Skip to content

Month: December 2017

Bastards

Bastardsby digby

To the victors go he spoils!

A uranium company launched a concerted lobbying campaign to scale back Bears Ears National Monument, saying such action would give it easier access to the area’s uranium deposits and help it operate a nearby processing mill, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post.

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and top Utah Republicans have said repeatedly that questions of mining or drilling played no role in President Trump’s announcement Monday that he was cutting the site by more than 1.1 million acres, or 85 percent. Trump also signed a proclamation nearly halving the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, which is also in southern Utah and has significant coal deposits.

“This is not about energy,” Zinke told reporters Tuesday. “There is no mine within Bears Ears.”

But the nation’s sole uranium processing mill sits directly next to the boundaries that President Barack Obama designated a year ago when he established Bears Ears. The documents show that Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc., a subsidiary of a Canadian firm, urged the Trump administration to limit the monument to the smallest size needed to protect key objects and areas, such as archeological sites, to make it easier to access the radioactive ore.

You have to love the fact that it’s a Canadian company. You can’t make this stuff up.

.

The Saffron Don by @BloggersRUs

The Saffron Don
by Tom Sullivan

Amidst worries that the White House in concert with its Murdoch-media enablers are stockpiling rhetorical weapons for the final assault on Robert Mueller, Walter Shapiro offers a couple little rays of sunshine. It’s been a tough week. You need them.

“Right now … we are unbeatable, we are unbeatable,” the sitting president told 400 donors at Cipriani restaurant on 42nd Street in New York. That’s some mighty big boasting from a New Yorker who rose to prominence about the same time as another infamous “Don” (“I bet ya 3 to 1 I beat this.”) from the Big Apple. It is the stock market and jobs numbers that make him invincible, he boasted. But Shapiro writes that other numbers point to “not so much”:

Mitch McConnell’s rush to ram the tax-break bill through the Senate was another sign of weakness since it was predicated on fears that Democrat Doug Jones would win the December 12 special election in Alabama. Even though McConnell inaccurately claims that every voter would save on taxes, a new Quinnipiac University Poll found that voters disapproved of the legislation by a lopsided 53-to-29-percent margin. Even more politically damaging for the Republicans is the belief by 61 percent of the electorate that the tax bill favors the rich.

By the way, these polling numbers do not have “unbeatable” written all over them. Rather the words that might better be associated with these survey statistics are “one-term president” and “former House Speaker Paul Ryan.” Without minimizing gerrymandering, respected political analysts like Kyle Kondik at Sabato’s Crystal Ball give the Democrats a 50-50 chance of winning back the House. And if Roy Moore is defeated in Alabama, there is a plausible scenario under which the Democrats could end up with a 51-to-49 Senate majority in 2019.

One obstacle to that is too many activists I know are of the “Visualize World Peace” variety who’d rather not get their hands dirty. Somehow positive intentions, the intensity of their feelings, and superior command of facts are supposed to carry the day. Even if those actually had power against the money and relentless negative messaging on the right, they have no motive force in front of a computer screen or television. Fortunately, boots on the ground can trump money in the bank (advice I’ve been giving since long before the current administration). Winning back the House and Senate will take work. Yeah, work. And, yes, the Democratic Party seems mighty puny, old-boy, and hidebound about now. And its network of consultants recommend tactics that pay their salaries rather than win elections (just look at Jon Ossoffs godawful TV ads, for heaven’s sake). But it is lack of new blood — yours, maybe — that keeps that system in place and will keep Ryan and McConnell and The Saffron Don in place.

* * * * * * * *

Request a copy of For The Win, my county-level election mechanics primer, at tom.bluecentury at gmail.

Can it be that Newt Gingrich is a hypocritical hack?

Can it be that Newt Gingrich is a hypocritical hack?by digby

Say it ain’t so!!!
May 18, 2017:

Here he is this week:

“Mueller is corrupt. The senior FBI is corrupt. The system is corrupt,” former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, told Fox News host Laura Ingraham on Wednesday night.

In case you were wondering, here’s a little taste of what’s being broadcast on Fox News 24/7:

SEAN HANNITY: Our mutual friend Mark Levin calls this a ‘Post-Constitutional Republic,’ this is now becoming a Banana Republic if this stays. Where do we go from here with what we now know?

NEWT GINGRICH: I haven’t given up on America. I don’t think Donald Trump has given up on America… most of our viewers haven’t.

What we now know is the swamp is sicker, more corrupt, more dishonest than we thought it was.

So, we just have to dig deeper, throw the rascals out. Realize the election of 2018 is going to be truly historic. Between a radical left that is stunningly corrupt, and the rest of us.

This is a real fight for whether or not America is going to remain a Republic that is ruled by law, or whether it is going to degenerate into being a purely corrupt system of power, where if you’re on the right team you can rip everybody off and be protected, if you’re on the wrong team you can go to jail if you’re innocent.

I think that is how serious and how profound this is right now. It is one of the great historic moments in American history.

And this:

Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett said Robert Mueller’s probe into President Donald Trump is “illegitimate and corrupt.”

Jarrett made the remarks citing revelations that FBI Agent Peter Strzok and attorney Andrew Weissmann may have demonstrated bias against Trump.

“Mueller has been using the FBI as a political weapon,” he said. “The FBI has become America’s secret police.”

Jarrett compared the way FBI agents entered Paul Manafort’s house while he was in bed to the way the KGB “came for you in the dark of night.”

He said people like Strzok were examples of agents engaging in otherwise rogue political activity.

“He’s the tip of the iceberg,” Jarrett said.

When I say it is Bizarro World I’m not kidding.

I know it’s hard, but I encourage everyone to take a few minutes to watch Hannity or Ingraham. It’s important to understand just how serious they are and how hysterical they are.They are clearly doing it to prepare their audience for Mueller’s firing and the ensuing constitutional crisis that will come of it. But there’s more to it than that. Trump is heavily influenced by what he sees on Fox and it warps his already poor judgement. So far, his lawyers have been able to keep him from doing what he obviously wants to do. This is designed to persuade him to go ahead and do it.

.

.

The granny-starver is working the pussy-grabber

The granny-starver is working the pussy-grabberby digby

I don’t know if they’ll actually get this done but I would hope that Democrats would feature Ryan pushing it in their ads next fall:

Two days after the 2016 election, Paul Ryan gave a surprising interview on Fox News in which he declared the Republican agenda would include cuts to retirement programs. “If you’re going to repeal and replace Obamacare, you have to address those issues as well. …Medicare has got some serious issues because of Obamacare.” This has not happened. But Ryan has not given up the dream. “We’re going to have to get back next year at entitlement reform, which is how you tackle the debt and the deficit,” Ryan told radio talk-show host Ross Kaminsky. “Frankly, it’s the health-care entitlements that are the big drivers of our debt, so we spend more time on the health-care entitlements — because that’s really where the problem lies, fiscally speaking.”

Trump, of course, promised during the campaign not to touch Medicare. “Many of these candidates want to cut it,” he said, but insisted he would bring so much growth cuts would not be necessary.

However, Ryan is trying to work on that. Ryan told Kaminsky he is lobbying Trump to support his plan. “Do you get the sense that you’re making a little bit of an impact on him when you talk to him about the importance of Medicare reform?” asked Kaminsky. “I do,” replied Ryan. “I think the president is understanding that choice and competition works everywhere in health care, especially in Medicare.”

Trump will do it if he wants to and it will have nothing to do with any normal calculation. It’s true that he promised not to but he promised a lot of things.

DOJ tells America’s second largest city to get lost

DOJ tells America’s second largest city to get lostby digby

Yesterday I noted that the radical Republicans rolled back the deductions for natural disasters that only happen out west and particularly in Blue States — wildfires and earthquakes. Ok. maybe that’s just being paranoid. But this really seems to indicate that the Trump administration is intent upon punishing California for failing to bow down to his greatness:

In 2015, a community policing initiative — one credited with helping curb violence in some of L.A.’s toughest housing projects — scored the Los Angeles Police Department high-level praise.

A captain and a sergeant who led the program were invited to Washington, D.C., earning coveted seats near the first lady during President Obama’s State of the Union address.

This year, L.A. officials applied for more than $3 million in federal funding to help bring the same program to Harvard Park, a South L.A. neighborhood scarred by violence.

The request was denied.

The U.S. Department of Justice hasn’t offered the LAPD an explanation of why the department didn’t receive any of the $98 million in grants recently awarded to scores of law enforcement agencies across the nation. A spokesman for the federal agency declined to comment when asked by The Times last week.

But after the Trump administration’s repeated threats to withhold federal money from cities that don’t cooperate with its immigration crackdown, some LAPD officials said they believe the move was retaliatory — and a troubling sign of what could come.

If this is the tip of the iceberg, we’re going to set back law enforcement and policing and public safety by decades.
— L.A. Police Commission President Steve Soboroff
Steve Soboroff, president of the civilian Police Commission that oversees the LAPD, said that he believes the Justice Department denied the funding request because of the LAPD’s well-publicized, hands-off approach to immigration enforcement. Soboroff said he worries future funding may also be at risk.

“Community policing is what policing’s all about. Militaristic policing, immigrant harassment is not,” he said. “By ignoring that, or prioritizing it beneath their issue of sanctuary cities and cooperation with ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] — the priorities are wrong.”

“If this is the tip of the iceberg, we’re going to set back law enforcement and policing and public safety by decades,” he added.

The LAPD had planned to use the money to hire 25 officers for the community policing program in Harvard Park, one of the city’s deadliest neighborhoods. The roughly half-mile area saw eight homicides in 2016, nearly triple the number from the year before. So far this year, six people have been killed.

Officers assigned to the LAPD’s Community Safety Partnership program focus on getting to know residents instead of making arrests. They coach sports teams and lead mentoring programs. The goal is to foster a real relationship between the police and the community — one in which officers and residents know each other by name and work together to make the neighborhood safer.

The strategy, police say, has paid off. Violent crime dropped by more than 50% and arrests were cut in half during the program’s first three years in three Watts housing developments, officials have said. Police also credit the program for a three-year stretch without a homicide in Jordan Downs, one of the developments.

Commissioner Cynthia McClain-Hill said she was “curious — to say the least — about what program could have been more deserving.”

Why did they do this? Well, they didn’t exactly try to hide their reasons:

In announcing the grant awards last month, the Justice Department noted that 80% of the agencies that received funds earned extra points “based on their certifications of willingness to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.”

L.A. did not sign that certification, LAPD officials said.

The decision to tie federal funding to immigration enforcement has already prompted a flurry of coast-to-coast legal challenges, including those filed by L.A.’s city attorney and California’s attorney general.

The lawsuits have largely focused on two grants awarded by the Justice Department: one administered through Community Oriented Policing Services office, which the LAPD was just denied; and a second, the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant, which has brought L.A. more than $1 million during each of the last few fiscal years.

Opponents allege the executive branch is overstepping its constitutional authority by attaching new rules to the grants without congressional approval. They also contend that cities are safer when immigrants are willing to talk to local police without fear of deportation.

City Atty. Mike Feuer, who filed a lawsuit this fall, said putting civil immigration enforcement requirements on grants designed to improve community policing was “ironic — and at worst, very dangerous.”

​​​“We’re going to do everything we can to make sure our city is as safe as possible and not let this undermine public safety,” he said.

LA is one of the most diverse cities in the world. And it is obviously full of Mexican immigrants, legal and undocumented. The millions of people who live here are not have a hissy fit over it. Indeed, our diversity is celebrated and encouraged and the economy is flourishing.

I’m sorry there are places in America that are deeply uncomfortable with the idea of foreigners who don’t look exactly like them coming into their communities. But that’s no reason to take it out on us.

But that isn’t the only reason they are doing this. Trump and Sessions don’t believe in community policing, they believe in police taking the gloves off and dominating the community with sheer force and firepower. So anything that doesn’t fit their desire for total dominance is considered a waste.

California still has 14 asshole House Republicans who are enabling this president and his administration’s despicable treatment of Californians. It’s time to get rid of every last one of them.

.

32% and falling fast

32% and falling fastby digby

This is the lowest sustained approval rating of any president since they started polling.

Unfortunately, we are stuck with him as long as the Republicans stick with him. And they are sticking with him more than ever.

.

Trump was meeting with O’Keefe to sabotage Clinton in 2015

Trump was meeting with O’Keefe to sabotage Clinton in 2015by digby

Why wouldn’t he work with Russians to do the same thing?

Days after Donald J. Trump launched his presidential campaign in June 2015, James O’Keefe, the conservative disrupter famous for trying to use secret recordings to embarrass liberals and journalists, visited Trump Tower and gave Mr. Trump a preview of his latest hidden camera video intended to undermine Hillary Clinton.

The footage, widely dismissed after it was released some weeks later, showed officials from Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign appearing to accept a payment for campaign swag from a Canadian woman at a Clinton campaign rally — in violation, Mr. O’Keefe contended, of election laws barring campaign contributions from foreigners.

Mr. Trump had been promoting Mr. O’Keefe’s work for years and a few weeks earlier had donated $10,000 from his foundation to Mr. O’Keefe’s group. At the meeting in his office, Mr. Trump praised the new video and pledged more money. As the campaign progressed, he pointed to other videos as evidence of his false accusations that Mrs. Clinton paid people to cause violence at Trump campaign rallies, and since his inauguration he and his team have continued to highlight Mr. O’Keefe’s work as evidence of the president’s repeated claims that the news media is peddling “fake news.”

If he’s meet with that professional dirty trickster I find it completely believable that he’d agree to lift the sanctions on the Russian government in exchange for their help in doing exactly the same thing. Why not? He’s too stupid to understand the difference. And frankly, there isn’t much. Both O’Keefe and the Russians dishonestly and covertly manipulate American democratic institutions for their own gain. O’Keefe is actually worse.

.

First they came for the air traffic controllers … by @BloggersRUs

First they came for the air traffic controllers …
by Tom Sullivan

When it comes to taxation and public services, conservatives contend there should be no free riders. People ought to have “skin in the game.” Unless it means having skin in the wrong game.

Unions qualify as the wrong game. They have been in the conservative crosshairs for decades, and why not? The Owner Class will not countenance uppity people challenging it for a more equitable share of the pie and for better working conditions. With full Republican control of Washington, now Owners are The People.

Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern reports on the Department of Justice’s reversal on the constitutionality of mandatory fees for public employees represented by unions:

The opportunity for the DOJ and the Supreme Court to target unions comes in the form of Janus v. AFSCME, which the justices agreed to hear in September. Bankrolled by the anti-union National Right to Work Foundation, Janus is a direct effort to overturn a 40-year-old landmark decision called Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. In Abood, the Supreme Court held that public sector unions, which represent government employees like teachers and firefighters, can collect agency fees from non-union workers. The court reasoned that these fees are often necessary to prevent “free riding”—non-union employees benefiting from bargaining funded by dues-paying union members. However, it held that unions could only use fair share fees to fund collective bargaining and could not, under the First Amendment, spend them on “political and ideological purposes.”

The Department of Justice now argues (as cigarette companies did regarding warning labels) that “fair share” fees used to fund collective bargaining amount to “compelled subsidization of speech,” and Abood should be overturned. Since Neil Gorsuch takes an expansive view of “compelled speech,” Stern writes, Abood opponents may get their wish in Janus.

And what of the free-rider problem—the phenomenon of non-union employees enjoying the benefits secured through bargaining funded by their union colleagues? In Abood, the court recognized that government, acting as an employer, has an important interest in preventing free riders through fair share fees. But according to the DOJ, these “dissenting employees” are not actually free riders at all. They are “compelled riders” forced to subsidize speech about “issues on which they may strongly disagree” …

That is, speech supporting better pay and benefits for themselves and their families.

The Department of Labor, meanwhile, is targeting restaurant workers, reports the Economic Policy Institute:

The Department of Labor released a proposed rule rescinding portions of its tip regulations, including current restrictions on “tip pooling”—which would mean that, for example, restaurants would be able to pool the tips servers receive and share them with untipped employees such as cooks and dishwashers. But, crucially, the rule doesn’t actually require that employers distribute pooled tips to workers. Under the administration’s proposed rule, as long as the tipped workers earn minimum wage, the employer can legally pocket those tips.

And what we know for sure is that, often, they will do just that. Recent research suggests that the total wages stolen from workers due to minimum wage violations exceeds $15 billion each year, and workers in restaurants and bars are much more likely to suffer minimum wage violations than workers in other industries. With that much illegal wage theft currently taking place, it seems obvious that when employers can legally pocket the tips earned by their employees, many will do so.

In an era in which Congress no longer officially declares war when fighting one, is it any surprise Owners have not officially declared war on anyone not in their club?

* * * * * * * *

Request a copy of For The Win, my county-level election mechanics primer, at tom.bluecentury at gmail.

But her emails

But her emailsby digby

The Columbia Journalism Review features an excellent survey of the 2016 campaign coverage in which they look at all the social media, the information bubbles and outside interference and came to a rather startling conclusion considering all that. The real problem was the mainstream media.

I pick up the story about halfway through:

As troubling as the spread of fake news on social media may be, it was unlikely to have had much impact either on the election outcome or on the more general state of politics in 2016. A potentially more serious threat is what a team of Harvard and MIT researchers refer to as “a network of mutually reinforcing hyper-partisan sites that revive what Richard Hofstadter called ‘the paranoid style in American politics,’ combining decontextualized truths, repeated falsehoods, and leaps of logic to create a fundamentally misleading view of the world.” Unlike the fake news numbers highlighted in much of the post-election coverage, engagement with sites like Breitbart News, InfoWars, and The Daily Caller are substantial—especially in the realm of social media.

Nevertheless, a longer and more detailed report by the same researchers shows that by any reasonable metric—including Facebook or Twitter shares, but also referrals from other media sites, number of published stories, etc.—the media ecosystem remains dominated by conventional (and mostly left-of-center) sources such as The Washington Post, The New York Times, HuffPost, CNN, and Politico.

Given the attention these very same news outlets have lavished, post-election, on fake news shared via social media, it may come as a surprise that they themselves dominated social media traffic. While it may have been the case that the 20 most-shared fake news stories narrowly outperformed the 20 most-shared “real news” stories, the overall volume of stories produced by major newsrooms vastly outnumbers fake news. According to the same report, “The Washington Post produced more than 50,000 stories over the 18-month period, while The New York Times, CNN, and Huffington Post each published more than 30,000 stories.” Presumably not all of these stories were about the election, but each such story was also likely reported by many news outlets simultaneously. A rough estimate of thousands of election-related stories published by the mainstream media is therefore not unreasonable.

In just six days, The New York Times ran as many cover stories about Hillary Clinton’s emails as they did about all policy issues combined in the 69 days leading up to the election.

What did all these stories talk about? The research team investigated this question, counting sentences that appeared in mainstream media sources and classifying each as detailing one of several Clinton- or Trump-related issues. In particular, they classified each sentence as describing either a scandal (e.g., Clinton’s emails, Trump’s taxes) or a policy issue (Clinton and jobs, Trump and immigration). They found roughly four times as many Clinton-related sentences that described scandals as opposed to policies, whereas Trump-related sentences were one-and-a-half times as likely to be about policy as scandal. Given the sheer number of scandals in which Trump was implicated—sexual assault; the Trump Foundation; Trump University; redlining in his real-estate developments; insulting a Gold Star family; numerous instances of racist, misogynist, and otherwise offensive speech—it is striking that the media devoted more attention to his policies than to his personal failings. Even more striking, the various Clinton-related email scandals—her use of a private email server while secretary of state, as well as the DNC and John Podesta hacks—accounted for more sentences than all of Trump’s scandals combined (65,000 vs. 40,000) and more than twice as many as were devoted to all of her policy positions.

To reiterate, these 65,000 sentences were written not by Russian hackers, but overwhelmingly by professional journalists employed at mainstream news organizations, such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal. To the extent that voters mistrusted Hillary Clinton, or considered her conduct as secretary of state to have been negligent or even potentially criminal, or were generally unaware of what her policies contained or how they may have differed from Donald Trump’s, these numbers suggest their views were influenced more by mainstream news sources than by fake news.

To shed more light on this possibility, we conducted an in-depth analysis of a single media source, The New York Times. We chose the Times for two reasons: First, because its broad reach both among policy elites and ordinary citizens means that the Times has singular influence on public debates; and second, because its reputation for serious journalism implies that if the Times did not inform its readers of the issues, then it is unlikely such information was widely available anywhere.
[…]
10 is an interesting figure because it is also the number of front-page stories the Times ran on the Hillary Clinton email scandal in just six days, from October 29 (the day after FBI Director James Comey announced his decision to reopen his investigation of possible wrongdoing by Clinton) through November 3, just five days before the election. When compared with the Times’s overall coverage of the campaign, the intensity of focus on this one issue is extraordinary. To reiterate, in just six days, The New York Times ran as many cover stories about Hillary Clinton’s emails as they did about all policy issues combined in the 69 days leading up to the election (and that does not include the three additional articles on October 18, and November 6 and 7, or the two articles on the emails taken from John Podesta). This intense focus on the email scandal cannot be written off as inconsequential: The Comey incident and its subsequent impact on Clinton’s approval rating among undecided voters could very well have tipped the election.


There is much more and it’s damning.

They all failed, and we saw it in real time. But none so much as the paper of record which refuses to admit it and becomes very defensive when confronted with it. It’s a profound failure that changed the course of history.

.

.