The Commentariat -- Jan. 19, 2015
Photo, defunct video removed.
You are reminding the nation that it is a crime for people to live in this rich nation and receive starvation wages. -- Martin Luther King, Jr., Memphis, 1968
President Obama on the Martin Luther King, Jr., Day of Service:
... Steve Mufson of the Washington Post: "On this Martin Luther King Jr. Day, nearly 47 years after the assassination of the civil rights leader, the nation and the president are still struggling with issues of race and discrimination, issues Obama has never denied but has long sought to de-emphasize.... Though Obama's views have evolved on issues such as gay marriage and national security during his six years in office, his views on race have remained remarkably consistent, and recent events appear to have affirmed rather than altered those views." ...
Steve Zeitchik of the Los Angeles Times on a house in Selma. The Times labels this piece a "great read." It is.
Peter Holley & Dan Lemothe of the Washington Post: "Multiple gunshots were fired outside Vice President Joe Biden's home in Delaware and a vehicle fled the area Saturday night, Secret Service officials said. The vice president and his family were not at home when the shooting occurred, authorities said." ...
Gregory Wallace of CNN highlights proposals to help the middle class which President Obama will lay out in his State of the Union speech Tuesday. ...
... Matt O'Brien of the Washington Post does the same, calling Obama proposals, "Piketty with an American accent." CW: (That would be "PEEK-ə-tee," not "PICK-ə-tee.") Piketty concentrates on wealth inequality, while most of the President's proposals address income inequality. One of Obama's proposals, to "take away a long-standing feature of the tax code that allows people to pass along appreciated assets to their heirs while limiting any tax bill" does work to reduce wealth inequality. And would take direct aim at the Mittster & his brood. ...
... Vicki Needham of the Hill: "Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee and presidential hopeful, said President Barack Obama's plan to raise taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers and the largest financial firms 'moves us in the right direction.' Sanders said that the plan comes 'at a time of obscene levels of income and wealth inequality.'" ...
... Paul Waldman: "Even President Obama's most fervent opponents must acknowledge that he's getting quite good at putting them on the defensive.... He seems to come up with a new idea every couple of weeks to drive [Republicans] up a wall.... They are barely mentioning the proposals for middle-class tax breaks which are supposed to be the whole purpose of this initiative; instead, all their focus is on the increases America's noble job creators would have to endure in order to pay for it."
... John Nichols of the Nation: ".... At a point when there is broadening recognition of the social and economic perils posed by income inequality, the president is talking about taking simple steps in the right direction. Congress is unlikely go along with him, but the American people will... To get a sense of how modest the Obama proposal is, consider this: the capital gains tax rate increase he proposes will only return the rate to what it was when Ronald Reagan was president. So Obama is only undoing the damage done; he is not going anywhere near the robust rates seen under Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford." ...
... Paul Krugman: "We're living in a political era in which facts don't matter.... On issues that range from monetary policy to the control of infectious disease, a big chunk of America's body politic holds views that are completely at odds with, and completely unmovable by, actual experience.... These people ... [are] red-faced angry, with special rage directed at know-it-alls who snootily point out that the facts don't support their position.... It strikes me that the immovable position in each of these cases is bound up with rejecting any role for government that serves the public interest." ...
... Lawrence Summers in the Washington Post: Dear Middle Class: The One-Percenters at Davos don't care about you. "If the United States had the same income distribution it had in 1979, the bottom 80 percent of the population would have $1 trillion -- or $11,000 per family -- more. The top 1 percent would have $1 trillion -- or $750,000 -- less. There is little prospect for maintaining international integration and cooperation if it continues to be seen as leading to local disintegration while benefiting a mobile global elite." ...
... This Oxfam report (pdf), which contributor safari cites, provides more data supporting some of Summers' points: "Global wealth is increasingly being concentrated in the hands of a small wealthy elite.These wealthy individuals have generated and sustained their vast riches through their interests and activities in a few important economic sectors, including finance and pharmaceuticals/healthcare. Companies from these sectors spend millions of dollars every year on lobbying to create a policy environment that protects and enhances their interests further. The most prolific lobbying activities in the US are on budget and tax issues; public resources that should be directed to benefit the whole population, rather than reflect the interests of powerful lobbyists." ...
... CW: I keep wondering what Summers' angle is. He's a Wall-Streeter through-&-through, yet now he's speaking up against wealth inequality & dissing Davos. Summers was once a honcho at Bilderberg; maybe this is a big-boys' frat thing. I really don't know. But I'm pretty sure there's something in it for Larry.
Juan Williams of the Hill: "Sen. Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) strategy for defeating Democrats in the final two years of the Obama administration is clear: divide and conquer.... If significant numbers of Senate Democrats are willing to join with Republicans to force presidential vetoes, McConnell wins. He gains the power to paint himself as the good guy working across political lines. And he will smear the remaining Democrats as members of an out-of-the-mainstream party in the grips of leftist ideologues -- Obama, [Harry] Reid, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and possibly Hillary Clinton."
Adam Liptak of the New York Times: "... the Supreme Court on Tuesday will turn its attention to judicial elections. Such contests already sometimes resemble regular political campaigns, awash in money and negative advertising. And judges already routinely hear cases involving lawyers and litigants who have contributed to their campaigns. But 30 of the 39 states with judicial elections have tried to draw the line by forbidding judicial candidates to personally ask for money, saying that such solicitations threaten the integrity of the judiciary and public confidence in the judicial system. Tuesday's case is a First Amendment challenge to the solicitation bans, which have been struck down by four federal appeals courts. But most of the American legal establishment supports them. The American Bar Association and a group representing the chief justices of every state have filed briefs urging the Supreme Court to uphold the bans."
David Savage of the Los Angeles Times: "... after the justices agreed Friday to take up the issue [of gay marriage] again, Kennedy and the other justices must reconcile what they left unresolved two years ago. Is marriage for gays and lesbians a matter of equal rights and individual liberty guaranteed by the Constitution? Or is it a matter left to the states?... If this year's decision on gay marriage turned only on court precedents and legal logic, it would look to be a toss-up." However, the Supremes' agreement to take up the issue after denying states' appeals to the Court last fall suggests it is a decision already-made & waiting for an opinion to justify gay marriage. CW: Read the whole column.
David Sanger & Martin Fackler of the New York Times: "The trail that led American officials to blame North Korea for the destructive cyberattack on Sony Pictures Entertainment in November winds back to 2010, when the National Security Agency scrambled to break into the computer systems of a country considered one of the most impenetrable targets on earth.... The evidence gathered by the 'early warning radar' of software painstakingly hidden to monitor North Korea's activities proved critical in persuading President Obama to accuse the government of Kim Jong-un of ordering the Sony attack, according to the officials and experts...."
Kevin Sieff of the Washington Post: "The U.S. military sent about 3,000 troops to West Africa to build [Ebola treatment] centers ... in recent months.... But as the outbreak fades in Liberia, it has become clear that the disease had already drastically subsided before the first American centers were completed. Several of the U.S.-built units haven't seen a single patient infected with Ebola.... Although future flare-ups of the disease are possible, the near-empty Ebola centers tell the story of an aggressive American military and civilian response that occurred too late to help the bulk of the more than 8,300 Liberians who became infected. Last week, even as international aid organizations built yet more Ebola centers, there was an average of less than one new case reported in Liberia per day." CW: Sounds like good news to me.
Your Friendly Muslim Neighbors May Be Terrorists! Peter Schroeder of the Hill: Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said he was not aware of any specific [terrorist "sleeper cells" in the U.S.], but noted that the recent attacks elsewhere in the Western world make it a safe assumption. Johnson is chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee."
God News, Monday Edition. Kyle Balluck of the Hill: "Pope Francis is planning to address a joint session of Congress and visit the White House during a trip to Washington, D.C. in September, one of the archbishops organizing the pontiff's trip said."
David Carr of the New York Times on "why the Oscars' omission of 'Selma' matters."
Presidential Race 2016
Jake Miller of CBS News: In a new CBS poll asking Republican respondents about possible presidential contenders, only Sarah Palin has worse numbers than Chris Christie.
** Alec MacGillis, in the New Yorker, on Jeb Bush's school-privatization experiment. The kids is not learning much, but Jeb's friends & other opportunists are making fistfuls of dollars.
Caroline Bankoff of New York: "During a Sunday Meet the Press appearance, [Sen. Lindsey] Graham [R-S.C.] said that he has already registered 'testing-the-waters committee" with the IRS. "I don't know where this will go, but I'm definitely going to look at [a run for president],' he explained."
CW: As much as I despise Carly Fiorina, Politico's top headline at the moment -- "Who Wants Carly Fiorina?" -- accompanied by a big ole picture of her looking ever-so sad, is pretty damned sexist.
Jamelle Bouie of Slate on Jim Webb, "the white man's Democrat."
Senate Races 2016
Chris Cillizza & Aaron Blake of the Washington Post: "The Senate map is the Democrats' friend in the 2016 cycle. They are defending only 10 seats, while Republicans have two dozen to hold. But wait, it gets better. Seven of those 24 Republican seats are in states that President Obama won not once but twice: Florida, Illinois, Iowa, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. To win the majority, Democrats need to win five of those seven seats in November 2016. (If Hillary Clinton, or another Democrat, wins the White House in 2016, then Senate Democrats need to win only four of those seven.)"
Annals of "Journalism," Ctd.
Steve M.: "President Obama has proposed a change in the tax code that would lower taxes for the vast majority of Americans." But Fox "News" is calling it a "tax hike." See Krugman, Paul, linked above.
Brian Stelter of CNN: "Fox News took time out of four broadcasts on Saturday to apologize for four separate instances of incorrect information that portrayed Muslims in a negative light."
CW: Thanks for the responses yesterday re: my WashPo "poll analysis" challenge. I feel so much better. What struck me immediately was Taylor's false assumption that only European Muslims would say they approved of the Islamic State -- that other people could not possibly answer yes. The RT story, dated August 18, 2014, on which Taylor relied does not link to or cite the precise question the pollsters posed. If Western Europeans are half as ignorant as Americans, it wouldn't surprise me to find many people of every ethnic & religious persuasion answering in the affirmative. They might think the Islamic State was something like the Palestinian state (or even have the two confused). In any event, Taylor's assumption that only Muslims would approve of an Islamic state is rather stunningly biased against Muslims.
One can't tell from the RT article whether or not the pollsters provided respondents with any sort of description of ISIS to "help" respondents answer the question. If they did, that description would of course skew the responses in some way. As P. D. Pepe pointed out, the survey was conducted & reported by Russian state organs (something Taylor did not make clear in his post). RT is a well-known propaganda machine. It's ironic that our own right-wing propaganda machine, a/k/a Fox "News," would use as its source Russian media. Other contributors noted other methodological problems, both on the pollsters' part & on Taylor's. All in all, a questionable poll, & a really dumb analysis.
Beyond the Beltway
Jesse McKinley of the New York Times: "Flanked by a collection of liberal groups and labor leaders, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo on Sunday announced a raft of proposals on social issues, among them a plan that would raise the minimum wage to $11.50 an hour in New York City and $10.50 an hour in the rest of the state. If approved by the State Legislature, the proposal would make New York's minimum wage among the highest in the country. But traditional Republican opposition in the State Senate, where that party holds a majority, makes the passage of such legislation far from assured."
American "Justice," Ctd. Silas Allen & Darla Slipke of the Oklahoman: "The police chief [in Sentinel, Oklahoma,] survived being shot in the chest Thursday while responding to a reported bomb threat, and the man who authorities say shot him was allowed to walk free later in the day.... Agents with the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation said the man who shot the chief was released after hours of questioning when they determined they didn't have enough evidence to arrest him. 'Facts surrounding the case lead agents to believe the man was unaware it was officers who made entry,' OSBI wrote in a news release." ...
... Wait, There's More. David Ferguson of the Raw Story: A "neighbor ... described the gunman to the Oklahoman as a 'survivalist' type who mistrusted the government, was openly unfriendly to neighbors and wore a lot of black clothing. A Facebook profile believed to be [the shooter Dallas] Horton's is rife with racially charged images and jabs at black leaders like Rev. Al Sharpton." Oh, here's something else: Police Chief Louis Ross is black. CW: Well, of course there's not enough evidence.
News Ledes
New York Times: "A federal prosecutor who has accused top officials including the president of protecting Iranian suspects in the 1994 bombing of a Jewish center, one of Argentina's worst terrorist attacks, has been found dead at his home, the authorities said on Monday. The prosecutor, Alberto Nisman, had been scheduled to testify on Monday at a congressional inquiry about his accusations. News of his mysterious death immediately provoked shock and outrage from the political opposition and leaders of Argentina's Jewish community, one of Latin America's largest, and appeared to put a skulduggerous shadow over his accusations."
Share Article
Reader Comments (26)
I am reasonably sure that the gunfire at our VP's house was just a coincidence. I mean most Americans have no idea who Joe Biden is,
never mind his job.
My daughter posted this 'god' news on Facebook. A study shows how well children 'growing up godless' do on ethics. Turns out they can beat the religious.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0115-zuckerman-secular-parenting-20150115-story.html
We often concentrate on the Second Gilded Age in America here because we're winning the race among industrialized nations hands down these days it seems. But looked at globally, the perverse effects of neo-liberal capitalism are even scarier. The global implications are mind-boggling:
According to Oxfam, "In 2014, the richest 1% of people in the world owned 48% of global wealth, leaving just 52% to be shared between the other 99% of adults on the planet. Almost all of that 52% is owned by those included in the richest 20%, leaving just 5.5% for the remaining 80% of people in the world."
This is just one of the vast array of startling statistics that the Oxfam report lays out. They'll reach the 50% mark in 2016. And looking at the pre- and post-financial crisis data, it's insane how much the richest of the rich have been sucking up the world's wealth while the rest of humanity's foundations continue to crumble.
Coupling these statistics with the political push back against Obama's modest proposal to help out Main Street and it seems clear that as long as the status quo remains (for the next decade at least, Hillary ain't gonna reverse this) this wealth transfer will only accelerate to even larger, out of control proportions.
Once the global population learns about this crime against humanity, with so much amassed wealth hunkered down in Fiscal Paradise amidst an ever-expanding ocean of poverty and pain, the question will eventually have to be asked: How much is too much?
PDF
http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/file_attachments/ib-wealth-having-all-wanting-more-190115-en.pdf
Sorry, to be coming late to the party, "Do 1 in 6 French citizens really support Islamic State?" Early in the August 2014 article Adam Taylor writes 'it doesn't add up' that many (in France 15% & UK 7%) or 1 in 6 OUTSIDE the Muslim communities indicate their support, but the paragraphs that follow all dwell on the Muslim communities and how they would or would not react and not the general population. OK who OUTSIDE is included in the poll numbers?
He continues with an (oranges) on-the-one-hand and (apples) on-the-other analysis that appears to debunk, while at the same time j'accuse. Read and reread his article and even returned to the RT.com site several times. What doesn't add up for me are the numbers. Based on La Hexagone's population of 66,030,000 (2013 census) if 15% support an Islamic state, that is approx. 990,000. But if it is 1 in 6 (per headline) of French citizens who support an Islamic state, that's 11,005,000. Was the ICM Research telephone poll to 1,000 residents made 'equally' or proportionally to the 96 Departments? Or, did they concentrate on the communities with higher than average Muslim populations such as Marseilles, Toulouse, Lyons, Paris, etc.? What segments of the population were polled?
Taylor adds: "Our (WAPO) resident pollster, Scott Clement, says that while the methodology isn't perfect ... it wasn't terrible either." Really? What is it? Selective interpretation? Zut alors! Guess it's feel free to use whatever imperfect results combine to support a point of view.
The French TV video is an absolutely, hilariously fantastic Fox put-down. Oh, snap! those Frenchies are sly!
More news from the inequality front.
On January 17, the NYTimes had an article that illustrates "... the Marie Antoinette attitude of our ultra rich, who have much too much money and so little taste. “When you consider the value of the land and the quality of the construction,” Mr. Greene said, “$195 million is really quite reasonable.” describing the home that took seven years to build near Los Angeles.
“We’ve become a country of have-nots and have-a-lots,” Mr. Greene said in his living room filled with French antiques and fine art. “More and more of the rewards for this economy are going to the rich and leaving the rest behind. So I think you’re going to have more and more very wealthy people. And hopefully they’re going to want houses like this.”
Meantime, Mr. Greene & family have moved to live in (where else, but more tax-friendly) Florida.
And who would guess that he is "A self-proclaimed progressive and former Democratic Senate candidate in Florida..."
@MAG asks, re: the ISIS poll, "What segments of the population were polled?"
Taylor writes, "ICM Research, the group that conducted the poll, was unable to break down their results along religious lines when The Post requested." In view of the nature of the question, that seems like a rather important factor to omit.
Nonetheless, since we have no idea how the question was worded & presented, I don't see how we can judge the results. "Do you support the Islamic State?" is different from "Do you support ISIS, a Middle East terrorist group that murders infidels?" is different from, "Do you support the Islamic State, a Middle East group fighting to establish a religious state similar to Israel?"
Marie
@MAG. Thanks.
New York Times: What you get for ... $195 million. Slide show. Grande & gauche.
Adam Smith of the Tampa Bay Times (August 2010): "Greene tends to get testy when reporters ask him about celebrity pals like Tyson and Hollywood madam Heidi Fleiss or what Vanity Fair called a Moroccan "love den" in one of his California mansions. Nor does he hide his annoyance when reporters ask him about former Summerwind employees describing the yacht as a party palace. Or about Summerwind allegedly damaging reefs in Belize or visiting the normally off-limits Cuba (first described as a Jewish humanitarian mission and later as a stop for repairs)."
Marie
@Marvin: the L.A. Times article on secular child-rearing is interesting and compelling; I have passed it along to my children . Thanks for posting.
@CW
Read the Tampa Bay Times article on Greene. Gets even worse, doesn't it! Looks like we could have "the Wolf of Wall Street-Part 2, the Sequel" coming up! Maybe Mickey Rourke for the lead instead of DiCaprio.
Thanks for putting this site together, Marie. Between the LAT article about the house in Selma and the Petit Journal video, you're giving them the exposure here they need.
Like Marie, I have been a bit taken aback at Larry Summers' Wall Street apostasy of late. Has there been some kind of epiphany? Has a deceased one-percent former partner visited Larry to rattle chains of avarice forged in life? How comes the Up Wall Street, Down Main Street Man to now forsake his prior apathy toward non-trust fund hoi polloi?
Too much too quickly, methinks, so I'm fancying, as does Marie, that there might be something in it for Larry. If he's gotten to the point where he's considering his legacy and does not wish to go out with people picturing him with his boot on the throat of the poor, then I suppose that's not a bad thing, but like the waiter Carl in the film "Casablanca", who immediately checks for his wallet when the local pickpocket pats him on the back, I think I'll reserve judgement to see whether Larry's newly discovered milk of human kindness makes it to the table or curdles in the pail.
After reading Krugman this morning I remembered this from 1976:
"“We are living under the reign of government gone amuck,” the keynote speaker proclaimed:
"At every station in this society…government is feared and distrusted…. It is the Democrat Party…which has built the federal bureaucracy ever larger and larger and directed the agents of that bureaucracy to penetrate ever deeper and deeper into the conduct of all of this nation’s private affairs and personal lives. Yes it is the Democrat Party…which has unleashed upon the American people the curse and abomination of government which today careens about, so clearly out of effective control."
Sounds like something from a Tea Party convention, but it was delivered by John Connally of Texas (yes, the same guy who was riding with Kennedy when he was shot) a prominent Democrat himself for forty years before converting three years earlier to the GOP. This strain of government as the problem (as Reagan years later exclaimed) has never lost its hold and explains in part why Republicans seem to have two hearts smaller than most–––they want private enterprise to take all the prizes––and the little people be damned except they don't say that. What they do say is those folks need to take responsibility for themselves whatever that may be (they never go into how) and stop expecting the government to provide–-that sucking-on-teat- mentality. So when we shake our heads over their reluctance to accept Climate Change, gun control, higher wages, immigration, etc. we have to remind ourselves it has to do with money and small government and maybe that will assuage our fury just a bit, but I doubt it. The Republican wisdom on this has not lessened and to me it has gotten worse.
One issue, however, they do want government to control is abortion along with anything to do with lady parts. If it wasn't so egregious, it would be amusing.
Paul Krugman, in the link provided above, bolsters the understanding that rational Americans share concerning conservatives trouble by facts. But, in the same way they cherry pick their own "facts" and things like the Constitution (2nd Amendment, YES! 14th, NO!), they also play around with percentages and adjust their usefulness in making decisions, not on any rational or mathematical scale, but on ideology and wingnut political expediency. Great basis for making important decisions, in'it?
Right after 9/11, Dick Cheney formulated the One Percent Doctrine. In effect, the Decider's pet shark decreed that "...if there is a one percent chance that someone in Pakistan is helping Al Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we must treat it as a certainty" and act accordingly. One percent chance=certainty. Cheney's diktat was not based on analysis (analysis being anathema to he-men like Bush and Cheney), but, as he declared, "based on our response". Oooooh. So manly. Wait a moment while I take a deep breath.
But the lynchpin in this manly thinking was that Cheney, followed by hordes of neocons and conservatives and wingnut pundits of nearly all stripes, had determined that the US had to respond directly to a "low-probability, high-impact event" no matter how unlikely.
Get that? Because, I dunno about you guys, but 1% seems pretty unlikely to me, hell, even 10%, but according to the entire right-wing phalanx at that time, it deserved immediate attention. It was a CERTAINTY no matter how improbable or unlikely.
But now let's take that same mindset and apply it to a situation that is not just "low-probability, high-impact" but "high-probability, possibly extinction level impact", ie, the effects of climate change, and what do you get?
Yaaaaawwwwwn. "Liberal lies. No need to worry."
I don't know exactly what the percentage of probability is for environmental catastrophe due to human induced global warming, but I'm pretty damn sure it's a lot more than 1 or even 10%. But in this instance, instead of Chicken Little, we get the See No Evil Monkeys.
I'm thinking it must be terribly frightening to live in Right Wing World, where you know bad shit is happening but everyone is telling you it isn't. It would be like sitting in the back seat of a car going 120 MPH straight for a tree and everyone else in the car telling you not to worry.
The problem is, the rest of us are in the trunk of that car.
When I read "CW: As much as I despise Carly Fiorina, Politico's top headline at the moment -- "Who Wants Carly Fiorina?" -- accompanied by a big ole picture of her looking ever-so sad, is pretty damned sexist," my lying eyes saw "sexy," not sexist, so I gazed at the picture of Carly looking rather solemn, sad, perhaps, pensive––tried to understand the sexiness. When CW wanted to know if we found General Petraous attractive as she did, some of us agreed, but now Fiorina looking sexy? On a second read of course saw "sexist" and wondered about that. If they had featured a photo of a smiling Carly would that have been better? Or do you mean the title of the article which to me is pretty negative.
Wait, wait, wait.
A guy calls in a bomb threat, the cops come calling, he shoots a black cop--the chief--four times, three in the chest, but then walks because of "insufficient evidence"????
Looks like 2015 will be an even better year than 2014 for heavily armed white supremacists looking to shoot them a black guy.
So this guy walks? What about the bomb threat? Is that just "boys being boys"? What about shooting at a cop, or is this another "Stand Your Ground" NRA sponsored kill-a-thon?
And where is all the right-wing fury at a cop being shot at? Fox had a conniption because people were criticizing police. But now a cop is shot three times in the chest and what?....nothing? And I will bet the house that the Stand Your Ground bullshit wouldn't stand if it had been a white police chief shot by a black guy, no matter what.
If the chief had died I'm guessing this creep would still walk, because white. According to Raw Story, the guy's Facebook page had a picture of "...a blood-spattered 18-wheeler cab with human limbs sticking out of it. 'JUST DROVE THROUGH FERGUSON,' it reads, 'DIDN’T SEE ANY PROBLEMS.'"
The cops found a cache of weapons in the house. I have no doubt this asshole is grinning right now as he's reloading every one of them.
Happy MLK Day, America.
CW points out, in relation to the laughably inept Taylor poll analysis: "RT is a well-known propaganda machine. It's ironic that our own right-wing propaganda machine, a/k/a Fox "News," would use as its source Russian media."
Fox would call upon the memoirs of Pol Pot if it served their need for an example of a courageous citizen standing up to overweening government.
Maybe the puzzle Krugman presents, the "oh, why, do they hate the gummint, so darn much," conundrum, has a simple answer.
Just maybe the well-financed Right thinks government is bad because it takes their money and gives it to other people. That they take money from others and want it all for themselves is irrelevant because many of them even think God gave it to them; He intended it that way. It's their (mostly white) birthright.
And that's the fundamental fact that trumps all others.
I meant to pass this along last week, after it was forwarded to me.
I'm preaching to the choir out here when decrying the outrage of the institutional state sponsored torture implemented by those great humanitarians, chimp in charge George Bush and not so great ape Dick Cheney, in fact, those references do the named primates a disservice. George and his Dick were more malicious than any animals.
This is George's statement on torture:
“Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.”
Oh....not George Bush. George Washington. Bush wanted to pull their fingernails out.
At a time when Americans were treated horribly by British captors, Washington took the high ground. His act was an attempt not only to maintain as much humanity as possible during a war, but to point out to the world that the young nation's cause was morally grounded. We were not savages. And this George had no reasonable expectation that he would win. The kind of inhuman scorched earth policy adopted by the later George might have served him better, strategically at least. But he would have none of it, being a man of honor and principle.
The other George? Not so much. Neither honor, nor principle, nor moral grounding penetrated the Bush security bubble.
He is and will remain a war criminal and a traitor to American ideals, no matter how many pictures of cute puppies he paints nor how often he and his cronies paint him as a great patriot and hero.
@Akhilleus:
From Oklahoma City's Channel 9:
"Chief Ross told News 9 he called for county back up before entering Horton's home.
"Up to this point, Horton claimed he never knew any officers were in his home.
“'Don't know what he heard or didn't hear screaming from five officers of the law announcing our presence, requesting to see hands,' said Chief Ross."
From Gawker:
"In the early hours of Thursday morning, from 2:13 a.m. to 4:40 a.m. — around the same time as the 911 call — Horton posted eight status updates on Facebook. One expressed anxiety about the spread of Sharia law in America. Another compared America to Nazi Germany. A third expressed disappointment that the White House sent officials to Michael Brown's funeral — referred to as 'this thug' — and none to Paris."
If the Oklahoma SBI can't "find" probable cause, the U.S. Justice Department should go looking for it.
Marie
@PD Pepe:
In referring to a woman, "wants" has a clear sexual implication; ergo, a sexist tilt when discussing a female candidate. Think of it this way: if a man says, "I want you," what do you think he means? Oh yeah.
If the headline had been, "Who wants Carly Fiorina to run for president?" it would have been fine.
The sad face in the picture implicitly answers the question: "Nobody."
I guess it makes me mad when anybody causes me to defend Carly Fiorina.
Marie
Marie: Think of it as defending women, not as defending Carly Fiorina. Wouldn’t have made any difference if it was Michele Bachmann, Hillary Clinton, or Mother Teresa.
Yes, James, me agree and thanks Marie for splaining. I didn't catch that "want"––and am kind of ashamed I didn't.
Wonderful piece on Selma, by the way and what a hoot (and pathetic) that Joe Biden is a nobody nobody knows.
I'm shocked to see today's "The Ledes" about the death of the Argentine prosecutor investigating the bombing of the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires. I was there when it happened and had walked to the site which was not far from where I lived downtown on Avenida de Nueve de Julio. Not a pretty sight to see.
Here's a brief account by the ADL from 2011 plus a more recent update.
I need to correct myself. I was there at the time of the earlier 1992 suicide bombing of the Israeli Embassy in which 29 people were killed and 242 injured. The 1994 attack was even worse. Both had links to Iran.
The MSM has dubbed President Obama's plan to try to address income inequity the "Robin Hood" plan, as if he's a crook attempting to steal from the rich to give to the poor.
This attempt to describe an entirely appropriate adjustment to how wealth is piled up and on whose backs the wealthy trod in this country is both duplicitous and villainous, especially considering the fact that those who claim their maleficent monetary droit du seigneur have, in fact, rarely "built it" themselves, but owe a great deal to tax breaks that are paid for by the poor and middle class.
Time for these begrudgers to pay their own way.
This, however, the idea that the uber rich should pay an equitable share, is considered evil by the Republican Party, the Party of the Rich and the Party Against Equity at All Costs.
In which case, a president who tries to make things more equitable, is portrayed as a thief.
Because, for sure, every $15M/yr Goldman Sachs VP built all that on their own. And not a single of one of them is a thief, now, are they?
You may paint too black a picture, Akhilleus. Robin Hood is an uber hero to many. Including me.