May 202013
 

“America’s Next Top Presidential Scandal:” Worst. Show. Ever. So the second term is about defining your legacy and having your enemies do everything they can to tarnish it. In the past few weeks a lot of Scandal Spaghetti has been thrown against the wall. Overall, these allegations are pretty tame compared to what the last two guys actually did. Here are the contenders, and no, I refuse to stoop to being one of those idiot journalists who thinks it’s cute to tack on a -gate to everything. (See rant in previous post.)

Benghazi. The administration is getting heat for trying to spin the motivation/identity of the attackers. The right is in a tizzy over this one because it touches on terrorism and Hillary Clinton. Even Krauthammer thinks they are wishing too hard for this scandal to be huge, and are perhaps overhyping it.

IRS v. conservative “nonprofit” groups. Certain groups got additional scrutiny in their attempt to attain tax-exempt nonprofit status. Let’s see, we have groups that want to eliminate the IRS applying to the IRS for special treatment. What could possibly go wrong?

DOJ snooping on AP reporters. The Justice Department had a subpoena and was investigating leaks by officials to reporters. I see how this could affect the First Amendment rights of reporters to be able to provide confidentiality to their sources. The source might not want to contact a reporter if the reporter’s phone records could lead investigators back to him. Why didn’t the DOJ just get the records of the people they were investigating. “Hey, look here. According to his phone record, Mr. Leaker called this number, which belongs to a reporter at the AP.” The same facts would be discovered without damaging the reporter’s rights or reputation. Seems like this scandal is about laziness or incompetence. Of course, what the scandalmongers are really looking for is some kind of coverup.

The Marine and the Umbrella. The outrage! How dare a Marine hold an umbrella over the head of the president? I wouldn’t be surprised to hear a scandalmonger chime in and point out that the umbrella is black, and “what kind of message is that sending? Why does Obama have a deep-seated hatred for white umbrellas? And why isn’t the umbrella wearing a flag pin?”

Sad Obama

Digg This
Apr 222013
 

The neoconservative movement, always eager to start another war, received the news of the Boston Marathon bombing with noticeably constrained enthusiasm. If the investigation reveals certain facts, they will produce a new drum to beat for a new (or renewed) war. Here’s my tongue -in-cheek attempt to give you an inside look at the neocon brain as it reacts to news about the bombing.

HOUR ONE: Two bombs; seconds apart. OMG (not allah)! That sounds like a coordinated terrorist attack! Oh, please be al Qaeda or Hamas.

DAY TWO: Pressure cooker bombs! Foreign terrorist like to use those kinds of IEDs. Starting to get really excited; let’s go dust off that Patriot Act II I’ve got squirreled away. Oh boy, oh boy!

DAY THREE: Blurry photos of TWO suspects! So it’s not a lone wolf spree killing like Newtown or Aurora! It’s a team effort, like terrorism (conveniently forgetting Columbine) .

Let’s take a look at these guys. I see some curly black hair and brownish skin. Could be Arab Muslims! OMG, OMG, OMG!

DAY FOUR: Suspects identified. Russians? Damn it! We can’t bomb those guys. Grrr, stupid Ruskies with their strong army and nuclear arseneal. There’s no fun in fighting them; I might get hurt.

Anything else before I go back to playing up a war in Korea?

Chechnya … hmm? Don’t they got Muslims? Yes? Hell, I might be able to work with that.

DAY FIVE:  We caught one!  We better send him to Gitmo for some tortu … enhanced interrogation.  Besides if he’s a Muslim that killed people, that makes him an ”enemy combatant.”  We need to be sure he doesn’t have any information about any other people who could want to hurt us too.   Miranda rights?   No way!  He’s a terrorist.   He’s a citizen?  But still … I’m afraid and neocons don’t care about hurting people that are different.  The only reason I don’t want to shoot this guy in the head and dump him in the ocean right now is I need him to ‘confess’ and give us some actionable intelligence so I can build a case for war.  We need to make him say him to say he was trained by Iran.
The experience the Neocons are going through now is like the lottery.  They’ve got a ticket in hand and are watching the draw on TV.   Their first 3 numbers match, and they’re getting really excited.  Now on the edge of their seat, the 4th number is called and they are a little disappointed with a miss.  But, hey, they could still win a bunch with that 5th number, so they’re still pretty excited until the facts throw some cold water on them.  Will the facts show no legitimate connection to an foreign terrorist organization?   We’ll see.

Digg This
Apr 092013
 

Senate Minority Leader and Lead Filibusterer Mitch McConnell was recorded at a meeting with aides discussing opposition research on potential opponent Ashley Judd. While McConnell deserves contempt, after reading through the transcript, I’m not finding anything noteworthy from him. His staff is doing almost all of the talking. Some of what they say might be interesting, but this is a lame way to attack McConnell. His years leading the obstructionists in the Senate should provide ample and more outrageous fodder for that.

Maybe this is only getting a lot of attention this week because it is a mean-old-man leads attack on adorable celebrity lady who dares to consider challenging him. So it’s more of an Ashley Judd story.

In case Mother Jones is forced to remove it, below are highlights from the transcript. It does shed a light on how this guy’s staff (and probably, and sadly, politicians in general) operates.

From Mother Jones:

Sen. Mitch McConnell: If I could interject…I assume most of you have played the, the game Whac-A-Mole? [Laughter.] This is the Whac-A-Mole period of the campaign…when anybody sticks their head up, do them out, and we’re even planning to do it with the Courier here shortly, so…

And, that’s all from McConnell.

Presenter: Yeah, it is really hard to get your arms around…

The good news is, she’s to the far left of every issue she’s taken a public stance on, not just far left, nationwide…[Inaudible.] So you know one of the first themes we can sort of hit on, clearly, is that she openly supports President Obama.

Their first evidence that she’s “far to the left” of the country is that she supports Obama. It shows their skewed perspective, and how their unfamiliarity with the facts could be their undoing. This staffer is from the “Obama is a secret Kenyan Muslim Marxist Socialist” crowd if he actually believes that Obama is synonymous with the far left.

Presenter: Another thing is she’s clearly anti-coal. She’s tweeted that “the era of the coal plant is over, unacceptable, it’s the dirtiest. We in the US can do better, we need to innovate.”

I’ve omitted all of her mountaintop removal stuff. It’s a whole separate category. It doesn’t quite test as well. But she has, we have her on film, she’s led protests. She’s done speeches at National Press Club condemning mountaintop removal.

This part might be the most interesting bit of the whole meeting. The campaign says they have her on record as being against mountaintop removal, but, “Hey, guys, we’re going to leave that out, because even we know that the majority of the public agrees with her.”

Presenter: I mean clearly she’s a carpetbagger. …

What a blockbuster revelation! I hope you didn’t hurt yourself finding that one. A Hollywood millionaire who travels and lives outside of Kentucky? Who woulda thunk it?

I guess he is assuming that Kentuckians rabidly perfer a douchebagging McConnell over a carpetbagging Judd.

Presenter: I think too she’s clearly sort of anti-sort-of-traditional American family. I think Jesse tracked this down. She described having children as selfish, and she thinks it’s unconscionable to breed. So you put that with what we’ll talk to you later about her sort of pro-choice stance and it’s sort of a, you know, pretty extreme posture to take. She also is critical of, of fathers giving away their daughters in marriage ceremonies. She says it’s a common vestige of male dominion over a women’s reproductive status when her father gives her away at a wedding. And then she’s clearly for pro-abortion.

So he found a bunch of quotes likely to shock and appall only the types of people who were going to vote for McConnell again anyway. I’m beginning to think the McConnell campaign is really getting ripped off by their opposition researchers. I thought they were getting paid to find something useful.

Presenter: She’s an open advocate as you can see. Anyhow I know this is sort of a sensitive subject but you know at least worth putting on your radar screen is that she is critical…[inaudible] sort of traditional Christianity. She sort of views it as sort of a vestige of patriarchy. She says Christianity gives a God like a man, presented and discussed exclusively with male imagery which legitimizes and seals male power, the intention to dominate even if that intention is nowhere visible.

And this is sort of an interview that sort of manifests this sort of I would say oddly synthetic approach to Christianity.

[Plays recording.]

Judd’s voice: I still choose the God of my understanding as the God of my childhood. I have to expand my God concept from time to time, and you know particularly I enjoy native faith practices, and have a very nature-based God concept. I’d like to think I’m like St. Francis in that way. Brother Donkey, Sister Bird. [Laughter.]

Presenter: Brother Donkey, Sister Bird! [Laughter.]

Male voice: The people at Southeast Christian [Church] would take to the streets with pitchforks. [Laughter.]

Presenter: Brother…That’s my favorite line so far. Absolute favorite one so far. [Laughter.]

She also is an open advocate of gay marriage. You can see this is what she tweeted after election night when Maryland approved same sex marriage. “It’s okay to love whom you love.” And then she talks about Maryland’s bill.

Yes, Judd sounds goofy in a quote that can easily be taken out of context and presented as sincere, but I’ll repeat: So he found a bunch of quotes likely to shock and appall only the types of people who were going to vote for McConnell again anyway. I’m beginning to think the McConnell campaign is really getting ripped off by their opposition researchers. I thought they were getting paid to find something useful.

By the way, I chuckled when he said “synthetic approach to Christianity.”  That’s like saying her plastic is too artificial.

Presenter:  Ah, and again. She’s clearly, this sounds extreme, but she is emotionally unbalanced. I mean it’s been documented. Jesse can go in chapter and verse from her autobiography about, you know, she’s suffered some suicidal tendencies. She was hospitalized for 42 days when she had a mental breakdown in the ’90s. Phil Maxson found this, which sort of I think is a pretty revealing interview.

[Plays recording.]

Judd’s voice: I call it the American anesthesia. You know, I come back to this country. I freak out in airports. The colors, the sounds, all those different ways of packaging the same snack but trying to, you know, make it look like it’s distinct and different and convince consumers that they have to have it. I mean all of that. The last time I came home from a trip, I absolutely flipped out when I saw pink fuzzy socks on a rack. I mean, I can never anticipate what is going to push me over the edge. [Laughter.]

But in a few weeks, you know, I’m driving along smooth roads and I think nothing of it. I’m, you know, choosing between four different brands of cereal from plastic dispensers so that I don’t have to have, you know, ugly, mismatched boxes on my shelf, and I don’t think anything of it. You know?

Presenter: So pink fuzzy socks are of concern. [Laughter.]

Female voice: …at Fancy Farm. We’ll all take pink fuzzy socks. [Laughter.]

This is the arguably offensive part of the meeting where it appears the gang is mocking mental illness or Judd’s goofy description of what she says she experienced. I think he almost admits the attack is a bit mean when he says “this sounds extreme, but she is emotionally unbalanced.”

I’ll end by letting these scumbags know that I’m not alone in preferring a candidate suffering from a treatable mental illness over an allegedly mentally healthy one who explicitly made it his mission to subvert American democracy. Anyone else feel like some turtle soup?

from BusterBlog: Mitch McConnell: Elderly Mutant Plutocrat Turtle?

Digg This
Apr 032013
 

Some observers think the Republican party may go the way of the Whigs and disappear. They are wrong.

Don’t misunderstand me … they are clearly in state of crisis now. The GOP is hardly grand, increasingly old, but still retains the benefits of a party. This chart deftly illustrates the mess that constitutes the current Republican coalition. Yet the current establishment GOP leadership is stubbornly clinging to a set of ideologies that is continuing to lose favor with the majority of Americans. They are reluctant to change on the issues, instead focusing on  how they present their ideas. The thought is that the public will clamor to buy and eat that turdburger if it is served on fine china instead of a paper plate. They must adopt the principles and priorities of the American public in order to serve their party’s (or any party’s) most important principle: elect more Republicans.

So, yes, they look like they are dying fast. However, I predict they will survive. Here’s why.

The Republcian party won’t disappear because the organization possesses valuable assets (aside from money). The system makes them too big too fail.  Over the years the Democrats and Republicans colluded to establish election laws that effectively grants them permanent status.   So whoever ends up being the Republican candidate will have a reserved seat at the table.

Both parties can rely on support of a blindly loyal base. Unfortunately, partisan identity is often a part of many people’s personal identity. A sizable amount of people will awlays vote for whoever wins their party’s nomination, no matter how much of a lunatic the nominee happens to be. For these folks loyalty to the party trumps loyalty to the country (but that’s an issue to be angry about in another post). This blindly loyal base will be inherited by whatever shell of a party is left.

The mainstream corporate media will always provide a forum to whatever is left of the Republican party. It could be that the so-called journalists do not want to risk losing access in case the GOP actually wins. The fringey Republican candidate will always get more coverage than a non-billionaire independent candidate who tracks closely with the public’s stances on the issues. Even a nearly dead GOP will automatically be granted legitimacy by the media.

Ballot privilege, a blindly loyal base, and perpetual media credibility alone would be enough to keep a party alive. That the GOP will not die raises the possibility that it could change for the better after hitting a rock bottom. There could be a partisan realignment in the future. Could the GOP really be the party of Lincoln again someday? Here’s how it could happen. 

  • They offer lip service to change, but recognize that because of Gerrymandering they don’t have to change to win.
  • Demographic change continues, and so do losses.  (Think “purple Texas.”)
  • Bald-faced corruption of the process increasingly used as a desperate attempet to stay competitive.
  • After another round of losses, the rats will leave the ship (The secular elite, wall street crowd) taking resources and brainpower — defecting to the Democrats pushing them further to the right.
  • Zealot-wing completes takeover of the GOP.
  • After another landslide electoral defeat, the most rational chunk of zealots leave electoral politics altogether (perhaps finally deciding to render politics unto Ceaser).
  • Meanwhile, the Democratic party ignores its base to pander to its newest corporate bretheren, probably by continuing the wars (on terror & on drugs) and “reforming” entitlements.
  • Populists (on the left, right, and center), shunned by and disillusioned with the dominant Democats complete a takeover of the Republican party easily outnumbering the aged and crazy few remaining within the nearly empty “big tent.”   
  • The rebranded “Party of Teddy Roosevelt” retakes the White House after a generation in the wilderness. 

 
So that’s how the GOP could live on. It will likely experience destruction, decimation, isolation, abandonment, annexation, rennovation, then reemergence at a new address on the ideological spectrum led by a different coalition than it has today. Granted that will take a couple decades, but the party will not die.  In fact, it shouldn’t because the public needs an escape hatch if (or when?) the dominant Democratic party gets (further?) coopted by corporate and/or right wing interests.   

from Tom Tomorrow

 

 

 

 

 

Digg This
Mar 262013
 

In the next few hours the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case concerning gay marriage, Hollingsworth v. Perry .  The protesters/spectators have been camping out to get in.  They had to suffer through a rare late-March snow on Monday.  Today, they’ll probably have to suffer through Justice Scalia’s attempts to be funny.  Open mouth, insert foot.

The high court has its troll.  Calling the Voting Rights Act a “racial entitlement” is just the most recent example.  Scalia’s opinions are interesting to read, but too often his humor swerves into attempts at hateful snark.   I wouldn’t be surprised to find him repeat some of the more crude slippery slope arguments against gay marriage today.  (I’ll share the interesting quotes below as they arise.)

 ***
Scalia attempts to rebut Kennedy by saying there is “considerable disagreement” about the effects of the Prop 8 ban on children of same-sex couples. Really, you could say there is “considerable disagreement” about anything. It means disagreement exists, not that those who disagree have any relationship with the facts.  This is what you hear about climate change.

 

****

Following the completion of oral arguments the consensus among analysts is that the court will punt on the issue, ruling that there is a lack of standing, and allow California’s ruling on Prop 8 to stand.   The audio will be released soon.

 ****

Scalia mentions that he is concerned that allowing same-sex marriage will lead to requirement to allow same-sex adoption.  He says, “I take no position on whether it is harmful or not,” but some people say it is.  Justice Scalia will fit right in as a commentator on Fox News; they pull that crap all the time.

 ****

Chuck Cooper, are you really that dim, or are your clients forcing you raise these poor arguments? Embarrassing.

****

“We decide what the law is.  We don’t prescribe the law for the future.”  What a ridiculous statement that goes to the heart of Scalia’s originalist nonsense.   Look, if you are defining the law today, in the present, by saying what it is now, that definition you chose continues on into the future.  Well, I guess you could retry the issue every day (or every hour), but that would be as silly as Scalia’s originalism.

Digg This
Mar 112013
 

An excellent video about income inequality went viral last week.  It is worth a watch and a re-watch.  

 

The animated graph in the second half is fantastic and could be an amazing tool for helping people see and understand how outrageous the wealth gap has become in America.   When you do watch, share, and discuss this video and the issue, do not fall into the trap of using the term “inequality.”  Here’s why.

I know it is easier and quicker just to say “inequality.”  But in this case brevity is doing a disservice to your argument.  It leaves you open to the charge that since you are against inequality, therefore you want equality.  This flawed rebuttal is quite catchy and is used by the right to easily tie any critique of inequality to Communism, Socialism, Nazism, and general puppy-kickingism.  It could go something like this.

Plutocrat Toady:  I keep hearing people complaining about “inequality.” I don’t like the sound of that.  It’s like they want us all to be equal, to have the same amount of money.  I do OK, but I don’t want the government to force me to give some of my money so they can redistribute it to some lazy poor people. Do you?

Innocent, yet simple working class person:  Not really.

Plutocrat Toady:  It sounds like socialism to me, and do you know who used to call themselves “socialist”?

Innocent, yet simple working class person:  Who?

Plutocrat Toady:  The USSR communist Russians and Hitler’s Nazis.  I don’t want America to be taken over by those guys.  Do you?

Innocent, yet simple working class person:  No way, man!

Plutocrat Toady:  Next, they’ll force your daughter to go out with one of those poor people that took your money.  What do you think about that redistribution?

Innocent, yet simple working class person:  Starting to really piss me off.

Plutocrat Toady:  And since we’re all equal together now, they are going to make us all start speaking Spanish, right?

Innocent, yet simple working class person:  Ay Dios Mio!  … uh, I mean, screw those guys.  I’ll keep my inequality thank you very much.  Keep your government hands off my Medicare!

 

“You want to force everybody to be equal.”  The claim is absurd, but it plays on someone’s fear of government tyranny and fear of people that are different.  Anything that taps into those fears is a great tool to divide the majority (i.e. everyone who is not Crazy Rich) and generate support for the status quo.  

If you want to save capitalism from itself, one should pre-emptively rebut this argument by choosing to add one extra word in front of every reference to inequality.  You could use “extreme,” or “massive,” or “ridiculous,” or even “ungodly.”  Those that are appalled by the implication of forcing everyone to be equal may agree that it is possible for inequality to go too far.  Many can understand that sometimes freedom needs limits.  They won’t say that the Second Amendment give individuals the right to own nuclear weapons.

 The trap has been set that if you complain about “inequality,” the reactionaries on the right (yet not everybody on the right) will regurgitate an oversimplified and intentionally misleading spin that at “you are trying to force us all to be equal.  You are a communist/socialist.  You want the government to redistribute wealth.  You want the government to take money from people and give it to poorer people.”  They want to scare you into thinking all efforts to remedy this extreme inequality — a form of rabid capitalism not healthy rational capitalism — involves taking money from everyday “working class” Americans and giving it to the poor.  They want to recast it as a black-and-white issue, that the choice is equality or inequality.

Letting those at the top grab as much of the pie as they want and can is killing the American dream.  It’s already reached the point where you are much more likely to achieve the American dream outside of America.

 

The American Dream has Left the Country: Extreme Inequality Kills Social Mobility

 

Social mobility is the core of the American Dream. Note that having high mobility does not require perfect equality. That would actually be silly. In fact, social mobility requires inequality and it goes beyond just the idea of keeping up with the Joneses. I hope to be unequal with myself, doing better in the future than I am today. People want to be able to improve their status over time.

For today, know this. I don’t care about inequality; I’m outraged at extreme inequality. Simplify this debate and we all lose.

Digg This