The Commentariat -- Dec. 19, 2012
Cliff Notes
CW: we just heard President Obama totally deflect a reporter's questioning why he would agree to cut Social Security benefits; he is simply not going to answer that question. His "we all have to give a little" excuse is just malarkey. I hope Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid, both of whom have been fierce defendants of Social Security, will just say no. But unless that was a "trick answer," the President, as contributor Raul wrote yesterday, is a disgraceful sell-out. ...
... Update. Looks as if Pelosi is good with the President's plan. This really is disgusting.
Lori Montgomery & Zachary Goldfarb of the Washington Post report on the President's remarks about the fiscal cliff negotiations. Not a word about the Social Security cuts or rise in taxes for the lower middle class. "President Obama urged congressional Republicans Wednesday to return to the bargaining table over the year-end 'fiscal cliff,' saying the two sides are far too close to the big budget deal they've been seeking for the past two years to give up now.... Earlier in the day, the White House said Obama would veto Boehner's Plan B bill."
Ezra Klein has a good summary of the last 24 hours of President Obama's steady march to the precipice. Monday, the White House "delivered an offer to House Speaker John Boehner that included genuine concessions. They brought their revenue request down from $1.6 trillion to $1.3 trillion. They dropped their demand that the Bush tax rates expire for all income over $250,000 a year, offering a new threshold of $400,000 a year. They brought their debt-ceiling demand down from no more debt ceiling crises ever to no debt ceiling crises for two years. They agreed to some form of chained CPI as a way to cut Social Security benefits. On Monday night, Boehner rejected their offer, and on Tuesday, Boehner unveiled 'Plan B' -- a proposal to walk away from the talks, vote on a plan to make the Bush tax rates permanent for all households with income under $1 million, and then go home for the holidays.... Boehner -- and, more to the point, Boehner's House members -- increasingly see weakness in the White House's negotiating position." CW: yeah, so do I. ...
... Update: here it all is in chart form. Thanks to contributor Dave S. for the heads-up:
Ryan Grim of the Huffington Post does a good job of explaining, in plain English, what Obama is up to here: "President Barack Obama, with his latest fiscal cliff offer, proposes extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone earning less than $400,000 a year, and paying for it by increasing taxes on the middle class and cutting Social Security and Medicare.... Obama's concession to Republicans is opposed by a majority of Americans...."
Almost every elected official just spent an entire election season saying they wouldn't cut the benefits of those 55 and older. The truth is the chained CPI hits everyone's benefits on day one. It hits the oldest of the old and disabled veterans the hardest. If it wasn't being bandied about as being 'on the table,' I would guess that it was created as an office joke to see who could create the most noxious and offensive policy possible. -- Alex Lawson of Social Security Words, an advocacy group
CW: we owe thanks to reporters & news organizations who are highlighting this scam -- and so far, that ain't the New York Times. I did see one short blogpost (not indexed) by Annie Lowrey on it in yesterday's online Times, but the only other Times writer who has mentioned it, & again that's only in his online blog, is Paul Krugman. You might think the paper was trying to provide cover for Obama & Boehner. The AARP, which has spoken out forcefully against the chained CPI when it has been proposed in the past, is silent now.
Jonathan Weisman of the New York Times: "... a protracted meeting of the House Republican Conference on Tuesday night made it clear that passage of Mr. Boehner's ['Plan B'] proposal would be difficult.... [Minority Leader Nancy] Pelosi was leaning hard on House Democrats to stay united in their opposition.... The White House came out strongly against the speaker's plan. The White House press secretary, Jay Carney, said that it could not pass the Senate...."
** New York Times Editors: "There is no doubt that if Mr. Obama were a more combative negotiator, he would not have gone for the chained index. It reinforces the incorrect notion that the big budget problem is overly generous benefits. But Social Security is not to blame for the deficit and health care spending, mainly for Medicare, is driven more by lavish payments to drug companies and other providers than by payments to beneficiaries."
To urge President Obama not to cut Social Security, you can sign a Daily Kos petition here. and Bold Progressives has a petition here.
... AND in a related, predictable development out of Right Wing World, -- Concussiongate! Alexander Abad-Santos of the Atlantic: "... conservative pundits ... are now churning out a theory that Hillary Clinton is lying about her concussion to avoid having to testify about Benghazi." They want a note from her doctor. I foresaw Concussiongate; now I predict that should Hillary's doctor send a note, we will learn that s/he is just another of the Hillary conspirators.
The Washington Post's hawkish Editorial Board doesn't like former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) for Secretary of Defense because "Mr. Hagel's stated positions on critical issues, ranging from defense spending to Iran, fall well to the left of those pursued by Mr. Obama during his first term -- and place him near the fringe of the Senate that would be asked to confirm him." CW: Good to know.
Frank Rich, on Our Great American Gun Culture. ...
... Garry Wills in the New York Review of Books: "The fact that the gun is a reverenced god can be seen in its manifold and apparently resistless powers. How do we worship it? Let us count the ways." And he does. Thanks to contributor Denis N. for the link.
CW: Reader Kay S. likes this opening segment from Rachel Maddow's Monday show. (The Dick Cheney part is enough, on its own, to recommend the segment. I'm not much for labeling people "evil," but Cheney....) Kay S. also suggests we may need a "Million Mom March" on Washington to get Congress off the dime:
... Here's the main page of Demand a Plan to End Gun Violence, sponsored by the Mayors against Illegal Guns. The page includes a petition, plus links or leads to other action you can take. ...
... Here's the Jewelry for a Cause Website which Mayor Booker mentioned. ...
... NOT to be confused with this Georgia jeweler: "Customers who purchase diamonds worth $2,499 or more from the Cobb County stores will get free hunting rifles." Diamonds are forever, but....
... Peter Baker of the New York Times: "To his core supporters, this is a moment that will define what a second-term Obama presidency will look like -- whether it will be closer to the soaring aspirations that set liberal hearts aflutter in 2008 or more like the back-room deal making that characterized the four years that followed. Advocates on the left have long lamented that Mr. Obama was too quick to compromise [and now for the "she-said" side of the "he-said/she-said" perfectly balanced equation], even as those on the right see him as a champion of a radical agenda." ...
... Peter Baker: "President Obama has ordered Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. to lead an interagency group to develop a multifaceted response to last week's mass shooting at a Connecticut school, a White House official said. Mr. Obama will appear in the White House briefing room alongside Mr. Biden on Wednesday morning to announce the assignment but an aide said they will not announce any major policy decisions."
Pat Bagley, Salt Lake City Tribune. Thanks to a reader.... Michael Shear & Adam Nagourney of the New York Times: "The reaction to the Newtown shootings spread to corporate America and to California on Tuesday, as a private equity firm said it would immediately sell the company that made the assault-style rifle used in shootings, while California lawmakers announced an effort to regulate the sale of ammunition more tightly. CW: this article is a good roundup of today's developments in reaction to the Newtown school shootings. One little-known fact, briefly mentioned in the article, is that the California State Teachers' Retirement System, a huge pension fund, is invested in Cerberus, the company that owns the .223 Bushmaster used in the massacre. Cerberus announced earlier it was divesting itself of the Bushmaster manufacturer. ...
... Adam Liptak of the New York Times: "Despite the sweeping language of a 2008 Supreme Court decision that struck down parts of the District of Columbia's strict gun-control law, the decision appears perfectly consistent with many of the policy options being discussed after the shootings in Newtown, Conn." Read the whole article; it ain't as simple as the lede might suggest.
... "The Money behind the Massacre." Dan Primack of Fortune has more on the California teachers' significant investment in weaponry. ...
... CW: My husband, who once taught at Berkeley, gets a small pension from the teachers' retirement system, so you might say I, too, own a Bushmaster. We're all guilty.
Steve Benen: "In the wake of the massacre in Newtown, Conn., Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) believes local school districts should be allowed to arm teachers and administrators. Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) is thinking along the same lines." CW: I find myself wondering, "What would Mitt do?" Sandy Hook is one more reason we should thank the fates and all those freeloading, gift-seeking moochers who stood in line for hours to make sure Mitt will not be standing at the schoolhouse door issuing carry permits.
Todd Purdum of Vanity Fair: "I can't help wondering if the bullets of Sandy Hook Elementary will be for [President] Obama what the snarling dogs and high-pressure fire hoses of Birmingham, Alabama, were for John F. Kennedy in 1963: the human tragedy that will force him to take a political risk, simply because it is right."
USA Today: "The National Rifle Association has put out a statement saying it is 'prepared to offer meaningful contributions' to prevent more violence like that which occurred in Newtown, Conn., last week. The organization said it will hold a news conference in the Washington, D.C., area on Friday. Additionally, the organization broke its silence on social media, and put its Facebook page back up Tuesday afternoon, timed to the statement's release."
Lawrence Downes on "how thoroughly [Sen. Daniel Inouye] blended the virtues of political courage, dedication and modesty." ...
... Here's the piece from Badass Digest, by Devin Feraci, titled "The Time Daniel Inouye Pried A Grenade From His Severed Arm." The text of Inouye's Medal of Honor citation is here.
Time magazine names President Obama Person of the Year. Here's the cover story, by Michael Scherer. Time staff interviewed President Obama on December 12. Here's the text. Time also has a terrific slideshow of 125 photos by White House photographer Pete Souza.
John Burns & Stephen Castle of the New York Times: "A report into the sexual abuse crisis that has shaken the British Broadcasting Corporation was strongly critical on Wednesday of the editorial and management decisions that led to the cancellation of a broadcast last year that would have exposed decades of sexual abuse, some of it on BBC premises, by Jimmy Savile, who had been one of Britain's best-known television personalities.... The report was strongly critical of several news executives.... But it adopted a largely sparing tone in its review of the role played by the broadcaster's former director general, Mark Thompson, who ... became president and chief executive officer of The New York Times Company last month."
Local News
Chad Livengood of the Detroit News: "Gov. Rick Snyder vetoed legislation Tuesday that would have allowed gun owners with extra training to carry concealed weapons in public schools.... Snyder based his veto on the fact the bill wouldn't allow schools and other public locations to opt out of its provisions." CW: as I predicted a few days ago. I also predicted that if, down the road, the state legislature fixes the glitch which gave Snyder the out, he will sign the revised bill. We'll see ...
... Nonetheless, Snyder looks downright enlightened compared to other Republican governors like wingers Perry & McDonnell. We should not forget former Fox "News" star John Kasich of Ohio. Jessica Wehrman & Joe Vardon of the Columbus Dispatch: "Members of Ohio's Republican congressional delegation resisted stiffer gun laws yesterday in response to questions from The Dispatch, and Gov. John Kasich indicated he would not veto a recent bill that would allow guns in the Statehouse and [capitol] parking garages.... 'I'm a Second Amendment supporter, and that's not going to change, Kasich said.... Kasich supported the original federal assault-weapons ban while serving in Congress in 1994, but he has since said that support was a mistake and he was wrong.... Three were killed in a school shooting at Chardon High School, near Cleveland, in February." ...
... Meanwhile, it's reassuring to know how sensitive America's Worst Governor, Rick Scott (RTP) of Florida is. Aaron Deslatte of the Orlando Sun-Sentinel: "Gov. Rick Scott and [Republican] state legislative leaders say it's too soon for politics -- that families should be allowed to grieve and Florida schools should reassess their safety precautions in the wake of last week's Newtown, Conn., school massacre."
News Ledes
New York Times: "Republicans in the Senate, seeking to substantially trim a Hurricane Sandy aid package being sought by Democrats, are planning to unveil a $23.8 billion emergency spending plan to finance the recovery efforts of states devastated by the storm. The move by Republicans comes as the Senate has opened debate on a $60.4 billion aid bill brought by Democratic leaders. Democrats largely based their proposal on one that President Obama sent to Congress nearly two weeks ago."
New York Times: "Senator Barbara A. Mikulski of Maryland will become the first woman to head the Senate Appropriations Committee, after Senator Patrick D. Leahy of Vermont decided to pass up the chairman's job, their offices announced on Wednesday."
New York Times: "The United Nations Security Council was expected to vote Thursday on a resolution that would approve the deployment of a multinational African force in Mali, along with Western training and equipment for the Malian Army, to help retake the northern part of the country from Islamist militias. The resolution, drafted and offered for a formal vote by France, has widespread support among Mali's neighbors and other African states and was expected to gain unanimous approval by the 15-member Security Council."
New York Times: "The United States Patent and Trademark Office has dealt a blow to Apple in its legal battle with Samsung Electronics over smartphone patents, declaring that a patent that helped Apple win $1.05 billion in damages against Samsung in a jury trial should not have been granted."
New York Times: "Three State Department officials resigned on Wednesday after an independent panel severely criticized the 'grossly inadequate' security arrangements at an American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, where Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in an attack. The officials who resigned were Eric Boswell, the assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security; Charlene Lamb, the deputy assistant secretary responsible for embassy security; and Raymond Maxwell, a deputy assistant secretary who had responsibility for the North Africa region...." ...
... Story has been updated. New lede: "Four State Department officials were removed from their posts on Wednesday after an independent panel criticized the 'grossly inadequate' security at a diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, that was attacked on Sept. 11, leading to the deaths of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans." Washington Post story here.
AP: "The Treasury Department said Wednesday that it will sell its remaining stake in General Motors by early 2014, writing the final chapter of a $50 billion bailout that saved the auto giant but stoked a heated national debate about the government's role in private industry."
Reuters: "A bill to ban Americans from adopting Russian children won preliminary parliamentary approval on Wednesday in a retaliatory gesture for a U.S. law punishing alleged Russian human rights violators. Despite criticism of the measure by Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, pro-Kremlin lawmakers voted overwhelmingly in favor of the bill, and another that would bar Russian non-profit groups which receive funds from the United States."
New York Times: "President Obama declared Wednesday that he would make gun control a 'central issue' as he opens a second term, submitting broad new gun control proposals to Congress no later than January and committing the power of his office to overcoming political opposition in the wake of last week's school massacre."
Bloomberg News: "Robert Bork, the U.S. judge and legal scholar whose nomination to the Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan set off a battle for the judiciary that lived on long after the U.S. Senate rejected him, has died. He was 85." ...
... Update. The New York Times obituary is here.
Guardian: "Swiss bank UBS made corrupt payments to brokers in an 'extensive and widespread' attempt to manipulate key benchmark interest rates which has cost the bank Sfr1.4bn (£944m) [$1.5BB] in fines from global regulators. The £160m portion of the fine levied by the Financial Services Authority is the largest ever imposed by the City regulator and surpasses the previous record -- the £59.5m imposed on Barclays in June for attempted manipulation of the Libor and Euribor rates."
Guardian: "The four European members of the United Nations security council are drawing up a strong joint condemnation of recent Israeli moves to expand Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem amid growing international censure. The unusual statement, expected this week from the UK, France, Germany and Portugal, follows blunt criticism from the US of Israel's announcement on Monday of plans to build an extra 1,500 homes in the settlement of Ramat Shlomo." ...
Reuters Update: "Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Wednesday his government would press ahead with expanding Jewish settlements around Jerusalem despite Western criticism of its plan to build 6,000 more homes in territory Palestinians seek for a state."
Share Article
Reader Comments (27)
There has been a rather acrimonious discussion going on in yesterday's Comments thread that I'm going to let stand because I think a lot of good points stick out above the barbs. Nonetheless, here is a truth I see, which I think JJG (yeah, you did irritate me) illustrates pretty well: if you find yourself in a situation in which you need enough fire power to "shoot a lot of people," you are going to die.
See, generally speaking the "lot of people" bent on invading your castle & making off with its valuable teevees & computers & grandmaw's silver will be similarly armed. There is only one of you there in the bed, your semi-automatic penis poised between your legs, your finger at the trigger. But oh, lonesome soul, you are up against "a lot of people" who are better prepared for the moment than are you.
I know you boys have been dreaming of Bruce Willis-type shoot-'em-ups since you were wee willies, but I assure you, it will not happen for you the way it does for Bruce at the picture shows. For you, it will end badly. Find another dream.
Marie
The Caucus blog cited above has some important information about proposed legislation introduced by State Senator Kevin de Leon. Proposed legislation "would require anyone looking to purchase ammunition for any kind of weapon to undergo a background check and obtain a one year permit costing 50 dollars..." Democrats, "were confident that the legislation could pass swiftly and hope it would set a model for other states".
It is my opinion that the gun owner that buys one box of twenty gauge number seven bird shot is going to be really pissed if this legislation is passed, The gun owner that wants a box of 22 long rifles or a box of bullets for his 30/30 is not going to be happy either.
It is my opinion that the NRA will use this threat to all gun owners in their fight against any and all aspects of gun conrol.
It is my opinion that we are fortunate that gun owners will not vote for Democrats anyway. (I don't really belive this but it is promulgated.)
It is my opinion that this type of legislation attacking all gun owners will guarantee a Republican House of Representatives for eternity.
A contributor to yesterday's Commentariat cited this article by the Guardian's Harry Enten. @Haley Simon wrote that Enten "feels that there are a fair number of urban Democrats that are not especially in favor of gun control. He has percentages and an April poll and everything."
Enten's analysis is pretty thin. What he misses are those polls that show public opinion favoring specific gun control measures. In fact, as John Sides wrote the other day, "Support for gun control in the abstract has declined, even as many specific gun control policies are favored by majorities of Americans." Democratic pollster Margie Omera, writing in January 2011, in the wake of the Tuscon mass murder (so many mass murders), has a much more useful analysis of American preferences than is Enten's mention of a generic "gun control" poll conducted in April.
But for now at least, the answers to even the generic or, as Sides calls them, "abstract" questions are moving toward favoring more "gun control" legislation. As Paul West of the L.A. Times reports, "A new ABC News/Washington Post poll, released Monday, found that a majority of Americans (54%) support stricter gun control laws, while 43% are opposed."
The real problem is not the American people; it is, as usual, the Congress, with its gun-lobby backing. At the heart of every American political problem is a group of elected representatives who are beholden to special interests. Until we get the money out of politics, every common-sense initiative on every subject has a hard time slipping over the wall of Congressional cashiers.
Marie
Re: son of a gun; Marie; I could not agree more; I don't know if you read my last comment before you wrote your comment or not. Either way I agree we men have a hollywood idea about protecting those we love and ourselves.
@Harley Simon; good; Democrats changing on gun laws; this is a good thing I think. At least they are thinking. The real gun club is made up of non-thinking wing jobs. Maybe, just maybe the calmer heads will lead us to a point where military weapons will be off market to most of us. The argument that has one believing the right to bear arms protects us from a evil government is long past.
The idea that you are going to combat the US Marines or better, take on SEAL team6 or best, defeat the drone overhead is fantastic as a chihuahua with mini streetsweeper.
Marie,
I'll tell you right now that if you don't place an embargo on gun control discussions, this site will be buried in commentary.
But to beat any possible restrictions and to illustrate why I support banning all semi-automatic weapons watch this display of American wizardry at work
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=_U6tORrODJE&NR=1
OK.
I quit.
I actually thought that the discussions on the topic of gun control over the past few threads were quite civil and not at all “acrimonious,” save for the little contretemps that @Carlyle and I triggered with Marie.
I learned quite a bit from both @cowichan's opinion and @Calyban regarding gun control in Canada, something that we might consider as a starting point for discussions regarding gun control here. I was pleased to learn that I might actually find common ground with @Ken Winkes and @Whyte Owen on the subject of gun control.
And as always, I find wisdom in @JJG's unique way of expressing himself.
But I positively draw the line at subjecting myself to remote psychoanalysis by inept students of Freud.
Jeez, Marie.
You remind me of a Princeton-educated faculty member at UC Davis who, some 40-odd years ago, would interrupt my private, lunch-time discussions of firearms with like-minded faculty members and grad students, asking us if we were still talking about our favorite "penis extenders."
Ya know? It gets old.
If you want to be a psychotherapist, well, be one, instead of a blogger. But as I understand it--from my layman's perspective--not too many therapists today give much credence to Freud beyond due respect for the fact that he got the psychiatry/psychotherapy "ball" rolling, which alone was a monumental accomplishment.
Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar, just as a firearm is just a tool.
Marie, your inaugural post on this thread is MONUMENTALLY stupid. You have NO IDEA what some of us out here are capable of defending against, should the occasion arise. You truly speak from ignorance, because you choose not to acquaint yourself with us at all.
WE know that what Bruce Willis portrays in the movies is nonsense, which is why we prepare, train, and prepare again. WE understand what firearms are—and are not—capable of, even in skilled hands.
And yet, we know that firearms are useful tools for self-defense. Every month, the NRA official journals publish “The Armed Citizen,” stories from reputable news outlets that show that private citizens frequently use firearms to (lawfully) protect themselves. And we read actual stories in our own newspapers, as well.
Does it sometimes end badly for us, those of us who choose to defend our lives with firearms?
Sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn't.
We ask only to be allowed the choice to TRY to defend ourselves, as opposed to your implied assertion that all resistance is futile, and that we should therefore just roll over and DIE at the hands of equally-or-better-armed criminals as is our implied duty to public safety.
After all, how do YOU know what skills and semi-automatic wonders we might produce from "between [our] legs" to run off your imaginary horde of invaders? (OK, I'm sure that you have plenty of snappy rejoinders to that question, but you can save 'em. Mrs. Zee is my sole and ultimate judge on that account.)
WE, at least, are not fatalists.
I don't know if you will allow this post to stand, but since it is absolutely my last in this forum, I hope that you will permit it.
@Carlyle-- I know that we have never agreed on much, but I respect an octogenarian of your experience and wisdom. Best wishes.
And I wish the same to any of you out there who have ever found anything useful in what I have had to say here, on whatever topic.
'Cause I'm genuinely done being psychoanalyzed here.
@Marie: "Until we get the money out of politics, every common-sense initiative on every subject has a hard time slipping over the wall of Congressional cashiers."
Couldn't agree more. Enacting stringent limits on lobbying and overturning Citizen's United are this nation's top priorities.
Can't help meself. I AM a psychotherapist--married to a psychiatrist. We both agree: Most men think with their dicks.
Amen.
Heyguys,let's talk about the latest threat to Social Security and the safety net. President Obama is wobbling again. We need to remind him HE won the election, not the repugs.
@Tommy Bones, no need to. Obama knows he won. But to him, "winning" means continuing to do as the Republicans direct. That's the problem--two drastically different definitions of victory. His vs. ours.
The R.'s have him over a barrel, because they know he's going to blink before they do. We know it, too, but it's too scary to admit. We want to believe the reelected Obama is a new Obama. I guess we aren't as reality-based as we like to think.
I could be wrong, but this "Fiscal Cliff" negotiation nonsense should be evaluated on a larger scale. We rail against Obama's cowardice and idiocy bending over backwards with his "concessions" so the Repugs can "save face" (whatever that means...). Obama is a large piece of the puzzle, but all the actors should be considered in this game of political chicken.
In my opinion, this seems much more like a systemic crisis. I find it hard to believe this is just Obama himself writing up these benefit reductions and selling us out. Certainly he has a major influence on the direction of the negotiations, but there appears to also be a significant consensus within the Democratic party that cutting benefits for ordinary people is a legitimate compromise to protect the wealthy. In public they'll say they're fighting for us and I do believe there are Democratic politicians who legitimately believe in protecting and expanding benefits. That said, however, the modern Democratic party seems to have lost a lot of their gumption in protecting and improving upon the New Deal.
Whether this is because the Right has gone loco and shifted our national politics to the right with it, or the aforementioned never-ending caravan of cash flowing through the Capital hallways, the current Democratic party is slowly failing Main Street.
And when the alternative is a bunch of Rand Lovers.....
Re: Don't touch me there; @ Kate; jez, after a long, hard thought I think I get the thrust of your comment. What do you want us to think with? (little smile face).
Re; The cliff; jez; Lucy, I thought for once you'd let me kick the football. Either Obama is simple or someone took his dick.
@ Marie:
As a matter of honor, I must follow Zee.
In the immortal words of Woody Guthrie, "So long it's been good to know you." Research that. carlyle
As a matter of honor,
Stick and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.
Ezra Follows up his post with a chart
No wonder Boehner sees a weakness. Obama's negotiating with himself again. Geez Louise did he forget the election already?
Sit tight Thelma no choice but to go off the cliff. No Deal! that includes any thing that looks like what's on the table. Especially not that 3rd offer.
Safari I agree with your post. The way I see it It's money. Until we get it out of the electoral process nothing will change. The big interests play one party against the other and they are the one's who choose the leader's. They throw two nominees at the voters and say "Elect one."
To Kate and her husband we say thanks for the laugh from my husband and me. A psychiatrist friend of ours once told us that he told a patient of his. "Guess what! You have a bunch of other organs in your body besides your dick––one is above your neck which might be a good place for us to start talking about."
Last night I happened upon an interview that Anderson Cooper was having with one of the victim's parents. It stunned me. Nary a tear was shed nor was there ever a catch in the voice as they talked about their daughter, Grace, whose many photos were flashed on the screen. The mother did most of the talking, mostly smiling as she gave us a picture of her daughter who she said was now in the hands of God along with the other children and teachers. If I had turned off the sound it could have been parents discussing their Grace who had just won some kind of honor for painting the most innovative picture. I marvel at this kind of composure and ability but at the same time I am thoroughly taken aback by it. Their belief system explains some of it––maybe all of it, but how can you sit there days after your child was gunned to death for an interview with Anderson Cooper?
Marie apologies if you've linked to this already, I took a look and didn't find it:
Eduardo Porter in the NYT on the kabuki dance that are the budget negotiations.
As a newby on this site, I sometimes hesitate. Clearly, folks have formed significant relationships which I respect. @Marie I understand your irritation with people who don't support their statements as opposed to clearly offering a personal opinion. The thread on guns has been frustrating. I think the fact that someone has owned guns, shoots guns and recognizes many types of guns is only 1/2 of the equation. Yesterday Zee said in reply to another commenter; "I do indeed recall our previous discussions regarding guns, and I know that you are not anti-gun." to quote him from today "that is monumentally (reduction of emphasis mine) stupid."
What does that even mean? He also said, "But to become more knowledgable about firearms, hunters, other types of firearms-related sporting activities, and personal defense with firearms wouldn't hurt, either." In addition to be being condescending, its pretty narrow thinking. The question is far more complex and that is exactly why I am frustrated. Having had experience both in use of guns for sport and professionally, the argument is not whether someone is anti-gun. If you are going to use a gun safely, beyond sport, it is imperative that you have training in crisis ( i.e. home invasion), understand the ramifications of the use of force and how much force is appropriate. Otherwise it merely point and shoot. Ask any range master.
Lastly, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/), the FBI Uniform Crime (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr) and each states Attorney General's office have tons of valuable information about gun use in crimes. A lot of myths are perpetuated in this area. In my work life I eventually made it to a level where I wrote lots of grants and became familiar with reliable stats. They are you friend.
Moving on...
For the record, I am a regular reader, but only occasional poster, who does sometimes disagree with CW. I'm baffled by some of the acrimonious discussion only because I do not understand why anybody is arguing about hunter's rights to own hunting rifles. As far as I can recall, I have NEVER heard anybody, Democrat or Republican suggest a ban on hunting rifles. The discussion is almost always focused on assault rifles and armor piercing ammo etc. and I would love to have Zee or Carlyle give me some cold hard facts on why anybody would be a proponent of those unless they were the gun manufacturer or employed by them. But since they are no longer going to post comments, I guess they can't. Too bad, so sad.
And no Marie, sorry, but I do not find Petraeus sexy in any kind of way.
One more on gun control, then I'll quit. Some so-called adult elected officials (Gohmert, Perry, McDonnell, etc.) have a fantasy about arming school administrators and teachers. This assumes they will react as trained in the rare instance of an armed intruder.
Most rational human beings are reluctant to kill another human. The Army and Marines do a lot of training to overcome this. When I was a basic training officer, we had bayonet training--not that we really thought it was likely they would ever use this skill. No, the trainees were taught to yell "To kill!" In answer to "What's the spirit of the bayonet?"
Let me tell you a story of how this played out on September 13, 1968 in Vietnam. My company had been inserted by helicopter onto the ridge above Chu Lai Base. We were looking for NVA (North Vietnamese Army) who had been firing 122mm rockets into our base. A new kid wanted to walk point. Suddenly he turned around and yelled "There's a dink (GI slang for vietnamese den kai dau or crazy in the head) up here! Can I shoot him? Those were his last words. The "dink" didn't hesitate--he fired and killed our new kid. I had to go up the hill and retrieve his body after dark, cursing him under my breath for being so stupid.
What did this prove? It's hard to make the transition from training to the actual situation. You adversary may not be so slow on the trigger.
What happens if the bad guy kills or wounds the teacher and takes her gun to kill even more.? We already know he's willing, even eager to kill.
One other story from 1970 . We had a guy who fired on full automatic when he thought contact was imminent. I ordered him to stop that. The next time, he pulled the trigger as fast as he could. Not as fast as full automatic, but plenty fast enough. Last night, I heard Rep. Jack Kingston argue that the Bushmaster isn't an assault rifle because it doesn't fire full auto. What a stupid argument, but then he's one of our Georgia loons.
Zee said…”Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar, just as a firearm is just a tool.”
“The gun is not a mere tool, a bit of technology, a political issue, a point of debate. It is an object of reverence. Devotion to it precludes interruption with the sacrifices it entails. Like most gods, it does what it will, and cannot be questioned. Its acolytes think it is capable only of good things. It guarantees life and safety and freedom. It even guarantees law. Law grows from it. Then how can law question it?” - Garry Wills, Our Moloch
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2012/dec/15/our-moloch/
The getting of guns with the buying of diamonds––always a cut above–– reminds me of Roger Moore's piece about being able to receive a gun after opening a bank account in Michigan.
@ safari: After having been deeply hurt by words throughout my life I would say that little maxim is right about the sticks and stones, but very wrong about the words.
Bork is dead. He couldn't be confirmed because he opposed Roe v Wade; in 2005 a nominee couldn't be selected UNLESS he or she opposed Roe v Wade. Time marches on.
Reviewing the career and political and legal philosophies of Robert Bork, who died today, offers some striking parallels and precursors to the rise of modern conservatism and all that that ideology has conferred upon the United States, most of it just awful.
His career as a conservative hero was launched with his firing of special prosecutor Archie Cox in the Saturday Night Massacre after two old school Republicans resigned rather than bend to the wishes of the autocratic Richard Nixon. Bork supposedly had decided to resign as well but did not, apparently on advice from Richardson. He nonetheless played a significant role in the Watergate debacle on the side of the Imperial Nixon White House.
He argued against Roe v Wade, claiming to be unable to find any support for privacy as an individual right in the Constitution, the linchpin of the original SCOTUS finding, an argument that still has significant traction on the right, although many modern GOPers have abandoned this more legalistic approach to ending a woman’s right to choose in favor of the “it’s wrong because we say it is, and so does Jesus, so there!” argument.
He supported the right of corporations to freely create enormous mergers and trusts (no wonder Romney brought him on board as a legal advisor, Bork too apparently believed that “…corporations are people, my friend”), with little government oversight, a position that has become a bellwether for the modern GOP.
He was one of the original originalists, a precursor to Nino Scalia and right-wingers who claim (when it suits them—see Jill Lapore’s recent New Yorker article outlining how the gun lobby created a right that was never in the Constitution to see the hypocrisy behind this particular canard) that interpreting the constitution and approaching it as a living document is just wrong, wrong, wrong. This has to be one of the silliest arguments ever, for so many reasons. First, if the founders meant for us to adhere strictly to their words and original intent (and who really knows what they were?) they would have more explicit about those intentions, but then there also would be no mechanism to amend them. QE fucking D. And that’s that. But Bork was there firstest with the most originalest-est. Or something.
He also pioneered the ploy of stating, in confirmation hearings, that he wasn’t sure how he would vote about issues and cases (notably Roe v Wade) on which he had written tens of thousands of words adumbrating a future position with blinding, inarguable clarity. Recent nominees Roberts and Alito, especially, have employed this dodge to great effect. Say one thing. Do another.
His stance against civil rights, based largely on a distrust of the government (another tent pole in today’s Republican Party), has morphed, in the modern GOP, to outright virulent, unapologetic racism. Although he did state pretty clearly that businesses should have the right to tell minorities to take a hike if they didn’t like a potential customer’s skin color, religion, or choice of ice cream, a position giddily adopted and supported wholeheartedly by modern GOP racists like Rand Paul.
Bork was a precursor, in many ways, to the modern GOP of haters, liars, cheaters, racists, and intellectually dishonest goons, but it’s doubtful that even he could have foreseen just how bad the party would become.
But just think of how much worse it might have been had he not been “Borked”. It would have been like having two Scalias for the last 25 years or so. A conservative tag team that might have had us all back in the 19th century by now.
Thank you Teddy Kennedy!
Thx for the fiscal cliff offer/counteroffer chart. Clearly the republicans are picking up their marbles and leaving the game. And a poke in the eye to those who thought the election loss would bring sanity to congress. Obama should feel free to return to his original offer or perhaps to that offer but without social security/medicare cuts. The republicans have succeeded in making the fiscal cliff look attractive if not the only way forward.
@cowichan You might like to read Jonathan Chait's post from yesterday on the New York mag site: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/12/beginning-to-smell-a-lot-like-cliff-mas.html
...and he just added this today: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/12/boehners-plan-b-fails-inmates-running-asylum.html The title says it all. "Boehner’s Plan B Fails; Inmates Running Asylum"
Somewhere over the past week or so, I recall reading some thoughts on (or guessing) as to why Boehner is presenting these "what-the-hell-is-he-thinking" proposals. Apparently, concerned over the possibility of losing the speakership ... all this hoohah over the past days might simply be a stall on both sides. I, too, hope that the President and Pelosi don't cave or compromise (but, maybe right now they see stringing Boehner along for the short term better than dealing with whoever the hell might replace him in the next session. Kind of makes sense? Huh?
When I spotted the cartoon Marie included today with the NRA character having one hand on the weapon and the other on the congressional crotch—I'm hoping Obama (whose poll numbers are looking good) plans to do the same.
After all, when you've got a guy by the balls...you don't reach for a better hold.
In Obamaspeak, "should" means "won't." Just as "winning" means "continuing to play the opposition's door mat."
It strikes me as highly probable that Obama's self-perception is out of sync with our perception of him, to put it as awkwardly as possible. He may well think he's doing brilliantly, even as we're begging him to get his act together. Or, just as possibly, he knows he's not the bold and decisive leader we desperately need him to be right now, and he's trying, but failing, to be same. Either way, we have a leader unable to rise to the challenge. Don't think the opposition didn't figure that out ages ago.
We want a new, bolder Obama, but, like the rest of us, he is only what and who he is. Self-reinvention is a lovely pop myth, but just that. What I'll never understand is why we went the hope-and-change route when logic and self-survival demanded we find and back a capable, battle-ready leader. Obama hasn't blown it; we have.
My final word on guns. A quote from Mark Morford's Notes & Errata blog this AM at SFGate (the San Francisco Chronicle):
“Guns do not protect more than they destroy. They do not save more lives than they kill. They do not safeguard more families than they devastate. They do not add security more than they add fear, suspicion, antagonism and hate. As has been pointed out again and again: Guns, by their very existence, insist on their own use. And their use is, singularly and without reservation, death.”
http://blog.sfgate.com/morford/2012/12/18/death-to-all-guns/