Skip to content

Month: May 2014

When failing to shop officially became a terrorist threat

When failing to shop officially became a terrorist threat

by digby

Wait, wasn’t it a paranoid conspiracy to even suggest that there was coordination among federal, state and local authorities in dealing with the Occupy protests?

When the Occupy protests spread across the country three years ago, state and local law enforcement officials went on alert. In Milwaukee, officials reported that a group intended to sing holiday carols at “an undisclosed location of ‘high visibility.’ ” In Tennessee, an intelligence analyst sought information about whether groups concerned with animals, war, abortion or the Earth had been involved in protests.
[…]
The communications, distributed by people working with counterterrorism and intelligence-sharing offices known as fusion centers, were among about 4,000 pages of unclassified emails and reports obtained through freedom of information requests by lawyers who represented Occupy participants and provided the documents to The New York Times. They offer details of the scrutiny in 2011 and 2012 by law enforcement officers, federal officials, security contractors, military employees and even people at a retail trade association. The monitoring appears similar to that conducted by F.B.I. counterterrorism officials, which was previously reported.

There are legitimate reasons for police agencies to track major gatherings around the country. But take a look at the documents and then tell me whether or not their “intelligence gathering” was all kosher.

This was interesting:

The Boston Regional Intelligence Center, one of the most active centers, issued scores of bulletins listing hundreds of events including a protest of “irresponsible lending practices,” a food drive and multiple “yoga, faith & spirituality” classes.

The reports also listed appearances by people including a professor at the Harvard Divinity School, the linguist Noam Chomsky and an official at the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, who was to discuss the Patriot Act. Some reports noted that a man scheduled to join in a teach-in at Dewey Square had written a film about Sacco and Vanzetti and wondered whether he was “a known/respected figure within the anarchist movement.” Others described Bill McKibben, an environmentalist and scholar at Middlebury College, stating, “McKibben organized a sit-in near the White House in August of this year to protest construction of a pipeline,” and was arrested but not charged.

They were very busy. Too busy, evidently, to monitor an actual terrorist threat. That’ll happen when you decide that peaceful political activity is a threat. There’s a lot of peaceful political activity out there.

And just make sure you don’t participate in something threatening like Buy Nothing Day or you might just end up on a terrorist watch list. Evidently failing to shop is considered a threat to the Republic.

The reporter, Colin Moynihan, has a sense of humor. He describes a defense department official writing this to a civilian recipient of his “intelligence”:

Before distributing the message, the employee asked the sender whether it was “safe” to visit the site without hiding his computer’s identity.

Lulz. I don’t think so, buddy.

Update: Kevin Drum notes that the right wingers succeeded in having the DHS revise their policies on armed militias while the left totally whiffed on complaining about the government treatment of Occupy. And he nails the reason why:

Mainstream lefties just don’t identify with the far left as a key part of their tribe. They’ll get a certain amount of support, sure, but they’ll also get plenty of mockery and derision, as the Occupy protesters did. On the right, though, extremists are all members of the tribe in good standing as long as they stop short of, say, murdering people. They only have to stop barely short, though. Waving guns around and threatening to kill people is A-OK, as Cliven Bundy and his merry band of armed tax resistors showed.

So when DHS produces a report suggesting that right-wing extremism might turn out to be a growth industry in the Obama era, the ranks of the conservative movement close. An attack on one is an attack on all, and Fox News stands ready and willing to turn the outrage meter to 11. Rinse and repeat.

And it’s not enough to say the mainstream left was just reflexively defending the Obama administration from all criticism although there is an element of that. They were also defending the abusive local and state police — or, at least, failing to condemn them as they turned up their noses at the “extremists” of Occupy who embarrassed them by being too shrill.

But hey, I’m sure that mainstream liberalism will win in the long run because one of these days the country is going to realize that these Republicans are acting kooky and then they’ll turn on these right wing radicals and chase them right out of town. And then everyone will be proud of the Democrats for being the grown-ups in the room. One of these days. For sure.

.

.

They’re not losing by winning, they’re winning by losing

They’re not losing by winning, they’re winning by losing

by digby

Politico says that the Republicans are in real trouble because they have to rile the base to wing off year elections but then are too extreme to win the presidency. In my piece at Salon I show that this is a feature not a bug:

I wonder if Republican pollsters were telling them the same thing in, say, 1966, when the demographics looked like this:

Now that was a demographic time bomb that encompassed the most radical left-wing young generation in history. And guess what happened? A powerful conservative movement happened that culminated in the election of Ronald Reagan just 14 years later. Perhaps it’s not genetics that is determining their behavior but rather their own experience.

This is not to say that millennials will not be much more liberal than their baby boomer forebears turned out to be, but it would likely have been predicted by many after 1964 that the Republicans had better figure out how to cater to “the youth” or they were doomed. But they didn’t. They catered to fear and resentment and anger and loss and they built their movement around it.

I note that these are different times with a different experience but that when you look at what they have accomplished and what need to accomplish politically, there’s really no reason for them to panic. They’re doing just fine.

I have often noted that the GOP is the most successful minority in the world. They know how to work it.

.

In case you had any doubts about where the GOP base is at… by @DavidOAtkins

In case you had any doubts about where the GOP base is at…

by David Atkins

Polling this early in a presidential race is functionally useless in determining an eventual victor, but a current snapshot can tell you a lot about how the electorate feels. In this case, it’s pretty interesting that the current GOP leaders in Iowa are none other than Mike Huckaby and Ted Cruz:

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) continues to lead early polling in Iowa for the GOP presidential race in 2016.

Huckabee, who won the first-in-the-nation GOP caucus in 2008, topped a list of potential 2016 GOP candidates, with 20 percent saying they would most likely vote for him if he decides to run, according to a survey by the Democratically affiliated Public Policy Polling released Thursday.

A February survey from PPP had Huckabee polling at 17 percent, inside the 5.6 percent margin of error.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) trailed closest behind, with 15 percent. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush scored 12 percent and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) took in 10 percent.

All other candidates scored in single digits: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (9 percent), Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan (8 percent), Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (6 percent), Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (4 percent) and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum (3 percent).

There’s no question that the Republican base is regressing toward an ever more odious brand of conservatism. As the country inevitably moves away from their vision, they’re lurching squarely the other way. That won’t hurt them immediately in 2014, or even perhaps in 2018. But the day of reckoning is coming, and it’s coming hard.

.

0 degrees of separation from right the crazies

0 degrees of separation from right the crazies


by digby

If there is a lamer rationale for failing to do something you say you want to do but really don’t, I can’t think of one more obvious that this GOP nonsense about immigration. Greg Sargent exposes their fundamental dishonesty in this post in which he highlights comments from RWNJ Representative Steve King:

King is absolutely right in suggesting that his posture on this issue is perfectly at home in today’s GOP. While most House Republicans don’t share King’s outsized views of immigrants (remember the cantaloupe-calved drug-hauling DREAMers?), for all practical purposes, the position of many Republicans right now is that the only acceptable policy response to the immigration crisis is maximum deportations from the interior.

The 2012 Republican Party platform endorsed self-deportation, as did the 2012 GOP presidential nominee. This year House Republicans rolled out principles that include legal status for the 11 million. That was a significant philosophical step forward. But nothing has moved since 2012 in practical terms. House Republicans have not proposed or voted on any measures that would accomplish any sort of legal status for the 11 million — even though GOP leaders themselves have said the 11 million must be addressed.

Republicans continue to excuse this by claiming they can’t trust the president to enforce the law. A number of Republican Senators recently spelled out clearly in a letter to the president that their unhappiness with Obama’s enforcement is rooted in his de-prioritization of removals of low-level offenders from the interior, which redirected resources to removals from the border, which have gone up. Thus, when these Senators call on Obama to enforce the law, what they really mean is they want him to re-prioritize deportations from the interior, no matter who gets removed. House Republicans passed Steve King’s 2013 measure to block Obama from using prosecutorial discretion to defer the deportation of DREAMers.

House Republicans don’t say openly that they want maximum deportations from the interior. Instead, they like to say they can’t act on reform because his unilateral changes to Obummercare show his contempt for the law, meaning he can’t be trusted on any immigration reform.

Their base wants massive deportation but the politicians are afraid to admit it — after all, their true masters of the Chamber of Commerce and other business groups want legalization. It’s a conundrum. So they’ve come up with this ridiculous excuse that they can’t trust the president to carry out the law even if they pass it so why bother.

BTW, nobody’s buying it:

“Abortion Barbie” is just good fun but “General Betrayus” is heresy

“Abortion Barbie” is just good fun but “General Betrayus” is heresy

by digby

Even in Lala Land:

Texas gubernatorial candidate and state Sen. Wendy Davis (D) arrived in Los Angeles on Thursday morning for a fundraiser to spot multiple posters portraying her as an “abortion barbie,” the Huffington Post reported.

The signs, titled “Hollywood welcomes Abortion Barbie Wendy Davis,” depict the candidate as a Barbie with a plastic “fetus” in her abdomen. In the poster she is holding another plastic “fetus” below a pair of giant scissors.

It could be anyone who did this but my money’s on the Breitbart gang. It’s their speed.

Just remember this the next time some right winger gets all self-righteous about how crude and disrespectful liberals are:

RedState’s Erick Erickson referred to Davis as an “abortion barbie”, and is apparently quite proud that the nickname stuck around.

“I have helped define Wendy Davis by a moniker that sticks, describes, and makes her the butt of jokes, while drawing out the shrill hysterics of her supporters.”

Rude nicknames have always been part of politics. But from now on when the right wing calls for the smelling salts over someone like, say, “General Betrayus” I suggest that progressives simply respond by blithely explaining:

We have helped define [insert wingnut here] by a moniker that sticks, describes, and makes him the butt of jokes, while drawing out the shrill hysterics of his supporters.

.

QOTD: Mike Konczal

QOTD: Mike Konczal

by digby

In his review of Geithner’s book “Stress Test” and Atif Mian and Amir Sufi’s “House of Debt”:

“The financial crisis left tragic pain and suffering in its wake,” Geithner tellingly says. “Financial crises always do.” Why would that be? Because of the “healing process” of deleveraging. For “House of Debt,” on the other hand, financial crises leave pain because they are associated with high debt levels, and with political efforts by creditors to make sure those debts are never reduced or eliminated. Deleveraging is driven in large part by foreclosures, a process that tends to cause even more damage. Besides harming communities, foreclosures also drive down housing prices, which in turn leads to a vicious cycle of even more people underwater, wallowing in debt and unwilling to spend money, which leads to unemployment, which leads to further foreclosures. There’s nothing “healing” about this process.

Well, in the long run we’ll probably have healing. And you know where we’ll all be in the long run …

Geithner might as well have said:

Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate…it will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up from less competent people.

That was, of course, the advice given to Herbert Hoover by Andrew Mellon at the outset of the Great Depression. But then Geithner also thinks Roosevelt was a loser for failing to reach out in a gesture of bipartisan healing and work with Hoover:

Franklin Roosevelt had refused to lift a finger to help the outgoing administration relieve the suffering of the Depression, so he could draw a starker contrast with President Hoover after his own inauguration. Senator Obama did not follow this politically shrewd but costly example.

Yes, this worked out much better. For the banks.

As Liaquat Ahamed explains in “Lords of Finance,” Hoover asked FDR to issue “a formal statement … pledging himself to a balanced budget and eschewing inflation or devaluation.” In other words, to continue Hoover’s failed policies of austerity and tight money in the face of complete economic collapse. Now, this might have actually helped stop some of the bank runs that were going on then, in part, due to fears that FDR would ditch the gold standard. But it would have, at best, helped for a few months at the cost of making recovery impossible for a few years — if not longer. Roosevelt wisely refused.

Yes, but that would have let the healing begin. By bleeding the patient.

.

Suffer the little (urban) children

Suffer the little (urban) children

by digby

I don’t know about you, but if you’re looking for an example of the GOP’s inherent racism, it’s hard to see a better example that this:

Once again the Republicans are cutting spending on food programs for poor children. No that doesn’t automatically assume they hate children who are not white. But this certainly does:

And in a surprising twist, the bill language specifies that only rural areas are to benefit in the future from funding requested by the administration this year to continue a modest summer demonstration program to help children from low-income households — both urban and rural — during those months when school meals are not available.
[…]
Democrats were surprised to see urban children were excluded. And the GOP had some trouble explaining the history itself. But a spokeswoman confirmed that the intent of the bill is a pilot project in “rural areas” only.

There is simply no better example of the conservative philosophy that says government benefits are fine as long as they don’t go to people they don’t like. Even children.

Update: Also, the program is expanding the menu for the WIC program for new mothers to include potatoes — at the behest of the potato industry which is concerned that young women aren’t eating enough of them.

I’m not saying that potatoes can’t be part of a healthy diet, but let’s just say that it makes little sense to subsidize them in a country that is suffering from an epidemic of obesity. These young women who are cutting down on potatoes are doing the right thing.

.

The New Populism #NewPopulism

The New Populism

by digby

I am late to the game here, but I wanted to make note of this conference being held today by Campaign for America’s Future called the New Populism Conference.  Here’s the program:

CONFERENCE PAPERS ON POPULISTMAJORITY.ORG

The New Populism: A Movement and Agenda to Transform America’s Economy and Politics

Memorandum: The American Majority Is A Populist Majority

CONFERENCE AGENDA

INVESTMENT, GROWTH AND SUSTAINABILITY

9:05 a.m. Time to Rebuild America: Invest and Grow
• REP. KEITH ELLISON (D-Minn.)

9:25 a.m. We Aren’t Broke; We’ve Been Robbed: Fair Taxes in a Gilded Age
• REP. JAN SCHAKOWSKY (D-Ill.)

THE NEW POPULISM

9:45 a.m. The Populist Moment; The Emerging Movement
• ROBERT BOROSAGE, Co-Director, Campaign for America’s Future

10 a.m. The Populist Majority: Americans Want An End to Business as Usual
• CELINDA LAKE, Pollster, Lake and Associates

TAKING ON INEQUALITY AND CAPITAL

10:40 a.m. Full Employment and Growth: Make Workers Scarce and Jobs Plentiful
• JARED BERNSTEIN, Senior Fellow, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

10:55 a.m. Balanced Trade: End the Fast Track to Nowhere
• THEA LEE, Deputy Chief of Staff and Trade Policy Economist, AFL-CIO

11:10 a.m. Curb Wall Street: Too Big to Fail = Too Big To Bail
• SEN. SHERROD BROWN (D-Ohio)

11:20 a.m. Educate This: Guarantee the Opportunity to Learn
• ELAINE WEISS, Coordinator, Broader, Bolder Approach to Education Campaign

THE RULES ARE RIGGED; IT WILL TAKE A MOVEMENT
Noon Keynote Address
• SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-Mass.)

Lunch follows, available in the registration area.

RAISE THE ROOF, LIFT THE FLOOR

1:30 p.m. Jobs with Justice: Living Wage, Basic Rights: Moving in States and Cities Now
• VALERIE ERVIN, Executive Director, The Center for Working Families
1:50 p.m. Empower Workers

• LARRY COHEN, President, Communications Workers of America
2:10 p.m. Crack Down on CEO Plunder
• SARAH ANDERSON, GLOBAL ECONOMY PROJECT, Institute for Policy Studies
THE RISING AMERICAN ELECTORATE: A POPULIST FORCE

2:45 p.m. Shafted: The Rising American Electorate and Today’s Economy
• MAYA ROCKEYMOORE, President, Global Policy Solutions

3:05 p.m. Latinos Want Action, Not Retreat
• KICA MATOS, Director of Immigrant Rights and Racial Justice, Center for Community Change and Director, Fair Immigration Reform Movement

3:25 p.m. Big Debts, Lousy Jobs, Catastrophic Climate: The Coming Millennial Revolt
• SOPHIA ZAMAN, President, U.S. Student Association

DEFEND AND EXPAND SHARED SECURITY

4:05 p.m. Fight Back Against the Oligarchs
• SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-Vt.)

4:35 p.m. Not Right and Left: Right and Wrong
• REV. WILLIAM BARBER II, President, North Carolina NAACP

5:15 p.m. Reception

You can watch the livestream here. If you click over to the Youtube channel you’ll also see a live chat accompanying the stream which I’m sure the organizers will read.

This is an important conversation to have and this group hosting it means it will be noticed by the establishment.

Obamacare ruined the VA. Or something.

Obamacare ruined the VA. Or something.

by digby

I was forced to watch Fox for a while yesterday and realized that the burgeoning VA scandal is really about Obamacare, which seems odd, but makes sense when you remember they lie constantly about everything. The argument rested on the idea that the VA is a government program and so is Obamacare, and that automatically makes them useless. Now, when it was pointed out that they were very different programs and that Obamacare is basically just a bunch of vouchers to buy healthcare rather than a real government program like say Medicare they just started screaming the word “hybrid” as if it were a primal war cry.

But this seems to be the emerging line. The VA is all screwed up so Obamacare will be all screwed up and you’re all going to die! Runferyerlives! (As usual…)

But as Jonathan Cohn points out, (aside from their incomprehensible dishonest babble) there is a little problem with their argument:

It’s worth remembering that some of the problems veterans are having right now have very little to do with the VA and a whole lot to do with American health care. As Phil Longman, author of Best Care Anywhere, noted in his own congressional testimony last week, long waits for services are actually pretty common in the U.S.—even for people with serious medical conditions—because the demand for services exceeds the supply of physicians. (“It took me two-and-a-half years to find a primary care physician in Northwest Washington who was still taking patients,” he noted.) The difference is that the VA actually set guidelines for waiting times and monitors compliance, however poorly. That doesn’t happen in the private sector. The victims of those waits suffer, too. They just don’t get the same attention.

But that’s just the market working and so it’s a good thing. Right?

Meanwhile, Ed Kilgore puts this all in perspective for you in case you are wondering where this is going:

[T]he longer the VA scandal stays in the public eye, the more we will hear arguments the VA should be broken up and its services privatized with federal regulations and subsidies replacing federal bureaucracies—creating a system much like the one contemplated by Obamacare, as it happens. But at the same time, we’ll be told Obamacare itself is a failure because it involves the government in guarteeing heath care. And where conservatives speak to each other quietly, it will be understood that Medicare is subject to the same complaints and deserves the same fate.

This will never be fully settled, I’m afraid. There’s something about sick people being able to get the care they need that offends conservatives. It’s just a fundamental belief on their parts and they’ll fight it forever.

.