Outrage of the Week: Wall Street crooks walk - again
Last week, one of my 10 reasons why Barack Obama does not deserve your vote was that he had utterly failed to prosecute Wall Street crooks; in fact he had refused to do so even when presented of clear evidence of outright fraud. So I guess this shouldn't be a surprise:
Back in January, Obama formed the Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group to “hold accountable” those financial institutions who crashed the economy through their arrogance, their conceit, their greed, and their multiple crimes. Now, a source close to the group says that, barring a “Hail Mary pass,” there will be no criminal charges arising from the panel.
Instead, the working group will focus on civil charges, which might - I choose to emphasize might - produce some kind of financial penalty, but no actual jail time for anyone.
Now, these settlements are almost never big enough; they are almost never as large as what the corporation gained from its criminality. But leave that aside. The fact is the money to pay these penalties will come from corporate accounts, from stockholders, from fees on investors. It will not come from the pockets of the corporate executives and CEOs.
So the people who actually made the decisions, who ripped off their clients and nearly brought down the entire economy, the people who actually committed the fraud, will pay absolutely no penalty. In fact, if you think this would even will hurt their careers, you haven't been paying attention.
So we not only have banks too big to fail, we have corporate executives too big to jail.
Again, this latest case probably shouldn't be a surprise - but it is still an outrage.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Left Side of the Aisle #73 - Part 3
Clarabell Award: two anti-gay rights bozos
Time for the Clarabell Award, given for acts of meritorious stupidity. There are two dishonorees this week, because they are both on the same theme.
The first is the chief prelate of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury. His name is Rowan Williams and he is stepping down in December after 10 years in the position. He of course has been interviewed looking back over his career.
During his tenure, the Church experienced some real divisions after the ordination of the first openly homosexual Anglican bishop. His name is Gene Robinson; he is an American. Williams expressed regret over that. He said he didn't do enough to prevent those divisions, he should have "gone to US sooner" and "engaged more directly."
But "engaged more" to what end? He doesn't say. But what got him his award is that he admitted that the Church has "not exactly been on the forefront of pressing for civic equality for homosexual people" and that was "wrong" - but he immediately turned around and reiterated the church's opposition to gay marriage.
Right. Now, I assume the Church is still against sex outside of marriage, so what he is saying is that "homosexual people" should have more "civic equality" so long as they don't actually act on their sexuality - that is, they should have more equality except in any areas related to the Church. This is like some corporate CEO saying LGBT folks should have more civil rights - except in areas related to employment.
Rowan Williams is a clown.
(Oh, and by the way: As one person commenting on this reminded us, religion is a lifestyle choice.)
Our other clown is Maryland state Representative Emmett C. Burns, Jr.
Maryland has an initiative on ballot this fall for marriage equality. Brandon Ayanbadajo, who is a linebacker for Baltimore Ravens, spoke out in favor of the initiative.
In response, Burns, who is a Democrat, sent a letter on his official stationery to the owner of the Ravens saying, and I quote
But there's a bit more on this: Ayanbadajo pushed back, tweeting that "Football is just my job, it's not who I am" and the Ravens, to the owner's credit, issued a statement supporting Ayanbadajo's right to free speech.
Even better, Chris Kluwe, who is the punter for the Minnesota Vikings, has been active in a campaign to oppose an anti-same sex marriage amendment on the ballot in Minnesota this year. He heard about the Ayanbadajo matter and wrote his own hilarious, profanity-filled letter to Burns. I can't quote much on it on the air, but I did want to include this, from the letter:
You should read the whole letter, it really is quite funny - but I have to add that it has no effect on the fact Maryland state Representative Emmett C. Burns, Jr. is a clown.
Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/08/rowan-williams-admits-fai_0_n_1866794.html
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/scarce/nfl-punters-scathing-profanity-laced-letter
Time for the Clarabell Award, given for acts of meritorious stupidity. There are two dishonorees this week, because they are both on the same theme.
The first is the chief prelate of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury. His name is Rowan Williams and he is stepping down in December after 10 years in the position. He of course has been interviewed looking back over his career.During his tenure, the Church experienced some real divisions after the ordination of the first openly homosexual Anglican bishop. His name is Gene Robinson; he is an American. Williams expressed regret over that. He said he didn't do enough to prevent those divisions, he should have "gone to US sooner" and "engaged more directly."
But "engaged more" to what end? He doesn't say. But what got him his award is that he admitted that the Church has "not exactly been on the forefront of pressing for civic equality for homosexual people" and that was "wrong" - but he immediately turned around and reiterated the church's opposition to gay marriage.
Right. Now, I assume the Church is still against sex outside of marriage, so what he is saying is that "homosexual people" should have more "civic equality" so long as they don't actually act on their sexuality - that is, they should have more equality except in any areas related to the Church. This is like some corporate CEO saying LGBT folks should have more civil rights - except in areas related to employment.
Rowan Williams is a clown.
(Oh, and by the way: As one person commenting on this reminded us, religion is a lifestyle choice.)
Our other clown is Maryland state Representative Emmett C. Burns, Jr.
Maryland has an initiative on ballot this fall for marriage equality. Brandon Ayanbadajo, who is a linebacker for Baltimore Ravens, spoke out in favor of the initiative.
In response, Burns, who is a Democrat, sent a letter on his official stationery to the owner of the Ravens saying, and I quote
I find it inconceivable that one of your players would publicly endorse same-sex marriageand later in same letter
I am requesting that you take the necessary action, as a franchise owner, to inhibit such expressions from your employee and that he be ordered to cease and desist such injurious actions.So a state Rep is using his position as a legislator to urge an employer to do whatever it takes to force an employee to just shut up on an issue of public importance. Just stating it is proof of how much of a clown is Maryland state Rep. Emmett C. Burns.
But there's a bit more on this: Ayanbadajo pushed back, tweeting that "Football is just my job, it's not who I am" and the Ravens, to the owner's credit, issued a statement supporting Ayanbadajo's right to free speech.
Even better, Chris Kluwe, who is the punter for the Minnesota Vikings, has been active in a campaign to oppose an anti-same sex marriage amendment on the ballot in Minnesota this year. He heard about the Ayanbadajo matter and wrote his own hilarious, profanity-filled letter to Burns. I can't quote much on it on the air, but I did want to include this, from the letter:
I can assure you that gay people getting married will have zero effect on your life. They won't come into your house and steal your children. They won't even overthrow the government in an orgy of hedonistic debauchery because all of a sudden they have the same legal rights as the other 90 percent of our population - rights like Social Security benefits, child care tax credits, Family and Medical Leave to take care of loved ones, and COBRA healthcare for spouses and children. You know what having these rights will make gays? Full-fledged American citizens.Right on, Chris Kluwe.
You should read the whole letter, it really is quite funny - but I have to add that it has no effect on the fact Maryland state Representative Emmett C. Burns, Jr. is a clown.
Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/08/rowan-williams-admits-fai_0_n_1866794.html
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/scarce/nfl-punters-scathing-profanity-laced-letter
Left Side of the Aisle #73 - Part 2
Good news on same-sex marriage
Here is a matter on which there has been a fair amount of good news of late: same-sex marriage. Two bits today.
You have heard of the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, which was passed under the administration of, and signed by, every Democrat's golden idol, Bill Clinton. The law defined marriage as one man and one woman for all purposes related to federal law and federal benefits.
There have not been several cases where DOMA was found to be unconstitutional on the grounds that it discriminates against and denies rights to an indentifiable group without any compelling state interest in doing so. And, credit where it's due, last year the Obama administration that it would no longer defend DOMA in court.
The immediate bit of good news involves one particular case, that of a woman in New York (where same-sex marriage is recognized) who had to pay $350,000 in estate taxes when her partner died because the federal government, in this case the IRS, refused to recognize her marriage.
Well, the Attorney General of Vermont said on September 7 that the state is filing a brief in support of the woman in the suit, urging court to find DOMA unconstitutional. His name is William Sorrell and he said that by depriving same-sex couples federal benefits, it unfairly discriminates against them. What's more, New York and Connecticut have also filed briefs urging that DOMA be struck down.
The other bit of good news comes out of Washington state. The state legislature has passed a law to recognize same-sex marriage in that state, but the law is facing a challenge in a referendum to be voted on in November.
A polling outfit called SurveyUSA recently asked likely voters in Washington state about this: “A new law passed by the legislature would allow same-sex couples to marry in Washington state. Should this law be approved? Or rejected?” The response: 56% Approve, 38% Reject, just 6% Not Sure. A solid lead.
Maybe even more important than the raw numbers, however, is something about the point spread. Back in July, SurveyUSA asked exactly the same question and found that "Approve" outpolled "Reject" by seven percentage points. Now that gap has grown to 18 percentage points.
The proponents of justice are not getting overconfident; they know they are likely to face a wave of scare tactics in the weeks leading up to the election. But 18 points is a huge gap to overcome and the fact that support for same-sex marriage appears to be growing in the state of Washington is definitely good news.
Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/08/defense-of-marriage-act-3_n_1866830.html
http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/2012/09/11/support-for-marriage-equality-strengthens-in-washington-state-but-are-we-there-yet/
Here is a matter on which there has been a fair amount of good news of late: same-sex marriage. Two bits today.
You have heard of the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, which was passed under the administration of, and signed by, every Democrat's golden idol, Bill Clinton. The law defined marriage as one man and one woman for all purposes related to federal law and federal benefits.
There have not been several cases where DOMA was found to be unconstitutional on the grounds that it discriminates against and denies rights to an indentifiable group without any compelling state interest in doing so. And, credit where it's due, last year the Obama administration that it would no longer defend DOMA in court.
The immediate bit of good news involves one particular case, that of a woman in New York (where same-sex marriage is recognized) who had to pay $350,000 in estate taxes when her partner died because the federal government, in this case the IRS, refused to recognize her marriage.
Well, the Attorney General of Vermont said on September 7 that the state is filing a brief in support of the woman in the suit, urging court to find DOMA unconstitutional. His name is William Sorrell and he said that by depriving same-sex couples federal benefits, it unfairly discriminates against them. What's more, New York and Connecticut have also filed briefs urging that DOMA be struck down.
The other bit of good news comes out of Washington state. The state legislature has passed a law to recognize same-sex marriage in that state, but the law is facing a challenge in a referendum to be voted on in November.
A polling outfit called SurveyUSA recently asked likely voters in Washington state about this: “A new law passed by the legislature would allow same-sex couples to marry in Washington state. Should this law be approved? Or rejected?” The response: 56% Approve, 38% Reject, just 6% Not Sure. A solid lead.
Maybe even more important than the raw numbers, however, is something about the point spread. Back in July, SurveyUSA asked exactly the same question and found that "Approve" outpolled "Reject" by seven percentage points. Now that gap has grown to 18 percentage points.
The proponents of justice are not getting overconfident; they know they are likely to face a wave of scare tactics in the weeks leading up to the election. But 18 points is a huge gap to overcome and the fact that support for same-sex marriage appears to be growing in the state of Washington is definitely good news.
Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/08/defense-of-marriage-act-3_n_1866830.html
http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/2012/09/11/support-for-marriage-equality-strengthens-in-washington-state-but-are-we-there-yet/
Left Side of the Aisle #73 - Part 1
Good news on voter rights
I'll start the week, as I like to do when the occasion arises, with some good news.
For over a year now I've been going on about the attempts by the right wing to limit access to the voting booth for anyone suspected of any sort of liberal leanings. A lot of that has been about these bogus "voter ID laws."
But last week, I mentioned how there are other tactics as well, such as the Florida law that put such restrictions on voter registration drives so severe that even the League of Women Voters gave up on them. Since such drives are the primary way new Democratic voters get registered in the state, the result was that new GOPper registrations were largely unaffected while new Democratic registrations crashed to a small fraction of what they had been.
What I missed in telling you that is that not long before, Federal District court Judge Robert Hinkle had issued a permanent injunction against the law after Florida agreed to drop its appeal of the temporary injunction he issued in August. The law is gone.
There is a downside: This comes rather late in game to have much effect this year - but any pushback against the reactionaries' campaign to prevent us from voting is good news.
Sources:
http://www.valleyadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=15606
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/federal-judge-will-permanently-remove-florida-voter-registration
I'll start the week, as I like to do when the occasion arises, with some good news.
For over a year now I've been going on about the attempts by the right wing to limit access to the voting booth for anyone suspected of any sort of liberal leanings. A lot of that has been about these bogus "voter ID laws."
But last week, I mentioned how there are other tactics as well, such as the Florida law that put such restrictions on voter registration drives so severe that even the League of Women Voters gave up on them. Since such drives are the primary way new Democratic voters get registered in the state, the result was that new GOPper registrations were largely unaffected while new Democratic registrations crashed to a small fraction of what they had been.
What I missed in telling you that is that not long before, Federal District court Judge Robert Hinkle had issued a permanent injunction against the law after Florida agreed to drop its appeal of the temporary injunction he issued in August. The law is gone.
There is a downside: This comes rather late in game to have much effect this year - but any pushback against the reactionaries' campaign to prevent us from voting is good news.
Sources:
http://www.valleyadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=15606
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/federal-judge-will-permanently-remove-florida-voter-registration
Left Side of the Aisle #73
Left Side of the Aisle
for the week of September 13 - 19, 2012
This week:
Good news on voter rights
http://www.valleyadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=15606
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/federal-judge-will-permanently-remove-florida-voter-registration
Good news on same-sex marriage
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/08/defense-of-marriage-act-3_n_1866830.html
http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/2012/09/11/support-for-marriage-equality-strengthens-in-washington-state-but-are-we-there-yet/
Clarabell Award: two anti-gay rights bozos
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/08/rowan-williams-admits-fai_0_n_1866794.html
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/scarce/nfl-punters-scathing-profanity-laced-letter
Outrage of the Week: Wall Street crooks walk - again
http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/09/10/criminal-prosecutions-not-happening-from-new-financial-fraud-task-force/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/08/criminal-charges-wall-street_n_1857926.html
First anniversary of Occupy Wall Street
http://www.juancole.com/2012/09/labor-day-question-are-you-better-off-than-you-were-in-1970.html
http://www.marxists.org/subject/humanism/mills-c-wright/power-elite.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_Elite
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-12-15/poor-census-low-income/51944034/1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potemkin_village
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/31/low-wage-jobs_n_1846733.html
http://www.correntewire.com/did_the_white_house_coordinate_the_police_crackdown_on_occupy
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/corporate-profit_b_1117741.html
http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/19498863/protesters-to-occupy-fannie-mae-headquarters-in-buckhead
http://occupywallst.org/
http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=10476
http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/31/news/economy/low-wage-jobs/?google_editors_picks=true
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/business/global/occupy-hong-kong-protesters-evicted.html
Friday, September 07, 2012
Left Side of the Aisle #72 - Part 5
Ten reasons why Barack Obama does not deserve your vote
Okay. Anyone who watches this show could surely come up with a multitude of reasons why no one should vote for Witless Romney. I'm going to tell you why no one should vote for our own president Hopey-Changey.
First, let me dispense with a couple of reasons people give why we should vote for him. One is the Lily Ledbetter act, the equal pay act. He didn't have a damn thing to do with getting that passed. It had passed Congress the year before, in 2008, but Bush vetoed it. Everyone knew it could and would be passed again in 2009. Yes, Obama signed it - which is a good thing - but quite bluntly he didn't have a single thing to do with getting it passed.
It's like when the Moon landing occurred in July 1969. It always annoyed me that it was Richard Nixon's name on that plaque that was left on the Moon. He had nothing to do with the project, nothing to do with the Mercury program or the Gemini program or the Apollo program, nothing at all. He just happened to be the president when the landing happened - so it was his name recorded for however many millennia it will be before that plaque turns to dust.
Same thing here: Obama deserves none of the credit for the Lily Ledbetter act.
Another one, one that particularly gripes me, is the claim "He ended the war in Iraq!" No, he didn't. In the fall of 2008, before the election, the Iraqis forced George Bush to accept a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq by the end of 2011. All Barack Obama did was stick to that timetable. He did nothing to create it, nothing to advance it, nothing to change it - which is notable only because the O crowd wanted to change it; they tried to push the Iraqis into allowing for troops to stay beyond the December 31, 2011 deadline. They failed. That is why the troops are out, that is why the was over. Not because of anything Obama did but because of what the Iraqis made George Bush do and because of what Barack Obama failed to do.
All right, so how about a few reasons why you should not vote for Obama.
One. He has presided over a massive expansion of government surveillance of our personal lives.
For example:
- William Binney, a former technical director at the NSA, said during a panel discussion at a conference in July that the agency was indeed collecting e-mails, Twitter writings, internet searches and other data belonging to Americans and indexing it.
- There is today being built in Bluffdale, Utah, a $2 billion center for the NSA designed to intercept, decipher, analyze, and store vast swaths of the world’s communications as they pass through international, foreign, and domestic networks. It should be up and running in a year. This is the realization of the “total information awareness” program created during the Bush administration, which was killed by howls of protest from the now-silent liberals.
- Already operating in several cities is a surveillance system called Trapwire, designed to pick up and transport data to a central database center, where it will be combined with other intelligence "for the purpose of," quoting a press release, "identifying patterns of behavior that are indicative of pre-attack planning.” Shades of Minority Report.
Two. He has engaged in an unprecedented attack on whistleblowers.
The Obama administration has already charged six people under the Espionage Act for allegedly leaking classified information. That is literally twice as many such cases as were seen under all previous administrations combined across the entire history of the act, which dates to 1917.
Three. Related to that, he has abused secrecy.
He has claimed to be an advocate of government transparency and oversight, he promised the most transparent administration ever, but Obama has instead established the most secretive administration of modern times, with major programs and policies - especially as related to the use of military force - carried out without public debate or even knowledge. And he has done it, it has been noted, more thoroughly and effectively than anyone might have imagined.
Four. He has waged secret wars in Yemen and Somalia and has dramatically expanded the drone war on Pakistan.
Before Barack Obama came into office, there had been one US military strike in Yemen. During his administration there have been as many as 110.
Under George Bush, there were 50 drone strikes in Pakistan. Under Barack Obama, there have been 294.
Under Bush, there were 429 casualties from those strikes. Under Obama, there have been 2,133.
Five. He has failed to prosecute war criminals and torturers.
After coming into office loudly declaring "nobody is above the law," Obama immediately set out to actively shield the war criminals of the Bush gang - including those who tortured prisoners - not only from criminal prosecution, but from Congressional investigations and private civil suits as well.
The final page of this disgusting chapter was written on August 30, when the DOJ announced it was ending its investigation into the only two cases relating to the torture regime that it even considered prosecuting. Those cases, both involving detainees who were killed by their interrogators, one by freezing and one by asphyxiation, were the only two of over 100 such deaths that even got to the point of being investigated. As far as the Obama administration is concerned, torture, it seems, is not a crime - if we do it.
Six. He has engineered the widest, most serious expansion of executive power ever, to a degree Bush and Cheney only dreamed of.
He claimed he was against the Patriot Act but when it came up for renewal, he supported it. Under the NDAA, which he signed, he has the power to indefinitely detain without trial or even charge, anyone he in his personal, unreviewable, judgment deems to be giving "substantial support" to some terrorist or "associated forces," whatever they are. He has even asserted the authority to kill anyone, including American citizens on foreign soil, if again in his personal, unreviewable, judgment that person is a terrorist.
Seven. He has beaten the war drums against Iran, talking about "red lines" and staging large-scale military maneuvers in the Persian Gulf.
This despite the fact that US officials will admit when asked directly that there is no evidence that Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon - and bluntly, if it were, why would that give us the right to launch an attack? Why do we get to say who can have nuclear weapons and who can't? Sitting on what is still the world's most destructive nuclear arsenal doesn't exactly give us any moral high ground.
It goes beyond tough talk. On Obama's orders, the US released the Stuxnet worm, a computer worm, into Iran's nuclear facilities to shut down and damage its computer-controlled centrifuges.
In May 2011 the Pentagon declared that if some country engaged in a cyber attack on the US, it could be considered an "act of war." Which means Obama's program on Iran has included committing outright acts of war.
Eight. He has failed to prosecute Wall Street crooks.
In fact, the administration went so far as to specifically refuse to follow up on criminal referrals from the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission regarding one of Goldman Sachs' mortgage deals and to insist it could find no evidence of crimes in the report of a Senate investigation that included emails from Goldman Sachs proving the company had defrauded investors.
The bankers got away with, in the words of one source, "theft, wire fraud, bank fraud, loan fraud, securities fraud, and commodities fraud" while millions of Americans lost their life savings and their homes.
The banks are right back at the same rigged game that got us into this mess. The too-big-to-fail banks are even bigger. And Obama's plan to deal with this is to replace Tim Geithner with Erskine Bowles.
Nine. While he's all tough and macho in private and when dealing with whistleblowers, when it comes to public policy, to in-the-trenches policy debates, he's a damn wimp, surrendering to the GOPpers at every turn, often even before the game has started.
In many cases, it's not so much what he failed to do that infuriates people like me, it's that he never tried in the first place. If someone fights the good fight and loses, that's forgivable, even admirable. To talk the talk and not even try to walk to walk is neither.
An obvious example is the public option in health insurance reform. Feeble as such an option is compared to an actual national health service, it still would be clearly better than what we got - but he gave it up, openly surrendered on it, before the actual Congressional debate even began.
Another, even starker case, is the stimulus package. The head of the Council of Economic Advisers, Christina Romer, said that $1.8 trillion was needed for a real stimulus, one that would really rally the economy. That was rejected as not politically feasible. Eventually, the proposal was $800 billion because that's what they thought would pass.
So we got a stimulus the administration had been specifically told was less than half of what was needed because the O crowd couldn't be bothered to fight for anything better. The result was that, yes, the stimulus did keep things from being worse than they otherwise would have - but it wasn't nearly enough to make things better and we are still stuck in the most anemic "recovery" in a heck of a long time, one that looks no better than the recession that supposedly had ended.
I've said before: We need less Kumbaya and more Lyndon Johnson.
Finally, ten. Get it through your thick skulls: Barack Obama wants to cut Social Security! He wants to cut Medicare! He has whined that he doesn't get enough credit for being so willing to do so!
So there you have ten good reasons why Barack Obama does not deserve your vote.
And if I've gotten you depressed, welcome to reality.
Sources:
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drone-data/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/31/us-cia-detainee-prison-death
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/31/obama-justice-department-immunity-bush-cia-torturer
http://www.fair.org/blog/2011/12/21/cbs-panetta-and-hypothetical-iranian-nukes/
http://www.fair.org/blog/2012/08/31/burying-the-most-important-news-on-irans-nuclear-program/
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4501
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/netanyahu-chance-of-conflict-with-iran-depends-on-how-clearly-red-line-is-drawn.premium-1.462503
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304563104576355623135782718.html
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/06/obamas-whistleblowers-stuxnet-leaks-drones
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9518511/Barack-Obama-poised-to-announce-the-red-lines-that-would-trigger-a-US-attack-on-Iran.html
http://my.firedoglake.com/masaccio/2012/09/04/the-democratic-platforms-nonsense-on-banks/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/02/barack-obama-politics_n_1847947.html?ref=topbar
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/data-bytes/social-security-bytes/recession-weak-economy-behind-revision-of-social-securitys-projected-shortfall-to-2033
http://strengthensocialsecurity.org/social-security-faq#l
Left Side of the Aisle #72 - Part 4
Outrage of the Week: DOJ ends investigation of Arpaio without charges
Federal authorities have dropped their investigation into abuse-of-power allegations against Joe Arpaio, the self-proclaimed "America's toughest sheriff." He is the sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona.
The probe focused on his so-called anti-public-corruption squad, the targets of which always seemed to be people who were having conflicts with Arpaio.
In the central case, Arpaio and his top ally, former County Attorney Andrew Thomas, had been embroiled in a three-year feud with county officials and judges.
At one point, one of those judges, Superior Court Judge Gary Donahoe, disqualified Thomas from handling an investigation into the construction of a court building and was preparing to appoint a special prosecutor. In the wake of that disqualification, criminal charges, supposedly based on an investigation by that supposed "anti-public-corruption squad," were filed against the judge and two county supervisors. Notably, the charges were dismissed on the grounds that Thomas had filed them for political gain and to embarrass the targets. He was disbarred in April as a direct result.
But despite being the source of those charges, Arpaio is going to skate - what's more, the feds have also dropped investigations into allegations of misuse of county credit cards by sheriff's officials, misspending of jail-enhancement funds, and other matters. Deploying the Sergeant Schultz gambit, the DOJ insisted that, quoting the statement, "we do not believe the allegations presented to us are prosecutable as crimes." ("We see NOTHING!")
Critics wondered why, if the DOJ was so sure of that, that the announcement was made at 5pm on the Friday before a holiday weekend and just before the Democratic convention, a time when the announcement was guaranteed to get as little notice as possible.
Arpaio is not out of the woods - or the cacti - yet: The feds have also accused his office of a wide range of civil rights violations, including racially profiling Latinos, retaliating against critics of its immigration patrols, and basing those immigration patrols on racially charged citizen complaints that did not allege crimes. Meanwhile, perhaps more significantly since it doesn't depend on the wimps at the DOJ, there is a civil suit brought by a group of Latinos who claim Arpaio and his deputies engaged in racial profiling.
But for now, this power-hungry, self-celebrating, bigoted jerk can still strut his stuff. And that is an outrage.
Sources:
http://www.arpaio.com/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/31/joe-arpaio-investigation-_n_1848384.html
Federal authorities have dropped their investigation into abuse-of-power allegations against Joe Arpaio, the self-proclaimed "America's toughest sheriff." He is the sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona.
The probe focused on his so-called anti-public-corruption squad, the targets of which always seemed to be people who were having conflicts with Arpaio.
In the central case, Arpaio and his top ally, former County Attorney Andrew Thomas, had been embroiled in a three-year feud with county officials and judges.
At one point, one of those judges, Superior Court Judge Gary Donahoe, disqualified Thomas from handling an investigation into the construction of a court building and was preparing to appoint a special prosecutor. In the wake of that disqualification, criminal charges, supposedly based on an investigation by that supposed "anti-public-corruption squad," were filed against the judge and two county supervisors. Notably, the charges were dismissed on the grounds that Thomas had filed them for political gain and to embarrass the targets. He was disbarred in April as a direct result.
But despite being the source of those charges, Arpaio is going to skate - what's more, the feds have also dropped investigations into allegations of misuse of county credit cards by sheriff's officials, misspending of jail-enhancement funds, and other matters. Deploying the Sergeant Schultz gambit, the DOJ insisted that, quoting the statement, "we do not believe the allegations presented to us are prosecutable as crimes." ("We see NOTHING!")
Critics wondered why, if the DOJ was so sure of that, that the announcement was made at 5pm on the Friday before a holiday weekend and just before the Democratic convention, a time when the announcement was guaranteed to get as little notice as possible.
Arpaio is not out of the woods - or the cacti - yet: The feds have also accused his office of a wide range of civil rights violations, including racially profiling Latinos, retaliating against critics of its immigration patrols, and basing those immigration patrols on racially charged citizen complaints that did not allege crimes. Meanwhile, perhaps more significantly since it doesn't depend on the wimps at the DOJ, there is a civil suit brought by a group of Latinos who claim Arpaio and his deputies engaged in racial profiling.
But for now, this power-hungry, self-celebrating, bigoted jerk can still strut his stuff. And that is an outrage.
Sources:
http://www.arpaio.com/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/31/joe-arpaio-investigation-_n_1848384.html
Left Side of the Aisle #72 - Part 3
Clarabell Award: SC legislator ignores racism in constituent email
Now for the Clarabell Award, given as needed for acts of meritorious stupidity. I've already mentioned this week's dishonoree: Alan Clemmons, the South Carolina state legislator who was the main sponsor for South Carolina's voter ID law.
In his testimony in the suit over that law, he was presented with the text of an email sent to him by a supporter. It said
The email went on to say that all the state legislature had to do is give
Clemmons said his words were a "poorly considered response." I'll say. But here's what got me about this and got him this week's award: When asked if he should have considered getting into a debate over the "swarm of bees" comment, Clemmons said, "I didn't think it was the time nor the place" to do so.
Well, first off, what would be the time and place? But more to the point, if he had said that "I really didn't look at it, I didn't read it closely, I just registered 'constituent agrees, send thank you,'" that might have seemed disingenuous, but at least it would be plausible. But by saying "it wasn't the time or place" to deal with it, he's admitting he was aware of the remark, aware of it's racist nature - and at best he deliberately ignored it if in fact he didn't endorse it.
I'll ask again: What is the right time and place to challenge racism if it's not when you are presented with racism? I know one person not to bother to ask that question: Alan Clemmons, clown.
Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/29/alan-clemmons-voter-id-law_n_1839375.html
Now for the Clarabell Award, given as needed for acts of meritorious stupidity. I've already mentioned this week's dishonoree: Alan Clemmons, the South Carolina state legislator who was the main sponsor for South Carolina's voter ID law.In his testimony in the suit over that law, he was presented with the text of an email sent to him by a supporter. It said
I don't buy that garbage that if a poor black person or an elderly one, that these people won't be able to get one. You listen to that big racist Clyburn and Harpootlian talk and they make it sound like these people are too stupid to get one."That big racist Clyburn" is African-American and civil rights hero Rep. James Clyburn; Dick Harpootlian is the Democratic Party Chairman for South Carolina.
The email went on to say that all the state legislature had to do is give
a hundred dollar bill away if you came down with a voter ID card, and you would see how fast they got voter ID cards with their picture. It would be like a swarm of bees going after a watermelon.Faced with this email containing, as he himself admitted in his testimony, "more than a hint" of racism, Clemmons wrote back "Amen. Thank you for your support of voter ID."
Clemmons said his words were a "poorly considered response." I'll say. But here's what got me about this and got him this week's award: When asked if he should have considered getting into a debate over the "swarm of bees" comment, Clemmons said, "I didn't think it was the time nor the place" to do so.
Well, first off, what would be the time and place? But more to the point, if he had said that "I really didn't look at it, I didn't read it closely, I just registered 'constituent agrees, send thank you,'" that might have seemed disingenuous, but at least it would be plausible. But by saying "it wasn't the time or place" to deal with it, he's admitting he was aware of the remark, aware of it's racist nature - and at best he deliberately ignored it if in fact he didn't endorse it.
I'll ask again: What is the right time and place to challenge racism if it's not when you are presented with racism? I know one person not to bother to ask that question: Alan Clemmons, clown.
Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/29/alan-clemmons-voter-id-law_n_1839375.html
Left Side of the Aisle #72 - Part 2
Voter ID: Some good news, some bad news
I have been talking about these voter ID laws that a number of states have passed recently that have the effect of making it harder for what are generally regarded as liberal-leaning constituencies - the young, the poor, and minorities - to vote. These laws also significantly impact the elderly. While the elderly are not always thought of as a liberal constituency, on matters like Social Security and Medicare - both of which the right wing would love to destroy - they damn well are.
Well, there are actually some bits of good news on this.
For one, there is a Texas law that requires voters to present a photo ID in order to vote in November. On August 29 a three-judge panel of a federal appeals court in Washington, DC, ruled that this law imposes "strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor" and struck it down.
A different panel of the same court is hearing a case involving South Carolina's attempt to suppress minority voting. Because of its history of racial discrimination, changes to South Carolina's election laws have to be approved by the Justice Department. The DOJ blocked the state's new voter ID law on the grounds that it was discriminatory. The state sued in federal court to overturn the DOJ's decision.
It hasn't been going too well for the state. One witness, South Carolina Election Commission Executive Director Marci Andino, admitted that the voter ID law could not prevent voter fraud, and that she had never seen a case of credible in-person fraud. Another witness, Alan Clemmons, a state representative and main sponsor of the law, admitted under cross-examination that he had no proof of anyone casting ballots fraudulently. He was also presented with evidence that he at one time had been handing out bags of peanuts with cards attached that read, "Stop Obama’s nutty agenda and support voter ID" - which pretty clearly shows an intended connection between voter ID and political gain.
The day after the Texas decision, a district court in Ohio ordered that state to restore in-person voting in the last weekend before the election. That had been the law since after the 2004 elections, but this year the state tried to restrict the option just to members of the military and citizens living abroad. The judge found the change "arbitrary" and that the state had failed to show any compelling interest in the restrictions.
Not all news on this topic is good, however. Unfortunately if perhaps unsurprisingly, Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted announced Tuesday that the state would not comply with the ruling until an appellate court rules on the matter. I frankly suspect that the hope is to delay such a ruling until a time so close to the election that people will already be conditioned to the idea that they can't do early voting those days so that even if the state loses, as it should, it won't make any difference. This is the state, remember, that tried to extend hours for early voting in GOPper districts and limit them in Democratic districts.
What's more, voter ID laws are not the only way access to the voting booth is being restricted. One other way is creating roadblocks to getting people registered. Florida, for example, put new restrictions on voter registration drives so severe that even the League of Women Voters gave up on trying. And if you don't think that has a political impact, check this:
This simple bar graph - and I will tell you, it's not precisely to scale, it's just to give the idea - is of new major party voter registration in Florida in the 13 months leading up to the previous two and the current presidential election campaigns. In each case, the period covered was actually from July 1 of the previous year to July 31 of the election year.
As you can see, there were about 159,000 new voters registered as Democrats and about 112,000 registered as GOPpers in the run-up to the 2004 election.
In the 13 months leading up to the 2008 election campaign, there were a good number of new Democratic party registrations - which is not surprising, considering the enthusiasm around the Obama campaign. There were roughly the same number for the GOPpers as the previous occasion.
Between then and now, Florida instituted its restrictions on voter registration drives. The result is clear: While in the year leading up to this campaign the GOP again got new registrations in the same ballpark as previously, new Democratic party registrations crashed to just 11,000.
The point here is, these laws work. They have real world consequences. They really do impact the ability of people - of, to be more exact, the people the right wing does not want to be able to vote - to be able to register and to vote. These laws are not merely annoyances and they are not merely "misguided." They are part of a deliberate, a conscious, campaign to deny the vote to certain groups of people so to create a permanent, structural bias in our election system in favor of the right wing and its corporate backers and the 1% who own them.
They matter.
Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/30/texas-voter-id-law_n_1843331.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/29/alan-clemmons-voter-id-law_n_1839375.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/31/ohio-obama-early-voting-lawsuit_n_1821882.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/04/ohio-voting_n_1855238.html
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/msnbc/48821773/#48821229
I have been talking about these voter ID laws that a number of states have passed recently that have the effect of making it harder for what are generally regarded as liberal-leaning constituencies - the young, the poor, and minorities - to vote. These laws also significantly impact the elderly. While the elderly are not always thought of as a liberal constituency, on matters like Social Security and Medicare - both of which the right wing would love to destroy - they damn well are.
Well, there are actually some bits of good news on this.
For one, there is a Texas law that requires voters to present a photo ID in order to vote in November. On August 29 a three-judge panel of a federal appeals court in Washington, DC, ruled that this law imposes "strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor" and struck it down.
A different panel of the same court is hearing a case involving South Carolina's attempt to suppress minority voting. Because of its history of racial discrimination, changes to South Carolina's election laws have to be approved by the Justice Department. The DOJ blocked the state's new voter ID law on the grounds that it was discriminatory. The state sued in federal court to overturn the DOJ's decision.
It hasn't been going too well for the state. One witness, South Carolina Election Commission Executive Director Marci Andino, admitted that the voter ID law could not prevent voter fraud, and that she had never seen a case of credible in-person fraud. Another witness, Alan Clemmons, a state representative and main sponsor of the law, admitted under cross-examination that he had no proof of anyone casting ballots fraudulently. He was also presented with evidence that he at one time had been handing out bags of peanuts with cards attached that read, "Stop Obama’s nutty agenda and support voter ID" - which pretty clearly shows an intended connection between voter ID and political gain.
The day after the Texas decision, a district court in Ohio ordered that state to restore in-person voting in the last weekend before the election. That had been the law since after the 2004 elections, but this year the state tried to restrict the option just to members of the military and citizens living abroad. The judge found the change "arbitrary" and that the state had failed to show any compelling interest in the restrictions.
Not all news on this topic is good, however. Unfortunately if perhaps unsurprisingly, Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted announced Tuesday that the state would not comply with the ruling until an appellate court rules on the matter. I frankly suspect that the hope is to delay such a ruling until a time so close to the election that people will already be conditioned to the idea that they can't do early voting those days so that even if the state loses, as it should, it won't make any difference. This is the state, remember, that tried to extend hours for early voting in GOPper districts and limit them in Democratic districts.
What's more, voter ID laws are not the only way access to the voting booth is being restricted. One other way is creating roadblocks to getting people registered. Florida, for example, put new restrictions on voter registration drives so severe that even the League of Women Voters gave up on trying. And if you don't think that has a political impact, check this:
This simple bar graph - and I will tell you, it's not precisely to scale, it's just to give the idea - is of new major party voter registration in Florida in the 13 months leading up to the previous two and the current presidential election campaigns. In each case, the period covered was actually from July 1 of the previous year to July 31 of the election year.As you can see, there were about 159,000 new voters registered as Democrats and about 112,000 registered as GOPpers in the run-up to the 2004 election.
In the 13 months leading up to the 2008 election campaign, there were a good number of new Democratic party registrations - which is not surprising, considering the enthusiasm around the Obama campaign. There were roughly the same number for the GOPpers as the previous occasion.
Between then and now, Florida instituted its restrictions on voter registration drives. The result is clear: While in the year leading up to this campaign the GOP again got new registrations in the same ballpark as previously, new Democratic party registrations crashed to just 11,000.
The point here is, these laws work. They have real world consequences. They really do impact the ability of people - of, to be more exact, the people the right wing does not want to be able to vote - to be able to register and to vote. These laws are not merely annoyances and they are not merely "misguided." They are part of a deliberate, a conscious, campaign to deny the vote to certain groups of people so to create a permanent, structural bias in our election system in favor of the right wing and its corporate backers and the 1% who own them.
They matter.
Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/30/texas-voter-id-law_n_1843331.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/29/alan-clemmons-voter-id-law_n_1839375.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/31/ohio-obama-early-voting-lawsuit_n_1821882.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/04/ohio-voting_n_1855238.html
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/msnbc/48821773/#48821229
Left Side of the Aisle #72 - Part 1
Good news: "Personhood" petition fails in Colorado
A few years ago, the right wingers of the Colorado Personhood Coalition got a so-called "personhood" question on the statewide ballot. It would have amended the state constitution to ban all abortions, even for rape and incest. It lost by a margin of about 3-1.
Undeterred, a year or two later the coalition again got essentially the same question on the ballot - and again it lost by a roughly 3-1 margin.
Undeterred, they tried again this year. But apparently, this time the response of Coloradans was "What, you again?" This year's version, which not only would ban all abortions but also some fertility treatments along with stem-cell research, didn't even make the ballot. The petition fell nearly 4,000 names short of the required number.
The anti-freedom forces are of course going to appeal and challenge the decision by the Colorado Secretary of State's office. Even if they do somehow manage to get on the ballot - again - early polling has the measure going down to defeat by a 2-1 margin.
Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/29/colorado-personhood-amend_n_1840602.html
A few years ago, the right wingers of the Colorado Personhood Coalition got a so-called "personhood" question on the statewide ballot. It would have amended the state constitution to ban all abortions, even for rape and incest. It lost by a margin of about 3-1.
Undeterred, a year or two later the coalition again got essentially the same question on the ballot - and again it lost by a roughly 3-1 margin.
Undeterred, they tried again this year. But apparently, this time the response of Coloradans was "What, you again?" This year's version, which not only would ban all abortions but also some fertility treatments along with stem-cell research, didn't even make the ballot. The petition fell nearly 4,000 names short of the required number.
The anti-freedom forces are of course going to appeal and challenge the decision by the Colorado Secretary of State's office. Even if they do somehow manage to get on the ballot - again - early polling has the measure going down to defeat by a 2-1 margin.
Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/29/colorado-personhood-amend_n_1840602.html
Left Side of the Aisle #72
Left Side of the Aisle
for the week of September 6 - 12, 2012
This week:
Good news: "Personhood" petition fails in Colorado
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/29/colorado-personhood-amend_n_1840602.html
Voter ID: Some good news, some bad news
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/30/texas-voter-id-law_n_1843331.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/29/alan-clemmons-voter-id-law_n_1839375.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/31/ohio-obama-early-voting-lawsuit_n_1821882.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/04/ohio-voting_n_1855238.html
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/msnbc/48821773/#48821229
Clarabell Award: SC legislator ignores racism in constituent email
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/29/alan-clemmons-voter-id-law_n_1839375.html
Outrage of the Week: DOJ ends investigation of Arpaio without charges
http://www.arpaio.com/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/31/joe-arpaio-investigation-_n_1848384.html
Ten reasons why Barack Obama does not deserve your vote
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/25/obama-national-security_n_1701888.html
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/07/binney-on-alexander-and-nsa/
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/?utm_source=Contextly&utm_medium=RelatedLinks&utm_campaign=Previous
http://rt.com/usa/news/stratfor-trapwire-abraxas-wikileaks-313/
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/09/obamas_unprecedented_war_on_whistleblowers/
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drone-data/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/31/us-cia-detainee-prison-deaths
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/31/obama-justice-department-immunity-bush-cia-torturer
http://www.fair.org/blog/2011/12/21/cbs-panetta-and-hypothetical-iranian-nukes/
http://www.fair.org/blog/2012/08/31/burying-the-most-important-news-on-irans-nuclear-program/
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4501
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/netanyahu-chance-of-conflict-with-iran-depends-on-how-clearly-red-line-is-drawn.premium-1.462503
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304563104576355623135782718.html
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/06/obamas-whistleblowers-stuxnet-leaks-drones
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9518511/Barack-Obama-poised-to-announce-the-red-lines-that-would-trigger-a-US-attack-on-Iran.html
http://my.firedoglake.com/masaccio/2012/09/04/the-democratic-platforms-nonsense-on-banks/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/02/barack-obama-politics_n_1847947.html?ref=topbar
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/data-bytes/social-security-bytes/recession-weak-economy-behind-revision-of-social-securitys-projected-shortfall-to-2033
http://strengthensocialsecurity.org/social-security-faq#l
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Left Side of the Aisle #71 - Part 4
Global warming: Former skeptic says increasing temperatures almost entirely due to human activity
There is so much to talk about, so many things that should be said, that should be covered.
There is the Israeli court that blamed Rachel Corrie for her own killing. I haven't talked about the economy in weeks. There are threats to privacy, both from corporations and the government. There are the interrelated issues of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, and Bradley Manning. We are seeing increasing restrictions on the right of public protest, including at the GOPper national convention.
But this is something I have been putting off for weeks because something else always seemed more important. I promised myself I was going to include it this week.
It's about global warming, another topic I have talked about a lot but have neglected recently.
A while back, In February, in fact, I told you about Richard Muller, a professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, who put together a group that he said was going to re-examine all the temperature data on which arguments for global warming had been based because he doubted the data was accurate. Well, this is what happened: The left graph plots the rise in temperatures since the mid-1800s as shown by three different data sets. The right graph shows what happened when Muller's analysis was added. (Click on each for a larger view.)
Oops.
Muller had to admit that the earlier data was accurate.
So why am I bringing this up now? Because a month ago - which is how long I've been wanting to report on this - Muller wrote in the New York Times "Call me a converted skeptic." He not only agrees that the temperature data is correct, as he did earlier, he now also agrees that "Humans are almost entirely the cause."
It's another example of what happens when someone looks at the data with their eyes instead of their ideological biases. When you do that, there is only one answer that comes out: Global warming is real, it's happening now, and we are in serious, serious trouble.
How serious? Consider this: Climatologists say we should, in fact must, keep the temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius to head off the worst effects of global warming. It's estimated that humans can dump another 565 gigatons or so of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by around 2050 and still have a reasonable hope of staying below that two degree mark.
However, current - not projected, but current - economic plans for oil and gas production and extraction worldwide would add 2,795 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere in that same time. We are in deep trouble.
Meanwhile, the data keeps piling up. Already this year the extent of Arctic Ocean ice is at the lowest level ever recorded - and the ice is going to continue to melt (and so the extent shrink) for some more weeks. Not only is this direct evidence of warming, the impacts could potentially be felt far away. Arctic sea ice helps moderate temperatures further south in both the winter and summer. A study earlier this year in the peer-reviewed journal Geophysical Research Letters linked reduced Arctic sea ice to higher probabilities of extreme weather "such as drought, flooding, cold spells, and heat waves."
And speaking of probabilities, here's a factoid for you to wrap things up for this week: July was the 329th consecutive month in which the average temperature of the entire globe exceeded the 20th century average for that month. The odds of that occurring by simple chance are one in 3.7 x 1099. Write down a 3, then a 7, and then put 98 zeros after it. A quadrillion is a thousand trillion. So this number is three billion, seven hundred million, quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion. You could think of it as about one-third of a googal, if you like. It's that number on the left and it is a number larger than the estimated number of stars in the universe - and if you deny global warming, those are the odds that you are betting against: one in that many.
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/27/arctic-sea-ice-melt-2012_n_1833260.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googol
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2012/02/left-side-of-aisle-41.html [beginning at roughly 16:30 in the video]
There is so much to talk about, so many things that should be said, that should be covered.
There is the Israeli court that blamed Rachel Corrie for her own killing. I haven't talked about the economy in weeks. There are threats to privacy, both from corporations and the government. There are the interrelated issues of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, and Bradley Manning. We are seeing increasing restrictions on the right of public protest, including at the GOPper national convention.
But this is something I have been putting off for weeks because something else always seemed more important. I promised myself I was going to include it this week.
It's about global warming, another topic I have talked about a lot but have neglected recently.
A while back, In February, in fact, I told you about Richard Muller, a professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, who put together a group that he said was going to re-examine all the temperature data on which arguments for global warming had been based because he doubted the data was accurate. Well, this is what happened: The left graph plots the rise in temperatures since the mid-1800s as shown by three different data sets. The right graph shows what happened when Muller's analysis was added. (Click on each for a larger view.)Oops.
Muller had to admit that the earlier data was accurate.
So why am I bringing this up now? Because a month ago - which is how long I've been wanting to report on this - Muller wrote in the New York Times "Call me a converted skeptic." He not only agrees that the temperature data is correct, as he did earlier, he now also agrees that "Humans are almost entirely the cause."
It's another example of what happens when someone looks at the data with their eyes instead of their ideological biases. When you do that, there is only one answer that comes out: Global warming is real, it's happening now, and we are in serious, serious trouble.
How serious? Consider this: Climatologists say we should, in fact must, keep the temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius to head off the worst effects of global warming. It's estimated that humans can dump another 565 gigatons or so of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by around 2050 and still have a reasonable hope of staying below that two degree mark.
However, current - not projected, but current - economic plans for oil and gas production and extraction worldwide would add 2,795 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere in that same time. We are in deep trouble.
Meanwhile, the data keeps piling up. Already this year the extent of Arctic Ocean ice is at the lowest level ever recorded - and the ice is going to continue to melt (and so the extent shrink) for some more weeks. Not only is this direct evidence of warming, the impacts could potentially be felt far away. Arctic sea ice helps moderate temperatures further south in both the winter and summer. A study earlier this year in the peer-reviewed journal Geophysical Research Letters linked reduced Arctic sea ice to higher probabilities of extreme weather "such as drought, flooding, cold spells, and heat waves."
And speaking of probabilities, here's a factoid for you to wrap things up for this week: July was the 329th consecutive month in which the average temperature of the entire globe exceeded the 20th century average for that month. The odds of that occurring by simple chance are one in 3.7 x 1099. Write down a 3, then a 7, and then put 98 zeros after it. A quadrillion is a thousand trillion. So this number is three billion, seven hundred million, quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion. You could think of it as about one-third of a googal, if you like. It's that number on the left and it is a number larger than the estimated number of stars in the universe - and if you deny global warming, those are the odds that you are betting against: one in that many.Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/27/arctic-sea-ice-melt-2012_n_1833260.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googol
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2012/02/left-side-of-aisle-41.html [beginning at roughly 16:30 in the video]
Left Side of the Aisle #71 - Part 3
Clarabell Award: GOP Senate candidate says having child out of wedlock "similar" to pregnancy from rape; miners required to attend Romney rally, lose day's pay; Nebraska schools want deaf 3-year-old to change his name because they claim the sign for his name looks like a gun
I had several candidates for the award this week, an embarrassment of embarrassments, as it were - but remembering that the standard for the Clarabell Award is meritorious stupidity, one just stood clearly above the rest.
Among the also-rans was Tom Smith, GOPper candidate for Senate in Pennsylvania this year. He's another of these lame brain bozos who wants to ban access to abortion even in the cases of rape or incest.
On August 27 he was pressed by a reporter on how he would handle a daughter or granddaughter becoming pregnant as a result of rape. He said he had already "lived something similar to that" in his family. When a reporter asked Smith to clarify what kind of situation was similar to becoming pregnant from rape, the candidate responded, "Having a baby out of wedlock."
"Put yourself in a father's position," he said. "Yes, it is similar."
His campaign later insisted that it was a "misunderstanding" and that he specifically denied making the comparison. Even though he did. I guess he "misspoke." When he said "Yes, it is similar," he actually meant to say "No, they're not the same thing at all" but the other words just slipped out by accident.
Another entrant was Rob Moore, Chief Financial Officer of Murray Energy Company. Murray Energy owns the Century Mine, a coal mine in Beallsville, Ohio. Earlier this month, Witless Romney had a campaign event there, with hundreds of coal workers and their families present. But now, many of the mine's workers are saying they were forced to attend the event and lost a day's pay to do it, fearing they might be fired if they didn’t go.
Moore denied the claims - or at least said he was denying them. But what he actually said was that, first, it was true that workers weren’t paid that day and second - get this now, this is a quote:
In fact, that was going to be the odds-on winner until I heard about the administrators of Grand Island Public Schools of Grand Island, Nebraska, who are this week's dishonorees.
Hunter Spanjer is a 3-year-old boy who attends pre-school. He is deaf and uses the standard S.E.E., Signing Exact English, for sign language.
The problem is his name: The way he signs his own name, Hunter, is by crossing his index and middle fingers and waving them slightly. As a result, the superior intellects running the school system of Grand Island, Nebraska, want him to be forced to sign his name some other way because they insist the sign resembles shooting a gun and so runs afoul of school policy that forbids any "instrument" that "looks like a weapon."
So according to the big brains of the school officials, the fingers of a 3-year-old are an "instrument" that someone might think is a gun.
And as for any resemblance, hello? The kid's name is Hunter - so he uses the sign for a hunter, which, duh, is going to have some sort of resemblance to a gun.
But here is the real important thing: Bear in mind always that the way Hunter signs his name is the way he introduces himself to the world. The sign is his name. It is his name. By demanding he sign his name a different way, the school actually is demanding that his name be changed to something of which the school can approve. I mean, suppose he wasn't deaf, suppose he communicated orally and said "My name is Hunter." Would the school have demanded his name be changed because the word "hunter" has an association with weapons? You and I both know the answer to that.
The ACLU has written to the district asking the policy be reconsidered and the National Association of the Deaf is prepared to assist the Spanjers with legal action if necessary.
A representative of the district said the school was trying to come to the "best solution" for preschooler Hunter. The best solution is for school officials to apologize to the Spanjers and drop the matter after realizing they have been astonishingly insensitive and appallingly ignorant clowns.
Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/27/tom-smith-rape_n_1834234.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/28/century-mine-romney-ohio-mandatory_n_1836674.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/28/hunter-spanjer-3-year-old_n_1836159.html
I had several candidates for the award this week, an embarrassment of embarrassments, as it were - but remembering that the standard for the Clarabell Award is meritorious stupidity, one just stood clearly above the rest.
Among the also-rans was Tom Smith, GOPper candidate for Senate in Pennsylvania this year. He's another of these lame brain bozos who wants to ban access to abortion even in the cases of rape or incest.On August 27 he was pressed by a reporter on how he would handle a daughter or granddaughter becoming pregnant as a result of rape. He said he had already "lived something similar to that" in his family. When a reporter asked Smith to clarify what kind of situation was similar to becoming pregnant from rape, the candidate responded, "Having a baby out of wedlock."
"Put yourself in a father's position," he said. "Yes, it is similar."
His campaign later insisted that it was a "misunderstanding" and that he specifically denied making the comparison. Even though he did. I guess he "misspoke." When he said "Yes, it is similar," he actually meant to say "No, they're not the same thing at all" but the other words just slipped out by accident.
Another entrant was Rob Moore, Chief Financial Officer of Murray Energy Company. Murray Energy owns the Century Mine, a coal mine in Beallsville, Ohio. Earlier this month, Witless Romney had a campaign event there, with hundreds of coal workers and their families present. But now, many of the mine's workers are saying they were forced to attend the event and lost a day's pay to do it, fearing they might be fired if they didn’t go.
Moore denied the claims - or at least said he was denying them. But what he actually said was that, first, it was true that workers weren’t paid that day and second - get this now, this is a quote:
Our managers communicated to our workforce that the attendance at the Romney event was mandatory, but no one was forced to attend.Paraphrasing Arthur Dent, this must be some new meaning of "mandatory" of which I was previously unaware. Pure Clarabell territory.
In fact, that was going to be the odds-on winner until I heard about the administrators of Grand Island Public Schools of Grand Island, Nebraska, who are this week's dishonorees.
Hunter Spanjer is a 3-year-old boy who attends pre-school. He is deaf and uses the standard S.E.E., Signing Exact English, for sign language.
The problem is his name: The way he signs his own name, Hunter, is by crossing his index and middle fingers and waving them slightly. As a result, the superior intellects running the school system of Grand Island, Nebraska, want him to be forced to sign his name some other way because they insist the sign resembles shooting a gun and so runs afoul of school policy that forbids any "instrument" that "looks like a weapon."
So according to the big brains of the school officials, the fingers of a 3-year-old are an "instrument" that someone might think is a gun.
And as for any resemblance, hello? The kid's name is Hunter - so he uses the sign for a hunter, which, duh, is going to have some sort of resemblance to a gun.
But here is the real important thing: Bear in mind always that the way Hunter signs his name is the way he introduces himself to the world. The sign is his name. It is his name. By demanding he sign his name a different way, the school actually is demanding that his name be changed to something of which the school can approve. I mean, suppose he wasn't deaf, suppose he communicated orally and said "My name is Hunter." Would the school have demanded his name be changed because the word "hunter" has an association with weapons? You and I both know the answer to that.
The ACLU has written to the district asking the policy be reconsidered and the National Association of the Deaf is prepared to assist the Spanjers with legal action if necessary.
A representative of the district said the school was trying to come to the "best solution" for preschooler Hunter. The best solution is for school officials to apologize to the Spanjers and drop the matter after realizing they have been astonishingly insensitive and appallingly ignorant clowns.
Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/27/tom-smith-rape_n_1834234.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/28/century-mine-romney-ohio-mandatory_n_1836674.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/28/hunter-spanjer-3-year-old_n_1836159.html
Left Side of the Aisle #71 - Part 2
Voting rights under attack
In this, I will be repeating things I have said previously. I think they bear repeating - because it is about efforts to restrict voting rights, something I have been talking about and expect I will continue to talk about clear through the election and probably beyond. In fact, I've been going on about this for more than a year now and that doesn't even count the earlier posts about those inaccurate, fraud-prone electronic voting machines.
More recently, I've been talking almost entirely about these inane voter photo ID laws, but that is not the only method being employed by the right wing - and make no mistake, this is a project of the right wing - to restrict the ability to vote by people the reactionaries fear will not vote the way they want. That is, people like the young, the poor, and minorities. There have been, for example, restrictions on early voting, which the record says is used disproportionately by minority voters. There have been legal moves and other attempts of various sorts to restrict the ability to register to vote, everything from blocking voter registration drives (as happened in Florida) to just somehow not having enough voter registration forms (as happened recently in New Mexico) to simply grousing when anyone tries to help people register.
One related case of the last is here in Massachusetts. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 requires states to make voter registration information available to people renewing vehicle registrations or signing up for welfare or unemployment. Several voting rights organizations brought suit because Massachusetts had been in gross violation of parts of that law: For one example 75% of welfare applicants in a survey said that had not been provided any information about voter registration. As part of an interim out-of-court settlement, the state has sent voter registration forms to all welfare recipients in the state. Well, Sen. Scat Brown is whining about this, saying it's all a political plot to harm him. And truth be told, it would harm him, and he knows why: If poor people vote, they are more likely to vote for Elizabeth Warren rather than him. And he doesn't want to see that happen. It's all about the right wing trying to interfere with the ability to vote of anyone they think is in any way liberal.
There is news from all over the country about this, from Ohio and Texas and South Carolina and Florida and New Hampshire and New Mexico and more. Talking about this is going to be an on-going thing here at Left Side of the Aisle.
Right now, though, I did want to mention a couple of specific things about a particular case I've been talking about recently: the suit against Pennsylvania's photo ID law. As I told you last time, Judge Robert Simpson refused to enjoin the law, meaning the unless the state Supreme Court unexpectedly overturns Simpson's ruling, the law may well be in place in November. I also told you that the very day that decision came down, the administration of Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett, who has proved himself a real space cadet - and if you get that, you're as old as I am - announced it was shutting down a program designed to make it easier for people to get absentee ballots.
What I haven't told you is that in the week since, the Corbett administration also announced that it would refuse to cooperate with a Justice Department investigation of the law to see if it violated the Voting Rights Act. In fact, the request for documents was rejected in a manner that could only be called sneering and insulting.
In fact, the state's letter started with a reference to the way the DOJ dealt with complaints of voter intimidation by two members of the New Black Panther Party at a Philadelphia polling place in 2008. This deal is a favorite right wing fantasy; I swear, those two guys must have been hired by some right-wing outfit, with all the play they've tried to get out of this. The truth is, the New Black Panther Party - which despite the name has nothing whatsoever to do with the original Black Panthers - consists of a handful of fringoids who essentially no one had ever heard of before this incident and essentially no one has heard of since. This was two guys at one polling place, one where no one has ever said that they felt intimidated. But that matters more to the right wing than the tens or even hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians who are being denied their right to vote in order to deal with a crime - voter impersonation - that, as the state itself had already admitted, by any rational standard does not exist.
After that, the state's letter went on to claim the DOJ doesn't have the authority to undertake such an investigation - guess what, it does; Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act gives the feds the authority to investigate voter discrimination throughout the jurisdiction of US law - and to accuse the agency of "political motivation," of, in fact, targeting "a growing number of states simply because they instituted legislation designed to insure the integrity of the voting process." Put more bluntly, the state of Pennsylvania is accusing the DOJ of wanting to have corrupt elections. This is another favorite right-wing fantasy: Whenever anyone to their left, even the most moderate centrist Democrat, wins, they immediately smell fraud. The idea that the only way they can lose an election is if the other side cheats is in their political DNA.
But sneering and indulging fantasies wasn't enough for the Corbett administration. The letter also said that the state would provide the information requested - but only if the DOJ would sign a confidentiality agreement. Now, whatever you think about privacy protections - and if you've been around here for a while you know I'm big on them - that is such a sniggering, sophomoric, slap that I really imagine the author giggling as it was being written.
There is one other important thing I want to bring up: I mentioned last week that in his decision on the suit in Pennsylvania, Judge Simpson wrote that the law
"Nondiscriminatory?" Of course the law is discriminatory! Any time a law obviously and significantly affects an identifiable group (here the young, the old, the poor, and minorities) disproportionately as compared to another group (white people and the rich), well that is the definition of discriminatory!
But here's the real thing: "non-severe burden." Any burden placed on voting, Simpson is saying, is acceptable - it's legal, constitutional, just, fair - so long as that burden is not "severe."
But dammit, for all its shortcomings, failures, and disappointments, voting remains a centerpiece, a cornerstone, a linchpin, a keystone, of what it means to have a free nation. It is the central organizing principle of what it means to have a government of by and for the people rather than the other way around.
The burden is not "severe?" What kind of nonsensical standard is that? We are talking about the ability of the people to choose their government and to choose who will govern them. We are talking about a core value of democracy and we're supposed to accept any burdens, any restrictions, put on that so long as they are not "severe?" The true question should not be "is this limitation too severe" but "is this limitation necessary?" And the burden of proof should not be on those who would advance and protect that value, that right, to show "this limitation is too severe" but always on those who would retard and undermine that value, that right, to show "this limitation is necessary."
Remember that just a few years ago, and you will remember this as soon as I mention it, and you’ll probably realize you haven’t thought about it for a while, just a few years ago the big concern about voting was how few people were voting, about low turnouts, about how the level of participation in elections in this country was embarrassing, how even in presidential elections, where the turnout is highest, it still might only be about 60% - and considering that only half of eligible voters were registered, in a close election that might well mean a president was elected with the support of little more than 15% of the population.
All the talk was about how we could get more people to the polls, how we could get more people registered, more people involved, how to remove roadblocks between potential voters and the voting booth. That was the whole point of that 1993 National Voter Registration Act, which was often called the "motor voter" law because of its use of state motor vehicle agencies as contact points for encouraging voter registration.
Now, just a rather few years of right-wing screeching, lying, and, importantly, media collaboration later, all the talk is about how many roadblocks we can put on that path, how hard we can make it to register, how hard we can make it to vote.
And what this is about is power. It's always about power, about the desire of the right wing for power. About the desire of the right wing to create a permanent, structural bias in favor of conservative, right-wing voters and conservative right-wing government; a permanent, structural bias in favor of the haves over the have-nots; a permanent, structural bias in favor of the needless over the needy; a permanent, structural bias against any notion of progress or reform or improvement in the lives of the many as opposed to the selfish benefit of the few.
So if you think your vote is safe - well, if you reliably vote for the oligarchs it probably is. Otherwise, otherwise.
Sources:
http://cognoscenti.wbur.org/2012/08/13/brown-voter-eileen-mcnamara
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/Senate/2012/0814/Welfare-voter-spat-in-Massachusetts-part-of-larger-political-duel
http://www.sfgate.com/business/bottomline/article/Corporations-ties-to-voter-ID-laws-3815349.php
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/20120817_Ruling_upholding_Pennsylvania__voter_ID_law_misplaced_its_sympathy.html
http://www.allgov.com/news/controversies/pennsylvania-government-refuses-to-turn-over-photo-id-documents-to-justice-dept?news=845125
http://www.ldnews.com/state/ci_21356213/corbett-aide-rebukes-justice-dept-over-voter-id
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9494
http://thetimes-tribune.com/opinion/corbett-tells-doj-to-mind-own-business-1.1362947
http://home.earthlink.net/~joesarno/tomc_daily.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Corbett%2C_Space_Cadet
In this, I will be repeating things I have said previously. I think they bear repeating - because it is about efforts to restrict voting rights, something I have been talking about and expect I will continue to talk about clear through the election and probably beyond. In fact, I've been going on about this for more than a year now and that doesn't even count the earlier posts about those inaccurate, fraud-prone electronic voting machines.
More recently, I've been talking almost entirely about these inane voter photo ID laws, but that is not the only method being employed by the right wing - and make no mistake, this is a project of the right wing - to restrict the ability to vote by people the reactionaries fear will not vote the way they want. That is, people like the young, the poor, and minorities. There have been, for example, restrictions on early voting, which the record says is used disproportionately by minority voters. There have been legal moves and other attempts of various sorts to restrict the ability to register to vote, everything from blocking voter registration drives (as happened in Florida) to just somehow not having enough voter registration forms (as happened recently in New Mexico) to simply grousing when anyone tries to help people register.One related case of the last is here in Massachusetts. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 requires states to make voter registration information available to people renewing vehicle registrations or signing up for welfare or unemployment. Several voting rights organizations brought suit because Massachusetts had been in gross violation of parts of that law: For one example 75% of welfare applicants in a survey said that had not been provided any information about voter registration. As part of an interim out-of-court settlement, the state has sent voter registration forms to all welfare recipients in the state. Well, Sen. Scat Brown is whining about this, saying it's all a political plot to harm him. And truth be told, it would harm him, and he knows why: If poor people vote, they are more likely to vote for Elizabeth Warren rather than him. And he doesn't want to see that happen. It's all about the right wing trying to interfere with the ability to vote of anyone they think is in any way liberal.
There is news from all over the country about this, from Ohio and Texas and South Carolina and Florida and New Hampshire and New Mexico and more. Talking about this is going to be an on-going thing here at Left Side of the Aisle.
Right now, though, I did want to mention a couple of specific things about a particular case I've been talking about recently: the suit against Pennsylvania's photo ID law. As I told you last time, Judge Robert Simpson refused to enjoin the law, meaning the unless the state Supreme Court unexpectedly overturns Simpson's ruling, the law may well be in place in November. I also told you that the very day that decision came down, the administration of Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett, who has proved himself a real space cadet - and if you get that, you're as old as I am - announced it was shutting down a program designed to make it easier for people to get absentee ballots.
What I haven't told you is that in the week since, the Corbett administration also announced that it would refuse to cooperate with a Justice Department investigation of the law to see if it violated the Voting Rights Act. In fact, the request for documents was rejected in a manner that could only be called sneering and insulting.
In fact, the state's letter started with a reference to the way the DOJ dealt with complaints of voter intimidation by two members of the New Black Panther Party at a Philadelphia polling place in 2008. This deal is a favorite right wing fantasy; I swear, those two guys must have been hired by some right-wing outfit, with all the play they've tried to get out of this. The truth is, the New Black Panther Party - which despite the name has nothing whatsoever to do with the original Black Panthers - consists of a handful of fringoids who essentially no one had ever heard of before this incident and essentially no one has heard of since. This was two guys at one polling place, one where no one has ever said that they felt intimidated. But that matters more to the right wing than the tens or even hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians who are being denied their right to vote in order to deal with a crime - voter impersonation - that, as the state itself had already admitted, by any rational standard does not exist.
After that, the state's letter went on to claim the DOJ doesn't have the authority to undertake such an investigation - guess what, it does; Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act gives the feds the authority to investigate voter discrimination throughout the jurisdiction of US law - and to accuse the agency of "political motivation," of, in fact, targeting "a growing number of states simply because they instituted legislation designed to insure the integrity of the voting process." Put more bluntly, the state of Pennsylvania is accusing the DOJ of wanting to have corrupt elections. This is another favorite right-wing fantasy: Whenever anyone to their left, even the most moderate centrist Democrat, wins, they immediately smell fraud. The idea that the only way they can lose an election is if the other side cheats is in their political DNA.
But sneering and indulging fantasies wasn't enough for the Corbett administration. The letter also said that the state would provide the information requested - but only if the DOJ would sign a confidentiality agreement. Now, whatever you think about privacy protections - and if you've been around here for a while you know I'm big on them - that is such a sniggering, sophomoric, slap that I really imagine the author giggling as it was being written.
There is one other important thing I want to bring up: I mentioned last week that in his decision on the suit in Pennsylvania, Judge Simpson wrote that the law
is a reasonable, nondiscriminatory, non-severe burden when viewed in the broader context of the widespread use of photo ID in daily life.Now, at the time I said that Simpson is among those blockheads who can't get it through their thick skulls that not everyone routinely gets on a plane or checks into a hotel or even drives. This time I want to note those other two terms.
"Nondiscriminatory?" Of course the law is discriminatory! Any time a law obviously and significantly affects an identifiable group (here the young, the old, the poor, and minorities) disproportionately as compared to another group (white people and the rich), well that is the definition of discriminatory!
But here's the real thing: "non-severe burden." Any burden placed on voting, Simpson is saying, is acceptable - it's legal, constitutional, just, fair - so long as that burden is not "severe."
But dammit, for all its shortcomings, failures, and disappointments, voting remains a centerpiece, a cornerstone, a linchpin, a keystone, of what it means to have a free nation. It is the central organizing principle of what it means to have a government of by and for the people rather than the other way around.
The burden is not "severe?" What kind of nonsensical standard is that? We are talking about the ability of the people to choose their government and to choose who will govern them. We are talking about a core value of democracy and we're supposed to accept any burdens, any restrictions, put on that so long as they are not "severe?" The true question should not be "is this limitation too severe" but "is this limitation necessary?" And the burden of proof should not be on those who would advance and protect that value, that right, to show "this limitation is too severe" but always on those who would retard and undermine that value, that right, to show "this limitation is necessary."
Remember that just a few years ago, and you will remember this as soon as I mention it, and you’ll probably realize you haven’t thought about it for a while, just a few years ago the big concern about voting was how few people were voting, about low turnouts, about how the level of participation in elections in this country was embarrassing, how even in presidential elections, where the turnout is highest, it still might only be about 60% - and considering that only half of eligible voters were registered, in a close election that might well mean a president was elected with the support of little more than 15% of the population.
All the talk was about how we could get more people to the polls, how we could get more people registered, more people involved, how to remove roadblocks between potential voters and the voting booth. That was the whole point of that 1993 National Voter Registration Act, which was often called the "motor voter" law because of its use of state motor vehicle agencies as contact points for encouraging voter registration.
Now, just a rather few years of right-wing screeching, lying, and, importantly, media collaboration later, all the talk is about how many roadblocks we can put on that path, how hard we can make it to register, how hard we can make it to vote.
And what this is about is power. It's always about power, about the desire of the right wing for power. About the desire of the right wing to create a permanent, structural bias in favor of conservative, right-wing voters and conservative right-wing government; a permanent, structural bias in favor of the haves over the have-nots; a permanent, structural bias in favor of the needless over the needy; a permanent, structural bias against any notion of progress or reform or improvement in the lives of the many as opposed to the selfish benefit of the few.
So if you think your vote is safe - well, if you reliably vote for the oligarchs it probably is. Otherwise, otherwise.
Sources:
http://cognoscenti.wbur.org/2012/08/13/brown-voter-eileen-mcnamara
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/Senate/2012/0814/Welfare-voter-spat-in-Massachusetts-part-of-larger-political-duel
http://www.sfgate.com/business/bottomline/article/Corporations-ties-to-voter-ID-laws-3815349.php
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/20120817_Ruling_upholding_Pennsylvania__voter_ID_law_misplaced_its_sympathy.html
http://www.allgov.com/news/controversies/pennsylvania-government-refuses-to-turn-over-photo-id-documents-to-justice-dept?news=845125
http://www.ldnews.com/state/ci_21356213/corbett-aide-rebukes-justice-dept-over-voter-id
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9494
http://thetimes-tribune.com/opinion/corbett-tells-doj-to-mind-own-business-1.1362947
http://home.earthlink.net/~joesarno/tomc_daily.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Corbett%2C_Space_Cadet
Left Side of the Aisle #71 - Part 1
Outrage of the Week: SEC helps banks, helps fraud, hurts ordinary investors
Back in April I talked about the newly-passed so-called JOBS Act. It stands for, in one of the most weirdly forced acronyms ever, the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act. The bill passed Congress overwhelmingly with bipartisan support. Obama loves the thing. And who could be against it? It's all about jobs!
Well, I said then and I say now that the bill was well-named because it's actually a bunch of j.o.s pushing b.s.
The supposed purpose of bill is to enable our dynamic entrepreneurs reinvigorating the economy by helping them to better raise funds for start-ups.
How? First by exempting them from some federally-required accounting and reporting rules and second by making it easier for them to raise money by both ending the ban on advertising for investors and by allowing for so-called "crowdfunding," which involves going on social media to raise large amounts of money from a large number of small investors.
In short, it allows these "entrepreneurs" to raise millions of dollars without having to tell investors much of anything about the company or its finances. All those nasty disclosure requirements are gone, all those pesky accounting duties are gone, leaving only the brightly-colored brochures and the web ads full of "you too can be rich as Mitt Romney" dreams. What could go wrong?
Economists say it will "open the floodgates to massive fraud" and that "crowdfunding could make the scams of the 1980s look like parking tickets." State-level regulators say it prevents them from regulating, so these companies’ efforts to raise capital would be essentially unregulated on federal or state level. A group of white-collar criminologists called the bill "an atrocity" and "a wish list of fraud-friendly provisions." And the Consumer Federation of America said it was done without evidence that these entrepreneurs actually are having difficulty raising capital - that is, it was passed without any evidence that there was a problem that needed solving.
We have been down this road before. For 40 years or more, we have been pushing for deregulation of anything and everything. We deregulated some financial institutions and got the S&L crisis. We passed some more deregulations, and we got Enron, WorldCom, and the rest. In the 1990s, lifting the ban on advertising for investors led to such a rapid and dramatic increase in fraud that the ban was reinstated. Despite all that, we deregulated some more and saw the whole financial industry melt down in 2008. And what has been the response each and every time? To look around for some other area that we have yet to deregulate - or, as in this case, looking to repeat previous failures.
On top of everything else, the JOBS act very likely will not add any jobs, in fact it is more likely to slow their creation. It increases the risk of fraud and therefore increases the risk to investors - and the cost involved in raising capital are usually tied to the degree of risk. So the JOBS Act could well mean that any honest entrepreneur who really does want to start a new company may well find it harder, not easier, to raise capital.
The Securities and Exchange Commission is supposed to be the cop on the beat about things like investor protection. So what is the agency doing? It's trying to rush through rules to enable the provisions of the act, that is, to "open the floodgates to fraud." In fact, so eager is the SEC to get this done that on August 22, it tried to promulgate rules without allowing for the legally-required period for public comments.
The agency backed off that after the Consumer Federation of America, along with a number of distinguished co-singers, wrote a stinging letter noting how the SEC's plans violated federal law. Instead, it was to hold a vote on August 29 on if it will put out a proposal for public comment.
At the same time that the SEC trying to do an end-run around the public and the law and, in the name of helping new corporations to form, make it easier for cheats, chiselers, and rip-off artists to defraud the rest of us, the agency has announced that it is abandoning plans to impose tougher rules on money-market mutual funds. Former SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt called that act a “national disgrace."
You want to know what that's happening? Why that regulation is failing? One reason and one reason only: The sponsors of money-market funds, which include such as Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, simply don’t want it.
Making things easier for the fraudsters and the big banks (pardon my redundancy) while making it harder on and riskier for ordinary investors - that's what the SEC is about. Because whatever the big banks want, the big banks get. And this ain't no musical - what it is, is the Outrage of the Week.
Sources:
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2012/04/left-side-of-aisle-51-part-1.html
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/08/quelle-surprise-sec-plans-to-make-the-world-safer-for-fraudsters-push-through-jobs-act-con-artist-friendly-solicitation-rules.html
http://www.scribd.com/doc/103108245/Consumer-Federation-of-America-JOBS-Letter-Aug-15
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20120827/FREE/120829939
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-23/levitt-says-sec-inaction-on-funds-national-disgrace-tom-keene.html/
Back in April I talked about the newly-passed so-called JOBS Act. It stands for, in one of the most weirdly forced acronyms ever, the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act. The bill passed Congress overwhelmingly with bipartisan support. Obama loves the thing. And who could be against it? It's all about jobs!
Well, I said then and I say now that the bill was well-named because it's actually a bunch of j.o.s pushing b.s.
The supposed purpose of bill is to enable our dynamic entrepreneurs reinvigorating the economy by helping them to better raise funds for start-ups.
How? First by exempting them from some federally-required accounting and reporting rules and second by making it easier for them to raise money by both ending the ban on advertising for investors and by allowing for so-called "crowdfunding," which involves going on social media to raise large amounts of money from a large number of small investors.
In short, it allows these "entrepreneurs" to raise millions of dollars without having to tell investors much of anything about the company or its finances. All those nasty disclosure requirements are gone, all those pesky accounting duties are gone, leaving only the brightly-colored brochures and the web ads full of "you too can be rich as Mitt Romney" dreams. What could go wrong?
Economists say it will "open the floodgates to massive fraud" and that "crowdfunding could make the scams of the 1980s look like parking tickets." State-level regulators say it prevents them from regulating, so these companies’ efforts to raise capital would be essentially unregulated on federal or state level. A group of white-collar criminologists called the bill "an atrocity" and "a wish list of fraud-friendly provisions." And the Consumer Federation of America said it was done without evidence that these entrepreneurs actually are having difficulty raising capital - that is, it was passed without any evidence that there was a problem that needed solving.
We have been down this road before. For 40 years or more, we have been pushing for deregulation of anything and everything. We deregulated some financial institutions and got the S&L crisis. We passed some more deregulations, and we got Enron, WorldCom, and the rest. In the 1990s, lifting the ban on advertising for investors led to such a rapid and dramatic increase in fraud that the ban was reinstated. Despite all that, we deregulated some more and saw the whole financial industry melt down in 2008. And what has been the response each and every time? To look around for some other area that we have yet to deregulate - or, as in this case, looking to repeat previous failures.
On top of everything else, the JOBS act very likely will not add any jobs, in fact it is more likely to slow their creation. It increases the risk of fraud and therefore increases the risk to investors - and the cost involved in raising capital are usually tied to the degree of risk. So the JOBS Act could well mean that any honest entrepreneur who really does want to start a new company may well find it harder, not easier, to raise capital.
The Securities and Exchange Commission is supposed to be the cop on the beat about things like investor protection. So what is the agency doing? It's trying to rush through rules to enable the provisions of the act, that is, to "open the floodgates to fraud." In fact, so eager is the SEC to get this done that on August 22, it tried to promulgate rules without allowing for the legally-required period for public comments.
The agency backed off that after the Consumer Federation of America, along with a number of distinguished co-singers, wrote a stinging letter noting how the SEC's plans violated federal law. Instead, it was to hold a vote on August 29 on if it will put out a proposal for public comment.
At the same time that the SEC trying to do an end-run around the public and the law and, in the name of helping new corporations to form, make it easier for cheats, chiselers, and rip-off artists to defraud the rest of us, the agency has announced that it is abandoning plans to impose tougher rules on money-market mutual funds. Former SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt called that act a “national disgrace."
You want to know what that's happening? Why that regulation is failing? One reason and one reason only: The sponsors of money-market funds, which include such as Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, simply don’t want it.
Making things easier for the fraudsters and the big banks (pardon my redundancy) while making it harder on and riskier for ordinary investors - that's what the SEC is about. Because whatever the big banks want, the big banks get. And this ain't no musical - what it is, is the Outrage of the Week.
Sources:
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2012/04/left-side-of-aisle-51-part-1.html
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/08/quelle-surprise-sec-plans-to-make-the-world-safer-for-fraudsters-push-through-jobs-act-con-artist-friendly-solicitation-rules.html
http://www.scribd.com/doc/103108245/Consumer-Federation-of-America-JOBS-Letter-Aug-15
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20120827/FREE/120829939
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-23/levitt-says-sec-inaction-on-funds-national-disgrace-tom-keene.html/
Left Side of the Aisle #71
Left Side of the Aisle
for the week of August 30 - September 5, 2012
This week:
Outrage of the Week: SEC helps banks, helps fraud, hurts ordinary investors
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2012/04/left-side-of-aisle-51-part-1.html
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/08/quelle-surprise-sec-plans-to-make-the-world-safer-for-fraudsters-push-through-jobs-act-con-artist-friendly-solicitation-rules.html
http://www.scribd.com/doc/103108245/Consumer-Federation-of-America-JOBS-Letter-Aug-15
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20120827/FREE/120829939
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-23/levitt-says-sec-inaction-on-funds-national-disgrace-tom-keene.html/
Voting rights under attack
http://cognoscenti.wbur.org/2012/08/13/brown-voter-eileen-mcnamara
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/Senate/2012/0814/Welfare-voter-spat-in-Massachusetts-part-of-larger-political-duel
http://www.sfgate.com/business/bottomline/article/Corporations-ties-to-voter-ID-laws-3815349.php
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/20120817_Ruling_upholding_Pennsylvania__voter_ID_law_misplaced_its_sympathy.html
http://www.allgov.com/news/controversies/pennsylvania-government-refuses-to-turn-over-photo-id-documents-to-justice-dept?news=845125
http://www.ldnews.com/state/ci_21356213/corbett-aide-rebukes-justice-dept-over-voter-id
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9494
http://thetimes-tribune.com/opinion/corbett-tells-doj-to-mind-own-business-1.1362947
http://home.earthlink.net/~joesarno/tomc_daily.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Corbett%2C_Space_Cadet
Clarabell Award: GOP Senate candidate says having child out of wedlock "similar" to pregnancy from rape; miners required to attend Romney rally, lose day's pay; Nebraska schools want deaf 3-year-old to change his name because they claim the sign for his name looks like a gun
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/27/tom-smith-rape_n_1834234.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/28/century-mine-romney-ohio-mandatory_n_1836674.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/28/hunter-spanjer-3-year-old_n_1836159.html
Global warming: Former skeptic says increasing temperatures almost entirely due to human activity
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/27/arctic-sea-ice-melt-2012_n_1833260.html
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Left Side of the Aisle #70 - Part 8
Clarabell Award: Todd Akin and pregnancy
The Clarabell award is given as necessary for acts of meritorious stupidity.
This time the dishonoree is someone I'm sure you've heard about unless you woke up from a coma sometime in the past two or three hours. And even then you might have heard about this.
On Sunday, August 19, Rep. Todd Akin, a right-wing loon who is the GOPper nominee for Senate in the state of Missouri, defended his opposition to allowing access to abortion even in the case of rape by saying that in instances of what he called “legitimate rape,” whatever that might mean, in cases of “legitimate rape,” women don't get pregnant. That somehow, their bodies block an unwanted pregnancy. Getting pregnant from rape was "really rare."
Now, lots of people, including even the Republican National Committee, Sen. Mitch "Fishface" McConnell, and even Mitt Romney went after him for that, saying he should drop out of the race or even resign his office, but let's be fair: He is neither the first nor the only right-wing flake to have made this claim; Rachel Maddow at MSNBC and Garance Franke-Ruta at "The Atlantic" had citations of right-wingers saying this from 1980 on through 2010. One of those quoted argued that pregnancy from rape was as rare as snowfall in Miami, another said that the odds against it were "millions and millions" to one, and another claimed that in the event of rape, a woman's body, quoting, "secretes a certain secretion that tends to kill sperm."
And I have to admit that there have been physicians who said that women could not get pregnant from rape, that pregnancy could not arise from nonconsensual sex. They did say that - in the Middle Ages. In the real world, the modern world, one which it seems Mr. Akin and the rest of these jackasses rarely visit, we know that's the absolute worst sort of nonsense and in fact tens of thousands of women get pregnant every year as the result of rape.
Which is one thing about Akin's statement, one reason I chose it for the award. I usually try to bring up things you may not have heard about on the TV evening news but this time I picked him despite all the coverage about it first of all because it is, hands-down, the stupidest thing I heard all week. It is not only offensive and destructive of women's rights and the health of rape victims, it is appallingly ignorant.
But there's another thing about this which sealed his victory in the competition for the award: He tried to weasel out of the meaning of his own words with that moldy, vapid, all-purpose but doesn't actually mean a thing excuse "I misspoke." Here's what he said:
Here's his actual quote that started all this:
Todd Akin and the rest of the right-wing bozos, the flakes, wackos, and loons spewing your venomous stupidity all over the politic, you are, all of you, clowns.
Sources:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/08/a-canard-that-will-not-die-legitimate-rape-doesnt-cause-pregnancy/261303/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#48732520
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/us/politics/todd-akin-provokes-ire-with-legitimate-rape-comment.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8765248
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/akin-on-legitimate-rape-comment-i-misspoke
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/20/us-usa-politics-abortion-idUSBRE87J04A20120820
The Clarabell award is given as necessary for acts of meritorious stupidity.This time the dishonoree is someone I'm sure you've heard about unless you woke up from a coma sometime in the past two or three hours. And even then you might have heard about this.
On Sunday, August 19, Rep. Todd Akin, a right-wing loon who is the GOPper nominee for Senate in the state of Missouri, defended his opposition to allowing access to abortion even in the case of rape by saying that in instances of what he called “legitimate rape,” whatever that might mean, in cases of “legitimate rape,” women don't get pregnant. That somehow, their bodies block an unwanted pregnancy. Getting pregnant from rape was "really rare."
Now, lots of people, including even the Republican National Committee, Sen. Mitch "Fishface" McConnell, and even Mitt Romney went after him for that, saying he should drop out of the race or even resign his office, but let's be fair: He is neither the first nor the only right-wing flake to have made this claim; Rachel Maddow at MSNBC and Garance Franke-Ruta at "The Atlantic" had citations of right-wingers saying this from 1980 on through 2010. One of those quoted argued that pregnancy from rape was as rare as snowfall in Miami, another said that the odds against it were "millions and millions" to one, and another claimed that in the event of rape, a woman's body, quoting, "secretes a certain secretion that tends to kill sperm."
And I have to admit that there have been physicians who said that women could not get pregnant from rape, that pregnancy could not arise from nonconsensual sex. They did say that - in the Middle Ages. In the real world, the modern world, one which it seems Mr. Akin and the rest of these jackasses rarely visit, we know that's the absolute worst sort of nonsense and in fact tens of thousands of women get pregnant every year as the result of rape.
Which is one thing about Akin's statement, one reason I chose it for the award. I usually try to bring up things you may not have heard about on the TV evening news but this time I picked him despite all the coverage about it first of all because it is, hands-down, the stupidest thing I heard all week. It is not only offensive and destructive of women's rights and the health of rape victims, it is appallingly ignorant.
But there's another thing about this which sealed his victory in the competition for the award: He tried to weasel out of the meaning of his own words with that moldy, vapid, all-purpose but doesn't actually mean a thing excuse "I misspoke." Here's what he said:
It's clear that I misspoke and it does not reflect the deep empathy I hold for the thousands of women who are raped and abused every year.Note clearly that he does not say that his claim that women can't get pregnant from being raped is wrong. It took him a week to get around to that. So what in heaven's name did he "misspeak" about?
Here's his actual quote that started all this:
If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.I want someone, some reporter, somebody, to say to him - in fact, I would like to see this applied to anyone who falls back on that totally lame "I misspoke" crap - I want someone to say to Akin, "Mr. Akin, here is what you said. Would you please tell us what words you meant to say that are sufficiently close to these that you could have accidentally said what you did instead?"
Todd Akin and the rest of the right-wing bozos, the flakes, wackos, and loons spewing your venomous stupidity all over the politic, you are, all of you, clowns.
Sources:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/08/a-canard-that-will-not-die-legitimate-rape-doesnt-cause-pregnancy/261303/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#48732520
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/us/politics/todd-akin-provokes-ire-with-legitimate-rape-comment.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8765248
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/akin-on-legitimate-rape-comment-i-misspoke
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/20/us-usa-politics-abortion-idUSBRE87J04A20120820
Left Side of the Aisle #70 - Part 7
Outrage of the Week: Treasury Secretary Erskine Bowles?
This is less a present outrage than a possible future one.
If Obama is re-elected, there likely will be something of a shake-up in the cabinet. That's actually pretty normal; there are often changes between a first and second term. One of the people expected to leave is Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner.
And who is it that the DC media people with the White House access say is going to be tapped to replace Geithner? Erskine Bowles.
Name ring a bell? If not, how about the "Simpson-Bowles" plan? Remember in the spring of 2010 when Obama appointed this commission to develop a plan to cut the deficit? A commission dubbed the "cat food commission" because it was stacked with people whose focus was on cutting social programs and so-called entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare? And how when the commission couldn't agree, the co-chairs, Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, issued their own report? Yeah, maybe a glimmer of recognition.
Here's the point: That report, the "Simpson-Bowles" plan, had as a central concern cutting Social Security. Erskine Bowles has been campaigning to slash Social Security and Medicare for 15 years, perpetually spinning the standard falsehoods about how they are about to go under, and now the word is that Barack Obama wants him to be the Secretary of the Treasury during his second term.
When will the Obamabots get it through their thick skulls that Barack Obama wants to cut Social Security? He wants to cut Medicare. He wants to cut Medicaid. He's even groused that he doesn't get enough credit for his willingness to do it! All he wants in return is some token tax hike on the rich. That's the meat of the so-called "grand bargain" on spending, taxes, and the deficit.
Would Bowles get approved if nominated? He's loved by the right and by Wall Street and was on the board of directors of Morgan Stanley, so yeah, he'd be a safe bet to sail through, especially since those same fans are well aware of his desire to see the elderly sent back to picking though garbage to survive.
And if the word on the street is right, that's who Barack Obama wants to be the next Secretary of the Treasury. And that would be - and the very fact that it could be seriously entertained is - an outrage.
Sources:
http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/08/10/erskine-bowles-to-treasury-rumor-picks-up-steam/
http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/08/09/obama-frustrated-he-doesnt-get-credit-for-wanting-to-cut-social-security-and-medicare/
This is less a present outrage than a possible future one.
If Obama is re-elected, there likely will be something of a shake-up in the cabinet. That's actually pretty normal; there are often changes between a first and second term. One of the people expected to leave is Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner.
And who is it that the DC media people with the White House access say is going to be tapped to replace Geithner? Erskine Bowles.
Name ring a bell? If not, how about the "Simpson-Bowles" plan? Remember in the spring of 2010 when Obama appointed this commission to develop a plan to cut the deficit? A commission dubbed the "cat food commission" because it was stacked with people whose focus was on cutting social programs and so-called entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare? And how when the commission couldn't agree, the co-chairs, Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, issued their own report? Yeah, maybe a glimmer of recognition.
Here's the point: That report, the "Simpson-Bowles" plan, had as a central concern cutting Social Security. Erskine Bowles has been campaigning to slash Social Security and Medicare for 15 years, perpetually spinning the standard falsehoods about how they are about to go under, and now the word is that Barack Obama wants him to be the Secretary of the Treasury during his second term.
When will the Obamabots get it through their thick skulls that Barack Obama wants to cut Social Security? He wants to cut Medicare. He wants to cut Medicaid. He's even groused that he doesn't get enough credit for his willingness to do it! All he wants in return is some token tax hike on the rich. That's the meat of the so-called "grand bargain" on spending, taxes, and the deficit.
Would Bowles get approved if nominated? He's loved by the right and by Wall Street and was on the board of directors of Morgan Stanley, so yeah, he'd be a safe bet to sail through, especially since those same fans are well aware of his desire to see the elderly sent back to picking though garbage to survive.
And if the word on the street is right, that's who Barack Obama wants to be the next Secretary of the Treasury. And that would be - and the very fact that it could be seriously entertained is - an outrage.
Sources:
http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/08/10/erskine-bowles-to-treasury-rumor-picks-up-steam/
http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/08/09/obama-frustrated-he-doesnt-get-credit-for-wanting-to-cut-social-security-and-medicare/
Left Side of the Aisle #70 - Part 6
Update on: NDAA and "indefinite detention"
Back around the beginning of the year, I warned you about the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act. "Warned" because it includes a particular provision - Section 1022 - that would allow the government to have the military imprison people indefinitely, without trial or even charge, based solely on the president's decision that you are a suspected terrorist or are "substantially supporting" some terrorist or "associated" group. This would even include US citizens seized on US soil.
Later on, I reported that on May 16, Federal Judge Katherine Forrest found that the law is unconstitutional and violates rights to both free speech and due process.
She did so, as I said at the time, after a Kafka-esque hearing in which lawyers for the government repeatedly refused to explain what the law's impossibly vague terms like "associated forces" and "substantial support" actually mean.
Instead, the government tried to argue that the seven plaintiffs did not have "standing" to sue. That is, they couldn't sue because the law hadn't affected them, that is, they hadn't be indefinitely detained. Which means that by the government's argument, the only folks with standing to sue are those already beyond the reach of judicial system. Catch-22 mean anything?
In issuing her ruling, Judge Forrest said she was worried by the government's reluctance to say whether examples of the plaintiffs' activities that they cited - such as aiding WikiLeaks - would fall under the scope of the provision.
Well, the feds have gone back to court, where they filed an appeal of Judge Forrest's ruling with the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. Hilariously, despite its failure to be able even to define basic terms of the law, the government is arguing in its appeal that the law is neither too broad nor too vague.
But here's something worth noting: The appeal argues that the plaintiffs, who include among others academics, activists, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, and a member of the Icelandic parliament,
But the fact is, they won't. They want the law broad, they want it vague, they want to use as broad a brush as possible. They want this law, they want it in place, they want it in force, and they want it with no legal or constitutional restrictions on its reach.
We are in danger of becoming - we are already becoming - what I call a "soft" police state. I do not use the term "police state" lightly. By "soft" police state, I mean that we still have elections, we still have campaigns, we still have all the outward trappings of democracy. There is free speech, at least a form of it, there are what at least appear to be debates, there are newspapers and magazines, there is the internet.
But ultimately all of that is allowed, all of that is tolerated, because dissent is ineffective. Because all these outward appearances of democracy, of human rights, do not affect the positions and perks of the powerful. Because instead of being a means of change, our petitions and protests and political campaigns are becoming more and more just a way to blow off steam, a way to give us the feeling of having a role, a place, a voice, without our actually having one. Cross the line, actually impact the system, and the hammer comes down.
That's why Occupy Wall Street was so threatening to our power elites: It was having an impact. It was getting people talking about things like income inequality, about the power of the 1%. People were responding to this to the point where politicians and the media actually had to respond to it as well. That's why the encampments were hit with a wave of coordinated attacks across the country, all following the same plan, all using the same tactics, all making the same bogus charges. It was because the Occupy movement could not be ignored and so had to be shut down.
Now, make no mistake: Occupy Wall Street is not dead and there are still actions, often types of guerrilla theater, occurring around the country. But the movement was damaged, severely damaged, by the attacks, no doubt about it, and, more importantly to the power elite, the movement has been driven back to the fringes, that is, it exists largely as a series of individual, isolated local stories rather than as a national one.
So the result is that the power elite could go back to making its money and as a political issue, getting us to talk about what it really wants to talk about, which is the deficit and why it means we should cut taxes - I didn't say the argument made sense - and destroy social security and other social programs. This week's Outrage of the Week has more.
Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/07/indefinite-detention-ruling_n_1749566.html
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/criminalizing_dissent_20120813/
Back around the beginning of the year, I warned you about the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act. "Warned" because it includes a particular provision - Section 1022 - that would allow the government to have the military imprison people indefinitely, without trial or even charge, based solely on the president's decision that you are a suspected terrorist or are "substantially supporting" some terrorist or "associated" group. This would even include US citizens seized on US soil.
Later on, I reported that on May 16, Federal Judge Katherine Forrest found that the law is unconstitutional and violates rights to both free speech and due process.She did so, as I said at the time, after a Kafka-esque hearing in which lawyers for the government repeatedly refused to explain what the law's impossibly vague terms like "associated forces" and "substantial support" actually mean.
Instead, the government tried to argue that the seven plaintiffs did not have "standing" to sue. That is, they couldn't sue because the law hadn't affected them, that is, they hadn't be indefinitely detained. Which means that by the government's argument, the only folks with standing to sue are those already beyond the reach of judicial system. Catch-22 mean anything?
In issuing her ruling, Judge Forrest said she was worried by the government's reluctance to say whether examples of the plaintiffs' activities that they cited - such as aiding WikiLeaks - would fall under the scope of the provision.
Well, the feds have gone back to court, where they filed an appeal of Judge Forrest's ruling with the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. Hilariously, despite its failure to be able even to define basic terms of the law, the government is arguing in its appeal that the law is neither too broad nor too vague.
But here's something worth noting: The appeal argues that the plaintiffs, who include among others academics, activists, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, and a member of the Icelandic parliament,
cannot point to a single example of the military's detaining anyone for engaging in conduct even remotely similar to the type of expressive activities they allege could lead to detention.Fine! Good! Then say so, say in court, on the record, that those sorts of activities are not covered by the law. Say on the record that there is no legal reason to be concerned. Say on the record "that's not what we meant, that's not what the law means." Just say that.
But the fact is, they won't. They want the law broad, they want it vague, they want to use as broad a brush as possible. They want this law, they want it in place, they want it in force, and they want it with no legal or constitutional restrictions on its reach.
We are in danger of becoming - we are already becoming - what I call a "soft" police state. I do not use the term "police state" lightly. By "soft" police state, I mean that we still have elections, we still have campaigns, we still have all the outward trappings of democracy. There is free speech, at least a form of it, there are what at least appear to be debates, there are newspapers and magazines, there is the internet.
But ultimately all of that is allowed, all of that is tolerated, because dissent is ineffective. Because all these outward appearances of democracy, of human rights, do not affect the positions and perks of the powerful. Because instead of being a means of change, our petitions and protests and political campaigns are becoming more and more just a way to blow off steam, a way to give us the feeling of having a role, a place, a voice, without our actually having one. Cross the line, actually impact the system, and the hammer comes down.
That's why Occupy Wall Street was so threatening to our power elites: It was having an impact. It was getting people talking about things like income inequality, about the power of the 1%. People were responding to this to the point where politicians and the media actually had to respond to it as well. That's why the encampments were hit with a wave of coordinated attacks across the country, all following the same plan, all using the same tactics, all making the same bogus charges. It was because the Occupy movement could not be ignored and so had to be shut down.
Now, make no mistake: Occupy Wall Street is not dead and there are still actions, often types of guerrilla theater, occurring around the country. But the movement was damaged, severely damaged, by the attacks, no doubt about it, and, more importantly to the power elite, the movement has been driven back to the fringes, that is, it exists largely as a series of individual, isolated local stories rather than as a national one.So the result is that the power elite could go back to making its money and as a political issue, getting us to talk about what it really wants to talk about, which is the deficit and why it means we should cut taxes - I didn't say the argument made sense - and destroy social security and other social programs. This week's Outrage of the Week has more.
Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/07/indefinite-detention-ruling_n_1749566.html
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/criminalizing_dissent_20120813/
Left Side of the Aisle #70 - Part 5
Update on: Guns and mass shootings; the hypocrisy of the right
Three weeks ago, I talked about James Holmes, who went into a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado and killed 12 people. Two weeks ago, I talked about Wade Michael Page, who walked into a Sikh temple in a suburb of Milwaukee, and when it was over, seven were dead, including Page.
Now I get to talk about Floyd Lee Corkins. On the morning of August 16, he went into the offices of the right-wing Family Research Council in Washington, DC. When he was challenged by a security guard, he pulled out a gun and shot the guard in the arm. Despite being shot, the guard managed to subdue Corkins. No one else was hurt, no one was killed - although we have to say that we don't know what would have happened if Corkins hadn't been challenged.
Three incidents, three cases of guns, three cases of bloodshed. However, there was one difference.
When Holmes went on his rampage, the right wing gun nuts all immediately, almost in unison, shouted "lone wacko." No connection to anything else, they insisted. When Page shot down peaceful worshippers, we again got the "lone wacko" treatment from the right despite the fact that Page had spent the previous 10 years in the racist white power music scene. But of course that had nothing to do with what he did. Of course not. Domestic terrorism? Don't be absurd. Lone wacko.
Now we have Corkins, who supposedly told the guard "I don't like your politics" before shooting him and was described by his parents as having "strong opinions with respect to those he believes do not treat homosexuals in a fair manner.” In other words, unlike most shooters, he appears to be coming from the left.
So is he another "lone wacko" according to the right wing? Of course not! He's not a lone wacko, he's a product of the left!
The president of the Family Research Council, an idiot named Tony Perkins, blamed the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups - such as the Family Research Council - as responsible for the shooting. He said that by labeling groups like the FRC as "hate groups" - that is, by calling them what they are - the SPLC is "giving people a license to take innocent life." It's the SPLC's fault.
The next day, he added the Obama administration. The Obama administration is to blame for this, he said, by virtue of the "hostile atmosphere" it has created by its "hostility to religious freedom." Corkins is no lone wacko, he's the result of Obama!
So someone on the right shoots up a bunch of people? Lone wacko! No connection to anything else. Someone from the left shoots someone? The entire left half of the American political spectrum is to blame. That is how the loons of the right see the world.
Sources:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/fbi_family_research_council_suspect_said_i_dont_li.php
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/family_research_council_says_liberals_gave_shooter.php
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/family-research-council-obama-administration-linked-to-shooting
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/family_research_council_shooting_splc.php
Three weeks ago, I talked about James Holmes, who went into a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado and killed 12 people. Two weeks ago, I talked about Wade Michael Page, who walked into a Sikh temple in a suburb of Milwaukee, and when it was over, seven were dead, including Page.
Now I get to talk about Floyd Lee Corkins. On the morning of August 16, he went into the offices of the right-wing Family Research Council in Washington, DC. When he was challenged by a security guard, he pulled out a gun and shot the guard in the arm. Despite being shot, the guard managed to subdue Corkins. No one else was hurt, no one was killed - although we have to say that we don't know what would have happened if Corkins hadn't been challenged.
Three incidents, three cases of guns, three cases of bloodshed. However, there was one difference.
When Holmes went on his rampage, the right wing gun nuts all immediately, almost in unison, shouted "lone wacko." No connection to anything else, they insisted. When Page shot down peaceful worshippers, we again got the "lone wacko" treatment from the right despite the fact that Page had spent the previous 10 years in the racist white power music scene. But of course that had nothing to do with what he did. Of course not. Domestic terrorism? Don't be absurd. Lone wacko.
Now we have Corkins, who supposedly told the guard "I don't like your politics" before shooting him and was described by his parents as having "strong opinions with respect to those he believes do not treat homosexuals in a fair manner.” In other words, unlike most shooters, he appears to be coming from the left.
So is he another "lone wacko" according to the right wing? Of course not! He's not a lone wacko, he's a product of the left!
The president of the Family Research Council, an idiot named Tony Perkins, blamed the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups - such as the Family Research Council - as responsible for the shooting. He said that by labeling groups like the FRC as "hate groups" - that is, by calling them what they are - the SPLC is "giving people a license to take innocent life." It's the SPLC's fault.
The next day, he added the Obama administration. The Obama administration is to blame for this, he said, by virtue of the "hostile atmosphere" it has created by its "hostility to religious freedom." Corkins is no lone wacko, he's the result of Obama!
So someone on the right shoots up a bunch of people? Lone wacko! No connection to anything else. Someone from the left shoots someone? The entire left half of the American political spectrum is to blame. That is how the loons of the right see the world.
Sources:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/fbi_family_research_council_suspect_said_i_dont_li.php
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/family_research_council_says_liberals_gave_shooter.php
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/family-research-council-obama-administration-linked-to-shooting
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/family_research_council_shooting_splc.php
Left Side of the Aisle #70 - Part 4
Update on: Arizona's "papers please" law
It was sometime back that I spoke about Arizona's notorious law targeting undocumented workers, a law which had the effect of targeting for harassment anyone who looked Hispanic, even if they were born in the US and had lived all their life here. Even before it passed, the bill, numbered SB1070, became known as the "papers please" law.
In June, the Supreme Court struck down most of the law, leaving intact only the provision that police may check the immigration status of someone during the course of a lawful arrest. And that part is now the subject of a separate constitutional challenge.
I bring this up because in the course of the debate over SB1070, accusations were made that the law was driven less by concern over immigration and more by concern over the skin color of those immigrants. Supporters of the law of course vociferously denied this, although their repeated references to "protecting" and "sealing" the "border" didn't do much to dispel that notion. Now, however, we have proof that this law was - the polite form is "racially motivated," the more accurate form is racist.
The main sponsor and main force behind the bill was former Arizona Senate President Russell Pearce, a right-winger (no surprise there) who later got kicked out of office in a recall election, partly as a result of his efforts on this law. The ACLU of Arizona recently obtained thousands of emails Pearce sent during his time as Senate president and they make it absolutely clear the attitude driving it.
Here’s a sample of what the emails showed, and remember, these are quotes from Pearce's own emails:
"Last week, Denver’s illegal aliens sang our national anthem in Spanish and bastardized the words of OUR country’s most sacred song."
"Battles commence as Mexican nationalists struggle to infuse their men into American government and strengthen control over their strongholds. One look at Los Angeles with its Mexican-American mayor shows you Vincente Fox’s general Varigossa commanding an American city."
"They create enclaves of separate groups that shall balkanize our nation into fractured nightmares of social unrest and poverty."
"Corruption is the mechanism by which Mexico operates. Its people spawn more corruption wherever they go because it is their only known way of life."
"Tough, nasty illegals and their advocates grow in such numbers that law and order will not subdue them. They run us out of our cities and states. They conquer our language and our schools. They render havoc and chaos in our schools."
"We are much like the Titanic as we inbreed millions of Mexico’s poor, the world’s poor and we watch our country sink."
And finally,
"The new definition of racist is anyone winning an argument with a liberal, minority, pacifist, bible banger, or moron."
That is the man who pushed this bill.
When are we going to admit to ourselves that racism and bigotry is alive and - well, I don't want to say well because it's a sickness - but alive and thriving in our society and have been since the beginning? And not only against blacks. Hispanics are just the latest target of our isolationist xenophobia. We can trace it back generation by generation, group by group, target by target. Asians, Poles, Italians, Irish, Jews, Catholics: Any wave of immigrants that was in any way "different" - to be blunt, that wasn't a WASP - any time there was a wave of "different" people, we heard the same things: It's going to destroy the country, undermine it, these foreigners, they're dirty, they're filthy, they're all the rest of this nonsense. We can trace this right back to Native Americans, who weren't even immigrants.
Our record on this is a shameful one. It may not be the worst, it may not even be all that bad compared to other nations, that doesn't change the fact that it is shameful.
Sources:
http://www.care2.com/causes/immigration-ruling-shows-limits-of-states-rights.html
http://www.care2.com/causes/arizona-immigration-law-racially-motivated.html
It was sometime back that I spoke about Arizona's notorious law targeting undocumented workers, a law which had the effect of targeting for harassment anyone who looked Hispanic, even if they were born in the US and had lived all their life here. Even before it passed, the bill, numbered SB1070, became known as the "papers please" law.
In June, the Supreme Court struck down most of the law, leaving intact only the provision that police may check the immigration status of someone during the course of a lawful arrest. And that part is now the subject of a separate constitutional challenge.
I bring this up because in the course of the debate over SB1070, accusations were made that the law was driven less by concern over immigration and more by concern over the skin color of those immigrants. Supporters of the law of course vociferously denied this, although their repeated references to "protecting" and "sealing" the "border" didn't do much to dispel that notion. Now, however, we have proof that this law was - the polite form is "racially motivated," the more accurate form is racist.
The main sponsor and main force behind the bill was former Arizona Senate President Russell Pearce, a right-winger (no surprise there) who later got kicked out of office in a recall election, partly as a result of his efforts on this law. The ACLU of Arizona recently obtained thousands of emails Pearce sent during his time as Senate president and they make it absolutely clear the attitude driving it.
Here’s a sample of what the emails showed, and remember, these are quotes from Pearce's own emails:
"Last week, Denver’s illegal aliens sang our national anthem in Spanish and bastardized the words of OUR country’s most sacred song."
"Battles commence as Mexican nationalists struggle to infuse their men into American government and strengthen control over their strongholds. One look at Los Angeles with its Mexican-American mayor shows you Vincente Fox’s general Varigossa commanding an American city."
"They create enclaves of separate groups that shall balkanize our nation into fractured nightmares of social unrest and poverty."
"Corruption is the mechanism by which Mexico operates. Its people spawn more corruption wherever they go because it is their only known way of life."
"Tough, nasty illegals and their advocates grow in such numbers that law and order will not subdue them. They run us out of our cities and states. They conquer our language and our schools. They render havoc and chaos in our schools."
"We are much like the Titanic as we inbreed millions of Mexico’s poor, the world’s poor and we watch our country sink."
And finally,
"The new definition of racist is anyone winning an argument with a liberal, minority, pacifist, bible banger, or moron."
That is the man who pushed this bill.
When are we going to admit to ourselves that racism and bigotry is alive and - well, I don't want to say well because it's a sickness - but alive and thriving in our society and have been since the beginning? And not only against blacks. Hispanics are just the latest target of our isolationist xenophobia. We can trace it back generation by generation, group by group, target by target. Asians, Poles, Italians, Irish, Jews, Catholics: Any wave of immigrants that was in any way "different" - to be blunt, that wasn't a WASP - any time there was a wave of "different" people, we heard the same things: It's going to destroy the country, undermine it, these foreigners, they're dirty, they're filthy, they're all the rest of this nonsense. We can trace this right back to Native Americans, who weren't even immigrants.
Our record on this is a shameful one. It may not be the worst, it may not even be all that bad compared to other nations, that doesn't change the fact that it is shameful.
Sources:
http://www.care2.com/causes/immigration-ruling-shows-limits-of-states-rights.html
http://www.care2.com/causes/arizona-immigration-law-racially-motivated.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
