The Commentariat -- May 3, 2014
Internal links, graphic removed.
CW: A reminder that the White House Correspondents' dinner is tonight. I'll carry it live here beginning at 8:00 pm.
Mark Landler of the New York Times: "Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany said Friday that there were still significant differences between Germany and the United States over the issue of surveillance, and warned that it was too soon to return to 'business as usual' between the two allies. At a joint news conference at the White House, both Ms. Merkel and President Obama addressed the tensions between the two countries caused by the disclosure last October that the National Security Agency had eavesdropped on Ms. Merkel’s phone calls":
David Sanger of the New York Times: Silicon Valley "was the subject of a new White House report about how technology and the crunching of big data about the lives of Americans -- from which websites they visit to where they drive their newly networked cars -- are enlarging the problem. At their core, the questions about the N.S.A. are strikingly similar to those about how Google, Yahoo, Facebook and thousands of application makers crunch their numbers. The difference is over the question of how far the government will go to restrain the growth of its own post-Sept. 11 capabilities, and whether it will decide the time has come to intrude on what private industry collects, in the name of protecting privacy or preventing new forms of discrimination." ...
... An earlier Times report on the White House paper, by Sanger & Steve Lohr, is here. ...
... Peter Baker of the New York Times: "President Obama declared this week's botched execution in Oklahoma 'deeply disturbing' and directed the attorney general on Friday to review how the death penalty is applied in the United States at a time when it has become increasingly debated.... Within hours, the Justice Department outlined a relatively narrow review focused on how executions are carried out rather assessing the entire system. But given Mr. Obama's broader comments, supporters and opponents wondered whether he might be foreshadowing an eventual shift in position by the time he leaves office, much as he dropped his opposition to same-sex marriage in 2012."
Upending Webster's. Benghaaazi! Wesley Lowrey of the Washington Post: "The House Republican leadership will form a select committee, likely to be led by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), to investigate the State Department's handling of the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic outpost in Libya." ...
se·lect: adjective \sə-ˈlekt\: of the highest quality -- Merriam-Webster
There is no way the House GOP can put together a 'select committee,' in the standard definition of the word 'select.' So form the git-go, the committee is bogus. -- Constant Weader
... Charles Pierce comments. ...
... Jed Lewison gets you up-to-date on the leadership's "reasons" for replacing Darrell Issa with Trey Gowdy. as Chief Benghazi Prosecutor. One possible motivation: Gowdy's "amazing hair." CW: Gowdy looks like a serial killer to me.
American "Justice," Ctd. Marc Bookman in Mother Jones on a Georgia case in which a mentally-disabled man is likely to be executed because his drunken, criminal, racist, deadbeat, lawyer failed to present mitigating evidence in the sentencing phase. And quite a number of Georgia judges are fine with that.
Hannity Supports Vigilante Double Murderer. Timothy Johnson of Media Matters: "Fox host Sean Hannity dismissed the murder convictions of a Minnesota homeowner[, Byron Smith,] who used excessive force in killing two teenagers who broke into his home, claiming with exasperation, 'They broke into the guy's house.' ... After spotting a neighbor he believed had previously burglarized his house, Smith moved his car to make his home seem unoccupied and then waited in his basement 'with a book, energy bars, a bottle of water and two guns.'" Johnson relates the horrifying details of the executions, which Smith audio-recorded. With video. ...
The guy should get a Medal of Freedom for what he did. -- Bernard McGurk, Imus producer & on-air personality, a Hannity guest for the segment
... CW: For those of you with strong stomachs, the New York Daily News has the audio of the executions here. I won't be listening. ...
... Digby, in Salon: "And to think it was the conservative movement that once fetishized 'law and order.' Of course it was always self-serving.... But it's still startling to see television anchors lauding a man who is clearly a murderous fiend and then sharing a good chuckle over the whole thing. Thanks to Barbarossa for the link. ...
... Nicole Flatow of Think Progress: "Seventeen-year-old Diren Dede lost his life Sunday, while in Missoula, Montana on a high school exchange program from Germany. He was shot dead at the home of Markus Kaarma, after Kaarma set a trap for intruders by intentionally leaving the garage open and placing a purse in clear view. After motion sensors detected someone in the garage, Kaarma shot Dede. And while he has since been charged with first degree murder, he is already invoking a Stand Your Ground-like defense.... Since the shooting Sunday, state lawmaker Ellie Hill (D) has already proposed a bill to repeal some provisions of [Montana's NRA-backed gun] law. More than two years after the shooting of Trayvon [Martin] made these laws famous, not a single state has successfully repealed a provision." ...
... CW: Hannity's producers are likely trying to book Kaarma now. This is what you get with permissive stand-your-ground/castle-doctrine laws: they encourage nuts -- like Hannity -- to believe they have a right to shoot anybody who enters their homes or steps in their yards uninvited. If no prey conveniently appear, just set a trap. The "moral majority" is murderously immoral. ...
... Too bad Montana's attractive-nuisance laws didn't get as much press attention as its permissive gun laws. Kaarma not only created an attractive nuisance to lure children to his home, he did so purposely.
... As Digby writes, "Looking for some really fun 21st century style 'hunting'? Set up a deer blind, only for people, and wait for a dumb teenager to wander into it. Then kill him, claiming you're 'standing your ground.' Premeditated murder is now legal in a whole bunch of states."
The Conspirator. James Stewart of the New York Times: Steve Jobs "was the driving force in a conspiracy to prevent competitors from poaching employees.... The anti-poaching pact was hardly Mr. Jobs[s only post-mortem brush with the law. His behavior was at the center of an e-book price-fixing conspiracy with major publishers. After a lengthy trial, a federal judge ruled last summer that 'Apple played a central role in facilitating and executing that conspiracy.' (Apple has appealed the decision. The publishers all settled the case.) ... In an email to James Murdoch, then an executive at News Corporation, which owned the publisher HarperCollins, Mr. Jobs offered what amounted to a classic case in price fixing.... Mr. Jobs also figured prominently in the options backdating scandal that rocked Silicon Valley eight years ago.... Five executives of other companies went to prison for backdating options, but Mr. Jobs was never charged."
A "Wall of Separation" Crumbles. Harold French in the Columbia Journalism Review. For Bloomberg "News," the motto is "All the news that fits our business interests." The business division kills its news division's investigative stories when they displease the Chinese government. Thanks to Safari for the link.
Congressional Race
Rod Meloni, et al., of WDIV Detroit: "Veteran U.S. Congressman John Conyers does not have enough signatures to get on the Aug. 5 primary ballot, according to Wayne County Clerk Cathy Garrett.... However, she said this is not the final decision on the issue. That will come by May 7, following an investigation into a formal challenge of Conyers' signatures. If he doesn't get on the ballot, Conyers will have to run as a write-in candidate for his 26th term.... At issue are two of Conyers' petition gatherers who apparently were not registered voters, as required by Michigan law, when they canvassed voters for signatures. That means any signatures they collected would be declared invalid...." ...
... CW: That may be Michigan law, but a reasonable judge will consider the intent of the signators & validate their signatures. In fairness, Conyers' staff is incompetent for outsourcing the petition-gathering to unqualified canvassers.
Beyond the Beltway
David Freedlander of the Daily Beast: "Wisconsin Republicans are set to vote on a measure this weekend that would affirm the state's right to secede from the union. Goodbye, U.S. of A., Hello U.S. of Cheese."
The President's Weekly Address
White House: "In this week's address, the President provides an update on the work his Administration has done to strengthen the economy and expand opportunity for hardworking Americans in this Year of Action":
News Ledes
New York Times: "Ukraine's security forces pressed their assault on pro-Russia militants in and around the separatist stronghold of Slovyansk on Saturday, even as the rebels freed seven European military observers and the Kremlin cited the deaths of dozens of people in Odessa as proof that Ukraine could no longer protect its citizens."
Reuters: "A U.S. bankruptcy judge on Friday urged settlement talks in a dispute between General Motors Co and plaintiffs seeking compensation for the lost value of their cars stemming from a massive recall over a faulty ignition switch, though neither side seemed ready to negotiate quite yet. Judge Robert Gerber, of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan, said he would welcome the prospect of a resolution that avoided a 'monstrous battle.'"
Share Article
Reader Comments (8)
Last night's Rattner opinion piece in the NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/03/opinion/end-corporate-taxation.html?hp&rref=opinion) offers this helpful advice: Since corporations have so well succeeded in avoiding taxation, let's just give up and eliminate corporate tax altogether.
After admitting that corporate tax avoidance--now an industry in itself-- hurts the ordinary citizen, Rattner makes a few suggestions, like eliminating the capital gains gift to shareholders, but admits they would be politically difficult (impossible?) to enact. So instead, he asks the individual taxpayer to make peace with the inevitable and lie back, supine, baring our collective throats to the blood-sucking corporate raiders .
Makes sense, I guess, to a Wall Street guru, but the real takeaway I get is another admission--this time from a member of corporate clan-- that international corporations are bigger than governments and there's little any of us can do about it.
Reminds me of the old comic "Grin and Bear It," but I'm not grinning.
The story of interference by Bloomberg executives into reporting done on the journalism side of the house represents a microcosm of what is no doubt going on, in varying degrees, no doubt, in other news gathering organizations. Fox is just the most extreme example. One Bloomberg representative reminded reporters that their core business was making money by selling to the Chinese. If serious reporting into nefarious dealings in the power centers of Beijing interferes with that goal, clearly, it will be dumbed down or killed.
The situation at Fox is even more transparent and far less painful to employees. The goal at Fox "News" is to ensure that conservative candidates win elections. Anything getting in the way of that goal is attacked or ignored. Unlike the real journalists at Bloomberg for whom the smothering of excellent reporting was a serious blow to their sense of professionalism and journalistic ethics, no such situatio n exists at Fox where there are no real reporters and no actual investigative reporting outside of screaming about the latest faux and manufactured outrages exists.
Other corporately controlled news organizations are not quite so obvious as Fox but does anyone doubt that were profits to suffer from the work of real jounalism, that someone wouldn't step in to try to rectify that situation?
Akhilleus, you have nutshelled our dilemma. If profits suffer at the hands of real journalism, that is reporting based on facts adduced in pursuit of truth, as long as journalism and education are "run like a business," truth will always suffer. Seems kinda obvious.
So the question: If we know the profit-motive and the pursuit of truth are antithetical, why pretend otherwise? Why not create and support institutions insulated sufficiently from the profit motive to be able to afford truth-seeking (even if that search were to go so far as to question the profit motive's universal efficacy)? Maybe even use some tax money (common resources used for the common good) to keep it afloat.
Let's experiment, maybe call those new institutions PBS or NPR....
If we were to do that, I'm sure the journalism-for-profit sector would be among the first to express admiration and appreciation for their new, unconventional competition....and maybe go one step further, flattering the truth-seekers by imitation...
Or maybe not....
On journalist and journalism autonomy, an interesting survey:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140501165559.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28Latest+Science+News+--+ScienceDaily%29
Rep. Janice Hahn walked out of the National Day of Prayer gathering after pointing her finger at James Dobson and giving him a what-for. Amazing grace––let's give Janice the coveted Stick-it-to-em" award for the week.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/02/1296378/-Congresswoman-storms-out-of-National-Day-of-Prayer-event-in-protest?detail=email</
Thank you C.W. for posting that Colbert video which is so funny and one of the best smack-downs of that smiley, smarmy, Watters guy who just delights in fishing out the "dumb people" (especially those in the higher education milieus) then comes running back to Bill where the two chuckle over these miscreants feeling so superior and self satisfied.
The New Canaan paper had a short piece about Paul Simon and Edie Brickell last week citing a police intervention in their home supposedly for domestic abuse of some kind. It wasn't clear what actually happened or who it was that called the police. Luckily this incident has not been in the national news and the couple themselves say it was nothing. Overzealous reporting once again. My daughter-in-law has had their children as students and found them wonderful kids; her parent conferences with Edie and Paul also went very well––Edie being more forthright than Paul.
Ken,
I can't say for sure, but it strikes me that the "both sides do it" viral infection that has set in to stay in most news operations may be not just tolerated, but to a large extent promoted, by MSM organizations so as to give the appearance of balance and to ameliorate any incipient outbreaks of actual journalism. How do they do this without having to actually call people on the carpet and read them the riot act, à la Roger Ailes? Easy. Promote sycophantic pretenders like Jonathan Karl and Chuck Todd, or hire outright partisan charlatans like Laura Ingraham and John Stossel to whip bullshit nothingburgers into horror shows of outrage.
One of the true successes of the Fox formula is the steady diet of such crap which serves two purposes. First, it satisfies their base's endless appetite for things to be outraged about, even if completely false or fabricated. Second, it operates as a useful distraction from the true outrages, first of which, is the party they support, and keeps their viewers from ever having to consider facts or differing points of view.
Other organizations have developed formulas of their own that allow them to appear to be serious journalistic enterprises, but which balance any real reporting with plenty of "both sides are to blame" bullshit so as not to upset anyone to the point where they call the CEO and complain.
PD,
I don't know what really went on between Edie Brickell and Paul Simon, but I did notice that right-wing websites were thrilled to report that Paul Simon (in their eyes a traitorous liberal) had been arrested for beating his wife, they loosing no opportunity to paint liberals as being "just the same" as misogynistic wingnuts. Ledes like "Still Crazy After All" flourished among the propeller hats.
Anyone who has been in the situation of being at the mercy of overzealous reporters looking for stories where there are none, can appreciate how far away from facts these tales can drift.
As I say, I have no idea what really went on (whatever it was being really none of my business anyway) but it seems that both parties left the courthouse in a state of composure and mutual affection, both declaring that it was nothing (I realize that this is often the case in situations of actual abuse, but that doesn't seem to be the case here).
There's a big difference between the spats all couples get into now and then and actual domestic abuse. At least progressives don't think that wives who are beaten should just shut up and take it.
Sorry, wingnuts.