Month: April 2015

They just can’t quit him

by digby

He still rules their world:

I’d guess that among those referrals from his site are the pundits who write for those news organizations and appear on cable networks. He’s their true north. Always has been.

.

Who knew?

by digby

I’m going to guess they are doing this mostly just because they can:

During the fiscal year that ended on September 30, 2014, US Special Operations forces (SOF) deployed to 133 countries—roughly 70 percent of the nations on the planet—according to Lieutenant Colonel Robert Bockholt, a public affairs officer with US Special Operations Command (SOCOM). This capped a three-year span in which the country’s most elite forces were active in more than 150 different countries around the world, conducting missions ranging from kill/capture night raids to training exercises. And this year could be a record-breaker. Only a day before the failed raid that ended Luke Somers life—just 66 days into fiscal 2015—America’s most elite troops had already set foot in 105 nations, approximately 80% of 2014’s total.

Despite its massive scale and scope, this secret global war across much of the planet is unknown to most Americans. Unlike the December debacle in Yemen, the vast majority of special ops missions remain completely in the shadows, hidden from external oversight or press scrutiny. In fact, aside from modest amounts of information disclosed through highly-selective coverage by military media, official White House leaks, SEALs with something to sell and a few cherry-picked journalists reporting on cherry-picked opportunities, much of what America’s special operators do is never subjected to meaningful examination, which only increases the chances of unforeseen blowback and catastrophic consequences.

This is how a military empire works in the modern world. I suppose it’s better than occupation and colonialism… but that’s not saying much.

.

Let the battle begin

by digby

…. the battle of the extreme long shots:

In interviews, Graham aides said he was laying out a plan to position himself as Paul’s foil, and will repeatedly contrast his foreign policy positions to that of the Kentucky senator’s more isolationist views, especially in debates. They believe that going after Paul — or “putting wood on him,” in the words of one aide — drives attention to Graham and, at a time of rising concern about threats from abroad, helps establish himself as the hawk of the Republican field.

“It’s nothing personal, not at all,” Graham insisted in a telephone interview on Wednesday, one day before Paul stumped in his home state, pointing out that the two had once played golf together. “My problem with Rand Paul is foreign policy. He’s a libertarian and I come from a more traditional Republican perspective.”

The Kentucky senator, he said, “in many ways is to the left of Barack Obama.” To defeat Hillary Clinton, Graham argued, Republicans would need a nominee with robust national defense strategy. “Sen. Paul isn’t in a good position to do that,” he said.

Paul, 52, declined to comment on his relationship with Graham, and many of his advisers — who over the years have observed Graham launch similar broadsides against Paul’s father, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul — are hesitant to respond to Graham’s attacks, believing that it will only help the South Carolina senator.

“Punching down third-tier candidates doesn’t often make a lot of sense,” said Jesse Benton, a former Paul campaign manager who is now helping to lead a super PAC that will be supporting his candidacy.

But some Paul advisers are watching nervously, and are growing convinced the attacks will intensify. One aide pointed out that a group running TV ads against Paul, the Foundation for a Secure & Prosperous America, is overseen by Rick Reed, a veteran Republican operative who’s worked for Graham. On Thursday, BuzzFeed reported that Paul’s campaign had sent a cease-and-desist letter to TV stations, asking them to take down the ad, which it called deceptive.

Here’s that ad.

Paul is such a petulant twit, isn’t he? He gets all mad-daddy at anyone who asks him about the blatant inconsistency of his positions over the past five years. They used his own words. And he’s having a hissy fit. Which is sad. These are his best positions.  If he wasn’t so wedded to the idea that people should die on the streets from poverty so rich men don’t have to pay any taxes, he could run to Clinton’s left on this stuff.  But his priorities are clear — money and property uber alles.  All those civil liberties, anti-imperialist beliefs are in the garbage can.

I’m not sure it’s wise for any politician to be so obvious about what he considers his achilles heel. But I’m going to enjoy watching him squirm at that hand of Huckleberry Graham. That’s just delicious. I wonder if he’ll shush him too …

Update: Lulz

.

Ideology over common sense

by digby

They do love a cheerleader:

Via

Schumer playing dangerous games

by digby

If you want to read something short and sweet about the inane decision by Schumer, Kaine and the other Democrats to join up with the Republicans on the Iran deal, this piece at TAP gives a fine over view:

Democratic Senator Charles Schumer, left, has pledged support to Republican Senator Bob Corker, right, for a bill designed to scuttle the Obama administration’s agreement with Iran over the development of nuclear technology. Here, the two are pictured in the House chamber before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to a joint meeting of Congress, March 3, 2015.

A week and a half ago, Chuck Schumer, currently third in the leadership of the minority party in the U.S. Senate, moved quickly to solidify his position as the next leader of Democrats, securing the support of his caucus.

This week he endorsed Republican Senator Bob Corker’s bill, which, on paper, gives Congress the right to approve the nuclear agreement hammered out with Iran by the U.S. and its allies (collectively known as the P5+1). In reality, this bill is yet another carefully crafted attempt to thwart a negotiated end to this nuclear standoff.

Schumer told Politico: “I strongly believe Congress should have the right to disapprove any agreement, and I support the Corker bill, which would allow that to occur.”

The ramifications of the Corker bill are clear. Republicans will not grant their stamp of approval to any treaty signed with Iran. Regardless of their rhetoric, in the absence of a negotiated agreement, the neoconservative dream of military action against Iran creeps closer to reality.

Thus in his first major public act following the announcement of his presumed ascension to the top Democratic position in the Senate, Schumer undermined the views of the overwhelming majority of Democrats across the country, in particular the left flank of the party, whose activism (and online contributions) he will in part rely on to recapture the majority in the 2016 congressional elections.

It is really dumb on a political level, obviously. This is about war and nuclear Armageddon. If they are trying to be play some deep game with this they need to think again. They aren’t that clever. They will screw it up and the stakes are just too high. And if they really want to tank this deal, which is the likely outcome if they succeed, they are immoral fools.

Cult? What cult?
by Tom Sullivan

This week’s in-box brought news that one North Carolina Republican, Rep. Chuck McGrady, is re-introducing a bill to permit benefit corporations or B-corps in the state. It has failed to advance in past legislative sessions. B-corps, as I understand them, give directors legal protection for decisions that consider community stakeholders’ interests, not shareholders’ alone. Twenty-eight other states and the District of Columbia permit them:

Under current corporate law in North Carolina, corporations are not allowed to serve a purpose beyond maximizing profit for its shareholders. The North Carolina Benefit Corporation Act, however, would allow businesses to accomplish goals that go beyond the bottom line.

“It’s a for-profit entity that can do nonprofit work,” McGrady said. “They’ve got other purposes. They’re not all about the highest value for the stakeholders.”

The Horror.

Naturally, Randians hate the idea. In North Carolina, that means the Art Pope-sponsored Civitas Institute. The idea that people might invest in business for reasons other than maximizing personal wealth is blasphemy:

For starters, the underlying premise of creating a “benefit corporation” is that traditional corporations and companies don’t benefit the public. This notion, of course, is ludicrous. As Francis DeLuca noted in the 2011 Bad Bill summary: “A lawful, profitable business, by its very existence, already ‘benefits’ society…A business, by making a profit, increases the wealth of society and hence the ability of individuals to find employment and increase their standard of living. They also provide products and services that make our lives better.”

Civitas argues, “We do not need government to designate some business as better than others.” Because for Randians, laissez-faire capitalism is a self-contained system of morality whereby pursuit of self-interest is, in and of itself, the highest good. Anything other is less, not better. The idea that someone might want to invest in business for mixed personal and altruistic reasons, one supposes, is a kind of economic miscegenation, and by definition unclean. (Translation: benefit corporations have cooties.)

That’s not at all cult-like, is it?

The T-Party hates benefit corporations for its own reasons. Like Agenda 21:

This initiative is a part of the overall Agenda 21 program. It is a push to convey greater and greater control by government over private enterprise and private property. The longer term objective is to reduce private control over property and commerce, moving the United States toward facism and socialism.

Cold Warriors never die. They just see new -isms hiding in new woodpiles.

Don’t tell me they aren’t sentient

by digby

Look at those ears flap!

Me-Bai, a juvenile elephant in Thailand, reunited with her mother, Mae Yui, earlier this month. It had been more than three years since the young elephant was taken from her mother, trained and then hired out to perform for tourists.

When she lost too much weight to keep working, the Elephant Nature Park — an elephant conservation and rehabilitation nonprofit — persuaded Me-Bai’s owner to turn her over.

“When [Me-Bai] first arrived, she was quite nervous and we took care to feed her well until she was healthy again,” the Elephant Nature Park writes in a blog post about the reunion. “We also began to search what had become of her mother. We found that her mother was working in the trekking camp.”

After a bit of persuading, ElephantNews explains, “[Mae Yui’s owners] agreed to retire her from [the] trekking business,” allowing the mother and her daughter to reunite in the sanctuary.

There’s only one word for this reunion: elephantastic.

“The heart-touching story about the reunion of a mother and baby elephant illustrates beautifully the incredible memories and love elephants have for one another,” Joyce Poole, an expert in elephant behavior told National Geographic of the video. “It is with this science-based understanding of elephants as empathetic beings that we ask [countries to amend their treaties] to protect elephants from brutal capture, separation from family, and export to zoos.”

The World Conservation Fund is trying to save the elephants. The least we can do is stop using them for entertainment …

.

Geraldo Rivera advances the novel boiling blood defense

by digby

Via Tbogg at Raw Story:

“You don’t see, but there is reliable, I think, eyewitness account that there is then a struggle after the Taser. So, up until that point, the cop with his adrenaline pumping, now he’s been in a physical tussle, and now the perpetrator has reached for the Taser allegedly. Now it gives you the context of his blood boiling. [Slager] has done everything professional and now he’s had this, this civilian has dared to physically have this altercation with the officer. Put that in the officer’s head now. I think it saves him from the murder rap.”

Just so you know, if you run from a police officer a cop’s blood will likely boil and you can’t expect him not to shoot you in the back five times as you run away. After all, a broken tail light and a man trying to elude a cop is very threatening.

FYI:

Can police officers shoot at fleeing individuals?

Only in very narrow circumstances. A seminal 1985 Supreme Court case, Tennessee vs. Garner, held that the police may not shoot at a fleeing person unless the officer reasonably believes that the individual poses a significant physical danger to the officer or others in the community. That means officers are expected to take other, less-deadly action during a foot or car pursuit unless the person being chased is seen as an immediate safety risk.

In other words, a police officer who fires at a fleeing man who a moment earlier murdered a convenience store clerk may have reasonable grounds to argue that the shooting was justified. But if that same robber never fired his own weapon, the officer would likely have a much harder argument.

“You don’t shoot fleeing felons. You apprehend them unless there are exigent circumstances — emergencies — that require urgent police action to safeguard the community as a whole,” said Greg Gilbertson, a police practices expert and criminal justice professor at Centralia College in Washington state.

Gilbertson said he thought the video of the shooting of Walter Scott in North Charleston, South Carolina, was “insane” given what he said was the apparent lack of justification.

The article notes that cases still commonly come before courts which often exonerate police for shooting unarmed fleeing suspects.

Also too:

Each case involving a suspect who flees the police, whether in a car or on foot, poses a balancing test for an officer, said Chuck Drago, a police practices expert and former Oviedo, Florida, police chief.

“Am I creating more of a danger by chasing this person than if I let this person stay at large?” Drago said. “Especially in a vehicle pursuit, is it worth risking everyone on the road to catch this guy?”

In a pursuit on foot, the more reasonable option might be to call for backup, including perhaps with a police dog, so that other officers can set up a perimeter and trap the suspect, Drago said.

In the South Carolina case, the former lawyer for the North Charleston officer, Michael Slager, said Monday that Slager felt threatened and had fired because Scott was trying to grab his stun gun — an older model that would have had to have been manually reloaded. But if the stun gun was on the ground at the time Scott fled, Drago said, then “there is no longer a threat. The threat is gone.”

There’s also no indication on the video that after the physical encounter between the men, where the officer has said he believed Scott had tried to get ahold of his stun gun, that he shouts any instructions.

It’s highly unlikely the state would have arrested Slager if the video didn’t show him unloading his weapon into the back of an unarmed fleeing man and then dropping the taser next to the dead body. You’d think this was a slam dunk.  But the revelation of the dashcam tape showing Scott running from the care means that’s not the end of the story. We’re already seeing people on television declare once again that you have no rights once a police officer tells you to do something and they have a perfect right to kill you if you fail to follow their orders or resist in any way. (He must be guilty of something …)

But don’t worry, if you are stopped and feel that a police officer denied you your rights you can always assert them later by hiring a lawyer and suing the police. But keep in mind that these same people who reassure you of your rights being protected by the courts after the fact also say the police should always be given the benefit of the doubt because they have hard jobs and it’s not ours to second guess their decisions in the moment. Neat how that works, isn’t it?

QOTW: Elizabeth Warren

by digby

On Tsarnaev:

“Nothing is ever going to make those who were injured whole…My heart goes out to the families here, but I don’t support the death penalty.”

Co-sign.

.

Why Politicians Are Protected From “Good Guys With Guns” at NRA Conventions 

by Spocko