The network’s coverage stands in stark contrast to other cable news networks, which devoted an average of over 22 minutes to the report, and broadcast nightly news programs, some of which led with the report.

But they had to cover a bunch of people speculating about what a plastic bag floating in the middle of the ocean might “mean.” For hours. There just wasn’t time.

Click the link to see how the climate report was covered in other news outlets.

That makes me sad to tell you the truth. Even Fox covered it more fully (although it must be pointed out that it was mostly to mock it as the busy work of a bunch of foreign, commie scientists who want Vladimir Putin and the terrorists to win.) CNN is an important part of the news ecosystem. It’s not good for anyone when they fail like this.

.

Backdoor men

by digby

Remember this?

“When it comes to telephone calls, nobody is listening to your telephone calls. That’s not what this program’s about. As was indicated, what the intelligence community is doing is looking at phone numbers and durations of calls. They are not looking at people’s names, and they’re not looking at content.”

That was President Obama back in June. Yesterday James Clapper said otherwise:

US intelligence chiefs have confirmed that the National Security Agency has used a “back door” in surveillance law to perform warrantless searches on Americans’ communications.

The NSA’s collection programs are ostensibly targeted at foreigners, but in August the Guardian revealed a secret rule change allowing NSA analysts to search for Americans’ details within the databases.

Now, in a letter to Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat on the intelligence committee, the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, has confirmed for the first time the use of this legal authority to search for data related to “US persons”.

“There have been queries, using US person identifiers, of communications lawfully acquired to obtain foreign intelligence targeting non-US persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States,” Clapper wrote in the letter, which has been obtained by the Guardian.

“These queries were performed pursuant to minimization procedures approved by the Fisa court and consistent with the statute and the fourth amendment.”

The legal authority to perform the searches, revealed in top-secret NSA documents provided to the Guardian by Edward Snowden, was denounced by Wyden as a “backdoor search loophole.”

Many of the NSA’s most controversial programs collect information under the law are affected by the so-called loophole. These include Prism, which allows the agency to collect data from Google, Apple, Facebook, Yahoo and other tech companies, and the agency’s Upstream program – a huge network of internet cable taps.

Clapper did not disclose how many warrantless searches had been performed by the NSA.

That “nobody is listening to your phone calls thing” was just a figure of speech. It really means that nobody is probably listening to your phone calls. Most of the time. And if they are, they have followed some obscure rules in secret so it’s all good.

But there’s another problem. If you’ve been following this story at Emptywheel you’ve known about this backdoor search issue for a long time. And you also know that it isn’t just the NSA that has this power to listen in on phone calls without warrants. The FBI can do it under FISA too. Indeed, the court rulings allowing CIA and NSA backdoor searches were apparently based on earlier FBI authorizations. And Wheeler’s close read of Clapper’s letter leads her to believe there’s a reason why everyone’s so focused on the NSA and CIA on this and go out of their way not to mention the FBI — their use (abuse?) of these backdoor searches is quite possibly much more common.

.

QOTD: Franklin Roosevelt

by digby

“We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.”

What’s that saying about those who refuse to study history being doomed to repeat it?

.

Best democracy money can buy

by digby

So under the brilliant conservative doctrine that equates money with speech, the Supreme Court once again loosened meaningful limits on how much money billionaires can throw away on their hobby of undermining democracy and making the world safe for the wealthy.

I’ll let Bernie Sanders speak for me:

It’s already pretty well paved. You all recall this from last week-end, right?

Who wants to marry a billionaire? John Kasich does. So do Scott Walker, Chris Christie and Jeb Bush.

When Sheldon Adelson, the world’s eighth-richest person, according to Forbes, let it be known that he was looking for a Republican candidate to back in the 2016 presidential race, these four men rushed to Las Vegas over the weekend to see if they could arrange a quickie marriage in Sin City between their political ambitions and Adelson’s $39.9 billion fortune.

Adelson was hosting the Republican Jewish Coalition at his Venetian hotel and gambling complex, and the would-be candidates paraded themselves before the group, hoping to catch the 80-year-old casino mogul’s eye. Everybody knows that, behind closed doors, politicians often sell themselves to the highest bidder; this time, they were doing it in public, as if vending their wares at a live auction.

According to what I’ve read about the opinion this morning, the Court has pretty well defined corruption down until it only applies to a quid pro quo where politician and billionaire meet secretly in a smoke filled room where the billionaire gives the politician a paper bag full of cash in exchange for keeping him out of jail. Anything subtler than that is perfectly fine. As is anything more public, apparently, since Adelson has a well-known, but very simple agenda: Israel and online gambling. In fact, he requires that anyone he backs promises to follow his edicts on these two issues. I don’t know why that isn’t considered a quid pro quo, but apparently it isn’t.

In the meantime, let’s just say that conservative billionaires are happy today. The Supreme Court has lifted one more inconvenient paperwork requirement from their overburdened lawyers and they’ll now be a little bit freer to buy elections. Which is as it should be. This was the original promise of America, after all. As Founding Father (and wealthy landowner) John Jay said: “Those who own the country ought to govern it.”

And so they do.

Update: Oh dear, I forgot the third big item on Shelly’s agenda: busting labor. Of course, these right wingers probably don’t need to be bribed to go along with that. They’re true believers. But that doesn’t mean old Shelly won’t have particular …. expectations.

.