Skip to content

Month: April 2014

“What’s wrong with America, they can’t even stand a dead calf?”

“What’s wrong with America, they can’t even stand a dead calf?”

by digby

John Amato seems to be the only one who caught this particular part of Cliven Bundy’s grotesque freakshow the other day:

There has been a lot said today about Cliven Bundy’s CNN interview with Chris Cuomo this morning over his Rosa Parks and MLK views, but what was just as disturbing is that he held a dead calf in his arms to begin the segment and then blamed the government for killing it. We’re into more than far right fringe politics here now, this is downright Hostel II territory for television news.

Chris Cuomo had to ask him to take it away because viewers might get upset.

Cuomo: I see in your arms you are holding a dead calf. What happened?

Bundy: This dead calf died this morning. He’s been without his mother two weeks.

This is horrible, but if Bundy followed the law like many of the other ranchers do, maybe this calf would still be alive. As he started to describe the calf’s tongue, CNN covered up the calf with a graphic

Bundy: Let me lay the calf down.

Cuomo: Yea, that’s probably a good idea given that its a little early and a lot of families are watching, Mr. Bundy, so we don’t want to upset them too much.

Bundy: You know, well they oughtta be upset. And what’s wrong with America, they can’t even stand a dead calf?

Yes, Cliven Bundy is a stone cold racist, I think we’ve established that. But that would be the most normal thing about him.

Check out this report from the ranch:

On Thursday, we witnessed a mainstream exodus from Bundy’s flank. Sean Hannity, Bundy’s biggest booster, called his racist remarks “beyond despicable,” but maintained that they should not taint the supporters who “for the right reasons saw this case as government overreach.”

Exactly how difficult was it, though, to determine pretty early on that Bundy and his followers were using the threat of force to back up some terrifyingly misguided beliefs?

During the few hours I visited last week, this was what was said.

In the background, a singer with an American-flag guitar warms up the stage with a raspy hollering he explains as Tibetan throat singing. Suddenly noticing a man off to the side shaking maracas, he stops and grips the mic:

“Is there really a black man in the house?” A lone “whoo” goes up from the folding chairs. “You’re with the media, right?” The cameraman nods, and the singer returns his focus to the folding chairs. “So, are we racists here today? That’s how they’re trying to spin this one — this is good. Channel 13 came at me the other day — a cute little blonde, of course. They sent her at me, y’know, go get the story! Go get the radical…” The generator cuts out, silencing the mic, and the story about how he isn’t a racist is lost.

A militia member with the group Oath Keepers named Mark, who drove in from out of state by way of Zion National Park (“which was absolutely beautiful — you should go”), offers to explain to me the truth behind public land management.

“The assumption is that the BLM is part of the federal government. But we need to check the facts on that one. The BLM doesn’t work for the government: they work for the United Nations. They might as well be wearing blue helmets. If we find out there’s money being exchanged between Harry Reid and the Chinese government, no one should be surprised.”

A self-trained lawyer tells me the same. He adds that Bar-certified lawyers, like the ones who prosecuted Bundy, have sworn loyalty to the British government, whose statutes encourage sex with clients. “That’s what they do with all their clients.”

That’s just the tip of the iceberg. Get a load of Sean Hannity’s bff:

The crowd, fresh off their victory at the Battle of Bunkerville, gives Bundy a standing ovation. But he doesn’t seem pleased. He reproaches the crowd for failing to follow the word of God – to the letter – which he says is being delivered through him. They failed, for example, to follow his instructions to tear down the toll booths at Lake Mead and disarm the Park Service.

“The message I gave to you all was a revelation that I received. And yet not one of you can seem to even quote it.”

Cliven continues, sermon-like: “The records of our bible — how long have they been kept? Thousands of years. They’ve been turned over generation after generation, buried, and all kinds of things happen to ‘em. And yet, here, something I felt was inspired [by God] and yet we haven’t even carried it forth for even a couple of days. Shame on us.” Smattering of clapping.

He goes on to explain that, although they managed to deter the BLM, they failed to do it “within one hour,” as the revelation had prophesied. So when an hour passes, he decides to get in his bulldozer and march on the BLM himself. The dozer gets stuck in the mud and he receives another revelation.

“It come to my mind real plain — the good Lord said, ‘Bundy, it’s not your job, it’s THEIR job.’ So we come back over here and heard that they had brought some cattle back. So I want you to understand,” addressing the crowd, “This is not my job, it’s YOUR job.

“This morning, I said a prayer, and this is what I received. I heard a voice say, ‘Sheriff Gillespie, your work is not done. Every sheriff across the United States, take the guns away from the United States bureaucrats.’” Lots of clapping for this.

That was followed by a group of politicians.

I think eccentric people are often drawn to events like these so that’s not a surprise. But Bundy himself was being canonized by right wing media for weeks and it was clear that he was a radical and a loon who thought God was telling him to do this stuff. You’d think they would have been just a little bit cautious about jumping on his bandwagon.

Erstwhile supporters Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Dean Heller condemned the racist comments as they should. But have they condemned these?

Every sheriff across the United States, take the guns away from the United States bureaucrats.

Is this kind of talk ok now?

.

Scientists are adorable

Scientists are adorable

by digby

I think this is sort of sweet:

“Honestly, it’s difficult for me to envision a higher honor,” Jason Bond, an Auburn University professor, told the Loop. “It’s permanent. In science, there are few things that we do as scientists that has the permanency that taxonomy does.”

Bond, a spider expert at the university’s Department of Biological Sciences and its Museum of Natural History, discovered several new species of trapdoor spiders in late 2012, and named one of his favorites, “Aptostichus barackobamai” after the president. It had unique characteristics, Bond said, like Obama.

In December 2012, Bond named a new trapdoor spider “Aptostichus barackobamai” after Obama. The spider, according to LiveScience, builds a protective shield and hides behind it before attacking prey (insert joke about dealing with House GOP).

They’ve also named a fungus, a fish and a fossil after him. But nothing beats this:

In April 2012, a new parasite was discovered near Obama’s father’s birthplace in Kenya. The hairworm, unique because it can reproduce without a male, is named “Paragordius obamai” in honor of the president, according to the University of New Mexico.

Wait, I thought all liberals were parasites who can reproduce without a male. What’s so special about this one?

.

Are we slowly awakening to the fact that the death penalty is wrong?

Are we slowly awakening to the fact that the death penalty is wrong?


by digby

Here’s some good news from the Economist: it appears the US may not be trying for the “who can execute the most people” award anymore:

I’ve never understood why any civilized country would have a death penalty.  It’s just illogical to me that anyone thinks it makes sense to punish someone for the heinous crime of killing another human being — by killing a human being. I just can’t see how the “message” that sends makes any sense at all.

It would appear that the public is getting weary of the killing for a number of different reasons. We’ve learned that there are quite a few innocent people on death row for one thing. According to the article juries feel much more comfortable giving a life sentence without the possibility of parole (which has its own problems but it’s still better than a death sentence …) There have also been harrowing tales of suffering during executions as well as the inability of some states to even obtain the necessary drugs for lethal injection. And perhaps there’s a greater awareness these days of just how capricious a our system of justice is. We need massive improvements in that all around, but the least we can do is stop subjecting people to death sentences knowing that all sentences are fairly arbitrary and hit hardest on people of color.  As usual.

The linked article is very much worth a read this week-end if you care about criminal justice issues. This one is a very hard nut to crack but it could happen. We’re executing fewer and fewer people. I look forward to the day it will be zero.

Update: I just want to point out one thing: the big upsurge in support for the death penalty in the early 90s was partially a result of some very bad social science about “super-predators” and some very opportunistic Democrats jumping on the bandwagon for purely partisan reasons: they were chasing that ever-loving rural, conservative, white male vote. That’s always such a winner for everyone.

.

Even us old clunkers deserve to drive on the Information Superhighway

Even us old clunkers deserve to drive on the Information Superhighway

by digby

Many of you have undoubtedly already heard about the impending big el foldo on Net Neutrality. For those who don’t follow these issues, suffice to say that most people were hoping the administration would fight to uphold the notion that the “Information Superhighway” wouldn’t be allowed to change its basic structure to allow big money players to have an advantage over little nobodies like me. Oh well:

How did Obama go from championing an open web to potentially presiding over the very dismantling of its openness? It’s likely that his idealism eroded, the same way most starry-eyed candidates’ idealism does; worn to a nub by a relentless tide of industry lobbying and influence peddling…

So how corrupted is the office charged to protect consumers from telecom monopolists and traffic profiteers? How bad is it, really? According to the watchdog group LittleSis.org, which maintains a “free database of who-knows-who at the heights of business and government,” it’s about as bad as it gets. Kevin Connor, the org’s co-founder, used LittleSis’s new mapping tool, which is currently in beta, to whip up a chart of the interconnected FCC-telecom lovefest transpiring in just Wheeler’s office alone for Motherboard:

“The FCC might as well be a subsidiary of Comcast, once you map out the org chart,” Connor told me. “The regulators used to work for the industry, they will in the future, and they think they do right now. So they make the policy work for the industry, and that’s how you get proposals like this one.”

This is just a microcosm of the way our government works in general.

I don’t honestly know if the president has been corrupted by this process. But being as generous as I can be, I’m going to guess that there are a number of factors involved, not the least of which is a desire to keep the cable companies happy so they don’t decide to become aggressively adversarial on the spying stuff. They have a big card to play, even beyond money. And there is clearly a partisan race to see who can best kowtow to Silicon Valley money, which is obviously an enormous cache of cash. Since most of those players are libertarianish by orientation, I’d expect to see more of this sort of thing.

And finally, there’s always the Occam’s razor explanation which is that the president never cared about Net Neutrality and the Democratic strategists see this a gimme to one of the big players in a way that will only upset some dirty bloggers and a few liberal malcontents who think the internet is a vitally important modern institution which belongs to everyone and should be kept as open as possible. And who really cares about them anyway?

.

Plutocrat propaganda dressed up in Patriot gobbledygook

Plutocrat propaganda dressed up in Patriot gobbledygook

by digby
Look at this pile of noxious propaganda the Tea Party is passing around these days. 

Declaration for Constitutional Spending
Preamble 


I join my fellow Americans in signing this Declaration for Constitutional Spending. By signing my name to this doctrine, I pledge to restore and protect America’s constitutional principles that are the foundation of our great nation. I believe our government should spend responsibly. I believe that our constitutional principles unite us — and I believe that an America that spends, budgets, and taxes its citizens based off our founding principles will prosper and grow. 

Restore a Balanced Budget
We demand a balanced federal budget and restoration of responsible spending habits. Congress must set spending limits and boundaries that cannot be exceeded. Americans deserve lawmakers who set responsible budgets and a government that spends within those budgets. 

Restore a Culture of Responsible Spending
We demand the government puts an end to the culture of frivolous and detrimental federal spending. Congress cannot continue to waste our taxpayer dollars on special interest projects and excessive and costly government programs. To get our economy back on track, we need to rein in government spending and cultivate a culture of responsible spending cuts. 

Restore Limited Taxation
We will fight against tax hikes in order to ensure our government remains within its constitutional taxation and spending limits. Excessive government taxation has been detrimental to the balance of our struggling economy. Federal taxation overreach has gone too far. Americans work hard for their paychecks – they should be able to choose how to spend their own money. 

Restore Transparency and Accountability in Government Spending
Taxpayers have the right to know how and where their hard-earned tax dollars are being spent. The American people should have access to and open knowledge of the federal government’s spending strategies because our government should be accountable to its people. 

Restore Opportunity and Optimism in Our Free Market
We demand the restoration of low tax rates and limited regulations on small businesses. American entrepreneurs should have the freedom to innovate, build businesses and create jobs without government interference. Citizens, not government, should decide the winners and losers in the economy. 

Restore the Purchasing Power of our Hard-Earned Dollars
Our economic legacy is a vital part of the success of our great country. Americans invest in our economic legacy—one of responsibility and vigor. Our federal government should be similarly making large investments in our economic legacy by building up the purchasing power of our dollar and encouraging hard work, self-reliance and the pursuit of opportunity in America.

I Stand for Constitutional Spending
I believe in restoring principled economic policy, and I demand a new era of commonsense constitutional spending. We must protect the American Dream that unites us and drives our patriotism, hard work and constitutional liberties.

If the American Dream is a banana republic then this is definitely the way to achieve it.  It is is nothing but a plutocratic wish list dressed up in Patriot gobblydygook.

These conservatives are such suckers.  Of course most of them can afford to be — they’re collecting nice pensions and social security checks and they have single payer health care — all of which they think they deserve but nobody younger than them should be allowed to have. Because nobody worked as hard as they did.

Well, except the heirs and heiresses who will benefit most from those policies. They work hard too. At the gym.

.

A small ray of light for a Democratic House, by @DavidOAtkins

A small ray of light for a Democratic House

by David Atkins

I’ve consistently said that I don’t expect Democrats to retake the House until 2022 after the next census. That’s a depressingly long time to wait for action on inequality, climate change, immigration, and so many other pressing problems. Any ray of hope that gets just one or two seats closer to taking the gavel out of Republican hands is encouraging.

Corrupt GOPer Michael Grimm might have gifted Democrats one of those rays of hope:

News of Rep. Michael Grimm’s anticipated indictment Friday afternoon jolted a competitive Staten Island House race and leaves his fellow Republicans with few good options for retaining his seat in the fall.

Grimm has not made clear whether he will stay in the running, and the expected accusations from federal prosecutors give Democratic opponent Domenic Recchia an indisputable opening in the swing district.

Grimm is a nasty piece of work, and it’s great that voters will likely be spared his “representation.” Even more importantly, it gets Democrats potentially one seat closer to the uphill shot at taking the House. And even if we fall short, the closer the margin, the likelier a few House Republican crossovers will be to at least getting immigration reform done over the next few years.

.

The Unedited Bundy: As Vile as the Edited by tristero

The Unedited Bundy: As Vile as the Edited 

by tristero

A rightwing site proclaimed Hoax Exposed! and posted the unedited footage of the Cliven Bundy interview, claiming that it proved that what Bundy was saying actually wasn’t racist – once you saw the context.

I actually wasted about 5 minutes of my life watching it. It’s racist as hell, and in some ways the context makes it worse. The Times simply cut it down.

And I can never reclaim that time I lost.

Update by digby:

And it’s not like that’s the only time he’s spoken. There’s the press conference. The excerpt below is just a little piece of it.

You can see the whole thing here. I’m sure you’ll enjoy the part where he wonders why there are no “colored brothers” or Mexican and Chinese brothers supporting his cause and then says:

“They’re just as much American as we are, and they’re not with us. If they’re not with us, they’re going to be against us.”

And this incoherent mess:

Perhaps someone should call in Sarah Palin to translate.

.

The right’s very uncomfortable week

The right’s very uncomfortable week


by digby

I love this piece by Paul Waldman about what an uncomfortable week it’s been for Republicans.  He starts off with Cliven Bundy of course, but that’s not the end of it by any means. Here’s a sample of some other right wing lunacy:

Republicans are also being made uncomfortable by their own candidates, who haven’t all gotten the message on the “outreach” the party is supposed to be doing. Here’s one who has proposed an effort to round up and deport every undocumented immigrant in the country, which he calls, no kidding, “Operation Wetback.” Here’s one who said it was an “abominable idolatry” when wives love their children more than their husbands, arguing that that’s what causes divorces most of the time. He added that in the “vast preponderance” of situations where men are adulterous, women are to blame because they have showered too much emotion on their children instead of their husbands. And here’s one who endorsed cockfighting.

This really has been a banner week in wingnuttia. I follow this stuff pretty closely and there was so much of it that I actually missed the one about women causing their husbands to sleep with other women because they love their children too much. I must have missed that biblical lesson in Sunday School — the one where Jesus said that it was wrong to love your kids. I did miss a few Sundays, I admit …

And yes, Republican politicians are now endorsing cockfighting. Cockfighting…

Where do they go from here?

.

It takes Piketty to make conservative elites panic? Really? by @DavidOAtkins

It takes Piketty to make conservative elites panic? Really?

by David Atkins

Paul Krugman calls it the Piketty panic:

“Capital in the Twenty-First Century,” the new book by the French economist Thomas Piketty, is a bona fide phenomenon. Other books on economics have been best sellers, but Mr. Piketty’s contribution is serious, discourse-changing scholarship in a way most best sellers aren’t. And conservatives are terrified. Thus James Pethokoukis of the American Enterprise Institute warns in National Review that Mr. Piketty’s work must be refuted, because otherwise it “will spread among the clerisy and reshape the political economic landscape on which all future policy battles will be waged.”

Well, good luck with that. The really striking thing about the debate so far is that the right seems unable to mount any kind of substantive counterattack to Mr. Piketty’s thesis. Instead, the response has been all about name-calling — in particular, claims that Mr. Piketty is a Marxist, and so is anyone who considers inequality of income and wealth an important issue…

No, what’s really new about “Capital” is the way it demolishes that most cherished of conservative myths, the insistence that we’re living in a meritocracy in which great wealth is earned and deserved.

For the past couple of decades, the conservative response to attempts to make soaring incomes at the top into a political issue has involved two lines of defense: first, denial that the rich are actually doing as well and the rest as badly as they are, but when denial fails, claims that those soaring incomes at the top are a justified reward for services rendered. Don’t call them the 1 percent, or the wealthy; call them “job creators.”

But how do you make that defense if the rich derive much of their income not from the work they do but from the assets they own? And what if great wealth comes increasingly not from enterprise but from inheritance?

What Mr. Piketty shows is that these are not idle questions. Western societies before World War I were indeed dominated by an oligarchy of inherited wealth — and his book makes a compelling case that we’re well on our way back toward that state.

It’s more than that, though. Mr. Piketty is certainly not the first to point that out.

What makes Piketty thesis so upsetting to conservatives is his argument that income inequality actually hampers economic growth. That’s what makes up the bulk of his thesis, and that’s what is most novel about it.

The immorality of income inequality and the trend toward aristocracy haven’t bothered them much. But when someone points out that all of this immoral plutocracy actually hurts GDP growth, that’s when the panic ensues.

It’s almost as if the wealthy elite have turned GDP growth into a golden idol. It’s been standard dogma that the dirty lefties are constantly besmirching the sacrament of growth. When someone starts pointing out that the high priests are defiling the altar, that’s when chaos begins to engulf the temple.

That’s pathetic.

.