Month: September 2014

Out of the guns of babes

by digby

This piece by Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig at Salon about the “normalizing” of guns for children truly stunned me. But it shouldn’t. After all, the whole point of Open Carry and the larger NRA agenda is the proliferation of guns and the legalization of killing with them (whether through accident or “self-defense.”) It’s inexplicable why this nation is putting up with this sort of insanity but it seems to be working.

She quotes this post from the Motherlode blog at the New York Times:

“This summer, three of my four children learned to shoot a .22. I relearned, too. I hadn’t fired a gun in years. To be honest, it was fun; like the many visitors who reviewed Bullets and Burgers on TripAdvisor before this tragedy, we enjoyed having a safe opportunity to do something my children had seen only on television or in video games[…]No matter how you feel about firearms and gun laws, we live in the country we live in. My neighbors have guns. Your neighbors have guns. Your guns may be locked up; the babysitter’s boyfriend may keep his on the seat of his car. At some point, some child is going to take my child or yours by the hand, open Mom’s closet or the trunk of Dad’s car, and say, “Look!” At that point, I don’t want my children to say, “Wow, let me see that.” I want them to shrug and say, “Whatever” and “Let’s go do something else.” (I actually want them to say: “Suzi, get away from there! That’s dangerous! We have to go tell your mom and mine right now!” But I’m realistic.)”

I spent a good part of my youth in Alaska. There are guns there, lots of them. But to my recollection nobody ever casually left one on the seat of his car, nobody carried one in her waistband, nobody ostentatiously took them into public buildings. And everyone I knew who had guns treated them like the deadly weapons they were and kept them away from children. Many of these were people who hunted for food and actually lived in fear of dangerous wild animals. And somehow they were able to get through life without teaching their kids that guns were just a lot of fun for their own sake and that casually leaving them around was perfectly normal. It was not, not even among the most dedicated hunters and gun enthusiasts.

The piece points out that this nonsensical view that kids will get bored with guns if they are exposed to them is like saying they’ll get bored with amusement parks and ice cream.  Sure it will, just like allowing kids to watch TV and play video games might lead them to be more likely to read books or clean their rooms. It’s always possible, of course, except that in the event that doesn’t happen, video games and TV aren’t going to kill them or someone else if they happen to drop the remote or get over-excited.

Honestly, this is the sickest thing I’ve read about guns in a long time. If the response to that horror of the 9 year old girl accidentally killing her instructor with an Uzi at “Bullets and Burgers” leads one to the conclusion that more kids should be handling guns, we are screwed. You’ve got to give the NRA credit — they are the most insane lobby in the country and yet they are massively successful.

.

QOTD: A very bad man

by digby

All that we have to do is to send two Mujahedin to the farthest point East to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qa’ida in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human economic and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits to their private companies… So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. — Osama bin laden

Via Matt Duss whose piece on the President’s speech is well worth your time. It ends with this astute observation:

Speaking as a candidate in 2008 of his intention to withdraw from Iraq, Obama said, “I don’t want to just end the war, but I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place.” It was a statement that inspired a great many progressives, this one included. But every day of his presidency has shown how hard that is to change that mindset, and he continues to be battered and buffeted by it. It’s also impossible to ignore the fact that, by constantly asserting vast executive authority for various anti-terrorism measures, from drone strikes to surveillance, Obama has also affirmed and strengthened that mindset. Like Corleone, he’s complicit in his own entrapment. And it’s something progressives will have to continue to struggle with long after his presidency ends.

That’s the deep state at work. And the problem goes far beyond executive power. As I’ve been writing for some time, the ultimate answers lie in our commitment to empire (and our dependence on oil.) This is probably going to get worse as other resources become more precious due to climate change. Most Americans like being an empire with all that that implies. But the costs are mounting.

.

Stupid is as stupid does

by Tom Sullivan

Many have commented on the recent Facebook posting by a Georgia Republican state senator. Fran Millar complained about siting an early voting location in a South DeKalb mall heavily used by African American residents, a location with large black churches nearby. Millar then made things worse in followup comments:

“I would prefer more educated voters than a greater increase in the number of voters. If you don’t believe this is an efort [sic] to maximize Democratic votes pure and simple, then you are not a realist. This is a partisan stunt and I hope it can be stopped.”

That sentiment among Republicans goes back at least to Paul Weyrich’s oldy-goldy, Goo-Goo syndrome speech from 1980.

George Chidi, a Georgia journalist writing in the Guardian, acknowledges the partisan flavor of the location decision, calling the plan “a gigantic middle finger to Republicans intent on suppressing black voters.” But if Republicans want to head off “the coming demographic Armageddon,” Chidi believes, they might just want to start courting those black voters.

Considering that early voting will begin in a few weeks, I want pivot to Millar’s crack about preferring “more educated voters” to more voters generally. It’s easy to sneer at Millar for (basically) calling constituents stupid. Besides being condescending, it’s not the message to send people right before you ask for their votes.

Yet, I sometimes hear the same from lefties about poor, white, Republican voters. Occasionally, they just blurt out that voters are stupid. More often it’s couched in a dog-whistle complaint about people voting against their best interests. Which, if you think about it, is just a more polite way of saying the same thing.

As a field organizer in the South, I remind canvassers that, no, those voters are not stupid. They’re busy. With jobs and kids and choir practice and soccer practice and church and PTA and Friday night football and more. Unlike political junkies, they don’t keep up with issues. They don’t have time for the issues. When they go to the polls they are voting to hire someone to keep up with the issues for them. And when they look at a candidate — your candidate — what they are really asking themselves is simple: “Is this someone I can trust?”

One of my favorite southernisms is, “I wouldn’t trust anyone my dog doesn’t like.” That, I caution canvassers, is how most Americans really vote, like it or not. And if you don’t purge the thought, those “low information” voters? They will know you think they’re stupid before you do. Right before you ask for their votes.

Why The NFL Shit Won’t Hit The Big Media Fan. Unless… by Spocko

Today the AP put out a story that the NFL in April received a DVD containing the surveillance video of Ray Rice slugging his fiancé. As you read the story and the follow up from the NFL you will see the personality of the organization shine through. You will also see the linguistic mark of hot-shot lawyers and PR crisis professionals.

Barry Petchesky at Deadspin is doing great work on this story. From today:

Update: The NFL has released the following statement in response to the AP’s report.

“We have no knowledge of this. We are not aware of anyone in our office who possessed or saw the video before it was made public on Monday. We will look into it.”

Here’s what Roger Goodell said last night to CBS when asked if anyone at the NFL had seen the tape before Monday:

“No one in the NFL, to my knowledge, and I had been asked that same question and the answer to that is no. We were not granted that. We were told that was not something we would have access to. On multiple occasions, we asked for it. And on multiple occasions we were told no. I understand that there may be legal restrictions on them sharing that with us. And we’ve heard that from attorneys general and former attorneys general.”

Weasel words for the win! I get tired of the troupe, “It’s not the crime it’s the cover up.” As if all the would be Woodward and Bernstein’s out in big media land will act now.

The reality is that big media outlets won’t be unleashing investigatory teams–if they even exist–unless they have no choice.  And then it will be responding to what someone else has dug up, giving the NFL spokespeople multiple bites at the apple to comment.

There is one major media outlet that could dig deeper into the NFL lies. Fox News.

What would it take for that to happen?  What if Hillary Clinton was brought in to give advice to the NFL? What did she know and when did she know it? How much was she paid for this advice? Who did she talk to? Can we get her to talk about it under oath so she can’t lie about it?  (Barring Hillary herself, did any of her staff advise the NFL?)

That kind of info would put a partisan organization like Fox News in a bind. They want to make Clinton look bad, but it might hurt their big advertiser. Prediction? They would pass.

El Rushbo is the Real Victim Here


Who else normally would support the NFL and doesn’t have them as a big advertiser? Rush Limbaugh.

If I wanted to push the story against a company that has a right wing personality and is normally supported by the RW media, I would figure out a reason to give the RW media to pursue the story.  They can’t look like they are siding with women, that’s a “liberal” issue.  What or who can they be against? Elitism.

The elites wouldn’t let Rush buy into the club/franchise. This is his chance to get back at the people who snubbed him. He has the means, motive and opportunity to lash back at the NFL management. He might even pretend he cares about women in the process. His internal narrative?

 “You think I’m not good enough to be an owner because of my attitudes toward women? Well guess what? You aren’t good enough to be owners because you rejected me. I’m going to expose your lies out of spite.”

I don’t think he will do this, he still thinks he can get back into the club. But it would be fun to see them fight each other. Rush won’t be able to burnish his image with women now, but he would be able to drag some NFL people down with him.

Now if I can  just get a call into Smeadly…

Tweet ‘O the Day

by digby

When shoved into a fight, like #Obama has w/ ISIS, we tend to respond one of 2 ways: Fiercely, angered by the imposition. Or half-hearted.
— Ron Fournier (@ron_fournier) September 10, 2014

Is there a third option?

We’re angry and scared now. We want to fight. History suggests that we will rally behind the commander in chief in the immediate aftermath of tonight’s address. But it wasn’t that long ago—a matter of weeks, really—when “war-weary” was the go-to adjective for “Americans.” We will grow weary again, and Obama may need to draw on tonight’s speech to remind people, “This is why we must fight.”

That pretty much sums it up: We must fight! To hell with all that pansy strategy talk, the president has to be a decider and accomplish the mission, whatever it is, and dammit we have to stick with it forever! Fight, fight, fight.  (He’s right that the people will likely rally — the propaganda from all sides has done its work.)

Andrew Sullivan is one of the few people who has revisited his support for Bush’s warmongering and is much more skeptical this time. He provides us with an excellent round-up of opinion that’s just a teensy bit more nuanced than what we are seeing on cable news right now or from Fournier above. I’m going to pick off a few of them but I highly recommend that you read the whole post and follow the links if you’re looking for real information. He titles the post Obama’s open-ended, reckless ISIS gamble:

Ahead of the president’s major address tonight, word has leaked that Obama is considering airstrikes in Syria as part of the military operation against ISIS:
President Obama is prepared to use U.S. military airstrikes in Syria as part of an expanded campaign to defeat the Islamic State and does not believe he needs formal congressional approval to take that action, according to people who have spoken with the president in recent days. Obama discussed his plans at a dinner with a bipartisan group of foreign policy experts this week at the White House and made clear his belief that he has the authority to attack the militant Islamist group on both sides of the Iraq-Syria border to protect U.S national security, multiple people who participated in the discussion said. The move to attack in Syria would represent a remarkable escalation in strategy for Obama, who has sought during his presidency to reduce the U.S. military engagement in the Middle East. 

I guess entering one failed state’s civil war wasn’t challenging enough! Let’s enter two while we’re at it. Exit strategy? Pshaw. That’ll be up to Obama’s successor. In a more granular must-read analysis of this clusterfuck, Marc Lynch stresses that while a strategy of airstrikes and supporting local ground forces may be able to help restore stability and sovereignty to Iraq, in Syria these options “offer no plausible path to political or strategic success”: 

A strategy predicated on the existence of an effective moderate Syrian rebel force is doomed to fail. Instead, the focus should be on shaping the environment in ways which will encourage the emergence of a politically legitimate and more effectively unified opposition. The destructive and radicalizing effects of uncoordinated flows of aid to competing rebel groups from outside states and private actors have long been obvious. The emerging regional strategy offers perhaps the first opportunity to unify these efforts to build rather than divide the Syrian opposition. The new coalition should expand on efforts to shut off funding and support not only for ISIS but also for the other powerful Islamist trends within the Syrian rebellion. 

This will take time. The immediate goal in Syria should be the securing of a strategic pause between the rebel forces and the regime in order to focus military efforts on ISIS. Crucially, this strategic pause does not mean cooperation or alignment with Asad, or a retreat from the Geneva Accord principles of a political transition. It should be understood instead as buying the time to shape an environment in which such a transition could become plausible. … The longer-term goal should be to translate this anti-ISIS tacit accord into an effective agreement by the external backers of both Asad and the rebels on a de-escalation of the conflict. Rather than a military drive on Damascus, the international community should support the delivery of serious humanitarian relief, security and governance to rebel controlled areas and refugees.

I simply do not believe we are capable of pulling anything like this off. .. 

Juan Cole lays out some of the inherent risks in a US military campaign against ISIS:

Obama appears to envisage arming and training the “moderates” of the Free Syrian Army, who have consistently been pushed to the margins by al-Qaeda offshoots and affiliates. Private billionaires in the Gulf will continue to support ISIL or its rival, Jabhat al-Nusra (the Succor Front, which has pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda). 

Strengthening yet another guerrilla group will, again, likely prolong the fighting. Moreover, in the past two years, Free Syrian Army moderate groups have gone radical and joined Nusrah or ISIL at an alarming rate. Defectors or defeated groups from the FSA will take their skills and arms with them into the al-Qaeda offshoots. 

In Iraq, while giving the Kurds and the Iraqi army close air support against ISIL has already borne fruit when the local forces were defending their ethnic enclaves, it hasn’t helped either largely Kurdish forces or the (largely Shiite) Iraqi army take Sunni Arab territory. Several campaigns against Tikrit have failed. The only thing worse than this failure might be success. Success would mean smart phone video making its way to YouTube showing US bombing urban residential buildings full of Sunni Arab families in support for a motley crew of Kurdish (non-Arab) fighters and Shiite troops and militiamen. Helping such forces take Tikrit, the birthplace of Saddam Hussein, would make for a very bad image in the Sunni world.

But we never learn, do we? Robin Wright’s comparison of the best- and worst-case scenarios illustrates how tremendous those risks are: 

For the United States, the best possible outcome would be for the militants to withdraw from their illusory state in Iraq to bases in Syria, where they might wither in the face of strengthened Syrian rebels; ideally, the rebels would also bring an end to the Assad regime in Damascus. Iraq and Syria, with their multicultural societies, would then have breathing room to incubate inclusive governments. That’s the goal, anyway. The worst outcome would be another open-ended, treasury-sapping, coffin-producing, and increasingly unpopular war that fails to erase ISIS or resurrect Iraq. It might even, in time, become a symbolic graveyard of American greatness—as it was for the French and the British. The Middle East has a proven record of sucking us in and spitting us out 

Maybe it will take another humiliating, devastating defeat in an unwinnable war to finally get Americans to understand the limits of their military power – and the increasing toxicity of the American brand.

GoFund yourself

by digby

If you would like to see the true success of the anti-abortion zealots just get a load of this:

Last week, crowdfunding platform GoFundMe pulled a campaign to raise money for an Illinois woman’s abortion. In a message to the woman, identified only as Bailey, GoFundMe said that the fundraiser was not “appropriate” for the site because it contained “subject matter that GoFundMe would rather not be associated with.” In an earlier comment to Salon on its decision to shutdown the campaign, a “customer happiness” representative said that each review is handled on a “case-by-case basis” and, “In this particular case, GoFundMe determined that the fundraising campaign titled ‘Bailey’s Abortion Fund’ would be removed from the site.”

But as of this week, the site will no longer handle campaigns to fund abortion on a case-by-case basis. According to GoFundMe’s updated guidelines (“What’s Not Allowed on GoFundMe“), abortion fundraisers are banned without exception. In addition to prohibiting crowdfunded abortion campaigns, “content associated with or relating to” abortion is also banned. This information is listed under the headline, “Termination of Life,” which is the same language used by antiabortion activists who believe in fetal personhood. (The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists defines abortion as “a procedure that is done to end a pregnancy.”) In fact, GoFundMe has a separate section outlining which medical campaigns are prohibited, but abortion is not listed in it.

But the ban on abortion-related content has not been neutrally applied. As of Wednesday afternoon, there are still pages of antiabortion campaigns active on the site. It seems that you can’t use GoFundMe to raise money for anything related to abortion — unless you’re campaigning to ban abortion.

One campaign that raised $1,510 of its $1,700 goal described its mission as “Advocating for Women & Girls at the UN,” and informed potential donors, “Your donation will help spread the word of more atrocities that take place in American abortion clinics.”

This is not all that unusual. Advocating for reproductive rights is “controversial.” Advocating for “life” isn’t. That’s one of the big success stories of the past couple of decades of movement conservatism.

This is a battle that people are sick of fighting, I get that. Why won’t women just figure this out and move on already? But this is an issue that personally affects the freedom of half the population of the planet and indirectly impacts everyone. It’s as fundamental to human agency in this life as it gets. And those who want to restrict that agency and limit the choices and ultimate freedom of women are not losing the battle. They’re winning it. One baby step at a time.

.

2nd Amendment remedies

by digby

Why should this be a problem? According to the gun proliferation advocates carrying a gun is a perfectly normal thing to do and nobody should feel that it’s being used as a form of intimidation, especially not in a political sense:

[Councilman] Carreia signed the petition filed by town residents to recall the mayor [Flanagan] over tax hikes and garbage fees. Flanagan, who has challenged the petition’s validity, allegedly asked Carreia to call the Fall River Herald News and say he was intimidated into signing the recall petition.

According to Carreia, Flanagan took a gun out of the center console in the SUV and told the councilman that he never leaves home without his firearm.

“Obviously when he took out a gun, the whole thing escalated,” Carreia told the Boston Herald on Monday. “This is the mayor. I don’t know what he’s capable of. He didn’t forewarn me he had a gun. I thought, ‘This is ridiculous. This is crazy.’ There’s no doubt in my mind there was intimidation being used. No doubt.”

However, Flanagan said that the gun was in his waistband and that he never took it out. He claims he only showed Carreia the gun and was trying to show Carreia how to protect himself.

That’s right. He was just showing him his gun and giving him some “instruction” on how one might protect ones self. Just like those nice “good guys” who carry guns into stores and restaurants aren’t in any way intimidating people. They’re just exercising their right to bear arms — and if you happen to feel intimidated by that, well, that’s your problem.

Nice little free speech you’ve got there … be a shame if anything happened to it.

.

QOTD: Rachel Maddow

by digby

On the necessity of having a congressional debate on ISIS strategy:

We have a great and recent history of making terrible decisions. Terrible, short-sighted, poorly argued and in some cases based on false premises decisions.”

Also too, this:

Yes, some of the U.S. aircraft that are conducting these now 153 airstrikes are drones, so there is no pilot at risk, the the other aircraft that we’ve got over there are fighter jets and what they describe as attack aircraft. All of those have pilots and crews. And for some reason we’ve decided not to call what they’re doing “combat.” But the people they are attacking have some capacity to shoot down aircraft that are attacking them. They’ve got heavy anti-aircraft weapons.

So it might be politically convenient to say you support airstrikes, but not combat, or airstrikes but not “boots-on-the-ground. But there are now more than 1100 U.S. personnel in Iraq to support the airstrikes that are already happening. And god forbid if American aircraft start getting shot down by this militant group with their anti-aircraft artillery, then you better believe there are going to be boots on the grounds, and quickly…

Her whole segment is worth watching.

Unfortunately, there is almost no chance that the congress would not approve military action against the barbaric monsters who beheaded two Americans. The president is out there saying that he’s going whether they like it or not which may just be enough to taunt them into doing it — especially since the polling makes it clear that the American people back the play.

So I think the “Kingston” strategy of forcing the president to make the decision so they can criticize him either way may no longer be operative. It’s always possible that they can delay action until the election but if history informs us of anything, a call to arms will almost always be met with enthusiastic support among most politicians trying to be re-elected.

But the debate is still worth having.It tends to clarify things. And politicians should be on the record when it comes to war. I just wouldn’t get my hopes up that it will change anything,.

.

The start of something big?

by digby

The political world is abuzz with the news that the upstart Zephyr Teachout campaign made a much more serious run at Andrew Cuomo last night than anyone anticipated. For a campaign with no money in the most expensive market in the nation, it’s quite an achievement. Blue America is proud to have been among those who endorsed her.

Matt Stoller has a good piece up this morning with five reasons why Cuomo won anyway and it tells you a lot about American politics. (For instance, he points out that the entire “liberal” establishment went for Cuomo and Hochul.) But he also made some important points about why this campaign has stimulated such interest among liberals. This one strikes me as particularly salient:

This was a real debate of ideas. This was the most interesting election I’ve seen since 2006, when Ned Lamont challenged Joe Lieberman for the Senate seat. Lamont defeated Lieberman in the primary, but lost in the general election. That year, the Presidential candidates — Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama — saw that the anti-Bush left that had emerged in the wake of the Iraq war to challenge the pro-war hawks was not dominant in the party, and resolved to crush it. They did. There has been such intra-party agreement for the past six years over policy that Paul Krugman and Matt Yglesias both pronounced the party devoid of real debate, except over some minor details (Vox’s headline was “7 reasons the Democratic coalition is more united than ever”). This election, in 2014, is the first signal that there’s real dissent within the party, over big stuff. While the core disagreements incorporate economic justice as well as national security, it’s not a coincidence that Zephyr Teachout was the internet director of Howard Dean’s campaign in 2003–2004.

I think this is right. But I’d add that all the forces for the status quo are gathering their strength to marginalize it. The Very Serious People (with money) are hashing out the situation and will decide that this actually strengthens Cuomo’s hands with people who matter — conservatives. They will see him as a good leader now. Sure, a bunch of hippies voted against him which means he must be doing something right. “This is a conservative country.” Watch.

Not that it matters — we must forge ahead. Liberals in this country have the same right to representation as conservatives do. And all Americans deserve a debate about the great issues of our time. Hopefully this is the start of something big.

.