Skip to content

Month: January 2019

The Christmas liefest

Published by digby on January 2, 2019

The Christmas liefest

by digby

Trump’s premiere lie tracker, Daniel Dale of the Toronto Star, tweeted this:

Here it is. It’s almost impossible to believe anyne could lie this publicly and this relentlessly on Christmas, but that’s our president. He is a malovolent psycho and he’s getting worse.

.

Bye bye Brazil

Published by digby on January 1, 2019

Bye bye Brazil

by digby

Brazil’s new tyrant took office today:

The tanks began to roll into Rio de Janeiro on the morning of April 1, 1964, some of them from the neighboring state of Minas Gerais, others from São Paulo. The Brazilian capital had moved to Brasília, the new planned city in the country’s interior, a few years prior, but Rio remained the effective center of power, and somewhere in the city, President João Goulart was clinging to power.

Goulart, a leftist who became president in 1961, had spent the days prior on the phone with a top military officer, Gen. Amaury Kruel. The general was hoping to prevent the collapse of Brazil’s government by urging Jango, as Goulart was known to Brazilians, to fire prominent leftist officials and institute a slate of reforms that would please both the military and the centrist establishment in Congress that opposed Goulart’s shifts to the left.

Goulart refused. The military marched.

By the next morning, Goulart had fled to Porto Alegre. A few days later, he was in Uruguay. Brazil’s democracy had collapsed.

Five decades later, on the evening of Oct. 28, 2018, members of the Brazilian military were parading through the streets of Rio again. Green Army jeeps honked their horns and flashed their lights; soldiers standing atop them waved Brazilian flags as adoring crowds cheered their arrival.

This time, though, the military was not coming to depose a president, but to celebrate him. Jair Bolsonaro, a federal congressman and former Army captain, had just won the election to become Brazil’s 38th president.

“What a nightmare,” Argentine journalist Diego Iglesias tweeted in Spanish of the scene.

Bolsonaro, whose presidency will begin with a New Year’s Day inaugural ceremony in Brasília, has routinely praised Brazil’s military dictatorship, which gave way to the return of democratic governance in 1985. And his rise to power shares many similarities with the military regime’s: Bolsonaro has seized on widespread discontent and fatigue with an incapable and corrupt political establishment, on fervid opposition to a leftist party that had spent more than a decade in power, on an economic collapse that Brazil has only slowly begun to escape, and on rising levels of violent crime.

And while he has pitched his surge to power as the result of a “populist” revolt, his base of support mirrors that of the old coup masters: wealthy financial elites, segments of the population willing to trade the rights and lives of the poor and marginalized for their own safety and economic prosperity, and traditional parties and politicians who refuse to acknowledge their own roles in creating the monster before folding themselves into his arms.

Much like the military once did, Bolsonaro has threatened his leftist political opponents with violence and imprisonment. He has promised to deliver a political “cleansing never seen before in Brazil,” and threatened media outlets that report news unfavorable to him. His vice president is a former Army general who, in an interview with HuffPost Brazil, refused to rule out a return to military rule, and who has posited — over Bolsonaro’s unconvincing objections — that the new administration could rewrite the country’s constitution.

This is not exclusively a Brazilian phenomenon. Countries around the world, from Hungary to Turkey to the Philippines, have turned to noisy leaders who promise instant renewals and silver-bullet solutions under the banner of a right-wing, nativist “populism” ― the preferred term of news outlets, even though the key constituencies backing these candidates tend to comprise the nations’ elite.

Each major election has become, in part, a referendum on the state of global democracy as a whole. And each victory for a right-wing, anti-democratic figure has paved the way for a similar candidate in the next major election somewhere else.

Of the bunch, though, Bolsonaro might be the most pressing threat to a major democracy. Brazil’s is the fourth-largest in the world, and the largest by population in Latin America. If it dies, this time, it won’t be at the hands of the armed forces. It will be self-inflicted.

“There have been very, very few military coups in Latin America over the last 35 years,” said Steven Levitsky, a Harvard University political scientist and author of How Democracies Die. “So I think that while increased public support for a military coup is troubling, it’s much more likely Brazilian democracy will die at the hands of an elected leader.”

Brazil is about to show the world how a modern democracy falls apart.

There’s a lesson in this somewhere … I can’t quite put my finger on it.

.

Let’s talk about the weather

Published by digby on January 1, 2019

Let’s talk about the weather

by digby

David Leonhardt of the New York Times says we should talk about the weather more. I agree:

For a long time, many people thought that it was a mistake to use the weather as evidence of climate change. Weather patterns contain a lot of randomness. Even as the earth warms and extreme weather becomes more common, some years are colder and calmer than others. If you argue that climate change is causing some weather trend, a climate denier may respond by making grand claims about a recent snowfall.

And yet the weather still has one big advantage over every other argument about the urgency of climate change: We experience the weather. We see it and feel it.

It is not a complex data series in an academic study or government report. It’s not a measurement of sea level or ice depth in a place you’ve never been. It’s right in front of you. And although weather patterns do have a lot of randomness, they are indeed changing. That’s the thing about climate change: It changes the climate.

I wanted to write my last column of 2018 about the climate as a kind of plea: Amid everything else going on, don’t lose sight of the most important story of the year.

I know there was a lot of competition for that title, including some more obvious contenders, like President Trump and Robert Mueller. But nothing else measures up to the rising toll and enormous dangers of climate change. I worry that our children and grandchildren will one day ask us, bitterly, why we spent so much time distracted by lesser matters.

The story of climate change in 2018 was complicated — overwhelmingly bad, yet with two reasons for hope. The bad and the good were connected, too: Thanks to the changing weather, more Americans seem to be waking up to the problem.

I’ll start with the alarming parts of the story. The past year is on pace to be the earth’s fourth warmest on record, and the five warmest years have all occurred since 2010. This warming is now starting to cause a lot of damage.

In 2018, heat waves killed people in Montreal, Karachi, Tokyo and elsewhere. Extreme rain battered North Carolina and the Indian state of Kerala. The Horn of Africa suffered from drought. Large swaths of the American West burned. When I was in Portland, Ore., this summer, the air quality — from nearby wildfires — was among the worst in the world. It would have been healthier to be breathing outdoors in Beijing or Mumbai.

The Rise of Extreme Hurricanes

From year to year, the number of serious hurricanes fluctuates. But the last few decades show a clear and disturbing trend.

The following is a big part of the problem. One of our political parties is devoted to putting its head in the sand for reasons that I fail to understand. I used to think it was because they are greedy and/or superstitious. Now, I just think they are like their Dear Leader — the world is too complicated to understand so they just reflexively reject anything the people they reflexively hate are saying.

It’s an easy way to organize your world, but it’s extremely destructive to reject science. It’s killing people:

Amid all of this destruction, Trump’s climate agenda consists of making the problem worse. His administration is filled with former corporate lobbyists, and they have been changing federal policy to make it easier for companies to pollute. These officials like to talk about free enterprise and scientific uncertainty, but their real motive is usually money. Sometimes, they don’t even wait to return to industry jobs. Both Scott Pruitt and Ryan Zinke, two now-departed pro-pollution cabinet secretaries, engaged in on-the-job corruption.

I often want to ask these officials: Deep down, do you really believe that future generations of your own family will be immune from climate change’s damage? Or have you chosen not to think very much about them?

As for the two main reasons for hope: The first is that the Trump administration is an outlier. Most major governments are trying to slow climate change. So are many states in this country, as well as some big companies and nonprofit groups. This global coalition is the reason that the recent climate summit in Poland “yielded much more,” as Nat Keohane of the Environmental Defense Fund said, “than many of us had thought might be possible.”

The second reason for hope is public opinion. No, it isn’t changing nearly as rapidly as I wish. Yet it is changing, and the weather seems to be a factor. The growing number of extreme events — wildfires, storms, floods and so on — are hard to ignore.

Only 40 percent of Americans called the quality of environment “good” or “excellent” in a Gallup Poll this year, the lowest level in almost a decade. And 61 percent said the environment was getting worse. In an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 66 percent of Americans said they wanted to see action to combat climate change. Some polls even suggest that Republican voters are becoming anxious about the situation.

The politics of climate change remains devilishly hard, especially because so many people around the world feel frustrated about their living standards. France’s “gilet jaune” protests, after all, were sparked by a proposed energy tax. Compared with day-to-day life, the effects of climate change have long felt distant, almost theoretical.

But now those effects are becoming real, and they are terrifying. To anyone who worries about making a case for climate action based on the weather, I would simply ask: Do you have a better idea?

If it’s true then it must be said.  Reason is the only thing we have if we are to survive this challenge. So, if science’s best analysis says this extreme weather is partly caused by climate change, then say it.

.

Learning the ropes by @BloggersRUs

Published by Tom Sullivan on January 1, 2019

Learning the ropes
by Tom Sullivan

A new Congress begins Thursday, so buckle up. Special Counsel Robert Mueller has not finished his Russia investigations and Nancy Pelosi has not yet begun to get under Donald Trump’s skin.

Given nervous “preemptive branding,” let’s call it, on behalf of possible presidential candidates a year ahead of the 2020 primaries, recognize what voting records we cite to reveal something about politicians reveal about ourselves. Voting records are facts, yes, but they are not stories. At least, not complete ones. (The next few paragraphs I reconstituted from a recent tweet thread.)

Tolerance, please. Think Progress reports, “Of the 59 newly-elected Democrats who will be joining Congress for the first time next month, only 18 have previous experience holding some kind of elected office.” Count on it: Even progressive first-time electeds will make mistakes.

“I screwed up,” a freshman state senator told me after a vote during her first months ever in elected office. It was one of those switcheroo bills. They read as if they do one thing and actually do another. It was a rookie lawmaker’s mistake. She learned from it.

Some friends had little tolerance for her learning curve. On high alert for return of the ancien régime (perhaps with reason), they spoke of throwing this solidly progressive, generous to a fault, Moral Monday arrestee under the bus. Who could they get to primary her?

Neither they nor I could tell you today what that early bill was about.

With dozens of 1st-time elected Democrats taking seats in Congress Jan. 3, it might be wise to take our fingers off our hair-triggers. Our freshman allies are going to screw up along the way. Expect it. Making mistakes as they learn the ropes does not make them adversaries.

Okay, okay, we are not talking about a Blue Dog here. But here is related experience involving one from 2010.

Scrutiny Hooligans (R.I.P.) readers here in the Cesspool of Sin had had enough of Rep. Heath Shuler, our truculent, local Blue Dog. They listed votes Shuler had made against his party’s majority that they had never forgotten and would never forgive. They certainly would never again vote for him. Not all the votes were familiar, but something about the complaints felt … off. What had happened to the bills ScruHoo readers were so upset about?

Below is a list of Shuler’s votes against party assembled from the comment thread. I reformatted and edited this table from my January 2016 Hullabaloo post on this. Except where noted, “Outcome” refers to final disposition in the House. At the time, OpenCongress.org (now offline) reported Shuler had been voting 85% with the caucus. But by their own accounting, these are the votes that really pissed off readers.

“Key votes” are in the eye of the beholder. Your mileage may vary.

Key House Votes Against Party


Bill
No.
Title
/ Year
Outcome

HR3 / S5
Stem Cell Research Act of
2007
Passed anyway

HR3685
Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), 2007 
Passed anyway

H Res 1031
Establishment of the
Office of Congressional Ethics, 2008
Passed anyway

HR1
HR1 American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“Stimulus Bill")
Passed anyway

HR1913
Hate Crimes Expansion,
2009
Passed anyway

HR2749
Food Safety Regulation
Amendments, 2009
Passed anyway

 
H.AMDT.509 to HR 3962,
2009 (Stupak Amendment)
64 Democrats joined GOP in adding Stupak
amendment to Affordable Health Care bill 240-194. It was not in the final version Barack Obama signed.

HR3590
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 2010
Passed anyway

HR4213
Unemployment Benefits
Extension, 2010. Voted No on final report.
Passed anyway

HR4872
Health Care Reconciliation
Act, 2010
Passed anyway

HR5618
Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act, 2010
Passed anyway

 

What mattered to readers was their congressman had not voted for passage, even though in the end the bills they wanted passed passed. That is, they ultimately got what they wanted and were still mad about getting it, sometimes years after the fact. What it revealed was that even in victory some voters will react like jilted lovers who will neither forgive nor forget a personal betrayal. Democrats want to fall in love. It was not enough to advance their larger agenda. They wanted a soulmate. The exercise was highly instructive.

But this is politics. Those wanting a soulmate should try Match dot com.

The point is, in 2019 with so many new, first-time legislators in Congress — progressive and less so — they are going to screw up. Some of their votes, even only procedural ones, will either piss you off or break your heart. What matters more is advancing the ball and chalking up wins, not how faithful we feel our representatives are to our every expectation. Even the best of them are going to disappoint. Try not to file for divorce the first time it happens. You would want the same.

If you value what we write here, I hope you’ll consider supporting the blog with a couple of bucks. If you’ve already donated, I thank you from the bottom of my heart. If you haven’t and would like to, the paypal buttons are on the sidebar and below as is the snail mail address.

Buckle up everybody. It’s going to be a very bumpy New Year …


 cheers — digby

Digby’s Hullabaloo
2801 Ocean Park Blvd.
Box 157
Santa Monica, Ca 90405

Happy New Year!

Published by digby on January 1, 2019

Happy New Year!

by digby

Raise a glass and share a laugh, this may be the funniest political moment of 2018:

It’s only going to get wilder. Oh my.

If you value what we write here, I hope you’ll consider supporting the blog with a couple of bucks. If you’ve already donated, I thank you from the bottom of my heart. If you haven’t and would like to, the paypal buttons are on the sidebar and below as is the snail mail address.

Buckle up everybody. It’s going to be a very bumpy New Year …


 cheers — digby

Digby’s Hullabaloo
2801 Ocean Park Blvd.
Box 157
Santa Monica, Ca 90405

.

Dumb and dumber tweets, every single day

Published by digby on January 1, 2019

Dumb and dumber tweets, every single day

by digby

He’s sitting in bed eating cheeseburgers, watching Fox, checking Breitbart, happy as can be. And it’s making him even dumber than usual:

In one of his most recent arguments for a southern border wall, President Trump on Sunday falsely claimed that the Washington home of former president Barack Obama and Michelle Obama is surrounded by a 10-foot wall…

Trump’s assertion came as a surprise to two of the Obamas’ neighbors Monday, who told The Washington Post that there is no such wall. The 8,200-square-foot structure, despite several security features, is completely visible from the street.

A neighbor, a longtime resident of the area who spoke on the condition of anonymity to preserve their privacy, said Trump “has a very active imagination.”

“There’s a fence that goes along the front of the house, but it’s the same as the other neighbors have,” the neighbor said. “It’s tastefully done.”

The former president and first lady purchased the nine-bedroom mansion for $8.1 million in 2017, The Post previously reported. It’s located in the affluent D.C. neighborhood of Kalorama, which is also home to Ivanka Trump and Amazon founder Jeffrey P. Bezos, who owns The Post. Previous residents of the neighborhood have included former presidents Woodrow Wilson, William Howard Taft, Warren G. Harding, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover.

TMZ reported on construction to the residence in 2017 before the Obamas moved in, which the website also characterized as “a wall.”

As The Post’s Fact Checker notes, the Obamas added security fencing to a retaining wall in front of the home (it is not a compound) for the needs of the Secret Service. A guard booth was built, and fencing was added to the back.
[…]
Another neighbor said the Obamas’ home is “100 percent visible from the street.”

“There is no 10-foot wall in the front, back or sides of the house — and no wall is going up,” the person said.

An editor at The Post who went to the residence Monday morning noted that part of the street was blocked off — neighbors say there are security checkpoints at either end of the street — but confirmed that a wall was not visible from their vantage point, either.

Trump continued to tweet about his proposed wall Monday morning, criticizing Democrats for rejecting the idea. The Senate approved a stopgap funding measure in late December that did not contain wall money but would have kept the government open until Feb. 8.

“They say it’s old technology – but so is the wheel,” Trump wrote.” They now say it is immoral- but it is far more immoral for people to be dying!”

This is a new version of his previous arguments that demanded Clinton and Obama get rid of all armed security if they believe in gun safety.It’s stupid but it seems to play well with his rally crowds. They love the idea of Democrats being vulnerable to gun violence.

If you value what we write here, I hope you’ll consider supporting the blog with a couple of bucks. If you’ve already donated, I thank you from the bottom of my heart. If you haven’t and would like to, the paypal buttons are on the sidebar and below as is the snail mail address.

Buckle up everybody. It’s going to be a very bumpy New Year …


 cheers — digby

Digby’s Hullabaloo
2801 Ocean Park Blvd.
Box 157
Santa Monica, Ca 90405

.