Month: January 2015

The road to bigotry in 140 characters


by digby

I missed this little controversy over the week-end. I think it perfectly crystallizes the way this “debate” going:

Maybe most Moslems peaceful, but until they recognize and destroy their growing jihadist cancer they must be held responsible.
— Rupert Murdoch (@rupertmurdoch) January 10, 2015

That’s how a conversation about “Islam” morphs into bigotry and collective responsibility in less than 140 characters. Rupert Murdoch isn’t just some guy.  He’s the most powerful media mogul on the planet. And his media outlets carry his preferred editorial line.

According to this, the reaction was swift on twitter, this from comedian  Aziz Ansari being representative of the response by normal people:

.@rupertmurdoch is responsible for all pedophilia committed by anyone Catholic. @rupertmurdoch why are you pro-pedophile 🙁
— Aziz Ansari (@azizansari) January 12, 2015

Actually, that doesn’t quite hit the mark, does it? The comparison would work if upon the revelation of the ongoing scourge of pedophilia in the Catholic church, all of us who are non-Catholic had demanded that Catholics everywhere stand up and repudiate their priesthood and the institution that allowed that heinous activity to go on for decades. This criminal, moral rot went all the way to the very top of the hierarchy which facilitated it and covered it up. But I don’t recall anyone holding the average American Catholic believer responsible for the actions of those priests or demanding that they stand up and public rebuke them lest they held responsible for their pedophilia.  And that’s because collective responsibility and its logical next step — collective punishment — makes little sense and is morally wrong.  But we seem to have a problem recognizing that when it comes to Islam. (In the bad old days, we very famously had a problems recognizing it when it came to Judaism and we know where that led.)

Don’t kid yourself. The idea all “Moslems” are responsible for the actions of these extremists is what makes actions like the Iraq war sound reasonable to a whole lot of people. And it’s the kind of idea that will lead in such directions again if we don’t keep our wits about us.

This is why we need to be just a teensy bit less self-righteous in our condemnation of entire religions. It doesn’t take much for people like Murdoch to make the leap from condemning the religion to condemning vast swaths of innocent people.

.

Stepping boldly into the past
by Tom Sullivan

Mitt Romney is back. As a bored Sir John Gielgud once said on screen, “I’ll alert the media.” In his prospective 2016 presidential run, the private-equity multimillionaire wants to tackle poverty. The Daily Beast announced with a yawn, The Romney Third Act Nobody Wanted.

The Washington Post reports:

Mitt Romney is moving quickly to reassemble his national political network, calling former aides, donors and other supporters over the weekend and on Monday in a concerted push to signal his seriousness about possibly launching a 2016 presidential campaign.

Romney’s message, as he told one senior Republican, was that he “almost certainly will” make what would be his third bid for the White House. His aggressive outreach came as Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) — Romney’s 2012 vice presidential running mate and the newly installed chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee — announced Monday that he would not seek the presidency in 2016.

The WaPo’s Eugene Robinson, however, has high hopes for another Romney run for the White House:

Run, Mitt, run! You too, Jeb, and please bring along the whole roadshow of perennial Republican also-rans. Across the aisle: Go for it, Hillary! What all of you see so clearly is that the nation desperately wants to be led forward into the past, or back to the future, or something.

[snip]

Why is this good news for scribes? Because the jokes are already written — the dog strapped to the roof of his car, the automotive elevator in one of his mansions, the compassionate vision of corporate personhood, the conviction that 47 percent of Americans are deadbeats. Just dust off this material, freshen it up a bit and you’re done before lunch.

Hell, I’m done before morning coffee.

An elected official, ladies and gentlemen!

by digby

Yes, this person is a US congressman:

Even Adolph Hitler thought it more important than Obama to get to Paris. (For all the wrong reasons.) Obama couldn’t do it for right reasons
— Randy Weber (@TXRandy14) January 13, 2015

If we can’t have him no one can

by digby

You’ll recall that the prosecutors finally said they would not ask James Risen about his sources and he declined to answer other questions as well. Here’s Marcy Wheeler with the latest:

As Josh Gerstein first reported, the government has just asked the judge in the Jeffrey Sterling trial, Leonie Brinkema, to declare James Risen unavailable as a witness. After having defended their own right to call Risen as a witness all the way to the Supreme Court, claiming all the way they need Risen to prove their case, they’re now saying Sterling should not be able to call him.

Mr. Risen’s under-oath testimony has now laid to rest any doubt concerning whether he will ever disclose his sources or sources for Chapter 9 of State of War (or, for that matter, anything else he’s written). He will not. As a result, the government does not intend to call him as a witness at trial. Doing so would simply frustrate the truth-seeking function of the trial. This is true irrespective of whether he is called by the government or the defense–he is unavailable to both parties.

The real issue, it seems, is the government’s worry that Sterling’s lawyers will ask Risen about those past claims.

[S]ince Mr. Risen is not available as a witness on the central issue in the case, the defendant should be prohibited from commenting on Mr. Risen’s failure to appear or suggesting that the government has failed to meet its burden because it did not call him as a witness.

This case has now officially become a farce.

.

“Open Rebellion” Pays Off — Warren & Progressives Sink Obama Nominee Antonio Weiss

by Gaius Publius

Looks like Wall Street darling and Obama Treasury nominee Antonio Weiss — a man oddly praised as “progressive by Wall Street standards” — will have to forgo his pre-paid lobbying (sorry, “public service”) career and set up shop as a “counselor” to the Treasury secretary instead, taking a position that requires no congressional questioning.

Lucky him; impertinent congressional questioners have been on a roll lately. Here’s Jennifer Bendery at Huffington Post to explain:

Wall Street banker Antonio Weiss has asked President Barack Obama not to renominate him to a top Treasury Department post because of the fight being waged against him by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and other Democrats.

First reported by Politico, Weiss wrote to Obama over the weekend saying that he didn’t think the Treasury Department “would be well served” by the lengthy confirmation process his nomination would likely entail, given the level of Democratic opposition he has faced. Weiss, who had initially been nominated as undersecretary for domestic finance, has instead accepted a job as a counselor to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, a post that doesn’t require congressional approval.

Weiss was slated for the number-three position at Treasury, in charge of, among other things, consumer financial protection. Weiss is also a bigwig at Lazard Ltd, the mega-firm that helped create, among many others, the Burger King–Tim Hortons “tax inversion” deal, the one that tastes great with fries … and low low wages.

Bendery again:

The news is a major victory for Warren and progressive groups who have been criticizing Weiss’s nomination since November, when Warren first wrote an op-ed railing against the revolving door between Wall Street and government regulators. She argued that Weiss, a senior banker at financial giant Lazard whose work centered on international mergers, isn’t even qualified for a job that involves overseeing consumer protection and domestic regulatory functions at Treasury.

Weiss also stood to gain $20 million from Lazard if he got confirmed for the Treasury post, a payout for not going to a competing financial group [the “pre-paid lobbying” I mentioned]. That left some uncomfortable that Weiss would be inclined to give favorable treatment to his former firm.

There’s more in her piece. I admit to having followed this with interest, since it was the first clear instance of what I called “open rebellion” — defiance of Democratic party leadership — among the next crop in Congress. Here’s our first examination of Warren contra Weiss (and Obama), in which we examined the question:

Has Warren joined the nominal enemy (Republicans), or has she taken the fight to the real enemy that controls both parties — the “billionaire class“?

After all, Obama wanted this nomination badly, and party-unity rules the Democrats. Even Jeff Merkley, good as he is on some things, voted to break the filibuster on CR-Omnibus. So degree of defiance of party leadership matters, at least as many of us see it.

After Warren came out against Weiss for this position, Wall Street defenders attacked her fiercely, including this from the New York Times — an attack that looked pretty sexist to me. I was actually looking forward to the vote, since it would provide another indicator of which Democrats were determined to play “Follow the Neoliberal Leader” and which would side with Warren. The downside to a vote, however, was that Weiss would likely win, especially with McConnell in charge of the Senate.

Looks like a dose of public tar, followed by a sprinkling of feathers from the neck of a downy goose, was more than Weiss wanted to endure. So good news all round.

Now Watch the Loretta Lynch Nomination

Let’s celebrate the win, then on to the next. This is a marathon, not a sprint. Obama has also nominated Loretta Lynch to replace Eric Holder for Attorney General. Here’s what Thom Hartmann and Mike Papantonio say about Lynch:

Listen for the phrase “cake walk, not a perp walk.” As I explained here, Lynch signed off on the corrupt HSBC money laundering wrist-slap. The crime — HSBC was acting like a criminal bank for, among others, the murderous Mexican drug cartels. Talk about Wall Street–friendly. It’s a target-rich environment.

One down, one to go, with more opportunities to follow. To Ms. Warren and all her progressive allies, congratulations. You can’t win without trying to. Thanks for trying to.

GP

.

The Zombie Rises

by digby

As we knew it would:

The new House Budget Committee chairman hinted Monday that he had big plans for Social Security reform in the next two years, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

A week after the House voted on a rule that critics say could force a manufactured crisis in the disability program in late 2016, a potential leverage point for Republicans aiming for changes, Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) told a conservative audience that he wanted his committee to tackle Social Security.

“What I’m hopeful is what the Budget Committee will be able do is to is begin to normalize the discussion and debate about Social Security. This is a program that right now on its current course will not be able to provide 75 or 80 percent of the benefits that individuals have paid into in a relatively short period of time,” he said at a Heritage Action for America event in Washington, D.C., according to AJC. “That’s not a responsible position to say, ‘You don’t need to do anything to do it.’”

Price, whose predecessor Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) never put forward major reform proposals in his otherwise ambitious budgets, offered means-testing and increasing the eligibility age as possibilities. He also hinted at privatizing Social Security.

“All those things ought to be on the table and discussed,” he said.

This is what they always say (besides Graagh!!! Give me brains!!!!) when they think they’re being clever and staking out a “negotiating position.”

The good news is that Democrats have always held a firm line on this so there’s no chance it will go anywhere. Oh wait …

.

Kind of pointless

by digby

Fergawdsakes:

So stirring to see all those leaders arm in arm leading a 1.5 million person march through the streets of Paris.

Except, well, it was actually a fake photo-op. Literally:

I have no idea why the president didn’t send someone to that photo-op. It’s hard to see what the downside to it would be other than making them look like fools when pictures such as this inevitably emerged. But so what? They would all look like fools together.

The march itself was great. But staging this and making it look as if these leaders were at the head of the March is a little bit cheap. I get that security was a big factor, but maybe it would have been better to have them appear at the rally than do this …

.

The Warren wing nudges the Party

by digby

Maybe it’s unfair to characterize it that way because a lot of people have been agitating for this for a while. But this is coming from the Democratic establishment and it means they are going to at least try to be a little bit more populist:

The centerpiece of the proposal, set to be unveiled Monday by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), is a “paycheck bonus credit” that would shave $2,000 a year off the tax bills of couples earning less than $200,000. Other provisions would nearly triple the tax credit for child care and reward people who save at least $500 a year.

The windfall — about $1.2 trillion over a decade — would come directly from the pockets of Wall Street “high rollers” through a new fee on financial transactions, and from the top 1 percent of earners, who would lose billions of dollars in lucrative tax breaks.

The plan also would use the tax code to prod employers to boost wages, which have been stagnant for four decades despite gains in productivity and profits.

It will be interesting to see how it affects the presidential race. If the Democratic candidate embraces it, it will be fun to watch the Republicans defend low taxes for millionaires and higher taxes for average people. They’ll find a way to do it, but it will have to be a very clumsy tap dance.

.

QOTD: David Brooks

by digby

I would say, say you’re in college or say you want to give money, but we give money to bed mats, we give money to clean water, all that antipoverty stuff. But central antipoverty program is law and order. You can’t get rich if you’re afraid of getting shot in the back of the head at night. And so if you’re giving as an individual, if you’re thinking as a state, giving to law and order groups like International Justice Mission, things like that, that is essentially the basis to get an antipoverty program.

I’ll let Steve at No More Mister Nice Blog dispatch that in his own special way.

But when did David brooks start talking like Sarah Palin? I can barely make heads nor tails out of that.

Apparently, a lack of law and order is causing terrorism. And I suppose if you’re talking about Yemen that might make sense. But the terrorists last week were French. Does he think France isn’t orderly? I suppose so. But when you look at the level of gun violence here in the US, you’d have to say that we are even worse …

I guess we’re all a bit confused about this issue. My thinking has been evolving on it, I admit. But this observation by Brooks is just strange in this context. The French terrorists grew up in an advanced Western democracy with plenty of law and order — much of it directed at them. In fact, that may have been part of the problem.

.

Old Jeb, new Jeb

by digby

A little reminder of the Jeb Bush who was Governor of Florida:

Bush hasn’t always been the cheery moderate that he’s presented as today. In fact, during his first campaign for governor of Florida in 1994, he was quite conservative.

In order to win the Republican nomination in that race, Bush ran as a hard-liner, staking out positions to the right of his GOP primary opponents on issues such as education, taxes, welfare and criminal justice. He eventually prevailed over the five other Republicans in the primary, though he lost the general election.

“A lot of Bush’s ideas during his first run for governor in 1994 were really cutting-edge for the GOP,” said Dr. David Colburn, director of the Askew Institute on Politics and Society at the University of Florida. “Bush was the fellow who was out in front and leading the charge with radical reforms.”

The cornerstone of Bush’s campaign was a sweeping set of conservative proposals that, if enacted, would have made Florida a virtual laboratory for far-right policy.

“I would abolish the Department of Education as it now exists, reducing the 2,000 person bureaucracy to about 50 to administer federal education funding and maintain minimum academic standards in Florida’s schools,” Bush told the Orlando Sentinel in a November 1994 interview.

Bush also laid out a plan to require that any proposed new taxes be approved directly by Florida voters, a strategy that would have made it nearly impossible to pass them. What state revenue there was, Bush said, should be used whenever possible to hire private corporations to replace state employees.

“We must push privatization [of government] in every area where privatization is possible,” Bush told the Sentinel.

Bush’s tough brand of conservatism also featured new restrictions for Florida’s welfare recipients. In early 1994, Bush unveiled a welfare reform plan dubbed the “Phoenix Project.” The goal of the project, he later told the Miami Herald, was to “dismantle the welfare state and all the culture that comes from it.”

Under the plan, Florida would refuse to accept federal funds to aid the state’s poor families, and restrict benefits to just two years of assistance. To be eligible for benefits, poor women would be required to “identify the fathers of their children, submit to random drug tests and work if jobs were available,” according to a Herald story from March 1, 1994.

Bush’s welfare plan was an early sign of the sharply conservative tone that would come to characterize his entire campaign. In July, Bush published a now-infamous op-ed arguing against anti-discrimination protections for LGBT people, which he said were tantamount to elevating “sodomy.”

He says he’s changed his mind about the sodomy thing, FWIW.

Jeb was a man of his time who wasn’t going to be “out-conservatived.” His father had been run from office partially because he failed to placate the ascendant party wingnuts. It’s hard to imagine why anyone persists in thinking of the Bush brothers as “moderates” but they do.

But what’s most interesting about that article is those ideas aren’t particularly far right — they are mainstream Republican ideas in 2015. He doesn’t have to change a thing (well, except for railing against sodomy, which he’s done.) Conservative Jeb of 1994, is mainstream Jeb today. He might not use the same language — GOP conservative talk evolves with the times even if its policies are frozen in ice. But essentially the old Jeb is the same as the new Jeb — the difference is that he doesn’t scare the money boyz. Unlike Cruz or Paul, they know for sure he’ll put their needs first in every case. That’s what “moderate” really means these days.

.