Skip to content

Month: February 2015

What should America do about the Middle East? by @Gaius_Publius

What should America do about the Middle East?

by Gaius Publius

Soon-to-be-ex–Daily Show host Jon Stewart recently interviewed Egyptian comedian and satirist Bassem Youssef about America and the Middle East. I found this surprisingly entertaining as well as nuanced; a smart piece. Their opening exchange:

Stewart: Tell me, Bassem. With the Middle East spiraling out of control, what should America do about this?

Youssef: (winning smile) Well, how about … nothing.

It just gets better from there. It is brief and good — watch to the end to get the full flavor.

“America is like a dog with a hot spot on its butt called the Middle East, and you think you have to keep licking it.” Genius.

GP

.

Climate change gets biblical By @BloggersRUs

Climate change gets biblical
by Tom Sullivan

Two stories this morning bookend the ongoing saga of climate change: sea level rise and drought. Biblical plagues almost.

Rolling Stone’s Jeff Goodell visits the Norfolk naval station to see the impact of sea level rise on naval operations. Large tides and heavy rains already leave some areas underwater. A storm had moved through the area the night before, leaving trucks at the main refueling depot axle-deep in seawater:

“Military readiness is already being impacted by sea-level rise,” says Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, who mentions that with all the flooding, it’s becoming difficult to sell a house in some parts of Norfolk. If the melting of Greenland and West Antarctica continues to accelerate at current rates, scientists say Norfolk could see more than seven feet of sea-level rise by 2100. In 25 years, operations at most of these bases are likely to be severely compromised. Within 50 years, most of them could be goners. If the region gets slammed by a big hurricane, the reckoning could come even sooner.”

Already, employees have a hard time getting to the base when the roads flood. The state of Virginia is in charge of 300 miles of flood-prone roads in the Norfolk area. However, addressing that threat is not a priority for climate deniers in the legislature.

Politicians more focused on the 24-hour news cycle don’t seem to have room in their world for the kind of longer-term planning climate change demands and you’d think their job descriptions would. Republicans once talked openly of the issue as a national security matter, writes Goodell, but that talk “vanished from the party after 2008, when the GOP turned into a subsidiary of Koch Industries.” Perhaps they will pay more attention once the newly passable Arctic Ocean becomes a flash point between the U.S. and Russia.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the continent …

“We are facing a water situation that hasn’t been seen in California for 1,200 years,” says Marcia Kemper McNutt, editor in chief of the journal Science. The Washington Post’s Darryl Fears examines the coming megadrought researchers from NASA, Cornell and Columbia predict for the American southwest and plains:

The research is newly published, but its findings are not dramatically different from similar studies in the past. Beverly Law, a specialist in global change biology at Oregon State University’s College of Forestry, co-authored a study of megadroughts three years ago.

It showed that a drought that affected the American West from 2000 to 2004 compared to conditions seen during the medieval megadroughts. But the predicted megadrought this century would be far worse. Law said Thursday’s study confirmed her previous findings.

“We took the climate model . . . and compared” two periods, 2050 to 2099 and 1950 to 1999, she said. “What it showed is this big, red blotch over Southern California. It will really impact megacities, populations and water availability.”

Their study is here.

In anticipation of shortages, corporate players are already gobbling up public water systems. Wet gold, you might call it. Between magnates who want to sell you the water you drink at a tidy profit, frackers who want to tie up public water to drill for oil and gas, and the droughts and coastal flooding caused in part by burning what they extract, you’ve got a perfect storm of a cultural disaster brewing. Or a swirling, economic death spiral. Take your pick.

Goodell writes reassuringly:

The House Armed Services Committee is now chaired by Rep. Mac Thornberry of Texas, who argued in a 2011 op-ed that prayer is a better response to heat waves and drought than cutting carbon pollution.

Steve Martin tried that as a rainmaking con man in Leap of Faith. Maybe that was Thornberry’s inspiration.

Where are the Anti-war Experts on my TV, Radio and Press? @spockosbrain

Where are the Anti-war Experts on my TV, Radio and Press?

by Spocko

Yesterday Digby mentioned that Chris Matthews was hungering for some war action.

Obama pushing for an Authorized Use of Military Force agreement to go after ISIS might make Matthews happy, but I wonder whom he and the other news/talk opinion shows will book to talk about other alternatives?

Media Matters just put out an extensive report about The State of Sunday Morning Political Talk Shows.  The results won’t surprise you. White men dominate. While I haven’t gone through the entire report, the other theme that I’m seeing is a pro-war bias of guests.

One of my friends in the radio biz talked about pro-AUMF guests being pushed at her. I asked, “Are you also getting anti-war guests pushed and promoted to you?” She wasn’t.

I’ve pointed out this issue before many times, not all experts are created equal. Not all messages have a well-funded team pushing them. I’ve asked in several forums. “Who are the anti-war go to guests? Why aren’t they in the conversations? What will it take to get them in the conversations?”

The recent Brian Williams suspension revealed that lying was winked at and promoted when it had a pro-war agenda. The punishment was for the lying, not the pro-war part.

But now NBC and to a lesser degree CBS and ABC, will be trying to show how credible they are now. They might want to show their anchors sticking to the facts or actually talking to both sides instead of two versions of the same side.

This is where we start pushing them, now, while they are still trying to appear credible and before the pro-war funders  get their war on, again.

QOTD: progress in Mississippi

QOTD: progress in Mississippi

by digby

At the sentencing of several defendants in the 2011 beating and murder of a black man for the crime of being black, the second African American to serve on the federal bench in Mississippi, Judge Carlton Reeves, delivered these remarks:

One of my former history professors, Dennis Mitchell, recently released a history book entitled, A New History of Mississippi. “Mississippi,” he says, “is a place and a state of mind. The name evokes strong reactions from those who live here and from those who do not, but who think they know something about its people and their past.” Because of its past, as described by Anthony Walton in his book, Mississippi: An American Journey, Mississippi “can be considered one of the most prominent scars on the map” of these United States. Walton goes on to explain that “there is something different about Mississippi; something almost unspeakably primal and vicious; something savage unleashed there that has yet to come to rest.” To prove his point, he notes that, “[o]f the 40 martyrs whose names are inscribed in the national Civil Rights Memorial in Montgomery, AL, 19 were killed in Mississippi.” “How was it,” Walton asks, “that half who died did so in one state?” — My Mississippi, Your Mississippi and Our Mississippi.

Mississippi has expressed its savagery in a number of ways throughout its history — slavery being the cruelest example, but a close second being Mississippi’s infatuation with lynchings. Lynchings were prevalent, prominent and participatory. A lynching was a public ritual — even carnival-like — within many states in our great nation. While other States engaged in these atrocities, those in the deep south took a leadership role, especially that scar on the map of America — those 82 counties between the Tennessee line and the Gulf of Mexico and bordered by Louisiana, Arkansas and Alabama.

Vivid accounts of brutal and terrifying lynchings in Mississippi are chronicled in various sources: Ralph Ginzburg’s 100 Years of Lynching and Without Sanctuary: Lynching Photography in America, just to name two. But I note that today, the Equal Justice Initiative released Lynching in America: Confronting the Terror of of Racial Terror; apparently, it too is a must-read.

In Without Sanctuary, historian Leon Litwack writes that between 1882 and 1968 an estimated 4,742 Blacks met their deaths at the hands of lynch mobs.1 The impact this campaign of terror had on black families is impossible to explain so many years later. That number contrasts with the 1,401 prisoners who have been executed legally in the United States since 1976.2 In modern terms, that number represents more than those killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom3 and more than twice the number of American casualties in Operation Enduring Freedom4 — the Afghanistan conflict. Turning to home, this number also represents 1,700 more than who were killed on 9/11.5 Those who died at the hands of mobs, Litwack notes, some were the victims of “legal” lynchings — having been accused of a crime, subjected to a “speedy” trial and even speedier execution. Some were victims of private white violence and some were merely the victims of “Ni**er hunts” — murdered by a variety of means in isolated rural sections and dumped into rivers and creeks. “Back in those days,” according to black Mississippians describing the violence of the 1930’s, “to kill a Negro wasn’t nothing. It was like killing a chicken or killing a snake. The whites would say, ‘Ni**ers jest supposed to die, ain’t no damn good anyway — so jest go an’ kill ’em.’ . . . They had to have a license to kill anything but a Ni**er. We was always in season.”6 Said one white Mississippian, “A white man ain’t a-going to be able to live in this country if we let ni**ers start getting biggity.”7 And, even when lynchings had decreased in and around Oxford, one white resident told a visitor of the reaffirming quality of lynchings: “It’s about time to have another [one],” he explained, “[w]hen the ni**ers get so that they are afraid of being lynched, it is time to put the fear in them.”8

How could hate, fear or whatever it was that transformed genteel, God-fearing, God-loving Mississippians into mindless murderers and sadistic torturers? I ask that same question about the events which bring us together on this day. Those crimes of the past as well as these have so damaged the psyche and reputation of this great State.

Mississippi soil has been stained with the blood of folk whose names have become synonymous with the Civil Rights Movement like Emmett Till, Willie McGee, James Cheney, Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner, Vernon Dahmer, George W. Lee, Medgar Evers and Mack Charles Parker. But the blood of the lesser-known people like Luther Holbert and his wife,9 Elmo Curl,10 Lloyd Clay,11 John Hartfield,12 Nelse Patton,13 Lamar Smith,14 Clinton Melton,15 Ben Chester White, Wharlest Jackson and countless others, saturates these 48,434 square miles of Mississippi soil. On June 26, 2011, four days short of his 49th birthday, the blood of James Anderson was added to Mississippi’s soil.

The common denominator of the deaths of these individuals was not their race. It was not that they all were engaged in freedom fighting. It was not that they had been engaged in criminal activity, trumped up or otherwise. No, the common denominator was that the last thing that each of these individuals saw was the inhumanity of racism. The last thing that each felt was the audacity and agony of hate; senseless hate: crippling, maiming them and finally taking away their lives.

Mississippi has a tortured past, and it has struggled mightily to reinvent itself and become a New Mississippi. New generations have attempted to pull Mississippi from the abyss of moral depravity in which it once so proudly floundered in. Despite much progress and the efforts of the new generations, these three defendants are before me today: Deryl Paul Dedmon, Dylan Wade Butler and John Aaron Rice. They and their coconspirators ripped off the scab of the healing scars of Mississippi . . . causing her (our Mississippi) to bleed again.

Hate comes in all shapes, sizes, colors, and from this case, we know it comes in different sexes and ages. A toxic mix of alcohol, foolishness and unadulterated hatred caused these young people to resurrect the nightmarish specter of lynchings and lynch mobs from the Mississippi we long to forget. Like the marauders of ages past, these young folk conspired, planned, and coordinated a plan of attack on certain neighborhoods in the City of Jackson for the sole purpose of harassing, terrorizing, physically assaulting and causing bodily injury to black folk. They punched and kicked them about their bodies — their heads, their faces. They prowled. They came ready to hurt. They used dangerous weapons; they targeted the weak; they recruited and encouraged others to join in the coordinated chaos; and they boasted about their shameful activity. This was a 2011 version of the Ni**er hunts.

Though the media and the public attention of these crimes have been focused almost exclusively on the early morning hours of June 26, 2011, the defendants’ terror campaign is not limited to this one incident. There were many scenes and many actors in this sordid tale which played out over days, weeks, and months. There are unknown victims like the John Doe at the golf course who begged for his life and the John Doe at the service station. Like a lynching, for these young folk going out to “Jafrica” was like a carnival outing. It was funny to them – – an excursion which culminated in the death of innocent, African-American James Craig Anderson. On June 26, 2011, the fun ended.

But even after Anderson’s murder, the conspiracy continued . . . And, only because of a video, which told a different story from that which had been concocted by these defendants, and the investigation of law enforcement — state and federal law enforcement working together — was the truth uncovered.

What is so disturbing . . . so shocking . . . so numbing . . . is that these Ni**er hunts were perpetrated by our children . . . students who live among us . . . educated in our public schools . . . in our private academies . . . students who played football lined up on the same side of scrimmage line with black teammates . . . average students and honor students. Kids who worked during school and in the summers; kids who now had full-time jobs and some of whom were even unemployed. Some were pursuing higher education and the Court believes they each had dreams to pursue. These children were from two-parent homes and some of whom were the children of divorced parents, and yes some even raised by a single parent. No doubt, they all had loving parents and loving families.

In letters received on his behalf, Dylan Butler, whose outing on the night of June 26 was not his first, has been described as “a fine young man,” “a caring person,” “a well mannered man” who is truly remorseful and wants to move on with his life . . . a very respectful . . . a good man . . . a good person . . . a loveable, kind-hearted teddy bear who stands in front of bullies . . . and who is now ashamed of what he did. Butler’s family is a mixed-race family: for the last 15 years, it has consisted of an African-American step-father and step-sister plus his mother and two sisters. The family, according to the step-father, understandably is “saddened and heart broken.”

These were everyday students like John Aaron Rice, who got out of his truck, struck James Anderson in the face and kept him occupied until others arrived . . . . Rice was involved in multiple excursions to so-called “Jafrica”, but he, for some time, according to him and his mother, and an African-American friend shared his home address.

And, sadly, Deryl Dedmon, who straddled James Anderson and struck him repeatedly in the face and head with his closed fists. He too was a “normal” young man indistinguishable in so many ways from his peers. Not completely satisfied with the punishment to which he subjected James Anderson, he “deliberately used his vehicle to run over James Anderson – – killing him.” Dedmon now acknowledges he was filled with anger.

I asked the question earlier, but what could transform these young adults into the violent creatures their victims saw? It was nothing the victims did . . . they were not championing any cause . . . political . . . social . . . economic . . . nothing they did . . . not a wolf whistle . . . not a supposed crime . . . nothing they did. There is absolutely no doubt that in the view of the Court the victims were targeted because of their race.

The simple fact is that what turned these children into criminal defendants was their joint decision to act on racial hatred. In the eyes of these defendants (and their coconspirators) the victims were doomed at birth . . . their genetic make-up made them targets.

In the name of White Power, these young folk went to “Jafrica” to “fuck with some n**gers!” – – Echos of Mississippi’s past. White Power! Ni**er! According to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, that word Ni**er is the “universally recognized opprobrium, stigmatizing African-Americans because of their race.”16 It’s the nuclear bomb of racial epithets – – as Farai Chideya has described the term. With their words, with their actions – – “I just ran that Ni**er over” – – there is no doubt that these crimes were motivated by the race of the victims. And from his own pen, Dedmon, sadly and regretfully wrote that he did it out of “hatred and bigotry.”

The Court must respond to one letter it received from one identified as a youth leader in Dylan Butler’s church, a mentor, he says and who describes Dylan as “a good person.” The point that “[t]here are plenty of criminals that deserve to be incarcerated,” is well taken. Your point that Dylan is not one of them — not a criminal . . . is belied by the facts and the law. Dylan was an active participant in this activity, and he deserves to be incarcerated under the law. What these defendants did was ugly . . . it was painful . . . it is sad . . . and it is indeed criminal.

In the Mississippi we have tried to bury, when there was a jury verdict for those who perpetrated crimes and committed lynchings in the name of WHITE POWER . . . that verdict typically said that the victim died at the hands of persons unknown. The legal and criminal justice system operated with ruthless efficiency in upholding what these defendants would call WHITE POWER.

Today, though, the criminal justice system (state and federal) has proceeded methodically, patiently and deliberately seeking justice. Today we learned the identities of the persons unknown . . . they stand here publicly today. The sadness of this day also has an element of irony to it: each defendant was escorted into court by agents of an African-American United States Marshal; having been prosecuted by a team of lawyers which includes an African-American AUSA from an office headed by an African-American U.S. Attorney — all under the direction of an African-American Attorney General, for sentencing before a judge who is African-American, whose final act will be to turn over the care and custody of these individuals to the BOP — an agency headed by an African-American.

Today we take another step away from Mississippi’s tortured past . . . we move farther away from the abyss. Indeed, Mississippi is a place and a state of mind. And those who think they know about her people and her past will also understand that her story has not been completely written. Mississippi has a present and a future. That present and future has promise. As demonstrated by the work of the officers within these state and federal agencies — black and white; male and female, in this Mississippi, they work together to advance the rule of law. Having learned from Mississippi’s inglorious past, these officials know that in advancing the rule of law, the criminal justice system must operate without regard to race, creed or color. This is the strongest way Mississippi can reject those notions — those ideas which brought us here today.

At their guilty plea hearings, Deryl Paul Dedmon, Dylan Wade Butler and John Aaron Rice told the world exactly what their roles were . . . it is ugly . . . it is painful . . . it is sad . . . it is criminal.

The Court now sentences the defendants as follows: [The specific sentences are not part of the judge’s prepared remarks.]

The Court has considered the advisory guidelines computations and the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The Court has considered the defendants’ history and characteristics. The Court has also considered unusual circumstances — the extraordinary circumstances — and the peculiar seriousness and gravity of those offenses. I have paid special attention to the plea agreements and the recommendations of the United States. I have read the letters received on behalf of the defendants. I believe these sentences provide just punishment to each of these defendants and equally important, I believe they serve as adequate deterrence to others and I hope that these sentences will discourage others from heading down a similar life-altering path. I have considered the Sentencing Guidelines and the policy statements and the law. These sentences are the result of much thought and deliberation.

These sentences will not bring back James Craig Anderson nor will they restore the lives they enjoyed prior to 2011. The Court knows that James Anderson’s mother, who is now 89 years old, lived through the horrors of the Old Mississippi, and the Court hopes that she and her family can find peace in knowing that with these sentences, in the New Mississippi, Justice is truly blind. Justice, however, will not be complete unless these defendants use the remainder of their lives to learn from this experience and fully commit to making a positive difference in the New Mississippi. And, finally, the Court wishes that the defendants also can find peace.

.

You need to pay for those Ayn Rand Youtubes kids

You need to pay for those Ayn Rand Youtubes kids

by digby

Some things are more important than the universal freedom to communicate and learn:

Dear Conservative,

Big government can’t seem to keep its hands off of anything.

The latest insult: President Obama and the Federal Communications Commission are going to take over the Internet on February 26th if we don’t do everything we can do to stop them right now.

A plan deceivingly referred to as “Net Neutrality,” involves declaring the Internet a “public utility” and gives the FCC the power to decide what Internet service providers can charge and how they operate. This is not only a direct attack on the free market, but it will also result in an increase in Internet access fees for millions of consumers in America. It’s a massive tax on the middle class, plain and simple.

The details are complicated but here’s the truth: If “Net Neutrality” is passed, for the first time ever, the Internet will be under the rule of an antiquated regulation designed for land line telephones. President Obama wants to take something that’s working just fine, and tie it up in red tape–sound familiar? We’ve seen this movie before–it’s called ObamaCare.

The FCC plans to vote on Feb. 26th on whether or not the government should take their usual heavy handed approach to controlling the Internet or do the right thing and leave it alone.

I need your help to tell President Obama and the FCC: “Don’t mess with the Internet!”

An unregulated Internet has been the single greatest catalyst in history for individual liberty and free markets on the planet. It has created the greatest revolution since Henry Ford invented the Model T.

Let’s get this straight–technology has progressed because it has been driven by a free and open Internet–not because of DC bureaucrats. This latest attempt to regulate the web threatens to interrupt that positive innovation, set the market back, and kill jobs.

A free, flourishing Internet is as important as anything man has ever created. But those freedoms are under assault.

Please, stand with me and help protect Internet freedom by signing this petition today.

These attempts to regulate the Internet are a direct attack on the freedom of information and an innovative market. The government needs to stay out of the way.

Free markets are worth protecting. Please tell your friends, your families, that there’s nothing neutral about net neutrality. We have to stop this aggressive, invasive, and harmful regulation and we need all the help we can get to do it.

Sincerely,

Senator Rand Paul

Whenever there’s a choice to be made between Big Money being “free” to keep every last penny they touch and average people having the opportunity and the freedom to live a decent life, you know what he will choose. To the libertarian, abstract notions of liberty really just come down to property. That’s all there is. That’s why the words “parents own the children” trips so easily off of Paul’s tongue. He literally can’t see the world in any other way.

Meanwhile, our other defenders of freedom on the right have a cunning plan:

GOP leaders are mounting a multipronged attack on Chairman Tom Wheeler’s rules, which would tighten regulation of Internet service providers to ensure all Web traffic is treated equally. They’ve launched investigations into alleged White House interference in the FCC process, drafted an alternative and weaker net neutrality bill, complained the agency is drawing up plans behind closed doors — and even used net neutrality as a political rallying cry to supporters.

The moves amount to an emerging game plan for how Republicans plan to oppose the net neutrality rules, which have the backing of President Barack Obama. While the FCC’s Democratic majority is expected to approve Wheeler’s proposal at its Feb. 26 meeting, the GOP is doing everything it can to cause a delay — or make the move as politically painful as possible.

“The reason you’re seeing so much activity is because there’s so much fundamentally wrong with what the FCC and the White House is doing to regulate the Internet,” said former Sen. John Sununu (R-N.H.), who now serves as honorary co-chairman of Broadband for America, a nonprofit supported by the telecommunications industry. “On substance, there are fundamental problems with this kind of an over-reaching regulatory approach. In terms of process, there are fundamental problems with the way this has been pursued.”

House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) have both announced probes into whether the White House improperly influenced the FCC, which is an independent agency.

Obama inserted himself into the debate last fall, calling on the FCC to regulate broadband like a utility — a tough approach ultimately endorsed by Wheeler. While nothing prevents the president from expressing his views, the question of White House influence over the new rules is catnip for both Chaffetz and Johnson, who are new to their committee leadership posts and eager to seize their oversight roles.

“He’s supposed to be an independent agency,” Johnson said in an interview off the Senate floor Tuesday, referring to Wheeler. “We’re trying to find the communications between himself and the White House, his agency and the White House, to see if this really was an independent act.”

There’s more to their plan, none of which will make much difference. This will end up being decided by the courts. Considering how political that court is, I’d guess they’ll side with the telcoms who want to screw average people. It’s a matter of principle for them.

Update:

The grand hall where Sen. Rand Paul spoke on Thursday was festooned with six gold chandeliers, velvet drapes, tapestries commemorating the great conquerors of the world—Magellan, Columbus, Vespucci, Cortez—and covering the majority of the back wall, an enormous American flag.

In what was billed as a “fireside chat” with TechCrunch founder Michael Arrington during Lincoln Labs’ Reboot Congress conference at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Paul broached a wide range of topics, including one that he was not too thrilled to talk about—vaccines. There was no fireplace, or visible fire, in the room.

Republicans across the board are racing to court the tech sector—both for its dynamism and its funding—ahead of 2016. Thursday’s conference gave Paul a shot to try and show why he stands apart from the ever-growing pack, and why his brand of libertarian politics has the most to offer Silicon Valley.

When Arrington told Paul he had a question about vaccines, Paul quipped back, “You don’t want to be shushed, do you?” Arrington quickly ingratiated himself. “I loved that, by the way,” he said, referring to Paul’s contentious CNBC interview earlier this month.

He went on to defend his original comments to CNBC, in which he said, “I have heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines.”

“I didn’t allege there is a connection,” Paul said on Thursday. “I said I have heard of people who have said there is a connection.”

Aside from briefly playing Gaffe Police, Arrington stuck to the techno-libertarian talking points of the conference, including the Patriot Act, net neutrality, and bitcoin.

Arrington, a libertarian, asked Paul what he thought about the idea of replacing the U.S. welfare program with a basic income policy that would give a sum of money to every American—an idea that has tantalized both libertarian and left-leaning economists. Paul brushed off the idea.

“I think that we sort of limit ourselves if we’re talking about the minimum we want people to have,” Paul said. “We should minimize what the government does—that’s the nonproductive sector—and we should maximize the productive sector.”

On net neutrality, Paul said the government should not regulate internet service providers as utilities because it stifles innovation. Paul noted that the tunnels in New York City could likely accommodate “hundreds” of cables from different ISPs, which could spur competition.

“The way to fix this and to correct this is to open up competition within those monopolies,” Paul said. “Why grant monopoly licenses?”

When asked how rural conservatives can find common ground with urban liberals, Paul noted that last year, he gave virtually the same speech about privacy at the Conservative Political Action Conference and the University of California at Berkeley. He held that fact up as evidence of a “leave me alone” coalition between Democrats and Republicans.

“There is a unifying belief in personal liberty, whether it’s gun ownership or that your Visa bill shouldn’t be read by the government,” Paul said.

I’m sorry Rand. I’m a hard core civil libertarian but I seriously doubt I’m ever going to join a “leave me alone” coalition that tells half the population they have a right to private ownership of everything but their own body. That just doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Neither am I a big fan of letting people die in the street. Just not my thing. But hey, I’m happy to exhort Democrats to join with Senator Paul any time he wants to co-sponsor legislation we can both agree upon. That’s downright democratic.

It turns out the “welfare queens” just say no

It turns out the “welfare queens” just say no

by digby

All that money for nothing:

Less than one half of one percent of Tennesseeans who applied for public assistance flunked a drug test in the first six months of the state’s experiment with drug screenings for welfare recipients, according to recently released state figures.

Out of more than 16,000 applicants from the beginning of July through the end of 2014, just 37 tested positive for illegal drug use. While that amounts to roughly 13 percent of the 279 applicants who the state decided to test based on their answers to a written questionnaire about drug use, the overall rate among applicants is just 0.2 percent.

Such an infinitesimal rate of drug use among welfare applicants contrasts sharply with the state’s overall 8 percent rate of drug use. Across the country, states that implement drug tests for low-income families have found that economically vulnerable people are less likely than the general population to use drugs. Utah spent $30,000 on tests that caught just 12 drug users, for a positive rate of 0.2 percent of total benefits recipients, compared to 6 percent of all state residents who use drugs. Before a judge ruled Florida’s drug testing system was illegal, it had turned up a drug use rate of just 2 percent among public assistance users, compared to 8 percent of its total population.

But that wasn’t the point, was it? The point was for the state to humiliate and insult poor people, (also known as moochers, parasites and “the 47%.”) Only then will the Republicans be able to keep the Democrats from “buying” their votes.

.

.

Count me in #progressive foreign policy

Count me in

by digby

Senator Chris Murphy proposes that progressives articulate a progressive foreign policy. Imagine that:

Today, progressives have become at best, reactive, and at worst, absent, from serious, meaningful foreign policy debates. Part of this retrenchment is understandable given that with a Democrat in the White House, progressives are always going to be in the shadow of the Commander-in-Chief when it comes to articulating views on international events. But much of the blame for progressives’ retreat is due to simple rubber-necking. The debate within the Republican Party between the John McCain interventionists and the Rand Paul isolationists has come to pass as the beginning and end of foreign policy discussion outside of the Administration.

The dominance of the President, Senator McCain, and Senator Paul on foreign policy should trouble progressives. Why? To state the obvious, because none of these three camps adequately represents the views of most American progressives.

Of course, the neoconservative worldview is a non-starter — this philosophy of knee jerk military intervention was the original motivating force behind the modern progressive voice. Similarly, isolationism holds little attraction for us, as most progressives believe in America playing a positive role in the world. We simply believe that we should lean into the world with something other than the pointed edge of a sword.

And while many progressives agree with much of the vision outlined by President Obama in his May 2014 West Point speech, where he prioritized the use of our military for counterterrorism efforts and emphasized the need to strengthen rule of law and human rights in developing nations, we break with him on rather substantial questions like domestic surveillance, drone attacks, and most recently, military intervention in Syria.

Because the three corners of American foreign policy offer no safe refuge to progressives today, we need to square the triangle.

It’s time for progressives to outline a coherent, proactive foreign policy vision.
Frankly, it’s not hard to figure out what would be the organizing principles of this vision. A substantial transfer of financial resources from the military budget to buttress diplomacy and foreign aid so that our global anti-poverty budget, not our military budget, equals that of the other world powers combined. A new humility to our foreign policy, with less emphasis on short- term influencers like military intervention and aid, and more effort spent trying to address the root causes of conflict. An end to unchecked mass surveillance programs, at home and abroad, as part of a new recognition that we are safer as a nation when we aren’t so easily labeled as hypocrites for preaching and practicing vastly differently on human and civil rights. And a categorical rejection of torture, under any circumstances.

That sounds right to me. It used to be a given, as a matter of fact.

I’m reminded of this as we anticipate another AUMF to fight ISIS. Would a different set of priorities over the past few years have made a difference? I don’t know. But I do know that fighting two wars for the past 15 years didn’t even come close to solving the problems we face.

I don’t expect there to be much of a debate. Maybe a few tepid objections from Democrats and a speech worthy of Hamlet from Rand Paul. ISIS understood exactly what it would take to draw in the West and provide a common enemy for all the disparate middle east factions to eventually “join” the fight under their banner. Those videos are powerful propaganda. So it will happen.

But progressives need to get back into this debate if there’s to be any chance of a change in policy and worldview. If we’re counting on Rand Paul to make the argument I’m afraid this isn’t going to end well.

This seems like a good starting point.

.

It’s not the hippies. It’s the nerds.

It’s not the just hippies. It’s the nerds too.

by digby

Everyone’s been condemning the “vegetarian, tie-dyed” California hippie moms who are refusing to get their kids vaccinated. You know the type, right? And I’m quite sure there are more than a few of the anti-vaxxers who fit that description.

But look who else is failing to be rational these days?

The scientists, technologists, and engineers who populate Silicon Valley and the California Bay Area deserve their reputation as innovators, building entire new economies on the strength of brains and imagination. But some of these people don’t seem to be vaccinating their children.

A WIRED investigation shows that some children attending day care facilities affiliated with prominent Silicon Valley companies have not been completely vaccinated against preventable infectious diseases. At least, that’s according to a giant database from the California Department of Public Health, which tracks the vaccination rates at day care facilities and preschools in the state. We selected more than 20 large technology and health companies in the Bay Area and researched their day care offerings. Of 12 day care facilities affiliated with tech companies, six—that’s half—have below-average vaccination rates, according to the state’s data.

And those six have a level of measles vaccination that does not provide the “herd immunity” critical to the spread of the disease. Now, this data has limitations—most critically, it might not be current. But it also suggests an incursion of anti-science, anti-vaccine thinking in one of the smartest regions on Earth.

There goes my pet theory that anti-vaxxers are people who believe everything they read on the internet. That can’t be true of computer nerds. Can it?

.

The GOP’s new slogan: “Let ’em rot!”

The GOP’s new slogan: “Let ’em rot!”

by digby

My piece in Salon today is about the new Senator from Arkansas, Tom Cotton:

Newly elected Tom Cotton of Arkansas is one of the youngest members of the Senate, only 37 years old, a graduate of Harvard and Harvard Law and a veteran of both Afghanistan and Iraq. Widely considered to be a leading light on the right in foreign policy and national security, Cotton was naturally given a plum assignment on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Last week he made his debut on the national stage by posing a series of probing questions about Guantánamo to Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Brian McKeon that left many people in the country wondering whether Pee Wee Herman was guest lecturing the semester he studied logic at Harvard.

With a barely suppressed smirk on his handsome young face, Sen. Cotton asked,”How many recidivists are there at Guantánamo Bay right now?” Obviously the answer was none, since the recidivists he speaks of would be people who’ve been released from Guantánamo. Next he asked, “How many detainees at Guantánamo Bay are engaging in terrorism or anti-American incitement?” Pregnant pause. Then he answered his own question — “None, because they’re detained.” Oh Suhnap!

Finally, he asked, “How many detainees were at Guantánamo Bay on September 11, 2001?” And since Guantánamo prison camp didn’t exist at the time, the answer is, once again, none.

All of this strange “questioning” was done in service of advancing the idea that since terrorism existed before Guantánamo, Guantánamo is irrelevant to terrorism today. In fact, if one were to carry that string of logic all the way out, it’s clear that since terrorism existed before the American Revolution, America is irrelevant to terrorism today as well. Case closed.

Read on for more about this new war hawk. You’ll love this quote from his questioning:

“The only problem with Guantanamo Bay is that there are too many empty cells. As far as I’m concerned, every last one of them can rot in hell. But as long as they don’t do that, then they can rot in Guantanamo Bay.”

Sends little shivers up your spine, doesn’t it?

.

New PPP poll shows Democratic base lukewarm to Clinton, by @Gaius_Publius

New PPP poll shows Democratic base lukewarm to Clinton

by Gaius Publius

I haven’t seen this very widely reported, so I’ll take it on here. This is a Warren story, a Clinton story, and a “What are we gonna do?” story.

The Warren part of the story is clear and clean. According to Politico, a group of people who are clearly Not Ready For Hillary have commissioned a poll by the highly respected firm PPP to find out just how vulnerable Hillary Clinton is. What’s the Warren part? Politico wants us to know that the group commissioned the poll because, among other reasons, they want her hat in the ring. Politico spills much digital ink on this aspect, as you’ll see below. Decide for yourself how much that matters.

It’s the Clinton part of the story I find interesting though. Note what the pollsters found (and note also the difference between Politico’s headline below, and mine above). Politico (my emphasis):

Elizabeth Warren backers fund poll stoking Hillary Clinton doubts

A group of major liberal donors who want Elizabeth Warren to run for
president have paid for a poll intended to show that Hillary Clinton
does not excite the Democratic base and would be vulnerable in a 2016
general election.

The automated poll
of nearly 900 registered voters, conducted last week by Public Policy
Polling, found that 48 percent of respondents had an unfavorable opinion
of Clinton, compared to 43 percent who viewed the former secretary of
State favorably.

While Clinton — the prospective favorite for the Democratic presidential nomination should she enter the race
— holds leads over every major GOP candidate tested in the poll, she
doesn’t break 50 percent against any
, and some are well within striking
distance. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker comes closest, with Clinton
leading him by a margin of 45 percent to 42 percent (with 14 percent not
sure who they’d vote for) – within the survey’s margin of error of plus
or minus 3.3 percent. …

The piece goes on to detail the inside-baseball aspect of the funding of the poll. Read if you like, but my summary above of the “Warren part” covers their point. If you do read, though, pay attention to the slight “these donors have a preference” tone in the article. Not to put too fine a point on it, Politico has a preference also — Warren is not an insider candidate, and Politico is as much an insider as Joe Scarborough and Chris Matthews — and as Hillary Clinton. And what’s the first rule of insiders? (Click and read how insiders love them their insiders.)

Back to the “Clinton part” of the article:

Several questions in the poll cast Warren as a champion for the
working and middle class, while others highlighted Clinton’s support for
the invasions of Iraq and Libya, and suggested she is in Wall Street’s pocket.

One
question – which found 49 percent of voters more likely to support a
presidential candidate “who wanted to bring the big banks under more
control” – began by noting that Warren “has said that special interests
like Wall Street have rigged the system in their favor.”

Another –
which found 57 percent of respondents less likely to support a
candidate “who doesn’t want to hold Wall Street accountable
for its
financial speculation” – begins by pointing out that Clinton has been
paid as much as $200,000 per speech
from big banks. And, it asserts, she “has failed to call for
accountability by banks for speculation which led to the financial
collapse in 2008.” …

David Brock, founder of Media Matters, author of Blinded By the Right (a terrific book, by the way), and a “Clinton ally,” disputes the poll’s conclusions (of course; that’s his job) and points to several offsetting Clintonian positions. Decide for yourself about whether those points matter.

For those who, like Politico, find some of the poll questions leading, consider that everything mentioned by the pollsters — for example, “Clinton has been
paid as much as $200,000 per speech
from big banks” — will be mentioned again and again during any political campaign featuring Ms. Clinton.

Again, decide for yourself what you think this adds to. For those who commissioned the poll, this could add to the prospect of insider bank-friendly Democrats nominating a third insider bank-friendly Democrat — Hillary Clinton — and losing the White House to the “hated” Republicans … all on their own and with no help from progressives. If Clinton really is vulnerable, you’d think actual party-first Democrats might care.

The third part of this story, which I called the “What are we gonna do?” part, is unaddressed in the article, but hanging in the open like a full load of bedroom sheets on a neighbor’s clothes line. There clearly is a group, including some big Democratic donors, who are very Not Ready for Hillary, so not-ready that they’re working hard to pull Elizabeth Warren into the race.

Consider:

The argument against Clinton, is on principle (i.e., “It’s immoral, almost criminal, what mainstream Democrats are doing”), not just on practical politics (“Could Clinton actually lose?”).

If Warren doesn’t enter the race, many of these people are prepared to stand aside, to vote by not voting, to rebel against the coming blackmail alongside the disenchanted and rebellious Democratic voters the poll was commissioned to sample.

Now pretend you’re one of them — if my test-of-the-waters at Netroots Nation is any guide, you may well be one of them, even if you’re not ready to tell your friends quite yet. So ask yourself … “If Elizabeth Warren doesn’t enter the race, what are we gonna do?”

It’s a problem, isn’t it? If eight more years of enabling rule by bankers, rule by predators, rule by billionaires, eight more years of unprosecuted looting by the virtual “40 families,” is a prospect you can no longer stomach, and if Elizabeth Warren is not a choice … what are we gonna do?

The time to think about that might be soon, right? Just a thought.

GP

.