HOME



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














Infomania

Buzzflash
Cursor
Raw Story
Salon
Slate
Prospect
New Republic
Common Dreams
AmericanPoliticsJournal
Smirking Chimp
Crisis Papers



MediA-Go-Go

BagNewsNotes
Crooks and Liars
CJR Daily
consortium news
Scoobie Davis




Blog-o-rama

Eschaton
Demosthenes
Political Animal
Driftglass
Firedoglake
oilprice.com
Taylor Marsh
Spocko's Brain
Talk Left
Suburban Guerrilla
Paperweight's Fair Shot
corrente
Pacific Views
Echidne
TAPPED
Talking Points Memo
pandagon
Daily Kos
MyDD
Electrolite
Americablog
Tom Tomorrow
Left Coaster
Angry Bear
Rooks Rant
The Poorman
Seeing the Forest
Cathie From Canada
Frontier River Guides
Brad DeLong
The Sideshow
Liberal Oasis
BartCop
Juan Cole
Mark Kleiman
Rising Hegemon
alicublog
Unqualified Offerings
Mad Kane
Blah3.com
Alas, A Blog
Fanatical Apathy
RogerAiles
Lean Left
Oliver Willis
Ruminate This
skippy the bush kangaroo
Slacktivist
uggabugga
Crooked Timber
discourse.net
Amygdala
the talking dog
David E's Fablog
Nitpicker
The Agonist


email address:
digbysez at gmail dot com
isnospoon at gmail dot com

01/01/2003 - 02/01/2003 02/01/2003 - 03/01/2003 03/01/2003 - 04/01/2003 04/01/2003 - 05/01/2003 05/01/2003 - 06/01/2003 06/01/2003 - 07/01/2003 07/01/2003 - 08/01/2003 08/01/2003 - 09/01/2003 09/01/2003 - 10/01/2003 10/01/2003 - 11/01/2003 11/01/2003 - 12/01/2003 12/01/2003 - 01/01/2004 01/01/2004 - 02/01/2004 02/01/2004 - 03/01/2004 03/01/2004 - 04/01/2004 04/01/2004 - 05/01/2004 05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004 06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004 07/01/2004 - 08/01/2004 08/01/2004 - 09/01/2004 09/01/2004 - 10/01/2004 10/01/2004 - 11/01/2004 11/01/2004 - 12/01/2004 12/01/2004 - 01/01/2005 01/01/2005 - 02/01/2005 02/01/2005 - 03/01/2005 03/01/2005 - 04/01/2005 04/01/2005 - 05/01/2005 05/01/2005 - 06/01/2005 06/01/2005 - 07/01/2005 07/01/2005 - 08/01/2005 08/01/2005 - 09/01/2005 09/01/2005 - 10/01/2005 10/01/2005 - 11/01/2005 11/01/2005 - 12/01/2005 12/01/2005 - 01/01/2006 01/01/2006 - 02/01/2006 02/01/2006 - 03/01/2006 03/01/2006 - 04/01/2006 04/01/2006 - 05/01/2006 05/01/2006 - 06/01/2006 06/01/2006 - 07/01/2006 07/01/2006 - 08/01/2006 08/01/2006 - 09/01/2006 09/01/2006 - 10/01/2006 10/01/2006 - 11/01/2006 11/01/2006 - 12/01/2006 12/01/2006 - 01/01/2007 01/01/2007 - 02/01/2007 02/01/2007 - 03/01/2007 03/01/2007 - 04/01/2007 04/01/2007 - 05/01/2007 05/01/2007 - 06/01/2007 06/01/2007 - 07/01/2007 07/01/2007 - 08/01/2007 08/01/2007 - 09/01/2007 09/01/2007 - 10/01/2007 10/01/2007 - 11/01/2007 11/01/2007 - 12/01/2007 12/01/2007 - 01/01/2008 01/01/2008 - 02/01/2008 02/01/2008 - 03/01/2008 03/01/2008 - 04/01/2008 04/01/2008 - 05/01/2008 05/01/2008 - 06/01/2008 06/01/2008 - 07/01/2008 07/01/2008 - 08/01/2008 08/01/2008 - 09/01/2008 09/01/2008 - 10/01/2008 10/01/2008 - 11/01/2008 11/01/2008 - 12/01/2008 12/01/2008 - 01/01/2009 01/01/2009 - 02/01/2009 02/01/2009 - 03/01/2009 03/01/2009 - 04/01/2009 04/01/2009 - 05/01/2009 05/01/2009 - 06/01/2009 06/01/2009 - 07/01/2009 07/01/2009 - 08/01/2009 08/01/2009 - 09/01/2009 09/01/2009 - 10/01/2009 10/01/2009 - 11/01/2009 11/01/2009 - 12/01/2009 12/01/2009 - 01/01/2010 01/01/2010 - 02/01/2010 02/01/2010 - 03/01/2010 03/01/2010 - 04/01/2010 04/01/2010 - 05/01/2010 05/01/2010 - 06/01/2010 06/01/2010 - 07/01/2010 07/01/2010 - 08/01/2010 08/01/2010 - 09/01/2010 09/01/2010 - 10/01/2010 10/01/2010 - 11/01/2010 11/01/2010 - 12/01/2010 12/01/2010 - 01/01/2011 01/01/2011 - 02/01/2011 02/01/2011 - 03/01/2011 03/01/2011 - 04/01/2011 04/01/2011 - 05/01/2011 05/01/2011 - 06/01/2011 06/01/2011 - 07/01/2011 07/01/2011 - 08/01/2011 08/01/2011 - 09/01/2011 09/01/2011 - 10/01/2011 10/01/2011 - 11/01/2011 11/01/2011 - 12/01/2011 12/01/2011 - 01/01/2012 01/01/2012 - 02/01/2012 02/01/2012 - 03/01/2012 03/01/2012 - 04/01/2012 04/01/2012 - 05/01/2012 05/01/2012 - 06/01/2012 06/01/2012 - 07/01/2012 07/01/2012 - 08/01/2012 08/01/2012 - 09/01/2012 09/01/2012 - 10/01/2012 10/01/2012 - 11/01/2012 11/01/2012 - 12/01/2012 12/01/2012 - 01/01/2013 01/01/2013 - 02/01/2013 02/01/2013 - 03/01/2013 03/01/2013 - 04/01/2013 04/01/2013 - 05/01/2013 05/01/2013 - 06/01/2013 06/01/2013 - 07/01/2013 07/01/2013 - 08/01/2013 08/01/2013 - 09/01/2013 09/01/2013 - 10/01/2013 10/01/2013 - 11/01/2013 11/01/2013 - 12/01/2013 12/01/2013 - 01/01/2014 01/01/2014 - 02/01/2014 02/01/2014 - 03/01/2014 03/01/2014 - 04/01/2014 04/01/2014 - 05/01/2014


 

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Hullabaloo


Wednesday, April 16, 2014

 
Yoo is confused

by digby

So John Yoo is widely considered to be a brilliant legal mind?
John Yoo, a former deputy assistant attorney general and author of the 2002 memos advising the CIA’s use of enhanced interrogation techniques, said the Pulitzer committee’s decision did not vindicate Snowden.

“I’m not surprised the Pulitzer committee gave The Washington Post a prize for pursuing a sensationalist story, even when the story is a disaster for its own country,” he said. “I don’t think we need automatically read the prize as a vindication for Snowden’s crimes. Awarding a prize to a newspaper that covered a hurricane does not somehow vindicate the hurricane, [and] awarding a Pulitzer for a photo of a murder does not somehow vindicate the crime.”
Huh? The stories for which these journalists won the Pulitzer weren't about Edward Snowden or his alleged crimes. They were about the NSA's secret activities. It's the NSA that is the hurricane or the murderer in his scenario. If the award vindicates Snowden (not its intent, but rather its effect) it's because without him there would be no story not because the stories were about him. What the hell is he going on about?

I guess it makes sense that this fellow would be hostile to the NSA story. After all, if someone hadn't leaked the Bybee memo, we might never have known about the torture regime. And it's obviously a good thing he was disgraced by the exposure of his sadistic view of American power to keep him off the bench. I feel kind of sorry for his students though.

.
 
"Personhood" gains steam

by digby

In case anyone wants to tell me again that we needn't worry about the right wing "moving the goal posts" and that once a group of people have secured a basic human right, there's no going back, take a look at this from Greg Sargent:
The issue isn’t being discussed at all by Washington prognosticators these days. But you can bet that some of the most hard fought Senate races this fall will feature big fights over “Personhood” measures, which have declared that full human rights begin at the moment of fertilization. 
A number of GOP Senate candidates are on record supporting Personhood in some form. Once primary season is over, and the Senate general elections get underway in earnest, you are likely to see Democrats attack Republicans over the issue — broadening the battle for female voters beyond issues such as pay equity to include an emotionally fraught cultural argument that Dems have used to their advantage in the past. 
This has already appeared in the Colorado Senate race, but it will likely become an issue in other races, too. In Colorado, the Republican candidate, GOP Rep. Cory Gardner, renounced his previous support for Personhood after entering the contest, admitting it would “restrict contraception,” but Dems seized on the reversal to argue that Gardner only supports protecting women’s health when politically necessary. 
Gardner co-sponsored the “Life at Conception Act,” which provides for Constitutional protection of the right to life of each “preborn human person,” defined as existing from the “moment of fertilization.” The Pro-Life Alliance describes this as a “Personhood” measure.
Other GOP Senate candidates are on record in similar fashion. Co-sponsors of the Life at Conception Act include Rep. Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Rep. Steve Daines of Montana, both expected general election candidates. Meanwhile, according to McClatchy, three leading GOP Senate candidates in North Carolina — Thom Tillis, Greg Brannon, and Mark Harris — all favor a “Personhood” constitutional amendment that would “grant legal protections to a fertilized human egg and possibly ban some forms of birth control.”
Read on.  There's more, a lot more. Enough to send chills down your spine.

Now I'm sure that Democrats feel they will prevail on this and it's likely that it will accrue to their benefit in many places in the upcoming election. But all these candidates and office holders taking this position means that this "personhood" atrocity is becoming a mainstream position among Republicans.

So what's the point of this latest in the incremental war against a woman's right to choose when she wants to reproduce?
The single most important goal for any personhood law is to restrict, if not make totally illegal, the right to access abortions. If the zygote is a legal person, then Roe v. Wade was found on false grounds and no longer applies. Also, the idea of "viability" as a test no longer applies. A zygote or fetus must therefore be protected from being killed, just like any other person is.

Following that, most forms of hormonal birth control can potentially be attacked. Birth control works in two ways. First, it regulates the body so an egg is normally not released. No egg, no baby. However, sometimes an egg is released, but the hormones make the uterus a hostile environment for the zygote, causing it to pass out of the body with the woman's next cycle. If you assume a "person" begins at conception, birth control would necessarily be harmful to that person. Murder, if you will. The Virgina and Oklahoma State Legislators which are pushing personhood bills, were asked by those in opposition to put a basic rider protecting a woman's right to access hormonal birth control. In both cases, they gave a resounding "no", despite claims that they are not trying to make birth control illegal.

Another serious issue that is being brought up by ob-gyn's in the states trying to pass personhood laws, is the effect this will have on risky pregnancies, specifically ectopic pregnancy, because there is not sufficient legal markers/legal language to define a pregnancy as a "healthy one", nor define the rights of the fetus if it cannot survive...

Less likely, but still possible ramifications can include drastic laws against smoking, drinking or drug use while pregnant. While most women who want to be pregnant limit or remove those from their lives during pregnancy, some women do not, and some women cannot. Especially if they do not want the child in the first place. Though likely a violation of their civil rights, women are already charged for child abuse if they use while pregnant; personhood laws only make that situation worse. One can imagine a woman addicted to drugs who is living on the streets. She cannot have an abortion, but any child she has will face extreme health problems if it survives to term. And our answer will be to put her in jail.

Any miscarriage can potentially be considered manslaughter or a murder, depending on what the woman did or did not do during her pregnancy.
I actually don't think those last are less likely. Since the point of all this is to control women, I have no doubt that any pregnant women would be subject to legal problems if busy bodies thinks she is failing to behave in what certain people believe is a properly maternal way.

This is not some hysterical fringe discussion anymore. It's going to be part of the Fall campaign. And win or lose, the anti-abortion zealots will have succeeded in making the unthinkable thinkable.

.



 
President Obama reinforces conservative economic framing

by David Atkins

The White House twitter account posted today:



Regular readers of this blog will be able to identify the problem here: businesses don't actually create jobs. In fact, the goal of a business is to be able to make as much profit as possible while employing as few people as possible.

Companies don't create jobs. Customers do. It would be nice to have a President who helped communicate that reality to the American public.


.


 
Your wingnut whine 'o the day

by digby

Courtesy the WSJ:
The choice of Mr. Colbert is a strange business model for CBS. Gallup calibrates 38% of Americans as conservatives, 34% as moderates, and 23% as liberals. Friends who know Mr. Colbert, even some conservatives, tell me he's a good human being. But if he doesn't widen his appeal beyond those who lean strongly left, CBS will be writing off a large part of its potential audience. Carson hit the advertisers' sweet spot with a broad appeal to all consumers. It's a misnomer that comedians are rebels. At least not the successful ones who reflect the views of their fans.

Politically, Mr. Letterman took a left turn in recent years. It enraged many on the right when he mocked Sarah Palin's daughter and even today continues to bash Mr. Bush. And it didn't help his ratings. Now, by picking Mr. Colbert, CBS seems to be signaling that its target demo is Democrats of a decidedly liberal stripe.

I think they'll be content to keep Letterman's audience, thank you very much.

That piece was written by Johnny Carson's longtime head writer who has become a political consultant. Gosh I wonder what party he consults for?

.
 
Big streaming event today at 6pm Eastern, 3pm Pacific: Thomas Picketty with Krugman, Stiglitz and Durlauf

by digby

Via Moyers:
On Wednesday, April 16 at 6 p.m. Eastern time, Thomas Piketty will join economists Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz and Steven Durlauf in New York to talk about his new landmark book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century.
In a review, Krugman, who will appear on Moyers & Company this week, calls the book “magnificent” in part because it will “change both the way we think about society and the way we do economics,” adding that the French economist’s influence “runs deep.”

“The big idea of Capital in the Twenty-First Century is that we haven’t just gone back to nineteenth-century levels of income inequality, we’re also on a path back to ‘patrimonial capitalism,’ in which the commanding heights of the economy are controlled not by talented individuals but by family dynasties.”
Click here to watch the livestream.

This is the book everyone's talking about. It's said to be a towering work of scholarship and a tremendous breakthrough in the way we understand how the economy works.

Krugman wrote about it here in a piece called "Why We’re in a New Gilded Age."


.
 
Those birthpangs are getting life-threatening

by digby

It looks like there are some major complications in that birthing of the democracy over in Iraq. We got them pregnant but the baby has two heads and may not survive:
[A]s Iraq prepares for its first national election in four years on April 30, it is hard to imagine democracy activists rallying weekly in Iraqi streets. For months, suicide bombers have been dynamiting themselves in crowded Shiite markets, coffee shops, and funeral tents, while Shiite militias and government security forces have terrorized Sunni communities. The Iraqi state is breaking apart again: from the west in Anbar province, where after weeks of anarchic violence more than 380,000 people have fled their homes; to the east in Diyala province, where tit-for-tat sectarian killings are rampant; to the north in Mosul, where al-Qaeda-linked militants control large swathes of territory; to the south in Basra, home to Iraq’s oil riches, where Shiite militias are once more ascendant; to Iraq’s Kurds, who warn that the country is disintegrating and contemplate full independence from Baghdad.

More than 2,500 Iraqis have been killed since the start of the year, including nearly three hundred in the first ten days of April; in the capital itself, which has become a showcase for the country’s multiplying conflicts and uncontrolled violence, there have been several brazen attacks on government buildings, and a terrifying string of car bombings, including eight on April 9 alone.

In theory, this month’s parliamentary elections, which are being contested by parties from across the political spectrum, will allow voters to take a stand against extremism. While many Iraqis say they are disillusioned with their current leaders, however, few think their vote is likely to produce major changes: Most of the candidates play to the fears of their own sects, or seem too weak to change the currently hateful mood. Across Iraq, people seek diversions through a trip to a mall or coffee shop, half-expecting a fatal explosion, or they lock themselves away at home losing themselves in American movies and video games. Others seek solace in the sectarian fantasies now promoted by the elite political parties: the stories told by many Sunnis of Iran’s domination of Iraq through militias and political figures, and by the Shiite religious parties of a plot hatched in Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and Turkey to destroy the Shia communities in Syria and Iraq.
Oh, and then there's this:


Decades ago, in the years after Iraq gained independence, a tradition of child marriage persisted in its hills and plains. Upon their fathers’ orders, Iraqi girls were betrothed to strangers and rivals alike to resolve tribal disputes or incur favor.
childmarriageBut in the mid-1970s, such acts — called “fasliyah” — were prohibited as the nation moved toward secularization and modernity.

“This decree [banning fasliyah] constituted the first step toward a civilized Iraqi community,” reports the Middle East publication Al-Monitor, “which would put an end to the failures of the tribal… society.”
[...]
Now the Iraqi government is poised to legalize child marriage for the nation’s majority Shiite Muslim population. But the law, which some expect to pass before this month’s parliamentary elections, would do significantly more than that.

Called the Jaafari Personal Status Law, it would prohibit Muslim men from marrying non-Muslims, prevent women from leaving the house without their husband’s consent, automatically grant custody of children older than two to their father in divorce cases and legalize marital rape.

The law, which proponents say will save women’s “rights and dignity,” would also permit boys to marry as young as 15 and girls to marry as young as nine. Girls younger than nine would be permitted to marry with a parent’s approval.

Ayad Allawi, a former Iraqi prime minister, expressed outrage this week in an interview with the Telegraph. He said the law would legalize the abuse of women.

“It allows for girls to be married from nine years of age and even younger,” Allawi said. “There are other injustices [in the law] too.”

The legislation, which was introduced late last year, was condemned by international rights groups.

“Passage of the Jaafari law would be a disastrous and discriminatory step backward for Iraq’s women and girls,” said Joe Stork of Human Rights Watch.“This personal status law would only entrench Iraq’s divisions while the government claims to support equal rights for all.”

The irony of all this is that one of the main human rights rationales for the invasion, as it was with Afghanistan, was that it was going to free the ladies. Remember this?
"We’re getting the band together," White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett told the group on their first conference call last week.

The "Band" is made up of the people who brought you the war in Afghanistan—or at least the accompanying public-relations campaign. Their greatest hit: exposing the Taliban’s treatment of women.

Now, they’re back for a reunion tour on Iraq. The Band's instrument, of course, is information.
Karen Hughes famously toured the Middle East clumsily telling anyone who'd listen that she was "a working mom" and Laura Bush made the women of Afghanistan and Iraq her personal cause. This was mostly for domestic consumption, of course, and it worked to some extent. A lot of feminists were torn on this account --- they had been trying to alert the world about the Taliban for years.

But it's always dicey to try to fix such problems with a war against religious fanatics. Particularly when that's only a convenient humanitarian excuse for a ruthless war over resources. So, here we are, 11 years after the invasion --- Iraq is exploding and women are being driven back into medieval times. Heckuva job, Bushie.


.
 
Enlisting the ladies

by digby


“I just don’t have time for anything,” a housewife told a newsmagazine. “I’m fighting Communism three nights a week.”

The link goes to a Perlstein discussion of the Tea Party back in 2010. It's such a perfect example of the way the GOP enlists women to work on their behalf: it's just another housewife chore. Here's their 2014 version:

Signaling that the Republican Party is getting serious about wooing women, the Washington Post reported Monday that the Republican National Committee is planning to recruit an army of volunteers who will court young female voters in Democratic-leaning suburban areas.

The co-chair of the RNC, Sharon Day, is slated to launch the "14 in '14" program Monday in West Virginia, according to the Post, aiming to "sign up women who will commit 30 minutes per week in the 14 weeks before the election, making calls, recruiting other women, identifying voters and getting people to the polls."

President Barack Obama carried female voters in 2012 -- unmarried women in particular -- and winning over that voting bloc could tip tough mid-term elections in the GOP's favor.

“Women are a very important part of the electorate and the RNC is very serious about engaging,” Day told the Post. “The Democrats have relied on desperate attacks and we are going to aggressively work to correct the record and build relationships with women voters.”

I want you to look at the picture here:


There are only a couple of women there who are younger than I am. If the idea is that these women are going to be able to persuade their single granddaughters to vote for throwback patriarchs who think they're sluts if they use birth control, I suppose this might work. Otherwise, I think they have a long row to hoe. But then political strategists who declare proudly that "women are an important part of the electorate" --- as if it needs to be pointed out --- might not be as tuned into the real world as one might hope.

The GOP is one of the two major American parties and wields considerable power in our government. And their women sounds little different than that housewife back in the 60s. It's actually rather depressing.

.

 
Rand Paul, the sin-eater

by digby

My Salon piece this morning is about the Republican establishment dreaming of forming a grassroots rebellion against ... Rand Paul and the base of the Republican Party.
In a time of partisan gridlock and a political scene that’s become so dull and predictable that cable networks are devoting weeks of 24-hour news coverage to an airplane that doesn’t exist, progressive news junkies can turn to one bright spot to lift their spirits and feed their political souls: the open warfare breaking out between the various factions of the Republican coalition. The tension between the radicals and the establishment has been around for decades and the energy waxes and wanes depending on the circumstances. Even in the bright glow of the Reagan apotheosis, Newt Gingrich and his revolutionaries were making trouble from the back benches. But this time is a little different[...]

What’s new in this cycle is the rise of the agitated “moderates” who are taking to the pages of their traditional media to lash out in anger at Tea Party excesses — or at least at a certain “non-mainstream” Republican who can sit in as the far right’s all-purpose sin-eater. (You don’t want to directly confront that rabid Tea Party base. It bites.) That man is Sen. Rand Paul.
Read On ...

.
 
House conservatives STILL can't figure out what their healthcare "alternative" is

by David Atkins

This story, perhaps more than any about Wall Street, foreign policy or national security, shows just how far to the right both parties have gone:

Top House conservatives are pressuring Republican leaders to bring an ObamaCare replacement bill to a vote by the August recess.

Conservatives cheered when Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) pledged a vote during the House GOP’s annual retreat in January, viewing the commitment as a central element of the party’s vow to be “the alternative party” and not merely stand in opposition to President Obama.

Yet 10 weeks later, party leaders have given no indication when they might present a plan or what form it will take.

Conservatives like Rep. Steve Scalise (La.), chairman of the Republican Study Committee (RSC), are pushing for a vote by the time lawmakers leave town for five weeks at the end of July.
“At the end of the day, we feel it’s really important to bring a bill to the floor that is a true replacement to the president’s healthcare law,” Scalise said in a phone interview Tuesday. “Look, leadership’s come a long way in the last six months on that, and we’re continuing to talk to them to try to get to a point where we actually have a vote on the House floor by the August recess.”

Scalise wants the party to adopt a single, comprehensive replacement for ObamaCare, but party leaders have not signed off on that approach. In recent weeks, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has suggested the House might vote instead on a series of healthcare bills.

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has shied away from making any commitment at all, appearing to downplay the importance of holding a floor vote within a specific timeframe.

At a press conference last week, Boehner said Cantor and other top Republicans are “trying to build a consensus over what an alternative would look like.”
Of course they can't figure out what a conservative alternative would look like. Beyond going back to the old system of basically letting people with pre-existing conditions get sicker and die, there's isn't a more conservative alternative than the ACA. The ACA was the conservative alternative. It was the Heritage Foundation's idea. It was the idea implemented by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts. It's essentially a hefty government subsidy to health insurance companies to give them millions of new customers who previously couldn't afford coverage.

That doesn't make it bad per se, and it's certainly better than what we had before. But of all the possible forward-looking solutions to the healthcare crisis in this country, the ACA was the most conservative option possible. It's most progressive aspect is the Medicaid expansion--which Republican governors are blocking out of pure spite.

Democrats adopted that conservative approach partly to keep the medical and pharmaceutical industries happy, partly because many Americans currently covered by their employers would stupidly but understandably want to stick with the devil they know instead of take a chance on a "Euro-Socialist" approach, and partly because they were hoping for a few Republican votes to make it "bipartisan."

Republicans should have been thrilled with the result. Instead, they acted like the ACA was a nefarious Communist plot, and used atrocious lies about the bill to win big in 2010. That victory in turn helped them cement what will likely be over a decade in control of the House.

But it also means there's almost nowhere left for Republicans to go on healthcare. They can't really advocate for going back to the old system. And they certainly can't come up with a solution for those with pre-existing conditions and those priced out of healthcare entirely without a solution that looks very much like the ACA. They're all the way out on the right edge of the cliff, backed against the precipice by the right-leaning ACA. To go any farther right would mean jumping off the ledge.


.

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

 
Girls up front

by digby

I'm pretty sure they feel darned clever about this:
Some allies of rancher Cliven Bundy were prepared to make as much of a media spectacle as possible if violence were to erupt, saying they would put women on the front lines in the event federal officials turned to deadly force. Former Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack told Fox News Monday, as reported by the Blaze:

We were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front. If they are going to start shooting, it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers.

Mack, a self-professed Tea Partier, is one of a host of right-wing figures who stood behind Bundy and made him a conservative celebrity after he refused to pay grazing fees based on his claim that the federal government is not entitled to own land.

Mack served as sheriff for Graham County between 1988 and 1997, and is part of a group known as the “Oath Keepers” that denies the supremacy of federal law and has been deemed part of a wave of new militia groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center. He was also a plaintiff in the lawsuit against the federal government that challenged the constitutionality of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.
This is actually not all that uncommon. Human shields are often used in certain kinds of conflicts. The Taliban does it, for instance. Bashar Assad does too. Saddam and Qaddafi both did it with relish.

You can certainly see who their inspirations are.

.
 
Fergawdsakes. Shoe Truthers? Really?

by digby

The right wing is staging one of the stupidest hissy fits ever. They are saying that Hillary Clinton staged that shoe throwing incident the other day. It's so dumb even Rush seems a little bit embarrassed by it and I didn't think that was possible:

Rush Limbaugh jumped on board the crazy train Monday, telling listeners that he can "totally relate" to those who believe that "everything the Clintons do is staged or choreographed." While he has not studied the incident in detail, he believes what people told him about Clinton's reaction not being "natural."

"I'm sorry, I'm ill-equipped to comment," Limbaugh said, proceding, of course to comment at some length. "Maybe it's because, in my subconscious, I think it was staged, or set up, or whatever. ... I don't know why anybody would be throwing a shoe at Hillary unless -- maybe it's an attempt to make the Benghazi people look like nuts and lunatics and wackos."

You don't need to have shoes thrown at you to make the Benghazi people look like nuts and lunatics.

The think Clinton didn't "react naturally" because in their minds she should have jumped on a broom and flown at the assailant cackling madly and screaming "I'll get you my pretty!!!!"

Jesus. Did they find that plane yet?


.
 
Sexual abuse in the quiverfull movement. Is anyone surprised?

by David Atkins

While repulsive, I don't think this should be a surprise to anyone:

A leading advocate of the patriarchal Quiverfull movement groomed a teenage girl as his “personal sex object” and then used the purity culture to shame her into silence, according to a lawsuit filed by his victim.

Douglas Phillips resigned last year from Vision Forum and Vision Forum Ministries over what he described at the time as an extramarital affair.

But the lawsuit, reported by Right Wing Watch, revealed more details about this relationship and the ways that women are treated in the Quiverfull movement – which has been popularized by the prolific Duggar family and their TLC reality show, 19 Kids and Counting.

Attorneys claim Phillips, a close friend to the Duggar family and an associate of actor Kirk Cameron, “methodically groomed” Lourdes Torres since she was 15 years old and led her to believe they would be married.

Phillips told the girl this was possible because his wife, Beall Phillips, “was going to die soon.”

Torres appeared in two Vision Forum films, “Alone But Not Alone” and the anti-feminist documentary “Return of the Daughters.”

Right Wing Watch also noted that when Torres graduated from high school in 2003, Phillips wrote a blog post commending her parents for “bringing their daughter into mature Christian womanhood.”

But at the same time, according to the lawsuit, Phillips indoctrinated Torres with the “patriarchal mindset” and “subtly began to manipulate Ms. Torres, so that he could use her for his sexual gratification.”

The suit claims Phillips repeatedly groped and touched Torres inappropriately and masturbated on her, “against her wishes and over her objections,” over a period of years.

“While Ms. Torres would have felt compelled to submit to Douglas Phillips, the purity culture would have meant at the same time, her submission made her ‘damaged goods’ in her eyes, the eyes of her family, and her community — raising the cost for her to come forward to call him to account,” the suit claims. “She was, in fact, in a ‘no-win’ situation.”
That "no-win situation" is exactly what religious patriarchs want women to be in. It's all about sexual control.


.
 
A tinderbox waiting to explode for at least three decades

by digby

This story in the Washington Post about the Kansas assassin is just creepy:

When I learned that the man accused of shooting innocent bystanders Sunday at a Jewish community center and Jewish retirement home in Kansas City was a former Klansman named Glenn Miller, I shuddered.

Thirty-three years ago, when I was an undergraduate at Duke University, I read a small item in the Raleigh News & Observer that mentioned Miller, then the grand dragon of the Carolina Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. Miller, it turns out, ran a paramilitary training camp in rural North Carolina.

I couldn’t understand how, in late-20th-century America, the KKK could operate in the open less than an hour from our elite, ivory-tower campus. I was an editor of Duke’s daily newspaper, the Chronicle, so I did what any reporter would do: I called Miller and asked for an interview. Always looking for publicity, Miller readily said yes, but he had one condition. “We ain’t no equal-opportunity employer, you know,” he said. “So don’t bring down no blacks and no Jews.”

It get worse. "I smell a Jew....."

I saw Morris Dees last night on Chris Hayes and he explained that this guy lost face among his fellow Nazis and may have been trying to prove his bonafides to his cohorts with this latest shooting. My God ...


.


 
Why isn't this called what it is: terrorism?

by digby

The authorities have charged the Kansas assassin with a hate crime, which it surely is. But just because he was a white American male who wanted to kill Jews instead of a Muslim fanatic wanting to kill Jews (or other Americans) doesn't make it something other than terrorism, does it?

Mark Potok at the SPLC had this to say on PBS last night:

GWEN IFILL: For anybody watching who is a little confused, I want to be clear this man goes by a couple different names, Frazier Glenn Cross, Glenn Miller, Frazier Miller, just so everybody knows we’re talking about the same person.

Are people like this always loners, individuals, or are there conspiracies out there we should be keeping — or that you are keeping an eye on?

MARK POTOK: Much, much more often than not these days, they are loners, so-called lone wolves.

And that is largely because conspiracies tend to be found out so very quickly, and often quite easily by law enforcement. And also conspiracies, when actually a whole group of people actually plan a crime or a domestic terrorist attack, they will very likely all go down if even only one of them is caught.

So, today, almost all of these attacks, certainly the most dangerous attacks, come from lone wolves or people with operating with just one or two friends like, for instance, Timothy McVeigh in the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building in 1995.

GWEN IFILL: At what point — you mentioned Timothy McVeigh — that is an example. At what point do we begin to treat these kinds of attacks as domestic terrorism, not just as hate crimes or individual acts?

MARK POTOK: Well, I mean, they are domestic terrorism. Let’s be plain.

There is nothing to distinguish this from other forms of terrorism. It is a way in this case of terrorizing the Jewish community around Kansas City in particular, but around the country in general. And that’s what terrorism is. It’s a criminal act that is aimed at far more people than the immediate victims.

You know, the law enforcement has been off and on about being candid about the terrorist nature of these attacks. But I think, today, by and large, American law enforcement is perfectly well aware that there is a very serious domestic radical right and some people within that milieu are, in fact, terrorists.

It's not that they never charge white supremacists with terrorism. But they don't seem to see it in the same light as Islamic terrorism. But then, white supremacy terrorism has always been given a wide birth in this country. (As is anti-abortion terrorism.)

Juan Colehas a good piece up about this case. And he links to his earlier piece called the Top Ten differences between White Terrorists and Others, which is useful at times like these:

1. White terrorists are called “gunmen.” What does that even mean? A person with a gun? Wouldn’t that be, like, everyone in the US? Other terrorists are called, like, “terrorists.”

2. White terrorists are “troubled loners.” Other terrorists are always suspected of being part of a global plot, even when they are obviously troubled loners.

3. Doing a study on the danger of white terrorists at the Department of Homeland Security will get you sidelined by angry white Congressmen. Doing studies on other kinds of terrorists is a guaranteed promotion.

4. The family of a white terrorist is interviewed, weeping as they wonder where he went wrong. The families of other terrorists are almost never interviewed.

5. White terrorists are part of a “fringe.” Other terrorists are apparently mainstream.

6. White terrorists are random events, like tornadoes. Other terrorists are long-running conspiracies.

7. White terrorists are never called “white.” But other terrorists are given ethnic affiliations.

8. Nobody thinks white terrorists are typical of white people. But other terrorists are considered paragons of their societies.

9. White terrorists are alcoholics, addicts or mentally ill. Other terrorists are apparently clean-living and perfectly sane.

10. There is nothing you can do about white terrorists. Gun control won’t stop them. No policy you could make, no government program, could possibly have an impact on them. But hundreds of billions of dollars must be spent on police and on the Department of Defense, and on TSA, which must virtually strip search 60 million people a year, to deal with other terrorists.

.



 
Factoid 'O the Day

by digby

Via the AFL-CIO's awesome web-site called "Executive Paywatch":

In 2013 the CEO to worker pay ratio was 331:1 and the CEO to minimum wage worker pay ratio was 774:1. America is supposed to be the land of opportunity, a country where hard work and playing by the rules would provide working families a middle-class standard of living. But in recent decades, corporate CEOs have been taking a greater share of the economic pie while wages have stagnated and unemployment remains high.

So what's the point? This just means that the CEOs work 774 times harder than a janitor or a waitress. Obviously. Also too, they have better character and higher morals. Otherwise, this might be seen as a self-dealing system of exploitation. And it can't be that. Because if God didn't think rich people were simply worth more he wouldn't make it so they could keep all the money.


Is it possible to make too much money? “Is it possible to have too much ambition? Is it possible to be too successful?” Blankfein shoots back. “I don’t want people in this firm to think that they have accomplished as much for themselves as they can and go on vacation. As the guardian of the interests of the shareholders and, by the way, for the purposes of society, I’d like them to continue to do what they are doing. I don’t want to put a cap on their ambition. It’s hard for me to argue for a cap on their compensation.” 
So, it’s business as usual, then, regardless of whether it makes most people howl at the moon with rage? Goldman Sachs, this pillar of the free market, breeder of super-citizens, object of envy and awe will go on raking it in, getting richer than God? An impish grin spreads across Blankfein’s face. Call him a fat cat who mocks the public. Call him wicked. Call him what you will. He is, he says, just a banker “doing God’s work”


 
Good timing

by digby

Well, not exactly:
The Census Bureau, the authoritative source of health insurance data for more than three decades, is changing its annual survey so thoroughly that it will be difficult to measure the effects of President Obama’s health care law in the next report, due this fall, census officials said.

The changes are intended to improve the accuracy of the survey, being conducted this month in interviews with tens of thousands of households around the country. But the new questions are so different that the findings will not be comparable, the officials said.

An internal Census Bureau document said that the new questionnaire included a “total revision to health insurance questions” and, in a test last year, produced lower estimates of the uninsured. Thus, officials said, it will be difficult to say how much of any change is attributable to the Affordable Care Act and how much to the use of a new survey instrument.

“We are expecting much lower numbers just because of the questions and how they are asked,” said Brett J. O’Hara, chief of the health statistics branch at the Census Bureau.

I suppose they figure with all the hoopla around the new law it's better to have it be part of the chaos rather than waiting another year when it will look as though the numbers are dropping. But honestly, couldn't someone have thought of this a couple of years ago, before the law took effect?

I cannot say for sure that a conservative regime wouldn't have managed this timing better. The government is a big lumbering beast and it's often hard to control all the moving parts. But in general, conservative governments tend to use the government for political purposes more overtly --- and get away with it.

For instance, remember this slick play from the Bush admnistration?



They could have just sent the checks.  But instead they first sent every taxpayer a letter taking credit for it. At taxpayers expense! This administration couldn't even get the funds legitimately necessary to educate people about Obamacare.  And when they went to the private sector to ask if they'd pick up the slack the Republicans went ballistic and accused them of lawbreaking.  (I won't even go into the bogus IRS scandal that continues to this day.)

The most notorious use of the government for overtly political purposes in the Bush administration was the use of the US Attorneys office to tilt election results, although that one backfired when some prosecutors decided they didn't want to risk their reputations. But it's a testament to their chutzpah that they felt so comfortable wielding power that they even tried.

I don't think the Democrats should stoop to that level of manipulation (and lawbreaking) obviously. But knowing what the other hand is doing and plan ahead for maximum results is simply good management. And I think Democrats tend to discount that skill from a political perspective and often fail to take advantage of opportunities.  At the very least they should be alert to opportunities that avert political problems.

Perhaps it wasn't possible to effect this change in census questions earlier, although at the pace government moves it's hard to believe this hasn't been in the works for some time. Sure, they might have been accused of playing politics. But so what? The Republicans will accuse them of playing politics anyway --- and the Democrats would do the same if the shoe were on the other foot.  The difference is that Republicans weigh the pros and cons and don't worry about the Democrats' handwringing.  It's a big advantage for conservatives: they get to rail against Big Government inefficiency even as they use it for their political advantage.

Update: It turns out that the NY Times article is a bit misleading.The change will measure the difference between 2012 and 2013, which should give them a proper baseline for Obamacare.

And yes, the right wingers are freaking out saying this is jacking the number somehow in Obamacare's favor, which is nonsense of course. And as the Vox link above points out, most of those who follow this issue use a number of tools including Gallup which measures a large sample.

Still, this sort of thing is unhelpful:

Census officials did have at least some concerns about changing the measurement of the uninsured rate at this moment. In a memo obtained by the Times, it was described as "it is coincidental and unfortunate timing."

"Ideally," the same memo says, "the redesign would have had at least a few years to gather base line and trend data."

Maybe they could just get them to shut up?

.






 
ABC must not want a latino audience. They've just hired a hardcore immigrant basher

by digby

My new piece for Salon is on Laura "anchor fetus" Ingraham:
Nobody has been more of a vociferous critic of the news media’s alleged liberal bias than talk radio host and conservative commentator Laura Ingraham. Going all the way back to her years as a notorious campus activist making her name as a vicious homophobe (since partially recanted,) she has been hitting the mainstream media for its so-called liberal bias. This “Reliable Sources” exchange with E.J. Dionne from early 2003 is an amusing example of how the best of them get the job done:

KURTZ: Let’s turn now to media bias. E.J. Dionne, you wrote a column recently saying there is no longer any such thing as the big, liberal media. Is this a fantasy we’ve been talking about for some years now? … You’re saying that the “New York Times” and the “L.A. Times” and “The Washington Post” and the networks and magazines have been intimidated and they’re cowering and they can’t do their jobs anymore?

INGRAHAM: I must have missed that.

DIONNE: That’s not what I said…

INGRAHAM: When they cover a Bush press conference, how is it covered? Is it covered in a fair and balanced way…

DIONNE: Bush has gotten an extraordinarily good press. I challenge you to compare…

INGRAHAM: He’s been an extraordinarily good president, much to the media’s chagrin.

You see, when a Republican president gets bad coverage it’s because the press has a liberal bias. When he gets good coverage it’s because he’s so good.

Read the whole thing to get a taste of her real passion: hating on undocumented workers.

.

.
 
In other privacy news, app maker secretly sells location data of 50 million people. Almost no punishment.

by David Atkins

I have this flashlight app on my phone:
Even judging by the low standards of creepy data-mining apps, “Brightest Flashlight” did something pretty egregious. The free app, which was installed by at least 50 million Android users, transmitted users’ real-time locations to ad networks and other third parties. It was, in other words, a stalking device disguised as a flashlight.

In December, the Federal Trade Commission exposed the app’s antics and also announced a proposed settlement with the app maker, GoldenShores Technologies, a one-man operation based in Idaho. In doing so, the agency explained how Brightest Flashlight used legal flim-flam in a privacy policy and user license agreement to obscure what the app was up to.

The terms are now final, and they’re underwhelming, to put it mildly.

In a Wednesday announcement, the FTC confirmed that GoldenShores and owner Erik Geidl are not to collect app users’ geolocation without clearly explaining how and why they’re doing so and, in broad terms, say who is receiving that information. The flashlight app maker will also have to keep records for the FTC to inspect, and Geidl will have to tell the agency about any new businesses he decides to start in the next 10 years. He also has 10 days as of the order to delete all the data he collected.

On paper, the order looks like stern stuff but, in practice, it’s hard to see how this amounts to real punishment. Even though Geidl did something deeply unethical, compromising the privacy of tens of millions of people, he will not pay a cent for his misdeeds.
I suppose I could uninstall the app from my phone, but what would be the point? It's not as if Google, Verizon, Microsoft, Twitter and about a dozen other companies don't also know my precise GPS location every single second of every single day. Facebook would know, too, in addition to the hundred other things it knows about me--if I bothered to put a Facebook app on my phone.

Dozens of companies know every single website I've ever visited. A dozen different financial institutions know every single purchase I've ever made that wasn't in cash. I guess a few dozen more companies knowing exactly where I am every single day won't much much of a difference. I pretty much gave up on any passive expectation of privacy long ago.

I wouldn't be surprised if Google, Verizon and AT&T couldn't essentially ID most drug dealers and their customers just by using big data to figure out who hangs out suspiciously long in places people wouldn't normally hang out, and who comes to visit them at those places. Fairly soon dozens of different companies will have the ability as well. Given what we know about the NSA at this point, I'd be surprised if the government didn't already have that data. I just think they probably don't care all that much.


.

.

Monday, April 14, 2014

 
Chasing leakers by any means necessary

by digby

Kind of fitting that this piece by Spencer Ackerman ran the day the Guardian and its NSA reporters (including Spencer) won the Pulitzer Prize:

The US government’s troubled military trials of terrorism suspects were dealt another blow on Monday when proceedings were halted after an allegation surfaced that the Federal Bureau of Investigation turned a member of a 9/11 defendant’s defense team into a secret informant.

Judge James Pohl, the army colonel overseeing the controversial military commission at Guantánamo, gaveled a hearing out of session after barely 30 minutes on Monday morning, following the revelation of a motion filed by the defense stipulating that the FBI approached an unidentified member of the team during the course of an investigation into how a manifesto by accused 9/11 architect Khalid Shaikh Mohammed found its way to the media.

Defense attorneys argued the government plunged them into a potential conflict of interest, as they would need to potentially defend themselves against a leak investigation, risking their ability to put their clients’ legal needs ahead of their own.

They implored Pohl to investigate, and if necessary, assign their clients with new independent counsel to advise the defendants about the existence and implications of conflict of interest. That could be a lengthy process – potentially the next delay for a proceeding that has yet to get out of the pretrial stage nearly two years after the latest incarnation of the 9/11 military trials began.

“We have an impossible situation in terms of representing our client … on any issue,” said James Harrington, a civilian attorney for Mohammed’s co-defendant Ramzi bin al-Shibh in the case, which carries the death penalty.

“To say this is a chilling experience for all of us is a gross understatement,” Harrington said.
That would be the point, I'm pretty sure. Nothing must stop the pursuit of leakers. Nothing. Even if it means subversion of the constitution. Because freedom.

.




 
The Pulitzers reward real journalism

by digby

Congratulations to the winners. It gives me hope that journalism still understands its role in a free society:



Totally deserved in every way.

Update: Of course...






.
 
Welfare works. Private sector charity doesn't

by David Atkins

Matt Yglesias puts together a simple chart showing the awesome power of the welfare state to do good:



The "T&T" in the chart refers to "taxes and transfers": i.e., the implementation of large-scale social welfare programs.

The only reason that our poverty rates haven't gone down as much as those those of other countries is, of course, that our social welfare programs are far weaker than in those other countries. As Yglesias says:

The point? Child poverty is a problem government can help solve, if voters want it to. In Scandinavia, voters do want the problem solved, and they're willing to pay the taxes necessary to get there. In the United States, not so much.
We may be a more religious nation than most. But that quite clearly hasn't made us more moral.


.


 
Those silly younger voters

by digby

You just can't trust them at all:
President Obama inspired a generation of young people to support his historic election in 2008. And in 2012, despite the struggles of his first term, Mr. Obama still managed to win the support of a full 60% of voters age 18-29. But the man who once dreamed of being a transformative leader in the Reagan mold is inspiring few of those young people to follow his lead.

"For all the talk about the movement that elected Mr. Obama, the more notable movement of Obama supporters has been away from politics. It appears that few of the young people who voted for him, and even fewer Obama campaign and administration operatives, have decided to run for office. Far more have joined the high-paid consultant ranks," reports the New York Times NYT. "Unlike John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, who inspired virtual legislatures of politicians and became generational touchstones, Mr. Obama has so far had little such influence."

The Times quotes Harvard pollster John Della Volpe: "If you were to call it an Obama generation, there was a window...That opportunity has been lost." Mr. Della Volpe's polling of 18- to 29-year-olds shows that only 35% now believe that running for office is an honorable pursuit. "We're seeing the younger cohort is even less connected with [Mr. Obama] generally, with his policies, as well as politics generally," he told the Times. The paper also quotes former Obama pollster Sergio Bendixen saying that Mr. Obama's onetime core supporters among the young "went on to the next website and then the next click on their computer. I just don't see the generation as all that ideological or invested in causes for the long run."

You mean that whole "come to Obama" thing didn't invest young people in ideology and causes? Go figure. (There were some of us who predicted that the delirious American Idol "I've got a crush on Obama" approach might result in some disillusionment when Real Life intruded on the fantasy, but we were naysaying fools.)

You cannot blame young people for feeling like their excitement about Obama didn't really add up to all that much. It's not that they have short attention spans. It's that their lives are shit and it's doubly disappointing that their lives are shit after they placed such faith in "Hope 'n Change."

But hey Democratic strategists, go ahead and blame the voters for feeling like it doesn't matter if they vote. What could possibly go wrong?


.



 
The demographic tale

by digby

This tells the story better than anything else I've seen:

Pew demographics photo 847889448_zps3dc36b29.gif

That bulge you see going through the snake is the baby boomers of course. And as you can see, we're going to be nothing but a group of very old ladies before too much longer. So all the panic about Social Security and the other old age problems are going to work themselves out quite naturally in a fairly short period of time. There is no need to panic. Indeed, it's important not to cut the programs for those very old ladies. They (we) are probably not going to be able to be big "job creators" or producers at that point and will need help before we finally die off.

And if I might just add a little boomer's lament: we didn't ask to be born any more than the rest of you did. To the extent we are selfish, destructive failures as a generation, take a look at just how huge a generation that is and consider that a whole lot of us as individuals tried to do the right thing in our lives. There were just so many of us.


.




 
Lady Liberty is a hippie

by digby
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Sunday said that America "can't invite the whole world" to enter the country, no matter how much some immigrants may love the U.S.

Speaking on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," Paul said that when lawmakers focus only on the reasons immigrants enter the U.S. illegally, it makes "people think, 'Well, because they're doing this for kind reasons,' that the whole world can come to our country."
So true.

I think we probably need to do something about this, though.




Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Maybe it's time to rip that old statue down and put it in a museum somewhere.


.

.
 
It's torture. If they still won't call it what it is, you know it will happen again.

by digby

There is just no excuse for this:
Much has been made in the past decade or so about the news business' sudden conversion to euphemism when it came to describing techniques that had been previously universally recognized as torture. One study, for instance, found that major outlets abruptly stopped defining waterboarding as torture when the Bush administration began using it.

That tendency has not abated in recent years, and a look through recent newspaper and television coverage shows that many outlets are still hesitant to use "torture."

McClatchy, which published the leaked findings from the Senate report, called them "harsh interrogation techniques," even as it provided a gruesome description of what those techniques were:
The techniques included waterboarding, which produces a sensation of drowning, stress positions, sleep deprivation for up to 11 days at a time, confinement in a cramped box, slaps and slamming detainees into walls. The CIA held detainees in secret “black site” prisons overseas and abducted others who it turned over to foreign governments for interrogation.
The Washington Post referred to "brutal," "harsh" and "excruciating" techniques.

A New York Times article mentioned "brutal methods."

Reuters wrote about "brutal interrogation methods that critics say amount to torture."

The Associated Press actually described the report in one article as a "torture report," though it later used the term "enhanced interrogation techniques" in quotes.

Read on. Television is just as bad.

This is unacceptable. And at this point the news media has to take some responsibility for perpetrating the myth that "the US doesn't torture." If you won't put the word in black and white, you aren't being truthful with the American public. Indeed, they are making it safe for the government to do it again.

They are now officially propagandists for the torture regime.

Does everyone recall what the US media used to call what the North Vietnamese did to prisoners? Torture:

"Stress positions"  



Many men were handcuffed or tied to a stool as a means of slow torture. The [detainee] sat in one position, day and night. Each time he would fall over, the guards would sit him upright. He was not allowed to sleep or rest. Exhaustion and pain take their toll. When the [detainee] agreed to cooperate with his captors and acquiesced to their demands, he would be removed. Here, I have pictured a guard named "Mouse," who liked to throw buckets of cold water on a man on cold winter nights. 

You're always sitting either on the floor or on a stool or concrete block or something low. The interrogator is always behind a table that's covered with cloth of some kind, white or blue or something. And he sits above you and he's always looking down at you asking you questions and they want to know what the targets are for tomorrow, next week, next month. You don't know. You really don't know. But he doesn't -- he's going to have to have an answer of some kind. Now the back of the room comes the -- the torture. And he's a -- he's a big guy that knows what he's doing. And he starts locking your elbows up with ropes and tying your wrists together and bending you
"Sleep Deprivation"  



Some men were tied to their beds, sometimes for weeks at a time. Here, I have drawn a picture showing the handcuffs being worn in front, but the usual position was with the wrists handcuffed behind the back. A man would live this way day and night, without sleep or rest. 

The guards come around the middle of the night just rattling the lock on your door. That's a terrifying thing because they may be taking you out for a torture session. You don't know. 

"... obviously this is an emotional thing to me, was listening to the screams of other ... prisoners while they were being tortured. And being locked in a cell myself sometimes uh, in handcuffs or tied up and not able to do anything about it. And that's the way I've got to spend the night."

"Isolation"  

The ten months that I spent in the blacked out cell I went into panic. The only thing I could do was exercise. As long as I could move, I felt like I was going to -- well, it was so bad I would put a rag in my mouth and hold another one over it so I could scream. That seemed to help. It's not that I was scared, more scared than another other time or anything. It was happening to my nerves and my mind. And uh, I had to move or die. I'd wake up at two o'clock in the morning or midnight or three or whatever and I would jump up immediately and start running in place. Side straddle hops. Maybe four hours of sit ups. But I had to exercise. And of course I prayed a lot

I won't go into how much those "harsh techniques" resembled the torture methods used by our own government. It's obvious. And it's just a small sample.

That little excerpt above was from a post I wrote 10 years ago. And they don't even include "waterboarding" which Vice President Cheney called a "no brainer" and said he'd do again without a second thought.

I don't know what these news organizations fear from calling torture what it is. But I can guarantee it's not as bad as what was done to those prisoners or to the reputation of the United States of America. If we can't even call the torture by its real name it's hard to see why the government won't see this as just another semantic debate and do the same thing if they feel it's "necessary." I guess much of the news business feels it's immune from that sort of thing but the rest of us should worry. If the US government has officially defined deviancy down to the point where torture is no longer torture, you have to wonder where it might end? After all, the world is full of danger. Who knows who they might think they need to "interrogate" with "enhanced methods" next time?

.




 
Float like a butterfly sting like a ... never mind

by digby

My latest at Salon on the Democrats' fall strategy to combat the Koch's assault on Obamacare:
Suppose you were a manufacturer who created a new product that could conceivably benefit everyone at some point in their lives but will only be needed by a small number of them at any one time. And further suppose that this product was a threat to another manufacturer who would suffer long-term erosion of its customer base if this new product really took hold in the marketplace. Would it make sense for the manufacturer of the new product to sit idly by while this rival spent millions and millions of dollars on false advertising about the new product? Would it be reasonable to believe that after being inundated by lies for months the public would be positive about this product and the people who made it?

Apparently, that’s what Democratic Senate incumbents are all counting on happening. According to Politico, they are keeping their powder dry for the fall campaign while the Koch brothers and lord knows how many other radical right-wing billionaires spend unlimited sums spreading lies about Obamacare.

That’s a great strategy — if you’re Muhammad Ali. For normal humans it’s a very big gamble to allow yourself to be relentlessly pummeled in the hopes a late surge of energy will allow you to score a knock-out.  Read on ...
.

.
 
Year of Living Dangerously: First Episode

by David Atkins

James Cameron's series on climate change Year of Living Dangerously premiered its first episode this weekend. It's free with minor edits on Youtube. Check it out:



It's good to see this sort of material out there. Kudos to James Cameron and all the talented people involved for making this series happen, demonstrating the immediate and very human impact that global warming is already having at home and abroad. It's not as if Americans can count on cable news to tell them the truth about climate change.


.

Sunday, April 13, 2014

 
Yes, they will marry your girlfriends

by digby

... and your girlfriends will like it:


Via Howie, who took the time to put this into proper political context.

.
 
You think the Kochs don't really matter?

by digby

Here's just one example of the their malevolent intent:

When Congress passed the 2012 Biggert-Waters Act, the goal was to keep the National Flood Insurance Program afloat after insurance payouts from several devastating hurricanes, including Katrina, left the program in debt. However, lawmakers did not foresee the legislation’s impact on Louisiana homeowners: sky-high flood insurance premiums for some of the same families that had already suffered through the “single most catastrophic natural disaster” in U.S. history. The Biggert-Waters Act hit some Louisiana families with annual premiums as high as $18,000 and threatened to destabilize the state’s property values and housing market.

Yet when Congress, backed by a wide bipartisan coalition, was preparing to halt the harmful effects the flood insurance hikes were having on Louisiana, the Koch brothers tried to intervene and kill the legislation. Their Tea Party-affiliated group, Americans for Prosperity, backed plans to end all federal flood insurance subsidies for property owners and preserve “the crux” of the faulty Biggert-Waters Act despite its harm to Louisiana homeowners. Although opposition from conservative groups like AFP caused House leaders to delay a vote on the fix, Congress passed the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act in March 2014, staving off Biggert-Waters’ extreme premium hikes despite the Koch Brothers’ efforts.

What horrible people these are.

I wonder if they'll have better luck now that they can give even more money to candidates than they did before?

.




 
The meanest Christian

by digby

I told you Huckabee was a nasty piece of work. And this is really nasty:

Noting that President Barack Obama said years ago that he opposed gay marriage because of his Christian beliefs, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee openly questioned those beliefs Friday because the president had since changed his position.

Huckabee spoke with Fox New's Laura Ingraham about his own comments regarding same-sex nuptials. He had told an Iowa audience Tuesday that his opposition was "on the right side of the Bible." On Friday, he argued that it was the same stance that Obama had taken in 2008.

"He said it was because of his Christian convictions. Does he have them or does he not?" Huckabee told Ingraham. "If one has them, they don't change depending on what the culture does. You don't take an opinion poll to come up with a new point of view."

He laid out three possible scenarios to explain the president's change of heart: "Were you lying then or are you lying now or did the Bible get re-written?"

He's insulting President Obama in his usual nasty way by calling him a liar. But he's also insulting all the Christians who believe in gay marriage, which I assume includes quite a few of the people who are reading this right now. There are lots of them.

The Barna group, which tracks religious attitudes in America, did a poll last summer:


I guess all those people who've changed their minds are liars or heretics.

And here's another example of their ongoing problem with younger voters:

A striking diference emerged in this survey both in 2003 and 2013: Both among the national average and the Christian population, views on same-sex relationships vary significantly by age. Across the board, twenty- and thirty-something Americans are more likely than Americans 40 and over to support legal changes favoring the LGBTQ community (65% compared to 46%), to view same-sex relationships as morally acceptable (47% compared to 30%), and disagree that marriage is defined as one man and one woman (61% compared to 46%).

Within the Christian community, this generational trend remains the same, though the gap is smaller. Younger practicing Christians are statistically more supportive of the LGBTQ movement than their parents’ generation. Nearly half of of practicing Protestants under 40 today support changing laws to enable more freedoms for the LGBTQ community, while just one-third of their parents’ and grandparents’ generation feel the same.

The ways younger practicing Christians understand the goals of the LGBTQ community also differ significantly than their predecessors’ perceptions. Twenty- and thirty-something practicing Christians today are twice as likely as practicing Christians over 40 to identify protection from violence and discrimination (11% compared to 6%) and sexual freedom (13% compared to 6%) as goals of the LGBTQ community. Younger Christians (19%) are also nearly three times as likely as older Christians (7%) to understand adoption as a desire within the LGBTQ community.

So keep insulting Christians and other Americans with this nonsense, Huckabee. It'll only hurt your political ball team. And that's a good thing.


.
 
The worst thing about McKutcheon according to Republicans? No more "sorry I'm maxed out"

by digby

I can think of a lot of reasons why this is such a bad decision, from the flood of money from rich donors to further sway government to act in their interest to the continuing absurdity of this "money equals speech" concept which makes a mockery of democracy. Most people seem to think those are pretty substantial problems. But this Republican lawmaker from Maryland, which just voted to lift its state law limiting contributions in light of the Supreme Court ruling, has a different take on the pros and cons:

"This will be a game-changer," said state Sen. J.B. Jennings, a Republican who represents Baltimore and Harford counties.

"Is it good or bad? I don't think we necessarily know yet," he added. "For some business people who love politics and love to play the game, it's going to take the reins off them. But for the others, it's just going to annoy them. Anybody who is running is going to be calling these people, and they won't be able to say, 'Sorry, I'm maxed out.'"

The main drawback he sees is that rich people will be annoyed because they won't have the excuse that they've already maxed out. It could be quite a problem. Maybe they could just have one of the servants say they're not home.


.
 
Come on honey, money can't buy you love

by digby

In case this sort of thing matters to you, you might want to print it out and give it to your woman friends before the next election. Maybe they're fine with this. But it can't hurt to remind them:



Just make sure your friends aren't "liberals" like Ruth Marcus however. She's more offended by Democrats being political than she is about equal pay for women. Of course, she's paid very well.

Update: Marsha Blackburn, congresswoman from Tennessee (and rumored presidential candidate) says that Republicans have always led the way for equal rights for women. So there.


.

.

.
 
Dispatch from torture central: aka America

by digby

As people who have read this blog for years know, I've been writing about the use of tasers as torture-to-compliance tools for a very long time. I've also written about how it's used for punishment on people who have been convicted of nothing but failing to be properly "respectful" of certain men and women in uniform. This is not what I think of as freedom, but apparently many Americans think of it as comedy.

Last week there was a great brouhaha on the right over a western land stand-off with the BLM over grazing rights. Federal agents moved in and tasered some protesters who, in this case, are nice white people in cowboy hats. Republican politicians howled, calling it akin to Tianenmen Square.

But this happens every day to people all over the country who try to assert their rights to a policemen or a judge, people who are mentally ill, who legally protesting their government or other institutions, or are simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. It is used against people who are handcuffed and on the ground, it's used against deaf people who cannot hear the policeman's command, it's used against epileptics in the throes of a seizure, it is used against bedridden 90 year old ladies suffering from delusions. It is used against people who refuse to be taken to a hospital.

And it is used against children. The New York Times raised the issue a couple of days ago with this editorial:

Federal investigators have opened an inquiry into the tragic case of a high school student in Bastrop County, Tex., who suffered severe brain damage and nearly died last fall after a deputy sheriff shocked him with a Taser, a high voltage electronic weapon.

In North Carolina, civil rights lawyers have filed a complaint with the Justice Department, charging the Wake County school system with violating the constitutional rights of minority children by subjecting them to discriminatory arrest practices and brutality by police officers assigned to schools. In one nightmarish case described in the complaint, a disabled 15-year-old was shocked with a Taser three times during an interrogation at school, resulting in punctured lungs. And in New York, civil rights lawyers have sued the city of Syracuse on behalf of two students. One was shocked three times, not for threatening behavior but for lying on the floor and crying, they say, and another was shocked while trying to break up a fight.

Complaints about dangerous disciplinary practices involving shock weapons are cropping up all over the country. The problem has its roots in the 1990s, when school districts began ceding even routine disciplinary duties to police and security officers, who were utterly unprepared to deal with children. Many districts need to overhaul practices that criminalize far too many young people and that are applied in ways that discriminate against minority children. In the meantime, elected officials need to ban shock weapons in schools.

The Taser, the most popular of these weapons, uses a powerful electrical charge to create intense spasms that drive the suspect to the ground. Police organizations view such weapons as a means of defusing violent confrontations without resorting to deadly force. But a growing body of research shows how lethal these weapons can be.
[...]
In the Texas case, Noe Niño de Rivera, a 17-year-old at Cedar Creek High School, collapsed after being shocked and struck his head on the floor. Doctors performed emergency surgery to repair a severe brain hemorrhage and subsequently placed him in a medically induced coma, in which he remained for 52 days. He now needs rehabilitation and is unlikely to fully recover.

The sheriff’s department said that a Taser was used against the teenager because he interfered while the deputies were breaking up a fight. A security video leading up the incident shows that the fight was already over when the officers arrived, and it seems to show the student backing away when one of the officers shocked him.

Civil rights groups point out that Texas has already prohibited Taser use in its juvenile justice facilities. The state should extend the restriction to its public schools. That would be a sensible start. Beyond that, school administrators need to reclaim responsibility for disciplinary matters from security or police officers, who too often treat students like criminals.

There have been reports of police using tasers to subdue school children as young as six years old. Or to simply train 8 year olds to comply with the police.

Oh, and I forgot to mention: tasers are killing people. And there's no way of knowing who they're going to kill. It depends on where the taser lands on the body, underlying health conditions, how the person falls (as one always does when hit with 50,000 volts of electricity) and just random bad luck. Unless we think that all those situations described above should be subject to summary execution, we need to rethink the use of this torture compliance weapon. It's lethal. It's also un-American -- or should be anyway.


h/t to @walizonia










 
Sunday Funnies

by digby

From Brian McFadden












"History? We won't know. We'll all be dead" :





Actually that isn't really a funny, is it?

Also too, Woodward is a putz. Hillary is right about Bush being a fatalist and it is completely inappropriate --- not to mention terrifying ---  for a sitting president of the United States to say such a thing.


.


 
The best way to "put points on the board" is to put Republicans on the defensive

by David Atkins

John Podesta and President Obama are apparently concerned about "putting points on the board" in terms of legislation and executive orders:
White House senior adviser John Podesta is running against the clock.

Time is winding on Podesta’s objective, which is to make sure President Obama put points on the board in the final three years of his second term through either legislation or executive action.

With Obama and the White House flailing in late 2013, Podesta returned to the West Wing in January as part of an Obama reboot. 
A little more than three months later, the former chief of staff for President Clinton gets good marks from Democrats and fellow West Wingers for helping to improve the White House’s strategy and communications.

They say Podesta has improved the White House’s chances of moving meaningful regulatory actions through the government while better coordinating with Democrats in Congress.

“Lawmakers feel more engaged now,” said one former senior administration official, who called Podesta a “hell of a supplement” to the White House legislative affairs office.

A senior Democratic aide who had grumbled about relations with the White House in previous months, said it has been “a lot better than before” under Podesta.
With all respect, the current Republican House is quite possibly the most intransigent in all of American history. It is also, not coincidentally, among the most ideologically extreme in American history.

That means that the chances the passing meaningful legislation are near zero. It also means that any remotely controversial legislation that does manage to get passed is likely to be only marginally beneficial to the American people, if not actively harmful.

In an environment where nothing good can get passed through Congress, the only legislative tool left in the arsenal is to shame the opposition until they either give in or lose the next election. Rather than attempt to figure out what good bills have a larger-than-zero chance of passing the House, the President should simply work alongside the Democratic Senate to craft good, popular bills and dare the House to reject them and refuse to bring them to a vote.

That was essentially the strategy with equal pay, and it can work for a variety of other issues as well. The Democrats should engage in a full court press on issue after issue, from student loans to jobs programs to income inequality to tax fairness to immigration to climate change to voting rights to campaign finance and anything and everything in between. Rack up issue after issue after issue on which Americans agree with Democrats and hammer Republicans for refusing to hold votes on them until the cows come home.

Frankly, if Democrats lose the Senate in 2014 and cannot make gains in the House then Obama is already a lame duck President. He might as well do everything in his power to make life miserable for Republicans and maximize Democrats' electoral chances in 2014.


.

Saturday, April 12, 2014

 
Swinging 60-ish: On My Way & Le Week-End 

 By Dennis Hartley


Grandmere du jour: On My Way


















So if you have been staying away from theaters because you're one of those folks who feels the majority of Hollywood product these days is just big, dumb, loud (in 3-D IMAX) and targeting sub-literate 12 year-olds, I have good news for you (this week, at least). Two (count 'em, two) eminently watchable flicks for grownups. Two films featuring fully fleshed out characters over 60...who are neither senile or terminally ill (!).

(First up). I think smoking is a disgusting habit. But there's something about a beautiful French woman puffing on a Gitane that makes it seem...how do you say? SoDamSexy. Consider Catherine Deneuve, who maintains her ageless allure even while taking up a chunk of screen time in Emmanuelle Bercot's On My Way bumming cigarettes, scrounging for money to buy cigarettes, desperately seeking any place that sells cigarettes, and of course, smoking cigarettes. Like a chimney. Deneuve is Bettie, an ex-beauty queen (Miss Brittany 1969!) turned restaurateur, who has actually been on the cigarette wagon, at the encouragement of her cashier (Claude Gensac) who also happens to be her mom. But Bettie is about to fall off the wagon. She has reluctantly inherited her family-owned eatery, which is operating barely above water. Living with her overly-protective elderly mom further elevates Bettie's stress level, and now she hears it through the grapevine that her lover has dumped her for someone else ("Some 25 year-old slut," her mom informs her, unhelpfully adding, "...a beautician."). Say...anybody got a smoke?


Suddenly overwhelmed by life in general, Bettie impetuously hops into her car Thelma & Louise -style and hits the road, with (as Chuck Berry once sang) no particular place to go. When she calls one of her employees a day or two later to assure everyone that she hasn't gone missing, she finds out that her estranged daughter Muriel (Camille) has been desperately trying to reach her. Muriel has had a last-minute shot at an internship in Brussels, but can't find anyone else available to take her precocious son (Nemo Schiffman, real-life son of the director) to his grandfather's house in the country. To the surprise of both her daughter and herself, Bettie agrees to do her the solid (despite the awkwardness of barely knowing her grandson and having never even met her daughter's father-in-law). And so they are off on their adventures through pastoral provincial France.


While Bercot's script (co-written with Jerome Tonnerre) doesn't venture too far from the traditional road movie tropes (unexpected detours, episodic meet-ups with quirky characters, etc.) the film is buoyed by her intelligent direction and the ever-radiant Deneuve's engaging performance. Cinematographer Guillaume Schiffman (OSS 117: Cairo, Nest Of Spies, The Artist ) nicely captures the sun-dappled beauty of central France for a pleasing backdrop. It's interesting, I finally got around to seeing Alexander Payne's Nebraska recently; and I found On My Way to be strikingly similar, from a thematic standpoint. Both films examine an aging parent and an adult child coming to grips with an estranged relationship. Granted, Deneuve's sixty-something character is relatively "younger" and more sound of mind than Bruce Dern's dementia-suffering octogenarian, but both of these protagonists need to embark on a meandering road trip before ultimately coming home (both literally and figuratively) to the realization that what they were really looking for was tucked away in the bosom of their family all along...unconditional love.


Just another happy couple: Le Week-End


















Among the Boomers, who are now finding themselves irrevocably "turning into their parents" and thereby forced to commit previously unthinkable acts (e.g., sheepishly flashing an AARP membership card for a senior discount, or maybe going out for dinner at 4pm) those who are married with children arguably face the most dreaded crossroads of all: The Empty Nest Years. Personally, I wouldn't know, being a barren bachelor, but you know...this is what I've heard. The kids all have moved away, and now here we are, staring at each other across the table thinking: "So...now what do we do for excitement?"

If taking a young lover or a new sports car is off the table, how about a weekend in Paris? That's what English couple Meg (Lindsay Duncan) and Nick (Jim Broadbent) are banking on to spice things up for their anniversary. That is the setup for Le Week-End, an uneven yet absorbing effort from Notting Hill director Roger Michell and Sammie and Rosie Get Laid screenwriter Hanif Kureishi. Meg and Nick, both academes, don't appear overtly affectionate, but they seem comfortable with...whatever "it" is that they do have (like a well-worn yet cozy pair of slippers you won't toss). However, once they run into an old colleague (Jeff Goldblum, playing the Ugly American to the hilt) and he invites them to a soiree at his upscale Parisian digs (swarming with French hipsters), all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out. The film is marketed as a comedy, but Kureishi's literate screenplay is darker in tone; closer to Harold Pinter or Edward Albee (at times, Nick and Meg are like a benign George and Martha). Still, Paris is gorgeous, Duncan and Broadbent give great performances, no shots are fired...and there isn't even one car chase.




Search Digby!