Month: November 2014

Go for it boys

by digby

Steve Benen caught a couple of news items indicating that the Republicans might tell the president he isn’t welcome on Capitol Hill anymore and refuse to allow him to give the State of the Union speech:

Politico reported yesterday that congressional Republicans are weighing a variety of tactics to “address” their disgust over Obama’s immigration policy, and “GOP aides and lawmakers” are considering the idea of “refusing to invite the president to give his State of the Union address.”

Late last week, Breitbart News also ran a piece of its own on the subject: “Congress should indicate to President Obama that his presence is not welcome on Capitol Hill as long as his ‘executive amnesty’ remains in place. The gesture would, no doubt, be perceived as rude, but it is appropriate.”

There’s nothing that says the president has to give the speech on the hill. For most of history they didn’t, they just sent a report to congress. So, I think it would be fine if they refused the president like that. And even if he does give the speech as usual I’m fairly sure we can count on some shennanigans from the peanut gallery yelling at him or booing or something.

Either way, I hope the Republicans show their petulant immaturity for the whole country to see. It makes no difference to Obama — he’s still president regardless of what they do. But I have a sneaking suspicion that this behavior will not be a big hit with the country.

You do have to love the fact that Boehner and company have to figure out a way to let their freakshow have a tantrum so they won’t shut down the government. And here I thought it was the liberals who were overly-indulgent with their children. just Jesus, give them all a bottle and put them to bed.

.

The #Ferguson #fail
by Tom Sullivan

Eugene Robinson this morning does more criticism of the #Ferguson #fail. Robinson calls out the police, for treating the citizens of Ferguson more like “subjects,” and Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch for not acting like one:

The way McCulloch conducted the grand jury probe was anything but ordinary. Evidence is usually presented in the light most favorable to the prosecution; the idea is to seek an indictment and then figure out guilt or innocence later at trial. McCulloch presented both sides of the case in great detail, essentially asking grand jurors — not trial jurors — to be adjudicators of the facts. He put Brown on trial, not Wilson.

In his rambling, self-justifying news conference announcing the no-indictment decision, McCulloch made clear that he believed the eyewitnesses who supported Wilson’s version of events and disbelieved those who did not. Moreover, he questioned the motives of those who disputed Wilson’s story, as if they could not be relied on to participate in an honest search for the truth.

Indeed, during Ferguson grand jury eye witness testimony, prosecutors ask witnesses to back up and clarify where they were, what they saw, and how they saw it, etc. The questions weren’t especially probing, but prosecutors at least challenged witnesses’ stories somewhat. But not Officer Darren Wilson’s account of events.

Two things stand out.

First, prosecutors made a point of asking witnesses (with variations) if after Michael Brown, wounded and bleeding, stopped running and turned to face Wilson, “Did you ever see Michael Brown charging at the officer?” Was he a threat at that point? Several said no. A couple said yes. (Including Witness 10, as Lawrence O’Donnell reported.) The jury believed the latter.

Second, prosecutors walked Wilson through his account, mostly just prompting him to continue. They asked few, if any, probing, challenging, or clarifying questions. His account went unchallenged.

The Guardian weighed in yesterday on the conduct of Ferguson-area officials in the aftermath of the Michael Brown shooting in The five leaders who failed Ferguson: St Louis County prosecuting attorney Bob McCulloch; Governor Jay Nixon of Missouri; Ferguson police chief Thomas Jackson; Ferguson mayor James Knowles and St Louis County police chief Jon Belmar. From the grand jury to the governor, these officials appear out of their depth.

I had to scratch my head to think if I’d even heard of Knowles in all this mess. Did I miss it or has he been MIA as his city burned? Jon Swaine writes:

Ferguson’s 35-year-old, part-time mayor was almost invisible as his city was engulfed by chaotic protests. Sometimes he popped up in TV interviews to defend the actions of the police. Since then he has proved unable to insert himself into the crisis in any meaningful way, choosing instead to make a series of unfortunate comments.

While other officials were conceding that they had a problem, Knowles told MSNBC in late August: “There’s not a racial divide in the city of Ferguson. That is the perspective of all residents in our city. Absolutely.” He would later say in November that he “absolutely” regretted the remarks, which were roundly dismissed by residents and protesters.

BTW: The photo atop Robinson’s column shows a friend, a Navy vet from the local “Veterans For Peace” chapter, being carried away from a demonstration in front of City Hall in St. Louis. Police dislocated his shoulder during the arrest Wednesday. But he joined more than 100 other protesters for a Thanksgiving meal yesterday:

“You know how at halftime during a football game you get to rest,” he said. “You get that motivational speech. Then you come out stronger for the second half.”

Leftovers

by digby

Some soup for you!

This is mexican pozole and if you haven’t had it, you’re missing out on life. This recipe is from Martha Stewart who while not exactly known for mexican cuisine, makes a tasty and easy soup:

1 tablespoon olive oil
2 medium onions, chopped
8 cloves garlic, minced
1/3 cup tomato paste
3 tablespoons chili powder
1 teaspoon dried oregano
4 cans (14.5 ounces each) reduced-sodium chicken broth
4 cans (15 ounces each) white hominy, drained (You can substitute corn if you prefer)
6 3/4 cups shredded cooked turkey meat (2 pounds)
Coarse salt and ground pepper
Assorted garnishes, such as diced avocado, thinly sliced radishes, and crumbled tortilla chips (optional)

Heat oil in a 5-quart saucepan over medium heat. Add onions; cook until translucent, 3 to 5 minutes. Add garlic, tomato paste, chili powder, and oregano; cook, stirring constantly, until evenly distributed.

Add 4 cups water, broth, and hominy. Bring to a boil; reduce heat to a simmer, and cook until fragrant, about 30 minutes.

Stir in chicken; season with 1 teaspoon salt and 1/4 teaspoon pepper. Cook until heated through. (When freezing, cool completely before transferring to airtight containers.)

To serve, divide among bowls, and garnish as desired.

The hominy might pop in the microwave so heat it up on the stove.

Enjoy your food comas everyone!

“Unorthodox practices”

by digby

Also known as covering your ass:

When Ferguson, Mo., police officer Darren Wilson left the scene of the fatal shooting of unarmed teenager Michael Brown, the officer returned to the police station unescorted, washed blood off his hands and placed his recently fired pistol into an evidence bag himself.

Those actions, described in grand jury testimony, violated protocols for handling a crime scene and securing evidence, according to experts in policing procedures and Justice Department documents.

Wilson’s movements after the shooting were among a number of police actions in the aftermath of Brown’s death that experts said were unusual. The grand jury transcripts revealed, for example, that the officers who interviewed Wilson immediately after the shooting did not tape the conversations. The transcripts also showed that an investigator from the medical examiner’s office opted not to take measurements at the crime scene and arrived there believing that what happened between Brown and Wilson was “self-explanatory.’’

Nah, nothing suspicious in all that. Especially not taping the first interview. Because police never protect one another in those situations and allow one of their own to “tweak” his story later.

.

Oh Dad

by digby

I love this Buzzfeed gif-fest about the Obama daughters’ obvious embarrassmnt at their Dad’s silly jokes yesterday when he was giving the Turkey “amnesty.”

Lulz. Teenagers …

.

Don’t worry your pretty little heads about the law

by digby

I don’t know about you, but this seems really bad to me:

NBC host Lawrence O’Donnell blasted St. Louis County assistant district attorney Kathy Alizadeh on Wednesday for taking weeks to tell the grand jury in the Darren Wilson case she made a major mistake regarding police officers’ right to use legal force.

“With prosecutors like this, Darren Wilson never really needed a defense lawyer,” he said.

O’Donnell said that early on in the jurors’ deliberations, Alizadeh handed them a copy of a 1979 Missouri statute saying police were “justified in the use of such physical force as he or she reasonably believes is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or prevent the escape from custody.” However, he explained, the Supreme Court found those kinds of statutes to be unconstitutional six years later.

As the Daily Kos reported, the high court found in Tennessee v. Garner that “where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.”

But in handing the jurors the original statute, O’Donnell said, Alizadeh conveyed the message that Wilson did not feel his life needed to be in danger for him to be legally justified in shooting and killing 18-year-old Michael Brown on Aug. 9.

“She was taking the hurdle that Darren Wilson had to get over in his testimony, and flattening it,” O’Donnell argued. “She was making it impossible for Darren Wilson to fail in front of this grand jury.”

Consequently, he said, the jurors listened to Wilson’s testimony while still believing the statute was still in effect. Alizadeh did not correct her error until Nov. 21, telling them that “part of the case law” did not comply with the Supreme Court ruling.

Court records also show that, when one juror asked whether the high court’s decision overrode state laws, Alizadeh did not say yes, and instead gave a non-commital answer.

“As far as you need to know, just don’t worry about that,” Alizadeh told the juror. Alizadeh’s colleague, Sheila Whirley, added, “We don’t want to get into a law class.”

The worst part of Alizdeh’s actions, O’Donnell said, was that she did not explain how the Supreme Court decision struck the state statute down after letting jurors carry it with them for weeks.

“You will not find another legal proceeding in which jurors and grand jurors are simply handed a law, and then weeks later, handed a correction to that law,” he said. “Then the grand jurors are simply left to figure out the difference in the laws by themselves. That is, actually, something you would do in a law class.”

It’s impossible to know if the jury believed in the end that it was reasonable for Wilson to feel in fear for his life, but when they heard his testimony they believed it didn’t matter, that a cop could shoot down any suspect who was running away in order to arrest them.I don’t know how that might have colored their perception but it strikes me as a big problem.

.

Food, food, food.

by digby

I wrote about food for Salon today. Why not?

An excerpt:

Stuffing is said to be Americans’ favorite dish of the Thanksgiving meal. It has been around in one form or another since Roman times, and there are as many versions in America as there are regions. From oyster to Southern cornbread to traditional sage to Hillary Clinton’s favorite “Pepperidge Farm white bread stuffing,” the only thing that’s changed about this dish is the fact that most Americans don’t actually use it to stuff the bird anymore due to the public health warnings about bacteria growing in the cavity. It’s too bad. Stuffing in the bird, soaking up all the juices, tastes really great. And yes, some people call it dressing instead of stuffing. They are probably from the South or from England, which changed the name to dressing during the Victorian era because the word stuffing was considered vulgar. (Expressing what type of meat you preferred must have made Thanksgiving a terrible trial for English visitors at the time. “I’d prefer a limb, thank you.”)

Virtually everyone serves mashed potatoes and gravy. These need no explanation. There was a time when this dish was served pretty much nightly on American dinner tables. There’s nothing particularly special about it except that it’s a delicious, perfect amalgamation of salt, fat and starch. Even the healthiest eater in your family can be seen sneaking spoonfuls of it directly from the leftover plate in the fridge. At 2 in the morning. Cold.

And then there is the traditional relish tray featuring celery and olives. What? You don’t serve a traditional olive and celery tray? Well, at one time it was considered the most special part of the meal. In fact, it was a delicacy from the 1700s all the way up until the 1970s. I know. Go figure.

Read on.

Thanksgiving proclamation

by digby

A lot of people have been commenting about what a crappy Thanksgiving this is with all the divisions and anger and polarization. Well, it’s not the worst one we’ve ever had in that regard. In fact, Thanksgiving was declared a national holiday during what was arguably the lowest point in America’s national life:

Washington, D.C.
October 3, 1863

By the President of the United States of America.

A Proclamation.

The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God.

In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union. Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle or the ship; the axe has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore.

Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consiousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom. No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People.

I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington, this Third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the Unites States the Eighty-eighth.

By the President:

Abraham Lincoln

I know it’s fashionable to believe that president’s words don’t matter. But damn…

Happy Thanksgiving everyone. Enjoy your family and friends even if they drive you crazy. It could be worse …

I’ll have a Black Friday without you
by Tom Sullivan

Traditional anti-consumerism boycotts of Black Friday have company this year.

In the wake of the grand jury decision not to charge Officer Darren Wilson in the killing of 18-year-old Michael Brown, activists are encouraging black consumers to turn to economic activism and boycott the busiest shopping day of the year.

Under the title “No Justice, No Profit,” the boycott aims to capitalize on the purchasing power of the black community, which Al Jazeera points out is about $1 trillion, and prove, in a language businesses will understand—money—that injustice doesn’t come without consequence.

Dacia Polk of the Justice for Michael Brown Leadership Coalition explained the boycott to St. Louis Public Radio, saying:

“There will be no business as usual while those who are supposed to protect and serve us,” she said. “Until this nation begins to place value on black lives, there will be no value placed on this business because black lives matter.”

Protesters are urged to avoid large retailers and to support instead local, black-owned businesses. Hashtags: #BoycottBlackFriday, #BlackOutBlackFriday #HandsUpDontSpend, #NotOneDime, and #BrownFriday.

Walmart, the crown jewel of the low-wage economy, is still in the running for “worst corporation in the world.” Again this year, the home of low, low wages faces Thanksgiving and Black Friday protests from community activists and its own employees — I’m sorry Associates:

OUR Walmart first burst onto the scene two years ago, when it used Black Friday, the biggest shopping day of the year, to launch an unprecedented, nationwide strike against Walmart. The group originally demanded that Walmart pay all employees a base salary of at least $25,000 per year, but has since joined with striking fast food workers in demanding at least $15 per hour.

[snip]

As with OUR Walmart’s first major action in 2012, this year’s Black Friday protests will not be a typical strike. Many of those picketing Walmart — perhaps even most — will be outside supporters of the OUR Walmart campaign, not store employees themselves. Those employees who do walk off the job will likely do so for just one day. Yet OUR Walmart has said that their prior work stoppages are legally protected strikes, and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has agreed. Strikes over wages and working conditions, or over an alleged ULP (unfair labor practice), such as illegally retaliating against workers, are protected by federal law.

Besides fringe benefits like missing Thanksgiving and Christmas with families, Associates also miss meals:

This year’s protests by Walmart workers will kick off on Thanksgiving with a 24-hour fast by 12 protesters. The fast, which is protesting the hunger suffered by some Walmart workers who can’t afford food, will be staged outside a Los Angeles store.

One of the workers participating in the fast is Richard Reynoso, an overnight stocker at the Duarte, California store. Reynoso is one of those workers who cannot afford to purchase three meals a day. As a result, he only eats once a day on his lunch break.

“Sometimes all I have money for is a can of tuna and crackers,” he said.

But progressives need to be careful. Even as living wage advocates demand higher wages from big-box retailers, such protests can pit them against the very communities they hope to help. Those everyday low prices enable the Waltons’ clientele in poorer neighborhoods to stretch their limited incomes. Perhaps a new slogan?

Walmart: We make poor affordable

On The Newsroom Who Pays the Price for Having Principles? Episode 3 Analysis
by Spocko

Episode 3 of The Newsroom deals with a Snowden-like leak to a TV journalist. I wonder, how would a mainstream TV network actually handle a story like this? Spoilers below.

ACN newsroom is raided by FBI to find leak source.

The big issues The Newsroom dealt with in episode three include:

• US Government possibly charging a journalist with espionage
• Snowden-like revelations about the government’s role in riot deaths
• Protecting the Snowden-like source’s identity
• A Bezos-like billionaires possibly buying a TV news network

This episode also had multiply eye rolling moments:

• Awkward relationship conversations between several men and women.
• An awkward business conversation between a rich nerd and old school news executive

Sorkin is criticized for how he writes women, but I’m going to say most of his relationship conversations in The Newsroom suck. I see those scenes as filler between the interesting issues and monologues, kind of like bad commercials for dating sites.

Of the interesting parts the Snowden-like revelations all seemed familiar. Then I figured out why. I had recently watched Citizenfour by Laura Poitras about the revelations of Snowden and the process. Go see the movie. It really is watching history unfold in real time. Plus you can see how the mainstream media really handled the Snowden story.

Watching the story unfold in Citzenfour makes it clear Snowden made the right choice going to Poitras, Greenwald and the Guardian. Even if he had a team like the ACN people backing him, you can see how they could get convinced to turn it all over to the government.

Sorkin is trying to show how a TV network might act if they got a Snowden-like story. It has all the components:

• Idealistic young journalist who does the right thing
• Cynical famous news anchor tried to reclaim his young idealistic self
• Hyper-competent producer with integrity
• Network news management backing the news–until the bill comes due
• Corporate Lawyers lawyering.
• A government bully who waves the “national security” flag at every turn
• Snowden-like character pushing the timetable

At one point the network president talks about how scared Neal, the journalist who ran, was. When people with guns show up in a newsroom with warrants to take away your hard drives, that’s scary. Threatening you with serious jail time is even scarier. I get a nosebleed just thinking about the stress Neal is under.

Eventually the high powered lawyers at the network negotiate a “ceasefire” with the deputy US Attorney General.

Would any of the TV networks have stood up to the government in this scenario? Why or why not? And if they did, what would be the consequences?

The last part of the episode points out the problem of not having the kind of funding that enables you to do the right thing. If a principled parent corp can’t protect you, then you need a rich backer who can.

But the entire concept of the TV newsrooms needing to make a profit, is also a big point I think Sorkin is making. To make a profit do you have to change your news or change your views on what is news?

The rich nerd backer they bring in to be the White Knight is clearly designed to bring up all the fears serious journalism people worry about. “How about a disaster channel? or a “Stalking Danny Glover” channel?” the Bezo-like character suggests to the network president.

But the current reality is that those crazy ideas are already being implemented, but the craziest idea is no longer even brought up. It’s now the standard. News needs to make money. But what if the news division wasn’t a profit center? Would removing the need to make money mean the advertisers and government can’t push them around when it comes to news? What would/could networks do with that freedom that they aren’t doing now?

ACN currently has a dream deal for good journalism. But in the real world those kind of dream deals exist for non-good too. For example, the one News Corp gives The New York Post. They get to lose 110 million dollars a year, EVERY YEAR.

What kind of journalism are they doing there?

As part of a bigger company the network news division can be used as a money losing strategic asset to accomplish other corporate goals. That’s how Murdoch used his at first.

It is not a given that no money pressures lead to the freedom to do the right thing. But if that freedom is combined with some principles, then the power can be directed.

What are those principles? A responsibility to tell the truth? Or a responsibility to increase quarterly profits? Can you do both, or does one need to take the back seat? Who decides?

Sorkin’s fantasy network reminds us what pressures the TV networks face, what principles they say they believe in and explores how they might act when those principles are tested.

Photo credit. HBO’s The Newroom