Skip to content

Month: October 2014

QOTD: Reza Aslan

QOTD: Reza Aslan

by digby

This interview with Jesse Singal is excellent:

… someone like Sam Harris or Bill Maher sees religion as defining people of faith, their values, their motivations, and I see people as defining their religion.

I agree with Aslan. And I would guess most other atheists do as well. We know too many religious people of different faiths for whom religion is just one part of who they are and who are completely balanced, tolerant, open and often evolving in their interpretation of their faith not to. I also know atheists who take a fundamentalist point of view and are totally intolerant of any challenge to their worldview. To me, this is so glaringly obvious that I wouldn’t think it had to be discussed. I could not comfortably live in this world as an atheist if I believed that all people of faith were all defined by their religion.

I guess what surprises me the most is that some atheists of all people have taken on a medieval worldview that organizes the world by religion and sees it as some kind of apocalyptic battle to the end. It’s not the 14th century guys. We know more stuff now. There is more to human behavior than religions belief. A lot more. (And, by the way, I don’t say that purely from an American centric point of view where we’re all allegedly so pluralistic and tolerant. I’ve lived all over the world and traveled extensively. I’ve found this to be true everywhere I’ve gone. People’s people.)

The whole interview is essential reading. To assume that the religion itself is the reason rather than the excuse for this violent extremism is to miss the point entirely. There are reasons and we’d damned well better figure out what they are and do our best to deal with this thing in a way that makes sense. Fighting the “religion” is completely daft. What are we going to do, follow Bill Maher’s pal Ann Coulter’s advice to “invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity?” That’s what it will take. (By the way the second half of Coulter’s comment is often forgotten: “We weren’t punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That’s war. And this is war.” Is it?)

I find this whole discussion condemning the whole of “Islam” truly disturbing. It’s not only offensive, it’s as dangerous as the terrorism itself. We are a very powerful country and can do terrible damage if we decide to wage a holy war like this. But we are not invulnerable. To create even more enemies out of ignorance and bigotry is scary. No, it’s insane.

.

The Sudetenland will rise again by @BloggersRUs

The Sudetenland will rise again

by Tom Sullivan

Last October, Asheville, NC introduced America to Don Yelton on The Daily Show. You remember? The clip where Aasif Mandvi asked Yelton, “You know that we can hear you, right?” after the Republican precinct chair’s remark about “lazy blacks.”

This October, it’s a swastika photoshopped in front of city hall. Asheville is nothing if not colorful.

Known for its hipster arts scene, craft beer culture, and LGBT-friendly atmosphere, Asheville was dubbed “a cesspool of sin” in 2011 by James Forrester, the late Republican state senator. (You could buy tee shirts within hours.) As local gay couples on Thursday anticipated a federal order allowing same-sex marriages for the first time in North Carolina, city council members approved displaying a large rainbow flag from city hall. The local register’s office began issuing licenses late Friday.

So once more unto the breach, two Republican culture warriors — both known for publicity stunts — stepped up to strike back by photoshopping a Nazi flag in place of an image of the rainbow flag. The Sudetenland will rise again or something.

The two Republicans, former city councilman Carl Mumpower and former Buncombe County GOP chairman Chad Nesbitt, criticized the move saying the Asheville City Council’s decision to fly the flag (the council voted unanimously to display it) violated North Carolina open meeting laws.

“I am equating their methods with the Nazi movement,” Mumpower said according to the North Carolina newspaper. “They are indifferent to the rule of law and indifferent to the vote of the people. And that’s Adolph [sic] Hitler all over again in a different disguise.”

These proud, local characters stand as living proof that hippies and fall leaves are not the only local color in town.

Taser blast from the past

Taser blast from the past

by digby

Remember this one?

Tuesday, January 31, 2012


Citizen Training

by digby
Be advised that walking your dog off leash could get youelectrocuted by the authorities.

A Montara man walking two lapdogs off leash was hit with an electric-shock gun by a National Park Service ranger after allegedly giving a false name and trying to walk away, authorities said Monday.
The park ranger encountered Gary Hesterberg with his two small dogs Sunday afternoon at Rancho Corral de Tierra, which was recently incorporated into the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, said Howard Levitt, a spokesman for the park service.
Hesterberg, who said he didn’t have identification with him, allegedly gave the ranger a false name, Levitt said.

The ranger, who wasn’t identified, asked Hesterberg to remain at the scene, Levitt said. He tried several times to leave, and finally the ranger “pursued him a little bit and she did deploy her” electric-shock weapon, Levitt said. “That did stop him.”

San Mateo County sheriff’s deputies and paramedics then arrived and Hesterberg gave his real name, the park spokesman said.

Hesterberg, whose age was not available, was arrested on suspicion of failing to obey a lawful order, having dogs off-leash and knowingly providing false information, Levitt said.

Witnesses said the use of a stun gun and the arrest seemed excessive for someone walking two small dogs off leash.

“It was really scary,” said Michelle Babcock, who said she had seen the incident as she and her husband were walking their two border collies. “I just felt so bad for him.”

Babcock said Hesterberg had repeatedly asked the ranger why he was being detained. She didn’t answer him, Babcock said.

To be clear: what this means is that if a park ranger stops you for walking your dogs off leash, you are not to ask any questions or fail to carry the proper ID or you risk being shot through with 50,000 volts. This is now the way things work. Apparently, before the taser, this park ranger would have had to shoot this person in the back with her service revolver.

Tasers have turned cops into thugs who use the weapon to demand not just compliance but respect. Someone who is walking his dogs off leash is simply not doing something that would draw this kind of response for any other reason.

Get this:

Rancho Corral de Tierra has long been an off-leash walking spot for local dog owners. In December, the area became part of the national park system, which requires that all dogs be on a leash, Levitt said.

The ranger was trying to educate residents of the rule, Levitt said

Zapping citizens with a taser is certainly one way to train them. In a science fiction dystopia.

Sadly, that’s exactly what tasers are doing: they are training citizens to immediately comply with government authorities on command.

Guess what?

Federal magistrate judge awarded $50,000 to California man after a park ranger used a Taser on him during a confrontation over an unleashed dog…

Cavallaro did not give a verbal warning she would use the Taser, court documents show, but she did order him to stop.

Hesterberg fell face-first onto the asphalt trail, and he told the court he feared he might die.

“I’ve never seen anything like it,” said John Bartlett, one of three witnesses to the incident. “I’m 77 years old, never had such an emotional reaction to something. I didn’t know if the guy was dying — for a leash on a dog.”

The ranger cited him for failure to obey a lawful order, providing false information, and walking a dog off-leash, but San Mateo County prosecutors failed to pursue any of the charges.

Hesterberg then filed a federal lawsuit alleging battery and negligence, and Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley eventually ruled against the ranger.

“Tasers can kill,” said Michael Haddad, one of Hesterberg’s attorneys. “They should never be used against a non-threatening person as the ranger did here.”

The magistrate judge considered the severity of the alleged crimes Hesterberg had attempted to flee and whether he was actively or passively resisting the ranger.

The judge dismissed testimony from the National Park Service’s deputy chief of law enforcement, saying he “revealed a startling lack of awareness of the law and its application to use of force scenarios.”

The NPS official, Hunter Bailey, admitted he was unaware of 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rulings on the legal standard for Taser use, the station reported.

Cavallaro remains on the job as a park ranger after the Department of the Interior found she “acted within agency policy and her training.”

This happens every day for very similar reasons. (And conversely, they often won’t use them for the purpose they were designed — as an alternative to those times you would have to use lethal force.)

At this point, I think we should probably get rid of them. But if the courts will come to see these taser confrontations for the abuse of power and use of torture to force compliance (and “respect”) then maybe the police could be retrained not to use them in anything but cases where lethal force would otherwise be required. Shooting someone full of electricity as a convenient way to teach someone to “respect” the police is authoritarianism in its purest form.

.

He must be so proud

He must be so proud

by digby

Somebody’s getting an invitation to the RNC Christmas party:

Grimes was foolish for answering that way. But disqualifying? Please. What in the world does it have to do with anything?

I’ve got a disqualifying comment for you right here:

Not only was it a stupid comment — he failed.


Update:  On the other hand Grimes really has done something disqualifying too:

Trust him? #Pressler

Trust him?

by digby

If you care about women’s rights, I wouldn’t trust this guy as far as I could throw him:

October 2, 2014:
ARGUS LEADER: If it was an up or no vote on repeal of Roe v. Wade, somehow, what would you, would you like to repeal Roe v. Wade, or do you think that the nation has to live under that Supreme Court decision?

LARRY PRESSLER: Well, I’d probably vote to repeal if we could let the states decide it in the future.

October 12, 2014:
LARRY PRESSLER: And by the way, let me correct one thing very quickly. I am not for overturning Roe versus Wade. That was quoted one day in the newspapers. I’m for keeping Roe versus Wade.

And in case anyone thinks that this South dakota race is like Kansas, think again. It’s different in a lot of respects, but this one is the most salient:

Unlike in Kansas, in which the Independent is a former Democrat, Pressler was a three-term Republican senator with a conservative voting record. In fact, Pressler only left the Republican Party last year, though he endorsed Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, hoping for a presidential appointment. Even now, Pressler won’t say whether he’d caucus with the Republicans or the Democrats.

Pressler is an ex-Republican. What are the odds that he wouldn’t “compromise” on reproductive rights? In fact, what are the odds he won’t be far worse that Joe Lieberman?

Yeah, not good.

Contribute to Rick Weiland’s campaign. He won’t wobble.

A Republican male says what they all really think

A Republican male says what they all really think

by digby

Via Huffpo:

A Republican state lawmaker wrote in a blog post last week that U.S. Rep. Ann McLane Kuster (D-N.H.) will likely lose her re-election race in November because she is “ugly as sin” and “looks matter in politics.”

The New Hampshire blog Miscellany Blue first reported that New Hampshire state Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R) compared Kuster to a “drag queen” in his lengthy post and said she will probably lose to Republican challenger Marilinda Garcia, who is “truly attractive.” He writes that his blog post is politically relevant because he “seem[s] to recall” some new polling that shows “an attractive candidate can have as much as a seven to ten point advantage over a less attractive (or even an unattractive) candidate.”

“Let’s be honest,” Vaillancourt writes. “Does anyone not believe that Congressman Annie Kuster is as ugly as sin? And I hope I haven’t offended sin. If looks really matter and if this race is at all close, give a decided edge to Marilinda Garcia.”

The sweet spot of attractiveness for a female candidate, Vaillancourt says, is attractive, but not “so drop dead gorgeous as to intimidate those watching.” He believes Garcia is exactly that attractive.

Kuster, meanwhile, reminds Vaillancourt of a drag queens at a bar he sometimes passes in Montreal.

“Sad to say, but the drag queens are more atrractive [sic] than Annie Kuster … not that there’s anything wrong with that,” he writes. “I’ve promised myself for years not to use this anecdote, but after seeing the story about the seven to ten point boost for the attractive, the story has political relevance.”

I wish I could say that Democratic men (or libertarian men) would never stoop this low. But they have and they do. And hey, some women too, particularly on the bomb-throwing right. This form of sexism is among the most common — and the most difficult to deal with.  It’s quite powerful:

March survey of 1,500 likely voters nationwide found that no matter what is said about a female political candidate’s appearance, it has a negative impact on what potential voters think of her. 

“When voters heard that coverage focused on a neutral description or a positive description or a negative description of the woman candidate’s appearance, it hurt her likability and it made voters less likely to vote for her,” the groups report of the study, which was conducted by Lake Research Partners and Chesapeake Bay Consulting. 

“Appearance coverage damages voters’ perceptions of the woman candidate on all key traits we tested, but the greatest average losses are on being in touch, being likable, confident, effective and qualified,” they said. 

In short, the moment a woman contending for power within the system of power gets talked about as if she’s contending for top marks within the system of beauty, it diminishes her standing in the other power realm.

Not that it will hurt his career since men are not held to the same standard, but as with so many who love to make these sorts of comments, George Clooney he ain’t:

.

You betcher asset forfeiture it’s corrupt

You betcher asset forfeiture it’s corrupt

by digby

John Oliver did a great story this week on the most corrupt government program this country has ever instituted. For all those who think that “welfare fraud” is some kind of big deal, get a load of this:

Asset forfeiture seems like on of those rare issues on which we might be able to find a bipartisan consensus. Sure, some law and order types in both parties could balk. And there might some anti-tax folks of the Tea Party persuasion who think that this is a fine way to fund the police. But there could be a majority out there who can see that this is simply outright theft and it should be stopped. I still find it hard to believe that anyone but the police think this is ok.

.

Couple white guys sittin’ around talking about their shortcomings

Couple white guys sittin’ around talking about their shortcomings

by digby

… which is why they need all those great big guns:

KURT SCHLICHTER: Oh my gosh, I got to tell you something. I got to tell you something. I finally figured out who Shannon Watts of Moms Demand Action reminds me of.

EDWARDS: Oh?

SCHLICHTER: Annette Bening in American Beauty.

EDWARDS: Wow.

SCHLICHTER: Yeah. Huh? Huh? Yeah.

EDWARDS: Boy, now I am going to have to go back and re-watch — I don’t think I’ve that movie since it came out.

SCHLICHTER: Oh yeah.

EDWARDS: But yeah, okay, okay.

SCHLICHTER: Yeah, yeah, and her husband has got to be named Lester.

EDWARDS: [Laughter] That’s awful.

SCHLICHTER: Stripped of the most basic and threshold abilities of a man; that is to defend his self, his family and his community, by being married to this shrill harridan. She is Annette Bening in American Beauty.

EDWARDS: Talking with Kurt Schlichter, writing at Townhall.

It’s rare that you are privileged to see someone prove your suspicions of their true motives so vividly.

I’m surprised this fellow Schlichter didn’t change his name actually …  

.

The new corruption by @BloggersRUs

The new corruption

by Tom Sullivan

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out the system is rigged. Sen. Elizabeth Warren makes that point at every opportunity. But her most recent interview about that with Thomas Frank in Salon shifted too quickly from philosophy to process. Warren would rather talk about how the rigging hurts working people. She wants to explain how the system is rigged and by whom:

The system is rigged. And now that I’ve been in Washington and seen it up close and personal, I just see new ways in which that happens. But we have to stop and back up, and you have to kind of get the right diagnosis of the problem, to see how it is that—it goes well beyond campaign contributions.

Indeed it does. But “the question that lies at the heart of whether our democracy will survive” isn’t a matter of process or policy.

Janine Wedel comes closer to the mark in an excerpt (also in Salon) from her book, “Unaccountable: How Elite Power Brokers Corrupt our Finances, Freedom, and Security.” Everyday people know the system is rigged better than the elite. Wedel sees it in the comments section of Transparency International’s annual rankings of corrupt countries. “Ordinary people have an instinctual grasp of the real nature of corruption and the inequality that often results.” The United States, they believe, is “grievously under-scrutinized.”

Research out in 2014 shows just how gamed it really is. Two political scientists looked at 1,779 policy issues hashed out from 1981 to 2002 and found that policies widely supported by economically elite Americans were adopted about forty-five percent of the time. If these same Americans indicated little support? Eighteen percent. They write: “The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.” Lest you blame the typically business-oriented Republicans, consider what one of the researchers said in an interview: “Both parties have to a large degree embraced a set of policies that reflect the needs, preferences and interests of the well to do.”

That the system is rigged resounds worldwide. There’s a documented and striking loss of confidence in formal institutions, from governments, parliaments, and courts to banks and corporations, to the media. Apparently, people feel that their public institutions and leaders now merit even less confidence than in the past.

The source (or at least the symptom) is the unaccountability at the top, Wedel argues.

Whether it’s the behavior of public figures or the behavior of public institutions, the new corruption is anchored in unaccountability. Unaccountability, as we shall see in the next chapter, is structured into the DNA of many of today’s corporate and governmental organizations. It is an essential but incomplete condition for the new corruption—the violation of the public trust.

Not having read that chapter for Wedel’s view of organizational DNA, here’s mine. Limited liability—the veil of personal immunity—is a core feature of the modern corporation most of us spend our lives working for. The all-holy Market may impose some external economic discipline on business. But personal unaccountability holds together the strands of corporate DNA. It is no small irony that the most well-heeled servants of the dominant business model so vigorously promote personal responsibility—for others. The corporate form has become the water we swim in but can no longer see when seeking a diagnosis for the widespread corruption both Wedel and Warren identify. If capitalism contains the seeds of its own destruction, as Marx believed, are those seeds produced by the very way we structure our businesses?

Can we immerse ourselves for years on end in a modern business culture suckled on the “morality” of Ayn Rand now taught in business schools, where the self answers to no one, where greed is good, where the bottom line rules, where human beings are “resources” to be consumed, and not be corrupted by it? Think a few motivational posters, a lofty mission statement, or an hour at church each Sunday seeking a higher power will neutralize 50-60 per week spent in service to a different god?

Professor Donald McCabe’s 2006 Rutgers study of cheating behavior found that at the business school level:

Fifty-six percent of graduate business students admitted to cheating … while only 47 percent of their non-business counterparts confessed to it.

Both figures should be shocking.

Duke’s Fuqua School of Business disciplined 34 students for cheating in 2007. McCabe explained to reporters:

“They’ll argue that they’re just emulating the behavior they’re seeing in the corporate world; they’re acquiring a skill that will serve them well when they’re out there,” McCabe, 63, said in an interview. “Getting the job done is the important thing. How you get it done is less important.”

Yves Smith went further, sniffing at the idea that ethics courses would make any difference:

“… American elites are openly corrupt. You can see it with the revolving doors between regulators and top industry jobs, the way CEOs and top politicians tell astonishing lies whenever they are in trouble, the weird combination of precision on inconsequential details versus the carefully coached combinations of misleading but not untruthful answers and “I don’t recall” when you sure as hell know they do remember, the way the press is so thick with propaganda that it takes an Enigma machine to pull out any real messages. So with those role models, why should we expect business school graduates to be paragons of virtue? The are aspiring Masters of the Universe. They are smart enough to see what the real game is, and the message conveyed by the business press and who rises to the top in large organizations today is far more powerful than any lecture, no matter how well or frequently delivered.”

Especially when Democrats and Republicans and authorities across the globe let them get away with anything so long as the donations keep flowing, the doors keep revolving, and accountability is for suckers.