Month: September 2015

QOTD: Trevor Noah

by digby

Great:

In the past, Noah has described himself as a “progressive,” but on Friday he provided more details on what that means. “I’m not a political progressive, but I consider myself a progressive person,” he said. “What makes me a progressive, in my opinion, is the fact that I try to improve myself and by and large improve the world that I’m in — in the smallest way possible. I know that I cannot change the entire world, but I’ve always believed I can at least affect change in my world. So I try and do that. Progression, in my opinion, is often identifying shortcomings — whether it’s views or the things you’re doing in your life, your relationships — and trying to find the places where you improve on those.”

Eventually, Noah offered some specifics. “In an American context, let’s say gay rights or marriage policy,” he said. “That’s a progressive thing. I understand that in an American context, that skews liberal. Okay, that’s fine, then.”

“I’m not a political progressive, but I consider myself a progressive person.” –Trevor Noah
But he refused to place himself in any partisan category. “I’m neither left nor right,” he said. “We don’t have rural conservatives in South Africa…even in the big parties, we have very conflicting views. It’s interesting to come into this space and then point out from both sides what I think is right or wrong — or really just trying to find the truth in the matter without saying I have to find this truth because this is my side.”

Noah also touched on his admiration for certain stances expressed by Rand Paul during the Republican debates. “There are certain issues from Rand Paul where I say, ‘Yeah, I like that, I think we can move forward with that,'” he said. “When it comes to social security reform and ways of adjusting benefits for people, there’s definitely a conversation to be had there. I’m not an expert in it, which is the best thing. I just keep on reading and absorbing…but I do believe there’s a conversation to be had there.”

I try not to judge these things before they happen. Shows have to evolve and find their groove. So I will eagerly tune in to see how it goes. But let’s just say that this doesn’t reassure me. I have little doubt that a political show with a person from another country at the helm could be great. Maybe a little more of an internationalist view is just the fresh kick the old program needs. But that comment shows that Noah may be taking a very typical and tiresome approach of some younger naive folks (mostly men, for some reason) who assume that both sides are equally wrong about everything so the best way to approach this is to take on from column A and one from column B and then pat yourself on the back for your tremendously brave “independence.”

In the past Stewart had the habit of saying “can’t we all get along” and that was bad enough. But he shed that in recent years for a deeper understanding of just how tremendously screwed up the right really is. This sounds like something more ominous but I guess we’ll see. Trying to present himself as “a different kind of progressive” is worrisome. I don’t suppose they could have found someone who already understood our political ecosystem? Or perhaps already understood the show’s audience?

If he’s as good as his iconoclastic hero Dave Chappelle then none of us will have complaints I’m sure. But that’s a very high bar.

.

“We have an amazing code”

by digby

Trump’s not going to let Fiorina get away with stealing his thunder. You want lies? He’s got YUUUGE lies:

Under a President Donald Trump, some Americans will pay no income tax and the corporate income tax will fall to 15 percent, while the Treasury Department will maintain or even increase current revenue.

And while Trump emphasized the hit the rich would take under his tax plan unveiled Monday, he pairs the closing of loopholes and deductions with such a large rate reduction that it would likely add up to a substantial tax cut for many of the well-to-do.

The tax plan “is going to cost me a fortune,” the billionaire candidate told a gathering of reporters at Trump Tower on Monday morning.

“We have an amazing code. It will be simple, it will be easy, it will be fair,” he explained.

And it has the endorsement of Grover Norquist.

“Trump’s plan is certainly consistent with the Taxpayer Protection Pledge,” said Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, in an emailed statement. “Trump has said he opposes net tax hikes and has made clear that the real problem is spending. This plan is a reform, not a tax hike.”

Norquist’s pledge requires candidates to oppose all efforts to raise marginal tax rates for individuals or businesses. In an interview with Time magazine last month, however, Trump said that he was skeptical of signing Norquist’s pledge because “I may want to switch taxes around.” He added that the overall effect would not result in a net increase.

I think it’s fair to say that if Norquist endorses it, it’s not a tax hike.

At this point I think it’s fair to say that Fiorina and Trump are the frontrunners for president — of Bizarroworld.

.

Religion fest 2015

by digby

I wrote about last week’s religion fest for Salon today:

Last week was one for the political books. The Pope brought his message about the need to help the poor and deal with climate change to America, apparently leading Catholic Supreme Court Justices Scalia, Alito and Thomas to boycott his historic speech to a joint session of Congress. At the same time, the evangelical activist community held its annual Values Voter Summit featuring many of the GOP presidential candidates who once would have been excited to celebrate the pope’s visit but were instead rather sullen and unhappy about his apparent desire to talk about that Jesus fellow and his message of love and tolerance instead of policing the sexual habits of women and scolding gay people for being gay.

And right in the middle of all this, the Speaker of the House abruptly resigned his seat because he was about to lose his office at the hands of extremists who want to shut down the government in order to destroy Planned Parenthood. Oh, and of the leading Republican presidential candidates, Dr. Ben Carson spent the week doubling down on his contention that Muslims must renounce their religion in order to prove they will follow the constitution — which says there must be no religious test for office. It’s been a memorable week for religion in American politics.

Indeed, the pope’s visit was received with ecstatic excitement by Catholics, the news media and a good many Democrats of all faiths. Catholics are always happy to see the Pope, for obvious reasons, but this one is particularly accessible and has such a serene and open demeanor that it’s even more thrilling than usual. This visit seems to have been a tremendous success among the faithful. The news media are excited because they must believe the pope’s visit is a ratings grabber since they’ve been covering his every movement from the moment his plane set down at Andrews Air Force base. Hours of watching planes on the tarmac of various airports and convoys of official vehicles is evidently something the viewing public has been hungry to see. And finally, Democrats are happy because this Pope is addressing their concerns during a political campaign in which the issues of inequality, climate change and poverty are front and center of their agenda. (And they are undoubtedly relieved that the Pope didn’t harp on the issue of women’s rights.)

The Pope’s visit was good for everyone but Republicans, many of whom are Catholics themselves and have spent the last few decades cultivating a Religious Right movement that merged many of the issues in common with the evangelical protestant and conservative jewish communities in America. There was a time not very long ago that the Catholic Church hierarchy was so openly biased in favor of the Republican Party that the American bishops wanted the Pope to excommunicate presidential candidate John Kerry for being pro-choice. I have written before about the growing schism in that coalition and it’s never been more obvious than during this past week. As Catholics all over the country were making pilgrimages to catch a glimpse of the pope, Jeb Bush, a practicing Catholic, found it necessary to distance himself from the pope on climate change, declaring that “he is not a scientist” (actually, he is) and “put aside Pope Francis on the subject of any political conversation,” which is wishful thinking on his part. Democrats still await the Bishops’ call for his excommunication for failing to follow the Pope’s teachings on climate change.

It was fascinating to watch the Values Voter Summit try to deal with the Catholic deviation from the Republican path. Neither Jeb Bush nor Carly Fiorina attended citing “scheduling difficulties.” In Bush’s case it makes sense that he would schedule something else since everyone but the money boys find him to be squishy on all their issues. Fiorina made a big mistake since this group is extolling her for her relentless Planned Parenthood lies and she could have expected to get a very warm reception. (They admire a politician who is blatantly dishonest for their cause. It shows commitment.) The rest of the candidates mostly ignored the fact that the pope was in the country at all, which could never have been anticipated a few years ago. It appears he is officially no longer welcome on their team.

There’s lots more at the link: Boehner! Rubio! Carson! Religious tests for Muslims! It was a hell of a week.

.

Climate Hawks Vote: Obama Should Sue Exxon Under RICO

by Gaius Publius

This is a brief follow-up to the blockbuster Exxon story, about how the company knew as far back as 1977 that burning fossil fuel was a big cause of climate change, that they studied the problem for ten years, then abandoned all that good work and started funding the climate denier campaign — all based on a treasure trove of internal documents.

Our first story, on how much Exxon knew and when they knew it, is here. Our second, on an early call for a RICO investigation into fossil fuel companies — a parallel to the Big Tobacco investigation — is here. Our third, on the op-ed written last May by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, which also calls for a RICO investigation, is here.

The calls for a RICO investigation are starting again, thanks to the Exxon revelations. Here’s Climate Hawks Vote, a climate-conscious PAC that scores congressional climate votes and vets candidates, with their own RICO request. It’s in the form of a petition, and you, if you like, can sign it.

They write:

Sign Now: Prosecute Exxon For Deliberate Climate Denial

Newly revealed documents show that Exxon’s own scientists were aware of and studying the dangerous impacts of greenhouse gases in the 1970s and 1980s — until Exxon’s leadership decided to shut down the research and promote climate denial instead, in order to protect the company’s unfathomably large profits.

The United States Department of Justice has the power to prosecute Exxon’s deliberate deception under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act – just as the DOJ did to the tobacco industry for knowingly lying about the dangers of cigarette smoking.

Source: “Exxon: The Road Not Taken,” InsideClimate News.

Tell U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch:

Launch a RICO prosecution of Exxon and its fellow fossil-fuel companies for deliberate and malicious climate deception.

Will you sign?

Feel free to join the call. Just click and sign.

(A version of this piece appeared at Down With Tyranny. GP article archive here.)

GP

.

If you care about poverty, you need to care about this too

by digby

Via Huffington Post

Boehner wants to “clean the barn up” before leaving
by Tom Sullivan

Outgoing Speaker of the House John Boehner called some congressional colleagues “false prophets” for raising unrealistic expectations about what could be accomplished during recent sessions:

“Absolutely, they’re unrealistic!” he exclaimed. “You know the Bible says beware of false prophets. And there are people out there, y’know, spreading noise about how much can get done. I mean this whole idea about shutting down government to get rid of Obamacare in 2013 — I mean, this plan never had a chance.”

Asked if Cruz was one of the “false prophets,” Boehner smirked and became coy, saying, “I’ll refer you to a remark I made at a fundraiser in August, in Steamboat Springs, Colorado,” where the GOP leader called the Texas senator a “jackass.”

Boehner was vague about just what he means to do with the weeks he has left:

The outgoing speaker pledged to try to “get as much finished as possible” before he steps down. “I don’t want to leave my successor a dirty barn,” Boehner said. “So I want to clean the barn up a little bit before the next person gets here.”

Having taken a swipe at one Senate jackass, one wonders what “clean the barn” might mean for false prophets in the House.

The culture warrior plays both sides

by digby

This is not some evolution over the course of 30 years. She was saying this in 2010:

In a wide-ranging interview Friday, Fiorina also explained her opposition to abortion rights in the most personal way since her campaign officially started last fall.

“I myself was not able to have children of my own, and so I know what a precious gift life is,” Fiorina said. She helped raised two stepchildren, the daughters of her second husband, Frank Fiorina. One, Lori Ann Fiorina, 35, died last year.

“My husband’s mother was told to abort him,” Fiorina said. “She spent a year in the hospital after his birth. My husband is the joy of her life, and he is the rock of my life. So those experiences have shaped my view.

“I recognize that a lot of women disagree with me on that,” Fiorina said. “But I also know that women in general are not single-issue voters. When I talk to women on this, it’s not the issue that is on the table in this election.”

The issues, she said, are “jobs, out-of-control spending, are we going to educate all of our children or not, are we going to provide health care.”

Two-thirds of the California voters who responded to a 2009 Public Policy Institute of California survey said they did not want the Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs. Wade, which established a woman’s right to an abortion.

Fiorina said abortion rights would not be her litmus test for approving a Supreme Court nominee.
In November, while speaking at an event sponsored by the conservative magazine the American Spectator, Fiorina said she “probably would have voted for” Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the court. Sotomayor has said she considers abortion rights to be an issue settled by the court.

On Friday, Fiorina said, “I do not believe where a potential judicial nominee stands on that issue is a qualifier or an unqualifier.”

She added that while “many, many voters are going to conclude while that is a very important issue, it is frankly a decided issue,” she said.

“The law is clear in the state of California, where there is a constitutional guarantee to the right to an abortion. So why are we talking about a theoretical issue?”

Anti-abortion zealots don’t like this sort of waffling. Indeed, they are adamant that their champion be someone they can count on. And the litmus test for Supreme Court is non-negotiable.

On the other hand, some of the GOP women who are flocking to Fiorina’s side are ambivalent about abortion themselves so perhaps it will even out. But I’m going to guess that if her numbers stay up, she’s going to start getting some incoming from her more doctrinaire GOP rivals on this. There’s video.

.

Sunday Funnies

by digby

McFadden NY Times:

This Tom Tomorrow is from a couple of weeks ago and I missed it:

Lulz…

Put your phones away for a while

by digby

And have a chat:

In 2010, a team at the University of Michigan led by the psychologist Sara Konrath put together the findings of 72 studies that were conducted over a 30-year period. They found a 40 percent decline in empathy among college students, with most of the decline taking place after 2000.

Across generations, technology is implicated in this assault on empathy. We’ve gotten used to being connected all the time, but we have found ways around conversation — at least from conversation that is open-ended and spontaneous, in which we play with ideas and allow ourselves to be fully present and vulnerable. But it is in this type of conversation — where we learn to make eye contact, to become aware of another person’s posture and tone, to comfort one another and respectfully challenge one another — that empathy and intimacy flourish. In these conversations, we learn who we are.

Of course, we can find empathic conversations today, but the trend line is clear. It’s not only that we turn away from talking face to face to chat online. It’s that we don’t allow these conversations to happen in the first place because we keep our phones in the landscape.

In our hearts, we know this, and now research is catching up with our intuitions. We face a significant choice. It is not about giving up our phones but about using them with greater intention. Conversation is there for us to reclaim. For the failing connections of our digital world, it is the talking cure.

The trouble with talk begins young. A few years ago, a private middle school asked me to consult with its faculty: Students were not developing friendships the way they used to. At a retreat, the dean described how a seventh grader had tried to exclude a classmate from a school social event. It’s an age-old problem, except that this time when the student was asked about her behavior, the dean reported that the girl didn’t have much to say: “She was almost robotic in her response. She said, ‘I don’t have feelings about this.’ She couldn’t read the signals that the other student was hurt.”

The dean went on: “Twelve-year-olds play on the playground like 8-year-olds. The way they exclude one another is the way 8-year-olds would play. They don’t seem able to put themselves in the place of other children.”

One teacher observed that the students “sit in the dining hall and look at their phones. When they share things together, what they are sharing is what is on their phones.” Is this the new conversation? If so, it is not doing the work of the old conversation. The old conversation taught empathy. These students seem to understand each other less.

But we are resilient. The psychologist Yalda T. Uhls was the lead author on a 2014 study of children at a device-free outdoor camp. After five days without phones or tablets, these campers were able to read facial emotions and correctly identify the emotions of actors in videotaped scenes significantly better than a control group. What fostered these new empathic responses? They talked to one another. In conversation, things go best if you pay close attention and learn how to put yourself in someone else’s shoes. This is easier to do without your phone in hand. Conversation is the most human and humanizing thing that we do.

I’ve noticed this phenomenon in my own personal life. I recently found myself sitting in my own living room talking to two people who I realized were both on their phones. I stopped talking and they didn’t notice. So I picked up my phone too and I texted one of them. And she texted me back without even looking up.

Humans have developed an extremely sophisticated way of communicating face to face with words, tone, eye contact, body language all of which are far more complex than anything you get online. If we lose that, it means we’re devolving.

This article is very interesting and shows that when given the chance humans really want face to face communication and yearn for more of it so I’d suspect this obsessiveness will end up being a passing thing. I hope so, anyway.

.

Fareed Zakaria and one stopped clock

by digby

Fareed Zakaria wrote a good piece about the Pope’s visit and actually discussed something that nobody has wanted to bring up while he’s here:

When I came to the United States in the 1980s, I remember being surprised to see what “Christian values” had come to mean in American culture and politics — heated debates over abortion, abstinence, contraception and gays. In 13 years of reading, reciting and studying the Bible, I didn’t recall seeing much about these topics.

That’s because there is very little in there about them. As Garry Wills points out in his perceptive new book, “The Future of the Catholic Church with Pope Francis,” “Many of the most prominent and contested stands taken by Catholic authorities (most of them dealing with sex) have nothing to do with the Gospel.”

The church’s positions on these matters were arrived at through interpretations of “natural law,” which is not based on anything in the Bible. But because those grounds looked weak, conservative clergy sought to bolster their views with biblical sanction. So contraception was condemned by Pope Pius XI, Wills notes, through a pretty tortuous interpretation of a couple of lines in Genesis that say Onan “spilled his seed on the ground” — since it involves ejaculation without the intent of conception.

The ban of women in the Catholic clergy is a similar stretch. When the Anglicans decided to ordain female priests in 1976, Pope Paul VI presented a theological reason not to follow that path. Women could not be priests, he decreed, because Jesus never ordained a female priest. “True enough,” Wills writes. “But neither did he ordain any men. There are no priests (other than the Jewish ones) in the four Gospels. Peter and Paul and their fellows neither call themselves priests nor are called priests by others.”

As Garry Wills points out in his perceptive new book, “The Future of the Catholic Church with Pope Francis,” “Many of the most prominent and contested stands taken by Catholic authorities (most of them dealing with sex) have nothing to do with the Gospel.”

Wills even takes on abortion, opposition to which some Catholics have taken as fundamental to their faith. “This is odd,” Wills writes, “since the matter is nowhere mentioned in the Old Testament or New Testament, or in the early creeds. But some people are convinced that God must hate such an immense evil and must have expressed that hatred somewhere in his Bible.” In fact, Wills points out, the ban is based on a complex extrapolation from vague language in one verse, Psalm 139:13.

If you want to understand the main message of Jesus Christ, you don’t have to search the Scriptures. He says it again and again. “Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.”

There’s more and it’s really good.

Also too, a good Maureen Dowd column on this very subject. Not kidding.