Skip to content

Month: January 2015

We are all mass murderers now

We are all mass murderers now

by digby

…. as long as this exists in our name:

During his 14 years as governor, [Rick] Perry presided over the executions of a record 279 inmates, according to figures compiled by the state’s Department of Criminal Justice. Perry, who handed over the reins of power to fellow Republican Greg Abbott today, has touted his support for the death penalty as evidence of his toughness on crime, but his execution record also tells a far less flattering story.

Opponents of the death penalty have zeroed in on two key factors in campaigning for its abolition: the growing number of death row inmates who have later been proven innocent, and deeply embedded racial biases in the meting out of death sentences. Texas is an illustrative case.

Take the question of innocence. Since 1973, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, 150 death row inmates have been exonerated and, with one exception, subsequently released from prison. (One inmate died of cancer before he was cleared.) Since Perry became governor in December 2000, five of those exonerations have occurred in his state.

Let’s drop the pretense that the US is “exceptionally” civilized, ok? This is horrifying. Any nation that would take a chance that it might execute innocent people for crimes they didn’t commit, particularly in this ritualized fashion, is not particularly civilized. Yes, we’re better than Saudi Arabia. Bully for us.

.

Smokin’ ’em outta their caves

Smokin’ ’em outta their caves

by digby

It looks as though the Democrats are getting clever. The ads make themselves:

Senate Democrats are pressing amendments to legislation that would approve the Keystone XL pipeline, arguing their proposals would “actually make it an American jobs bill.”

“We have some suggestions on how to make the bill better and actually make it an American jobs bill. If Republicans oppose us they will be making it crystal clear to Americans that they are on the side of narrow special interests rather than on the side of America’s middle class,” said Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate.

“If Republicans vote against these amendments none of them can say it’s an American jobs bill,” Schumer added.

Schumer along with Democratic Sens. Ed Markey (Mass.) and Al Franken (Minn.) urged Republicans to vote for the amendments that will be considered on Tuesday afternoon.

Markey’s measure would ban the export of all oil shipped through the Canada-to-Texas pipeline, while Franken’s would require that American steel be used to build the pipeline.

The Republicans voted against both of them.

Yes, it was a stunt. But that’s the kind of stunt a smart minority does. As I said, the ads make themselves.

.

The Jeb and Mitt club

The Jeb and Mitt club

by digby

If the donor class has its way and nominates one of their two fair haired boys, Mitt or Jeb, it’s going to be a free-for-all for the Democrats. Hillary Clinton is far from above reproach and may be filthy rich from books and speeches these days, but the GOP establishment’s greedy private sector graft that directly hurts average people is populist gold by comparison:

After attending his second meeting as a board member for InnoVida, a Miami-based company that marketed prefabricated housing materials for use in disaster zones and other places in need, Jeb Bush had some follow-up questions.

“Fine board meeting,” Bush wrote in an e-mail to the chief financial officer before requesting details about the company’s liability insurance and politely nudging him that cash-flow data “would be appreciated.”

Bush wouldn’t get his answers until a week after his September 2009 e-mail, and then only in part — the CFO provided him with an “unaudited” financial spreadsheet and said no insurance details were immediately available.

If Bush was troubled by the response, it didn’t prompt him to pull away from InnoVida. He remained on the board for an additional year, leaving after a fellow board member started to unravel the widespread fraud that eventually led to the firm’s demise and the criminal convictions of two top executives.

Previously unreported court documents suggest that Bush was more involved with the company than has been publicly known — and that he deepened his role even as others associated with Inno­Vida grew concerned about its financial practices.

Documents show that the company listed Bush in internal records as a “key manager” who had been given options to buy 250,000 shares of stock and later stood to make more money looking for partners to build factories overseas.

Bush aides say he broke from InnoVida and voluntarily repaid consulting fees as soon as questions arose, and there is no evidence that he knew of the fraud that led to the criminal conviction of the company’s chief executive, Claudio Osorio, in 2013.

Nevertheless, Bush’s involvement with InnoVida, which he joined as a $15,000-a-month consultant in 2007 after completing two terms as governor of Florida, provides insight into his approach as a businessman and illustrates how his corporate ties could affect his presidential aspirations.

That’s probably the tip of the iceberg. And we already know about Mitt’s 100 million dollar “401K” and that he refused to show his tax returns in every election he’s run. Those questions aren’t going away either. I guess they can dredge up Clinton’s cattle futures trades from 1979, but the amount of money involved was a joke.

Clinton has long been a friend to Wall Street having been part of the Democratic Party of the DLC years when the shift to the Big Money Boyz was embraced as an important “new direction.” (And with the tsunami of 1% money flooding the political system these days I’ll guess that all the Democrats would take a similar approach, unfortunately. Obama certainly did.)But for all her Wall Street friendliness, she hasn’t been mucking around with the stuff Mitt and Jeb have been mucking around with and I think it’s going to be fun to watch the fireworks when they try to go after each other.

.

QOTD: Enlightenment edition

QOTD: Enlightenment edition

by digby

By Pankaj Mishra in the Guardian:

We may have to retrieve the Enlightenment, as much as religion, from its fundamentalists. If Enlightenment is “man’s emergence from his self-imposed immaturity”, then this “task”, and “obligation” as Kant defined it, is never fulfilled; it has to be continually renewed by every generation in ever-changing social and political conditions. The advocacy of more violence and wars in the face of recurrent failure meets the definition of fanaticism rather than reason. The task for those who cherish freedom is to reimagine it – through an ethos of criticism combined with compassion and ceaseless self-awareness – in our own irreversibly mixed and highly unequal societies and the larger interdependent world. Only then can we capably defend freedom from its true enemies.

This is the best piece I’ve read in the wake of Charlie Hebdo. I despair of the fact that instead of emerging for our self-imposed immaturity we are diving back in and wallowing in it. Read the whole thing.

.

“She hears the voices no one else hears” by @Gaius_Publius

“She hears the voices no one else hears”

by Gaius Publius

I wanted to point out this nice Mike Lux piece, at Huffington Post and elsewhere, because it makes an important point. It’s also an obvious point, but the obvious often goes unnoticed. The buzz and eager interest in an Elizabeth Warren presidency is not about Warren herself. It’s about what she offers at this historical moment.

Lux (my emphasis):

It seems like just about everyone these days is talking about Elizabeth Warren. I saw Jay Leno- not a very political guy or especially progressive- the other day on Bill Maher’s show, talking about how shocked he was that Elizabeth Warren was only 18 months younger than Hillary because of how vital and energetic she seemed.

A focus group of swing voters, who traditionally don’t follow politics very closely, in Colorado a couple of weeks back were disdainful of the politicians they had heard of like Jeb Bush and Hillary who were likely running for president, but loved what they were hearing about Elizabeth Warren.

The Sunday Doonesbury this weekend was a plea to “run, Lizzie, run” because “she hears the voices no one else hears”. The Washington Post print addition on Sunday had a front page article whose headline asked “What does Elizabeth Warren want?

Why is a first-term Senator in the minority party, a wonky college professor who had never held elective office before 2013, a woman who insists to everyone who asks that she is not running for president, striking such a chord in American politics right now? … I think the chord she strikes has at least as much to do with the moment we are in as to who she is. I think most Americans in both parties have come to believe that government is too bought off by big money special interests to care about them anymore.

That is so refreshing to voters and activists alike, and it is turning Elizabeth into an icon that people respond to. … She calls “Charge!” on a nomination fight for a position that no one has ever heard of, or a legislative fight that they weren’t even aware of, and people answer the call because they trust her- they know in their hearts that she is fighting for them.

That “nomination fight” was over Wall Street insider Antonio Weiss for under-secretary of Treasury, and was covered in a number of venues, including here.

Lux goes on to detail the history of the Warren phenomenon, and lists her implied economic agenda. It’s a good read and well worth your time. But I want to return to the headline quote from Doonesbury:

“She hears the voices no one else hears.”

No one but us voters, that is, red-striped or blue; the many; the ignored. What does this tell us? That we need to be finding more Elizabeth Warrens, not just the one; and we need to be doing it now — just in case the first is not available.

GP

.

TP-ing the SOTU by @BloggersRUs

TP-ing the SOTU

by Tom Sullivan

The T-party will again provide its own response to President Obama’s State of the Union address tonight, Rachel Maddow reports. Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa will give the official Republican response. She may be about the only member of the Senate to the right of Sen. Ted Cruz, Maddow observed. Just not right enough.

The T-party response will come from the same smirking freshman congressman, Rep. Curt Clawson of Florida, who, in a subcommittee hearing last July, mistook two senior American officials from the State Department and from Commerce for Indian nationals. Guess why:

“I’m familiar with your country; I love your country,” the freshman congressman said. “Anything I can do to make the relationship with India better, I’m willing and enthusiastic about doing so.”

“Just as your capital is welcome here to produce good-paying jobs in the U.S., I’d like our capital to be welcome there,” he added. “I ask cooperation and commitment and priority from your government in so doing. Can I have that?”

“I think your question is to the Indian government,” Nisha Biswal said. “We certainly share your sentiment, and we certainly will advocate that on behalf of the U.S.” Working for the State Department, Biswal is a diplomat. Can you tell?

Clawson won his seat in a special election to replace Rep. Trey Radel, who resigned after a conviction for cocaine possession.

If we’re in luck, Clawson will display the same smug, false confidence again. As Maddow said, tonight’s SOTU should be fun.

Progress (MLK Day 2015) by @Batocchio9

Progress (MLK Day 2015)
by Batocchio

Near the end of the film Selma, Martin Luther King (played by David Oyelowo) notes in a speech how racism has been used to turn poor whites against blacks. (This isn’t a film review, but I thought some segments were superb while other elements were problematic.) The full speech the film references makes for an interesting (and timely) read. Here’s the relevant section:

Our whole campaign in Alabama has been centered around the right to vote. In focusing the attention of the nation and the world today on the flagrant denial of the right to vote, we are exposing the very origin, the root cause, of racial segregation in the Southland. Racial segregation as a way of life did not come about as a natural result of hatred between the races immediately after the Civil War. There were no laws segregating the races then. And as the noted historian, C. Vann Woodward, in his book, The Strange Career of Jim Crow, clearly points out, the segregation of the races was really a political stratagem employed by the emerging Bourbon interests in the South to keep the southern masses divided and southern labor the cheapest in the land. You see, it was a simple thing to keep the poor white masses working for near-starvation wages in the years that followed the Civil War. Why, if the poor white plantation or mill worker became dissatisfied with his low wages, the plantation or mill owner would merely threaten to fire him and hire former Negro slaves and pay him even less. Thus, the southern wage level was kept almost unbearably low.

Toward the end of the Reconstruction era, something very significant happened. That is what was known as the Populist Movement. The leaders of this movement began awakening the poor white masses and the former Negro slaves to the fact that they were being fleeced by the emerging Bourbon interests. Not only that, but they began uniting the Negro and white masses into a voting bloc that threatened to drive the Bourbon interests from the command posts of political power in the South.

To meet this threat, the southern aristocracy began immediately to engineer this development of a segregated society. I want you to follow me through here because this is very important to see the roots of racism and the denial of the right to vote. Through their control of mass media, they revised the doctrine of white supremacy. They saturated the thinking of the poor white masses with it, thus clouding their minds to the real issue involved in the Populist Movement. They then directed the placement on the books of the South of laws that made it a crime for Negroes and whites to come together as equals at any level. And that did it. That crippled and eventually destroyed the Populist Movement of the nineteenth century.

If it may be said of the slavery era that the white man took the world and gave the Negro Jesus, then it may be said of the Reconstruction era that the southern aristocracy took the world and gave the poor white man Jim Crow. He gave him Jim Crow. And when his wrinkled stomach cried out for the food that his empty pockets could not provide, he ate Jim Crow, a psychological bird that told him that no matter how bad off he was, at least he was a white man, better than the black man. And he ate Jim Crow. And when his undernourished children cried out for the necessities that his low wages could not provide, he showed them the Jim Crow signs on the buses and in the stores, on the streets and in the public buildings. And his children, too, learned to feed upon Jim Crow, their last outpost of psychological oblivion.

Thus, the threat of the free exercise of the ballot by the Negro and the white masses resulted in the establishment of a segregated society. They segregated southern money from the poor whites; they segregated southern mores from the rich whites; they segregated southern churches from Christianity; they segregated southern minds from honest thinking; and they segregated the Negro from everything. That’s what happened when the Negro and white masses of the South threatened to unite and build a great society: a society of justice where none would pray upon the weakness of others; a society of plenty where greed and poverty would be done away; a society of brotherhood where every man would respect the dignity and worth of human personality.

King describes an old con: sell bigotry, and deliver more aristocracy (or plutocracy, or some other form of entrenched power). The moneyed, white conservatives making the pitch and their poorer marks were primarily in the Democratic Party until the 1960s, but then with Nixon’s Southern strategy, the parties realigned and these constituencies became Republican (perhaps the most famous figure being Strom Thurmond). Almost every Republican presidential nominee since Nixon has employed some version of the Southern strategy and sold bigotry to acquire power (sometimes successfully). Another key lie has been that the New Deal was a horrible failure, but Reaganomics have been a stunning success for all Americans and not just a select few as intended. (Conservative economic policies arrive with different names, including supply-side economics, but can also simply be called business as usual, especially when it comes to bipartisan Wall Street corruption.) Economic conservatism and social conservatism don’t always coexist, but they fit together easily, and the latter characteristically serves the former.

The film Selma depicts disturbing incidents in the past, but it’s also troubling for contemporary audiences aware of new and ongoing efforts to suppress the vote, almost entirely coming from conservative and/or Republican organizations, and almost entirely targeting the poor, minorities, and other likely Democratic constituencies. (The issue of voting rights remains a major difference between the parties.) The Shelby County v. Holder (2013) decision is probably the most alarming and unconscionable move yet. It’s disconcerting to see how past progress is being steadily and deliberately eroded.

All this brought to mind Chris Rock’s interview late last year with Frank Rich (whose questions and comments are in bold). Here’s the exchange I found most striking:

When we talk about race relations in America or racial progress, it’s all nonsense. There are no race relations. White people were crazy. Now they’re not as crazy. To say that black people have made progress would be to say they deserve what happened to them before.

Right. It’s ridiculous.

So, to say Obama is progress is saying that he’s the first black person that is qualified to be president. That’s not black progress. That’s white progress. There’s been black people qualified to be president for hundreds of years. If you saw Tina Turner and Ike having a lovely breakfast over there, would you say their relationship’s improved? Some people would. But a smart person would go, “Oh, he stopped punching her in the face.” It’s not up to her. Ike and Tina Turner’s relationship has nothing to do with Tina Turner. Nothing. It just doesn’t. The question is, you know, my kids are smart, educated, beautiful, polite children. There have been smart, educated, beautiful, polite black children for hundreds of years. The advantage that my children have is that my children are encountering the nicest white people that America has ever produced. Let’s hope America keeps producing nicer white people.

It’s about white people adjusting to a new reality?

Owning their actions. Not even their actions. The actions of your dad. Yeah, it’s unfair that you can get judged by something you didn’t do, but it’s also unfair that you can inherit money that you didn’t work for.

Meanwhile, returning to King, later in the same speech, he said:

And so I plead with you this afternoon as we go ahead: remain committed to nonviolence. Our aim must never be to defeat or humiliate the white man, but to win his friendship and understanding. We must come to see that the end we seek is a society at peace with itself, a society that can live with its conscience. And that will be a day not of the white man, not of the black man. That will be the day of man as man.

It’s hard to disagree with that, and it remains a worthy cause, but it’s also important to note that an entire industry exists to undermine such friendship and understanding. It’s not a surprise that many of the same entities that deny climate change, oppose corporate oversight, push for lower taxes on the wealthy and oppose raising the minimum wage also support voting suppression. Some prominent conservatives have, without irony, argued that the the rich should get more votes and people who doesn’t pay income tax shouldn’t get to vote (never mind all the other taxes they pay). Likewise, other conservatives have praised old systems that reserved voting for property owners (they’re usually politic enough to drop the “white man” requirement).

Just as progress isn’t won without a fight, sadly, some people will seek to undo it, and progress can be reversed without sustained effort to support it.

Magical orcas

Magical orcas

by digby

I love living so near the beach that I often get to see marine mammals in the wild cavorting and playing. I once saw a couple of young sea lions body surfing all the way to the shore like a couple of kids.

But this is really special:


People have turned the phrase “save the whales” into a joke about hippies.  But who cares: Save the damned whaes.  They’re amazing.

.

Good pope, bad pope

Good pope, bad pope

by digby

Pope Francis is quite a politician. This article says that he’s angering conservatives with talk about curbing climate change, which for reasons that still elude me is really upsetting to those people. One hopes that he can at least persuade some of his flock to follow his lead on this. It’s vital.

But never fear, he gave the wingnuts something really tasty too:

Pope Francis, after a visit to the largest Catholic nation in Asia, says Catholics may have a moral responsibility to limit the number of their children and need not reproduce “like rabbits.”

But the pope also reaffirmed the church’s ban on artificial means of birth control and said Catholics should practice “responsible parenting.”

For those of you who don’t speak wingnut, that means no hanky-panky except for procreation purposes. Here, I’ll let Rick Santorum explain it to you:

One of the things I will talk about that no President has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, “Well, that’s okay. Contraception’s okay.”

It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, they are supposed to be for purposes that are, yes, conjugal, but also [inaudible], but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that’s not for purposes of procreation, that’s not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can’t you take other parts of that out? And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it’s simply pleasure. And that’s certainly a part of it—and it’s an important part of it, don’t get me wrong—but there’s a lot of things we do for pleasure, and this is special, and it needs to be seen as special.

Again, I know most Presidents don’t talk about those things, and maybe people don’t want us to talk about those things, but I think it’s important that you are who you are. I’m not running for preacher. I’m not running for pastor, but these are important public policy issues. These how profound impact on the health of our society.

And if that bad, bad woman tempts her man into doing it for her selfish pleasure and she gets pregnant, well, that’s the way it goes.

The one thing you cannot have is sex “deconstructed to the point where it’s simply pleasure.” So no birth control for you.

.