Month: December 2014

QOTD: Rand Paul

by digby

He’s above all that silly fear-mongering:

But we get”politics is the art of looking 4 trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly&applying wrong remedies.” #Festivus
— Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) December 23, 2014

Those scamps at the DNC responded with this:

CBS News: Sen. Rand Paul sounds Ebola alarm

Politico: Rand Paul stokes Ebola fears

AP: Rand Paul Contradicts Experts, Says Ebola Is ‘Incredibly’ Contagious

BuzzFeed: Rand Paul: Ebola “Appears To Be Very Easy To Catch”

WaPo: Rand Paul: Temporarily halt all ‘elective travel’ for people coming to U.S. from Ebola-hit nations

They’ve got a prince a couple of doctors and a bunch of governors. Guess what’s missing?

by digby

I wrote about latest exciting entrant in the Republican presidential race over at Salon:

So last week Jeb Bush put on a hat in anticipation of some point soon throwing it into the presidential ring. Rand Paul and Marco Rubio are bickering like Archie and Edith Bunker over Cuba and what the word “isolationist” means. (Paul is very pleased with his Eddie Haskelesque move to tag Rubio with the hated moniker.) Chris Christie glumly walked around with President Obama again trying desperately not to appear as if he likes it. Scott Walker is bbusily trying to figure out how to use the auto-correct on his phone. Rick Perry is sporting some very sharp new costumes. Ben Carson is rewriting the constitution. Mike Huckabee is milking his million dollar payday for as long as he can while Bobby Jindal desperately tries to get somebody, somewhere, to pay attention to him. The Republican presidential candidates come from every corner of the country and represent a variety of different GOP constituencies. They have governors and senators and TV personalities. They even have two medical doctors!

But for all that talent and diversity something has been missing.Hmmm, let me think. What could it be? Oh right. They forgot to include a woman. Ooops.

But it looks as though that’s about to be rectified:

Carly Fiorina is laying the groundwork for what one ally says is an “imminent” presidential campaign—one that could launch as early as next month.

Feel the magic. You can read more about why she’s running here. Her role is going to be very specific.

It’s annual holiday fundraiser time.  Your support is appreciated.

I try not to sing out of key

by digby

RIP. As soulful as can be …

I too get by with a little help from my friends and the annual holiday fundraiser is key to keeping this blog going.  Your support is very much appreciated.

Human sacrifice economics

by digby

Following up on Tom Sullivan’s fascinating post below, I also note that Sam Brownback’s having to deal with with the mess he’s made:

Fresh off a re-election bid that he nearly lost because of the disastrous impact of his massive income tax cuts, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback now says he regrets his triumphant prediction that the tax cuts would be a “shot of adrenaline” to the state’s economy.

“I probably would have chosen words better at different times, because you go through a campaign where you’ve got to eat the words you inartfully said,” Brownback told the Topeka Capital-Journal.

Besides his “shot of adrenaline” sound bite, Brownback also regrets calling the tax cuts an “experiment.”

“The objective was the same — to get growth happening where we hadn’t had growth in 35 years as a state — and we’d gone from six congressional districts headed down to four headed to three if we don’t change these trajectories,” he said.

Brownback’s post-campaign contrition comes as dire new figures will force the governor to make some painful budgetary choices. In order to close a projected $280 million revenue shortfall by a June deadline, Brownback has reduced state contributions to Kansas’ pension fund — already one of the worst-funded in the nation — and cut highway funding. In an ironic twist, the vociferously anti-health reform governor is also relying on Obamacare to help fill the state’s budget gap; Brownback is transferring $55 million in revenue from a Medicaid drug rebate program expanded in the Affordable Care Act into the state’s general fund.

But those measures won’t suffice to make up Kansas’ budget shortfall, and with education and health services already cut virtually to the bone, Brownback may have no choice but to rethink his tax cuts.

Unfortunately, they voted him back into office knowing full well that he was an overwhelming failure.

It’s probably true that the economy will improve a bit soon, barring some new calamity. And when that happens, his “experiment” will wrongly get the credit. All the suffering, the long term degradation of services for the needy, the ongoing economic insecurity will be lost in the celebration of improving numbers that are happening in spite of Brownback’s nihilistic philosophy rather than because of it.

This is the essence of our problem and goes right back to that famous quote by John Maynard Keynes. He was responding to the assurance by economists that in the long run everything would work out:

But this long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task, if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us, that when the storm is long past, the ocean is flat again.

In a capitalist system, it’s the upheavals and dislocation in the short run (“the tempestuous seasons”) that destroy lives and consigns some people to great poverty even as it rewards others with great wealth. The result is often an unstable society and tremendous pain for many people. Keynesians believe the role of government is to try to even things out, prevent and mitigate undue suffering for humans as the system goes through its destructive cycles.

I like Tom’s kudzu metaphor for capitalism. I think that captures it nicely. Conservatives like Brownback, on the other hand, see capitalism as a sort of sacred, supernatural force and believe that their angry market God requires human sacrifice in order to be appeased. When the suffering abates, as it does eventually, they will feel sanctified emerge with their beliefs in suffering (for others) as a purification ritual intact. “See, I told you it would work!”

I think we need to find a way to deal with that cycle of credit and blame before we will ever be able to deal with the larger cycles of capitalism in any rational way. Somebody’s got to inform the human sacrifices that these high priests of capitalism are charlatans.

Our annual holiday fundraiser is still going strong.  If you can throw a few pennies in the kitty it would be most appreciated:

.

This post will remain at the top of the page for a while. Please scroll down for new material




Rolling boxcars

by digby

… and still at the table

I just wanted to check in and thank all of you who’ve contributed to the holiday fundraiser so far and send out a special thanks to those of you who have taken out subscriptions over the years. Some of you have been loyal subscribers for quite a long time and I sincerely appreciate it.  With the collapse of online advertising the last few years it’s that revenue stream that’s partially taken its place.

I also wanted to point out that if some of you are still ordering from Amazon online, if you go through my portal over there on the left column anything you buy there kicks a few pennies back this way.  It all adds up!

Anyway, thanks again to all of you who’ve participated so far. I’m very grateful. On January 1 it will be my 12th anniversary writing this blog,  if you can believe that.  Holy guacamole …

If you like to help me keep it going you can contribute here:

Why you … you want to punish success!
by Tom Sullivan

I wanted to follow up on Steve Fraser’s comments to Bill Moyers. Fraser is wondering when people in this new Gilded Age age will rise up to oppose the robber barons, as our forebears did 100 years ago. He spoke of how, out of the social upheavals that ended the Gilded Age, Americans created a social safety net, a “civilized capitalism that protects people against the worst vicissitudes of the free market.” But the wealth worshipers of the second Gilded Age have shredded it, and an even deeper, more pervasive corruption has overtaken Washington, and with a direct line to Wall Street:

It is the consummate all embracing expression of the triumph of the free market ideology as the synonym for freedom. In other words, it used to be you could talk about freedom and the free market as distinct notions. Now, and for some time, since the age of Reagan began free market capitalism and freedom are conflated. They are completely married to each other. And we have, as a culture, bought into that idea. It’s part of what I mean when I say the attenuating of any alternatives.

That is, TINA. (There Is No Alternative.) Yet that’s just what many jobless Millennials are searching for.

“It is axiomatic in our current political culture,” says Fraser, “that when we say freedom we mean capitalism.” I would add, that when we say capitalism, we mean, principally, one particular style for organizing a business: the modern corporation.

What Milton Friedman called capitalism in 1962 looks more like an economic cult today. Question the basic assumptions behind corporate capitalism, publicly point out its shortcomings and suggest we are overdue for an upgrade, and the Chamber of Commerce practically bursts through the door like the Spanish Inquisition to accuse you of communism and heresy. Why you … you want to punish success! It’s weirdly reflexive and a mite hysterical. What their blind fealty and knee-jerk defense of this one particular style for organizing a capitalist enterprise says about them, I’ll leave for now. It suffices to say I find it rather peculiar.

We think we invented capitalism. Yet there have been “capitalist acts between consenting adults”* since before Hammurabi. We don’t call one capitalist enterprise the world’s oldest profession for nothing. There’s a restaurant in China that has been in operation for nearly 1000 years. And pubs in England that have been in business for 900. All without being incorporated in Delaware or the Cayman Islands. (Communists?)

The fetish for the current economic model isn’t about money or ideology, but, like The Matrix, about control. For some and not for others. Working people in the first Gilded Age, says Fraser, “summoned up a kind of political will and the political imagination” to civilize capitalism,” to say to themselves, “we are not fated to live this way.”

Kudzu invasion, by FrenchKheldar via Creative Commons

Now, corporate capitalism is pretty successful at what it does. But then, so is kudzu, another invasive species. I used to live on the edge of a field of kudzu. In the summer, I had to cut it back with a machete each week to keep it from taking over my yard and eating my house. On those hot, summer afternoons, not once did a passing neighbor wag a finger in my face and accuse me of “punishing success.”

Corporate capitalism has become an invasive species that has taken over government of, by, and for the People. Sen. Elizabeth Warren very publicly called out one such creeping pest recently. She suggested it was time we cut it back. She’s right.

We upgrade our hardware and software every couple of years. When was the last time capitalism got a new operating system? And what might that look like?

* h/t Robert Nozick

The mayor’s mistake

by digby

Huh. The police hate the mayor because he follows the rule of law and wants to protect his family:

The blue rage isn’t rooted in any one statement de Blasio has made against cops – in fact, he has been universally supportive of the rank-and-file in his public utterances. But in his past roles as a public official, he’s often sided with the victims of police brutality, and recently told an interviewer that he has told Dante, his teenaged mixed-race son, not to reach for a cellphone around officers because it might put him in danger as a “a young man of color.”

Siding with victims of police brutality is reason for “blue rage” in the police department? That tells you something. I would have thought the good cop majority would also side with victims of police brutality. After all, police brutality is illegal. And they are cops.

And he loves his son and wants him to be safe and do nothing that might provoke a police officer to mistake him for a criminal. What a terrible person.

Sigh. It’s annual holiday fundraiser time. Your support is appreciated.

FYI: no criticizing of the government allowed

by digby

The police are the government. And they have the guns and the uniforms and the power to take away your liberty and your property. And apparently, according to some of their spokespeople, you are not allowed to criticize them:

Michael Brown and Eric Garner died resisting arrest. Officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu died doing their job. It is a very important distinction. Michael Brown and Eric Garner were committing crimes. Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu were protecting all the citizens of New York City.

The national dialogue on proper and effective policing has been totally distorted. Activists purporting to represent the majority of the black community have been bolstered by a 24 hour news cycle that gives them unwarranted credibility. I do not believe for one minute that Al Sharpton represents the feelings of most hardworking, law abiding black American families. I know through dozens of community meetings during my time as NYC Police Commissioner that what the black community wants most is what we all want—a safe environment in which to live their lives.

There are 18,000 police departments in the United States. They interact millions of times with the public, and make hundreds of thousands of arrests. Very few result in a suspect’s death or injury. We do not have police forces out of control as the media and the Sharptons of the world would have us believe. Does that mean that there are not serious incidents of police abuse or misjudgment? Of course there are. When they take place we should investigate them thoroughly and prosecute and punish those who committed the wrong doing. We should not burn down buildings and murder police officers.

When Ismaaiyl Abdulah Brinsley brutally executed Officers Ramos and Liu he did so in an atmosphere of permissiveness and anti-police rhetoric unlike any that I have seen in 45 years in law enforcement. The rhetoric this time is not from the usual suspects, but from the Mayor of New York City, the Attorney General of the United States, and even the President. It emboldens criminals and sends a message that every encounter a black person has with a police officer is one to be feared. Nothing could be further from the truth. We will never know what was in the mind of Brinsley when he shot officers Ramos and Liu. However we do know that he has seen nothing but police bashing from some of the highest officials in the land.

So we are to understand that the problem is that if you protest the killing of unarmed black citizens you are sending a message to the police that black people are out to get them? How far down the rabbit hole do we have to go for that to make sense?

But this just sounds like blackmail to me:

We should all be concerned about the reaction our police officers will have. I have seen times when police bashing has resulted in officers doing the minimum necessary to complete their tours and go home safely to their families.

Those officers need to find other jobs. If they are unable to act in a professional manner, “keep calm and carry on” in the face of criticism then they really are far too delicate to be cops. Imagine how agitated and flustered they must get in dangerous situations?

This very much reminds me of the CI and NSA whining constantly that if they have to follow laws, rules and norms and submit themselves to any kind of accountability they will be so reluctant to do their jobs we’ll all be killed in our beds and it will be our own fault. Again, blackmail — either let us do whatever we want and don’t ask us any questions or the country gets it.

It’s annual holiday fundraiser time.  Your support is appreciated.

.

I happen to have the founders right here …

by digby

Well, Juan Cole does.  In this post he foundersplains to the torture apologists why they are wrong when they say the constitution allows it:

The Bill of Rights of the US Constitution is full of prohibitions on torture, as part of a general 18th century Enlightenment turn against the practice. The French Encyclopedia and its authors had agitated in this direction. 

Two types of torture were common during the lifetimes of the Founding Fathers. In France, the judiciary typically had arrestees tortured to make them confess their crime. This way of proceeding rather tilted the scales in the direction of conviction, but against justice. Pre-trial torture was abolished in France in 1780. But torture was still used after the conviction of the accused to make him identify his accomplices.

Thomas Jefferson excitedly wrote back to John Jay from Paris in 1788:

“On the 8th, a bed of justice was held at Versailles, wherein were enregistered the six ordinances which had been passed in Council, on the 1st of May, and which I now send you. . . . By these ordinances, 1, the criminal law is reformed . . . by substitution of an oath, instead of torture on the question préalable , which is used after condemnation, to make the prisoner discover his accomplices; (the torture abolished in 1780, was on the question préparatoire, previous to judgment, in order to make the prisoner accuse himself;) by allowing counsel to the prisoner for this defence; obligating the judges to specify in their judgments the offence for which he is condemned; and respiting execution a month, except in the case of sedition. This reformation is unquestionably good and within the ordinary legislative powers of the crown. That it should remain to be made at this day, proves that the monarch is the last person in his kingdom, who yields to the progress of philanthropy and civilization.”

Jefferson did not approve of torture of either sort.

The torture deployed by the US government in the Bush-Cheney era resembles that used in what the French called the “question préalable.” They were being asked to reveal accomplices and any further plots possibly being planned by those accomplices. The French crown would have argued before 1788 that for reasons of public security it was desirable to make the convicted criminal reveal his associates in crime, just as Bush-Cheney argued that the al-Qaeda murderers must be tortured into giving up confederates. But Jefferson was unpersuaded by such an argument. In fact, he felt that the king had gone on making it long past the time when rational persons were persuaded by it.

Bush-Cheney, in fact, look much more like pre-Enlightentment absolute monarchs in their theory of government. Louis XIV may not have said “I am the state,” but his prerogatives were vast, including arbitrary imprisonment and torture. Bush-Cheney, our very own sun kings, connived at creating a class of human beings to whom they could do as they pleased.

When the 5th amendment says of the accused person “nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself” the word “compelled” is referring to the previous practice of judicial torture of the accused. Accused persons who “take the fifth” are thus exercising a right not to be tortured by the government into confessing to something they may or may not have done.

Likewise, the 8th Amendment, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” is intended to forbid post-sentencing torture. 

The 8th Amendment was pushed for by Patrick Henry and George Mason precisely because they were afraid that the English move away from torture might be reversed by a Federal government that ruled in the manner of continental governments.

Patrick Henry wrote,

“What has distinguished our ancestors?–That they would not admit of tortures, or cruel and barbarous punishment. But Congress may introduce the practice of the civil law, in preference to that of the common law. They may introduce the practice of France, Spain, and Germany.”

It was objected in the debate over the Bill of Rights that it could be ignored. George Mason thought that was a stupid reason not to enact it:

“Mr. Nicholas: . . . But the gentleman says that, by this Constitution, they have power to make laws to define crimes and prescribe punishments; and that, consequently, we are not free from torture. . . . If we had no security against torture but our declaration of rights, we might be tortured to-morrow; for it has been repeatedly infringed and disregarded.

Mr. George Mason replied that the worthy gentleman was mistaken in his assertion that the bill of rights did not prohibit torture; for that one clause expressly provided that no man can give evidence against himself; and that the worthy gentleman must know that, in those countries where torture is used, evidence was extorted from the criminal himself. Another clause of the bill of rights provided that no cruel and unusual punishments shall be inflicted; therefore, torture was included in the prohibition.” 

It was the insistence of Founding Fathers such as George Mason and Patrick Henry that resulted in the Bill of Rights being passed to constrain the otherwise absolute power of the Federal government. And one of their primary concerns was to abolish torture.

The 5th and the 8th amendments thus together forbid torture on the “question préparatoire” pre-trial confession under duress) and the question préalable (post-conviction torture).

That the Founding Fathers were against torture is not in question.

To me this is obviously correct just on an instinctual level. Freedom, liberty, justice individual rights, due process etc, etc.  Justice Scalia, however, takes issue with it, dancing on the head of a pin to say that the constitution only prohibits using torture as punishment not as a tool to extract confessions of information:

The interviewer asked, for example, what the U.S. Constitution says about torture. “We have laws against torture,” Scalia replied. “The Constitution says nothing whatever about torture. It speaks of punishment; ‘cruel and unusual’ punishments are forbidden.”

“So torture is forbidden, in that case?” the host asked. “If it’s imposed as a punishment, yes,” Scalia responded. “If you condemn someone who has committed a crime to be tortured, that would be unconstitutional.”

When the interview sought clarification, asking about interrogations, Scalia interrupted mid-question. Here’s his response in its entirety:

“We have never held that that’s contrary to the Constitution. And I don’t know what provision of the Constitution that would, that would contravene.

“Listen, I think it is very facile for people to say, ‘Oh, torture is terrible.’ You posit the situation where a person that you know for sure knows the location of a nuclear bomb that has been planted in Los Angeles and will kill millions of people. You think it’s an easy question? You think it’s clear that you cannot use extreme measures to get that information out of that person? I don’t think that’s so clear at all.

“And once again, it’s this sort of self-righteousness of European liberals who answer that question so readily and so easily. It’s not that easy a question.”

When the host noted that American liberals tend to agree with European liberals on the issue, Scalia added, “And American liberals too. Yes. But the Europeans are more self-righteous, I think.”

So the famous “originalist” thinks the founders were infallible except when they failed to understand that a question is hard. Good to know. (And yes, this Supreme Court justice has based his understanding of this issue entirely on “Jack Bauer’s” dilemmas. A fictional character.)

I don’t worship the founders by any means. But they did understand the propensity of government to abuse its police power. Even Supreme Court justices can fall prey to it.

It’s annual holiday fundraiser time.  Your support is appreciated.

Hateful talk in glass houses

by digby

Apparently it’s not ok to say you hate Republicans. Good to know. University of Michigan professor Susan Douglas wrote an article for In These Times in which she wrote straight up, “I hate Republicans. I can’t stand the thought of having to spend the next two years watching Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Ted Cruz, Darrell Issa or any of the legions of other blowhards denying climate change, thwarting immigration reform or championing fetal ‘personhood’.” And then she quoted those studies that show that the conservative psychology is, shall we say, a bit rigid.

It’s not a nice column, let’s say that right up front. Hate is a very aggressive word. Like, for instance, it’s very aggressive when right wing activist Eric Erickson says that John Boehner hates the American people:

Rep. John Boehner (R-OH)hates your guts, people. You are neither a lobbyist nor a cigarette so you have no use to him except on one day in November every other year.

But what is so striking here is how many Republicans were willing to lie to you, tell you they would stop the President, and now are giving you the middle finger.

Now it’s true that he didn’t say he hates Republicans, just John Boehner. So perhaps that’s ok.

Anyway, the professor’s column turned into a full-fledged campus war:

By noontime Thursday, the article appeared to have been removed from the In These Times website without explanation. After further inspection, the article appeared to have been relocated under a new URL and with a different headline: “We Can’t All Just Get Along.” 

The column sparked outrage among conservative and free-speech groups on campus.

I know that liberal groups on campus do this all the time.  I’m not one who thinks it’s a great idea. I hate right wing ideology and think it’s having a pernicious effect on our culture and our politics. But banning speech never works out well.  And campuses especially are supposed to be places where a frank exchange of ideas take place. I respect the other side of that and understand all the reasons why people believe that members of the public need to be protected from certain kinds of speech. I am just of the school that worries what happens when the other side decides to do the same. The cloak of authoritarianism fits conservatism so much more comfortably.

This isn’t an important issue in itself. In fact, it’s rather silly on both sides. Certainly saying you “hate Republicans” is a broad brush, but she was writing in a polemic style that by its nature paints with a broad brush. Still, it’s a rather obvious point and perhaps not worth a full-fledged campus protest.

But nothing beats this lugubrious hand-wringing from right wing, which has made a full-fledged fetish out of liberal hating:

“The University of Michigan is a respected public institution, funded by taxpayers, and this type of bullying must be addressed by President Mark Schlissel,” Mr. Schostak continued. “I am calling on Lon Johnson, Gary Peters, Gretchen Whitmer, Tim Greimel and all Democratic officials to join in condemning this disgraceful dialogue by calling for Professor Susan J. Douglas’ resignation. By endorsing the hatred of an opposing political party, Douglas has made Republican students feel vulnerable and intimidated.”

Dear me. It’s very hard not to see this as some kind of satire. Consider this famous manual from Republican Revolutionary leader Newt Gingrich:

As you know, one of the key points in the GOPAC tapes is that “language matters.” In the video “We are a Majority,” Language is listed as a key mechanism of control used by a majority party, along with Agenda, Rules, Attitude and Learning. As the tapes have been used in training sessions across the country and mailed to candidates we have heard a plaintive plea: “I wish I could speak like Newt.”

That takes years of practice. But, we believe that you could have a significant impact on your campaign and the way you communicate if we help a little. That is why we have created this list of words and phrases.

Often we search hard for words to define our opponents. Sometimes we are hesitant to use contrast. Remember that creating a difference helps you. These are powerful words that can create a clear and easily understood contrast. Apply these to the opponent, their record, proposals and their party.

abuse of power
anti- (issue): flag, family, child, jobs
betray
bizarre
bosses
bureaucracy
cheat
coercion
“compassion” is not enough
collapse(ing)
consequences
corrupt
corruption
criminal rights
crisis
cynicism
decay
deeper
destroy
destructive
devour
disgrace
endanger
excuses
failure (fail)
greed
hypocrisy
ideological
impose
incompetent
insecure
insensitive
intolerant
liberal
lie
limit(s)
machine
mandate(s)
obsolete
pathetic
patronage
permissive attitude
pessimistic
punish (poor …)
radical
red tape
self-serving
selfish
sensationalists
shallow
shame
sick
spend(ing)
stagnation
status quo
steal
taxes
they/them
threaten
traitors
unionized
urgent (cy)
waste
welfare

(His personal favorite was “sick”.) How about this?

Scientist, strategist or mystery man, Finkelstein has orchestrated stunning upset victories for many of his clients including Sens. D’Amato and Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), and New York’s Republican Gov. George Pataki. His unseen hand also helped Benjamin Netanyahu oust Shimon Perez in the Israeli elections earlier this year.

Finkelstein’s signature style emerges through the ads he creates. Two recent adds brand Democrats as liberals: “Call liberal Paul Wellstone. Tell him it’s wrong to spend billions more on welfare,” one ad states.

“That’s liberal,” says another. “That’s Jack Reed. That’s wrong. Call liberal Jack Reed and tell him his record on welfare is just too liberal for you.”

“That’s the Finkelstein formula: just brand somebody a liberal, use the word over and over again, engage in that kind of name-calling,” said Democratic consultant Mark Mellman.

Maybe Republicans could spare us the crocodile tears about mean language and “vulnerable” Republicans. After the years they spent degrading their opponents with language like that as well as screaming “murderer!” at pregnant girls and women seeking abortions, calling gays depraved, immigrants cockroaches, African Americans “welfare queens” etc, etc.

I’m all for young Republicans being more sensitive to the language people use to describe others that their predecessors. But they need to clean up the mess in their own glass house before they have any standing to chastise someone else for saying they “hate” Republicans. Talk about chutzpah.

It’s annual holiday fundraiser time. Your support is appreciated.

Update: FYI
Erick Erickson also says President Obama hates America.