It was the summer of 74

Yes, wind is weather but extreme meteorological events are climate change. Just because these extreme weather events occur rarely or follow repetitive patterns doesn't mean there's no casual connection to be made with pollutants.

I clearly remember the "super outbreak" of tornadoes in the summer of 1974 when 148 of them swept through the entire southeast US for two days running. It was scary. Felt apocalyptic as I watched the teevee with my infant daughter sleeping in my arms. It happened at a time when our corporate overlords were going full bore with flouro-carbon propellants for aerosol products because they were cheaper to manufacture.

The oligarchs of that era fought bitterly against the EPA's ban on flouro-carbon use. Back then it was the long term ozone layer they were destroying for short term profits. But the ban was ultimately enacted and adopted by countries around the world. Now the new Galtians are trying to destroy the EPA altogether over regulations to mitigate climate change. And this week one monster tornado, or maybe two on a rare path, killed more people than all 148 did in 74.

Granted the population has increased since then as well, but still, these things don't seem entirely unrelated.

[More posts daily at the Detroit News.]

Town Hall protesters marching to a different Drum

In a surprisingly absurd post, Kevin Drum dismisses the anti-Ryan Roadmap uprisings at GOP town halls as just more astro-turf. Says he can't take them seriously because lefties are organizing on the internets to attend the town halls. He further suggests the media doesn't have to take them as serious grass roots efforts either because Move-on issued an action alert, or something.

Steve M summarizes my reaction:

At the beginning of the long, hot August of 2009 it became blatantly obvious that groups such as Freedomworks were disseminating town hall harassment strategies ("Rocking the Town Halls -- Best Practices") -- and yet this, and large amounts of additional evidence of substantial fat cat support, didn't cause the press to "yawn," or shrug off the protests as manufactured; the media covered the disruptions eagerly, and has continued to insist to this day that the tea party movement is "grassroots." ...

Of course, the entire argument is a crock. In less fevered times, we still wouldn't be talking about Norman Rockwell-esque, New England-style town meetings in which the entire populace gathers -- congressional town halls, by definition, would be gatherings of people with a greater-than-average interest in what government is up to. And, golly, they might even decide to attend the town hall and give the congressperson a piece of their mind after reading about the gathering in the local weekly paper -- weeks in advance! That's almost like a tweet!

This is a ridiculous argument. The difference isn't whether these things are planned or not (as far as I can tell, the only unplanned political act with a comparable effect is a riot). The difference is whether the protesters were summoned by massive, deep-pocketed organizations or sincere, underfunded individuals and groups. And this year the latter is the case.

Adding, as far as I know, none of the organizers of this grass root response are doing so in order to protect corporate power and profits. It's an important difference and deserves to be taken seriously.

[More posts daily at the Detroit News.]

The Celebrity Press Prom - Updated

That time of year again when the White House Press Correspondents throw themselves a big party, or rather I should say when the power players of The Village throw a party for them. Years ago it wasn't much noticed outside of the DC establishment, rating perhaps a few paragraphs in the big newspapers. But now it's morphed into a gala, star studded event where the feted media stars breathlessly report each celebrity encounter on Twitter and numerous sites live blog gossipy reports and video from the scene.

Today, after giving us a rundown of the various parties, Dana Milbank announces he's going Galt on the sorry spectacle:

I don’t fault any one host for throwing a party, or any journalist for attending. Many of them are friends. There’s nothing inherently wrong with savoring Johnnie Walker Blue with the politicians we cover.

But the cumulative effect is icky. With the proliferation of A-list parties and the infusion of corporate and lobbyist cash, Washington journalists give Americans the impression we have shed our professional detachment and are aspiring to be like the celebrities and power players we cover.

Um, Dana, it's not just the party that gives us that impression. Following any major media celeb's twitter feed solidifies that every day. And yes, there is something inherently wrong with "savoring Johnnie Walker Blue with the politicians" and that's especially wrong because they're friends. Because once you're friends, it tempers your coverage. It just does, as even "The Dean" admitted in his early days:

My late colleague David Broder once recalled how, when he began newspapering in mid-century, journalists embraced the credo that “the only way a reporter should ever look at a politician is down.” He said they “prided themselves on their independence, their skepticism, and they relished their role in exposing the follies and the larceny of public officials.”

Those days are long gone. Now the news cycle runs on meaningless, ginned up controversies based mainly on single quotes taken out of context. Yet the press corps has lately taken the affection of calling WHPC's extravaganza, the "Nerd Prom," implying the fascination with the horserace somehow conveys serious wonkery on actual issues. This from my morning cruise through Twitter sums up the absurdity of that:

Jamison Foser: Hate the term #nerdprom. Political media are more Heathers than Nerds. #dontflatteryourselves

Which brings us back to Dana's going Galt on the affair:

As I began to do the RSVPs for a few of this year’s parties, I thought about what our hardbitten journalistic forebears would make of Cee Lo and SamRo and the Donald. Then I made other plans for the weekend.

Call me cynical, and would be happy to be wrong and find out that he's done it on principle, but my first thought was he didn't get invited to one of the A-list events and decided to cover his disappointment by not going at all. But I will give him some credit for chiding his colleagues, however mildly.

Update: I rest my case. Didn't follow the hashtags this year but I'm sure they'll be revealing.

All I'm saying is DC journalism is morphing from a profession into a party. Don't begrudge them the fun. Doesn't make them bad people, but that level of familiarity fairly negates any claim to being impartial witnesses. It just does.

[Big thanks to Michael J.W. Stickings from The Reaction for the kind link at MIke's Blog Roundup. If you're not reading him regularly, you're missing out.]

Obama debunks the birthers

Obama released his long form birth certificate today. Lot of speculation on the internets about his motives, but here's what President Obama said:

In a statement to the news media Wednesday morning, Mr. Obama said he decided to release the document in an effort to end the “silliness” about his birth that threatened to distract from the serious issues facing the country.

“Over the last two and a half years, I have watched with bemusement,” he said in brief remarks. “I’ve been puzzled by the degree to which this thing just kept on going.”

You can see a pdf of the long form certificate here along with copies of the correspondence with the state of Hawaii. The official White House statement optimistically suggests:

At a time of great consequence for this country – when we should be debating how we win the future, reduce our deficit, deal with high gas prices, and bring stability to the Middle East, Washington, DC, was once again distracted by a fake issue. The President’s hope is that with this step, we can move on to debating the bigger issues that matter to the American people and the future of the country.

Seems somewhat unlikely considering the new self-appointed King of the Birthers, after taking credit for forcing the release, had this to say. Mark Knoller reports on Twitter:

"I am really happy that this has finally taken place," Trump added about birth certificate release. Says he'll now talk about other issues.

Trump now asking why Pres Obama doesn't release his transcript of his college grades.

It's always going to be something. Adam Serwer sums it up best:

Sadly, those who fostered doubts about the president’s citizenship are unlikely to relent in the face of factual proof, because birtherism was never about the facts. For its most ardent proponents, it was and is about the inability to accept the legitimacy of a black man in the White House. Nothing about the decision to release the president’s birth certificate can change that.

The hard core 27%ers won't buy it. Not ever. But I suppose one can hope that the media, at least outside of Fox, will be too embarrassed to continue their credulous "some say" coverage of the conspiracy theorists.

Adding, start at Memeorandum if you want to follow the deluge of reactions.

Our stupid discourse

Burned out today. Overslept this morning. Worked the rest of the day. Came home checked the news. It's all fact free, ridiculous horserace stuff. Off to meet a friend for dinner. Probably won't be back until tomorrow.

[More posts daily at the Detroit News.]

SCOTUS kicks back health reform challenge

heNo surprise here. SCOTUS declines to fast track Virginia's health care reform challenge. There's no compelling legal reason to do so, what with three federal cases coming up in early summer. And politically, this is not a fight the GOPers wanted to win. Steve M is right. The Republicans need this wedge issue to compensate for a very weak 2012 field.

I'd add the denial works for the GOP anyway. They can tell the gullible faithful that hey, they tried, and those darn out of touch courts thwarted their best efforts. As long as the base stays distracted by their anger at the others, it's all good. In a way you have to give the GOPers some credit on a tactical level for finding a way to create that endless wave of misdirected rage in their base. They've surfed to underserved victories on it for many elections.

Steve is also right that it probably won't be decided until at least 2013. No way a Roberts court is going to touch this before the election. If they ruled against the law, it would energize the left and leave their base complacent with the victory. If they ruled against the challenge -- well -- I'm not sure I want to share the possibilities that spring to mind.

[More posts daily at the Detroit News.]

Shakeup on DOMA defense

I usually leave the commentary on gay rights issues to the many fine bloggers who specialize in the genre, but this is worth archiving in general. By now you know that our oh so fiscally concerned Speaker Boehner commited half a million taxpayer dollars to defending the atrocious DOMA law because the White House decided not to defend it. The defense was to be led by a former Bush era official, Paul Clement, at a high priced DC firm.

Today it was announced the firm is withdrawing its representation and Clement resigned from the firm. However he'll still be working for Boehner on the case.

Clement will be joining Bancroft PLLC, according to a press release from the firm, which is led by former Bush administration officials. Viet Dinh, who was an assistant attorney general from 2001-2003, is a founding partner, and H. Christopher Bartolomucci, who served as an associate counsel to President Bush between 2001-2003, is a partner.

"Paul has argued 53 Supreme Court cases and knocked them out of the park," said Dinh. "He earned the respect of all the Justices and wowed the bar. Clients trust Paul and Bancroft with their biggest cases and toughest problems. Paul is a perfect fit with Bancroft, where we are building the next great law firm."

Clement said that he has known the Bancroft partners for more than 20 years.

"They put clients first and deliver results," he said in the statement. "Bancroft offers its clients premier talent, without all the baggage of a mega firm. We are shaking up the D.C. legal establishment.”

Shaking up or shaking down? Hard to tell the difference with that crew. Think Progress has more.

[More posts daily at the Detroit News.]

The Good Old Days

Anne Laurie at Balloon Juice has been running a book club series discussing Nixonland. This quote reminds me that the 60s weren't really all that good.

On Sunday, April 18, Vietnam Veterans Against the War’s John Kerry appeared on Meet the Press. Their Washington pageant began the next morning, the anniversary of the ‘shot heard ‘round the world’ in 1775. Eleven hundred veterans, mostly in wrinkled fatigues, medals pinned to hippie headbands, marched to Arlington National Cemetary; five Gold Star mothers in the lead; two vets carrying the VVAW banner; then a contigent in wheelchairs and crutches, blind men walking with canes. Two mothers and two veterans approached the Tomb of the Unknowns with a wreath. The great iron gates shut in their faces…

It's easy to forget how violent those times were. Hippies were being punched, for real, not just insulted in the media. Hell, they were being killed. Good to remember I guess when things seem so horrible now. In a way, those days were much worse.

On a semi-related note, Balloon Juice has a new front pager, Sarah Proud and Tall. She claims to be a well-to-do octogenarian living in a upscale nursing home. I'm thinking she's really a very clever, much younger person with a flair for impersonation. But either way, her name dropping posts are biting and hilarious. Check her out.

Faint praise

Giving this the quote of the day because it made me laugh out loud. Really. I actually kind of like Eugene Volokh. As conservative apologists go, he's not just a knee jerk hippie kicker wallowing in cognitive dissonance like most of them. Anyway, Volokh's brief defense of the ACLU is worth reading in full, but here's the punch line:

There’s much that I disagree with the ACLU about, and I’m sure we all can find things on which most organizations — including the ACLU — have been inconsistent under our definition of consistency.

Meaning, I suppose, ACLU is good when they're defending us, but bad when they're defending others like, oh, Black Panthers or something. The cons really do make their own reality. But good of Eugene to at least point out to the knuckledraggers in his audience that blanket condemnations of the group are wrong.

We the Peep-le

This is the one time of year I actually love the Washington Post. Yes, it's their annual peeps diorama contest. The winner was the most ambitious but as usual, I like some of the others better.

On a more serious note, and in keeping with the holiday, here's something you don't see everyday. A devout Christian lawyer who is also a progressive activist. Here he is on Jesus the Litigator. Pass it on to your favorite fundie.

Hope all who celebrate have a wonderful holiday. Me, I'm working. There are no holidays in retail.

Do you call that a buddy

I'm still obsessing about Benton Harbor over at DetNews. The more I research, the more complicated it gets. Hit the footer link for the latest. And right now I'm off to yet another late shift at work, but here's something you may never have seen. I never heard of Chris Cain myself until Mike Finnigan linked to this on Facebook, but he just rocked my socks off with this video.



In case the embed stops working, here's the direct link. Hoping I'll be back after 9:00 tonight. I've got a bunch of stuff saved I haven't got around to posting yet.

[More posts daily at the Detroit News.]

Perry's Inferno

I didn't know until now that Texas is being ravaged by an unprecedented rash of wildfires. Just horrible. But in response, unrepentant climate change denier, Governor Perry of Texas issues a proclamation to pray for rain? For the next 72 hours, Perry implores the people to raise their hands to the heavens and beseech their gods of choice to pour water on the parched lands of his realm.

Thinking, Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University, in his remarks to MoJo, has the appropriate response:

"I certainly don't think that praying will hurt. My concern is that the Governor has no Plan B," wrote Dessler in an email. "If praying doesn't work, what then? If we don't start taking reasonable steps to protect ourselves soon, then I will indeed be praying—for better leadership in Austin."

Me, I'll pray to the rain gods, but only to spare the good people of Texas and deliver them from Perry's reign of error.

I can't get no...

Here's something you don't see everyday. Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), in a interview with Human Events, expresses his sorrow for Silvio Berlusconi's problems with teenage prostitution with a little love song.



Kind of surprised this didn't go viral.

[More posts daily at the Detroit News.]

One answer to every question

Booman has been getting depressed lately by the inanity of our political discourse. I share Booman's pain. Giving him quote of the day for this summation of what passes for governance in these times:

The problem isn't that the Republican candidates are responding to middle class anxiety with spending cuts and tax relief for bajillionaires. The problem is that that is their response to everything, in every situation. When we had a surplus, they told us it was proof that the government was taxing us too much and that we all deserved a tax cut. When the economy tanked they told us it was because we were overtaxed and over-regulated. It's the same old story every single time in every single situation. Less for ordinary folks and more for those who are already loaded. That's the Republican ideology. You take that, you wrap it up in an American flag and hang it on a cross, and you've got a political party. They don't have any solutions because they don't believe in the federal government. The government is the problem. So, why would anyone put them in charge of it?

Maybe because we're so damn uninformed.

Or maybe we're becoming disengaged because the shock and awe of being constantly bombarded with unchallenged lies and the supporting blather of the 24/7 news cycle gets to be too much after a while.

[More posts daily at the Detroit News.]

Stuck in Detroit

Sorry, I know posting has been light here. I've been focused on Gov. Snyder's Emergency Financial Management Czar's takeover of the city of Benton Harbor. Can't crosspost but you can read them here, here, here, here and here. Or you can just click the footer link and scroll through so you can read my co-blogger's responses as well.

Meanwhile, I'm off to do a late shift at work so I won't be home until well after 10:00 tonight. Hoping I'll have enough energy to catch up on some other stuff then.

[More posts daily at the Detroit News.]

Waiting to exhale

Well it 420 and if you just got on the internets yesterday for the first time, this refers to the "pot smokers' holiday" based on code phrase of undetermined origins for meeting up to smoke some. Anyway, what better day to take a look at our current crop of presidential wannabes' position on the plant. Mojo collects some amusing anecdotes. This is certainly my favorite:

Mitch Daniels: As a student in Princeton, the Indiana governor was arrested in a police sting that netted two size-12 shoeboxes worth of marijuana, along with LSD and drug paraphernalia. Daniels was cited for pot possession but got off with a $350 fine for "maintaining a common nuisance." He told the Daily Princetonian in 1988 that because of the arrest "any goal I might have had for competing for public office were shot," and later called the incident an "unfortunate confluence of my wild oats period and America's libertine apogee" (far out!). As governor, Daniels has endorsed alternative sentencing for non-violent offenses like pot possession as a way to reduce prison overcrowding.

And you have to give Gary Johnson some props for political courage in admitting to using medical marijuana for three years. Looking at the wider view, this is a good illustration of how societal norms evolve. We've come a long way from the days when the only non-career killing answer to the question was, "Yes I tried it but I didn't really inhale."

[More posts daily at the Detroit News.]

A world of grief

Building a bit on my last post below, this is a subscription only piece in the WSJ but the lede says it all about corporate globalization:

U.S. multinational corporations, the big brand-name companies that employ a fifth of all American workers, have been hiring abroad while cutting back at home, sharpening the debate over globalization's effect on the U.S. economy.

The companies cut their work forces in the U.S. by 2.9 million during the 2000s while increasing employment overseas by 2.4 million, new data from the U.S. Commerce Department show. That's a big switch from the 1990s, when they added jobs everywhere: 4.4 million in the U.S. and 2.7 million abroad.

So yeah, let's lower the corporate tax rate some more so they'll "create" more jobs. That's worked so well in the last 30 years. Think Progress has more.

In other news, my sister wonders, what the frack is this:

Without government regulation and oversight and further studies of fracking and all related activities, the impact on our environment and the people living in gas rich areas could end up being devastating.

And here's something you don't see everyday. KKK refudiates the Tea Party and the vile Fred Phelps.

On a lighter note, our dear Capt Fogg takes on the nerds. Click over and wish my favorite ham a happy World Amateur Radio Day.

Steal this post

I don't often steal an entire post but I'm sure John Cole approves of passing this one on, far and wide:

This is what shared sacrifice looks like:

The Ryan plan that the GOP just passed in the House has a problem with the number on the right. They think they should receive more tax cuts while ending Medicare.

Very serious.

Best laid plans...

Didn't mean to blow off everything yesterday but my cousin, who I haven't seen in 50 years, and his family unexpectedly came into town. It was awesome visit. Back on track today.

Last refuge of scoundrels

Days after the President's budget speech, the GOPers are still wailing about their hurt feelings and the usual suspects in the big media are tut-tuting about Obama's lack of civility. In all the responses I've read, Krugman gets the comeback quote:

The easy, and perfectly fair, shot is to talk about the hypocrisy here; where were all the demands for civility when Republicans were denouncing Obama as a socialist, accusing him of creating death panels, etc..? Why is it OK for Republicans to accuse Obama of stealing from Medicare, but not OK for Obama to declare, with complete truthfulness, that those same Republicans are trying to dismantle the whole program?

Hey, as the old saw goes, the truth hurts. So cry me a river for the mendacious GOPers who are always allowed to lie their faces off to the bone without such recriminations.

Read the whole thing if you can access it. I'm locked out of NYT for the rest of the month having reached my free limit and certainly can't afford their exorbitant subscription rate. Oddly, I can still access some stuff through some links and I think this one may work even if you're also past your limit. [via]

Sigh-ing Statements

I'm as concerned about executive overreach as the next guy, but I'm just not getting the outrage over President Obama's latest signing statement. To begin with, am I the only one who remembers that there is no such thing as a Presidential "Czar?" This is a shorthand developed by media and bloggers to mean presidential advisor. As Atrios often says, no one can follow everything and no one man can be an expert in everything. Yet a President is responsible for all policy outcomes. Are people seriously arguing he, (or someday she), shouldn't be allowed to choose expert advisors to help them make decisions? Criticizing the choice of advisors is one thing, suggesting they shouldn't be allowed to have them strikes me as unrealistic.

I'm posting about this because John Cole bought into the outrage, calling a clear Obama flip flop. He's riffing off Jake Tapper, who apparently is a mission lately to make Obama out to be a total hypocrite, with selective quotes. I was surprised Cole bought into it without recalling the context himself, which to be fair, Jake supplied via embedded links, and added to, in this later post. Maybe John Cole didn't read the entire quote from that interview:

4. Under what circumstances, if any, would you sign a bill into law but also issue a signing statement reserving a constitutional right to bypass the law?

Signing statements have been used by presidents of both parties, dating back to Andrew Jackson. While it is legitimate for a president to issue a signing statement to clarify his understanding of ambiguous provisions of statutes and to explain his view of how he intends to faithfully execute the law, it is a clear abuse of power to use such statements as a license to evade laws that the president does not like or as an end-run around provisions designed to foster accountability.

I will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law. The problem with this administration is that it has attached signing statements to legislation in an effort to change the meaning of the legislation, to avoid enforcing certain provisions of the legislation that the President does not like, and to raise implausible or dubious constitutional objections to the legislation. The fact that President Bush has issued signing statements to challenge over 1100 laws – more than any president in history – is a clear abuse of this prerogative. No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president's constitutional prerogatives; unfortunately, the Bush Administration has gone much further than that.

So in fact, Obama did not say he would never use signing statements. Moreover, as the link Jake later supplies show, signing statements date back to the early 19th century, though it was "President Reagan [who] initiated this practice in earnest." Reagan issued 250, with 86 of them raising constitutional challenges. The ratios of the following presidents were, George H. W. Bush 228/107, Clinton 381/70 and George W. Bush 152/118. But note: "The significant rise in the proportion of constitutional objections made by President Bush is compounded by the fact that these statements are typified by multiple objections, resulting in more than 1,000 challenges to distinct provisions of law." This is what Obama was talking about in 2007. Context matters.

Addtionally, the cited study notes that signing statements on their face, are not unconstitutional. It's the grounds cited for their use and the effects of their application that matter. In fact, they seem to be a necessary tool to protect a president from Congressional fiats issued for reasons of political pandering and/or pure spite, which both would seem to apply to the present case with Obama.

None of this is to say the process doesn't require oversight, both Congressional and by citizens, since as made obvious by Bush, the process can be abused and needs to be countered when it is. However, it seems to me, this is not the hill on which to fight that battle. If we're going to bash Obama, let's do it for reasons that really matter and not inure the unengaged public to the actual dangers with little issues of small import. [graphic credit]

Atlas Slugged

I haven't been that interested in seeing this movie, and now, after Roy Edroso reviewed Atlas Shrugged, I don't have to. Best movie review. Ever. This was my favorite part:

OK, it's ridiculous, but no more so than Rand's The Fountainhead, out of which King Vidor, Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal made a silly and operatic but perfectly entertaining film.

That was what I hoped for as I watched the thing last night, because as much fun as it is to slag rotten movies, it is much better to be surprised by a good one, especially when you've reached the stage in life where two hours in front of a stinker sets you dreaming of the warm couch and leftover sesame chicken that you left back home. But it is my great regret to inform you that Atlas Shrugged: Part I is neither good nor good-bad, but bad-bad-bad-bad. I dreamed, not of sesame chicken, but of my own swift and merciful death, and that of the director, not necessarily in that order. It is not a pleasurable surprise, not a hoot, nor an outrage; it is Rand's granite crushed, reconstituted, and spread across the screen with steamrollers.

If you're thinking of springing for the ticket price -- well -- read the whole review first. [via]

The Silent Scream

Speaks for itself



Thanks, Rep. Joe Crowley (D-NY) [Via Watertiger]

Obama draws the bright line

Well it looks like he's in full campaign mode now and as repeatedly demanded by progressives, Obama has taken to the bully pulpit in earnest:

US President Barack Obama accused Republicans of wanting to turn the United States into a "Third World" country as he rallied support for his reelection campaign.

The attack came a day after Obama savaged Republican budget plans and unveiled his $4-trillion deficit reduction drive that aims to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans in order to preserve key social services.

And what was this "attack?"

"Under their vision, we can't invest in roads and bridges and broadband and high-speed rail," Obama told a select group of the Democratic faithful at the second of three fundraising events in his hometown of Chicago.

"I mean, we would be a nation of potholes, and our airports would be worse than places that we thought -- that we used to call the Third World, but who are now investing in infrastructure." [...]

Republicans plans to shrink the reach of government is "not a vision that's impelled by the numbers" but a "choice" to give a trillion dollars in tax breaks to the rich rather than ask those who've been "blessed" to "give a little more."

Your liberal media in a nutshell. This is what we're up against for 2012. When GOPers take the bullhorn and lie their faces off in a transparent attempt to destroy civil society as we know it, they're being "bold" and "serious." When our President points out the simple truths, he's "attacking" those nice, well-meaning Republicans.

GOP scrambles to avoid passing its own bill - Updated

Too funny. I haven't paid a lot of attention to the "true" conservatives' alternate to Ryan's ridiculous budget plan but thanks to clever procedural ploy by the Democrats, the Republican House majority almost passed this toxic Tea Party budget bill:

The vote was on the Republican Study Committee's alternative budget -- a radical plan that annihilates the social contract in America by putting the GOP budget on steroids. Deeper tax cuts for the wealthy, more severe entitlement rollbacks.

Normally something like that would fail by a large bipartisan margin in either the House or the Senate. Conservative Republicans would vote for it, but it would be defeated by a coalition of Democrats and more moderate Republicans. But today that formula didn't hold. In an attempt to highlight deep divides in the Republican caucus. Dems switched their votes -- from "no" to "present."

Panic ensued. ...

Hmmm. Maybe the Democrats are finally learning how to play this game. Video here.

By the way, I'm hearing the House GOPers, having barely avoided that disaster, did pass Ryan's budget. Of course it will go nowhere, but it gives the Democrats plenty of ammunition for the next round. The 2012 campaign ads will now write themselves.

Update: It's official. Ryan's Roadmap to Ruin passed the House with no Democratic votes and only 4 GOP defections. "Republicans voting against the Ryan plan were Reps. Ron Paul of Texas, Walter Jones of North Carolina, David McKinley of West Virginia, and Denny Rehberg of Montana."

Also, the backstory on how Dems almost punk'd the GOPers on the RSC budget bill. They won't be able to use that trick again, but hoping it's a clear signal from the Dems that they won't be such easy targets on the upcoming debt ceiling fight.

[More posts daily at the Detroit News.]

Obama off the cuff

My big media, sort of cyber-buddy Mark Knoller catches Obama in an unguarded moment, listening in on a live audio feed at a recent fundraiser after the press was supposed to leave.

In the candid remarks, Mr. Obama complains of Republican attempts to attach measures to the budget bill which would have effectively killed parts of his hard-won health care reform program.

"I said, 'You want to repeal health care? Go at it. We'll have that debate. You're not going to be able to do that by nickel-and-diming me in the budget. You think we're stupid?'" recalled the president of his closed-door negotiations on the bill to fund the federal government until September.

Mr. Obama said he told House Speaker John Boehner and members of his staff that he'd spent a year and a half getting the sweeping health care legislation passed -- paying "significant political costs" along the way -- and wouldn't let them undo it in a six-month spending bill.

And speaking about the GOPers' attempts to defund Planned Parenthood.

"Put it in a separate bill," the president said he told Boehner and his staff. "We'll call it up. And if you think you can overturn my veto, try it. But don't try to sneak this through."

Also, contrary to the prevailing narrative, it appears our President isn't exactly clueless about the GOP's tactics. He told the donors "he expects Republicans to continue using that process to enact their political agenda under the guise of cutting spending." Seems to me just because he doesn't immediately join into the instant outrage at every misleading GOPer utterance, doesn't mean that he doesn't have a plan to counter it.

Update: More from Mark. Obama wants cooler phones too. Also in response to speculation on the internets about this story -- of course it's entirely possible Obama knew the mike was still live. But so what? It's not like he said something that wasn't true and it apparently won the news cycle today.

Obama's Budget Speech

I was working so I missed the live delivery and I've been catching up on the reaction this afternoon. Predictably the Wall St. Journal editorial savaged Obama's budget speech for being so mean to Republicans and hurting their delicate feelings. Went to great lengths, with great self-righteous fury, to incorporate every lunatic fiction the GOPers successfully seeded into the public narrative for the last two years.

Blue Texan had a great answer to that and to answer Steve Benen's question, the media hated it because it doesn't fit into their prepared templates. No Democrats in disarray. No ZOMG!!!11!!1, the liberals hate it and will desert Obama in droves in 2012. Management didn't provide a MadLibs sheet for Obama gets the best of the GOPers.

I finally read the full transcript. I liked it a lot. This was a bold and courageous statement, especially in this social climate. I really can't decide on my favorite excerpts. Pulled out too many as I was reading it. But I haven't seen anyone mention this one. I liked how he turned the exceptionalism argument around in criticizing the Ryan Roadmap to Ruin.

I believe it paints a vision of our future that is deeply pessimistic. It’s a vision that says if our roads crumble and our bridges collapse, we can’t afford to fix them. If there are bright young Americans who have the drive and the will but not the money to go to college, we can’t afford to send them.

Go to China and you’ll see businesses opening research labs and solar facilities. South Korean children are outpacing our kids in math and science. They’re scrambling to figure out how they put more money into education. Brazil is investing billions in new infrastructure and can run half their cars not on high-priced gasoline, but on biofuels. And yet, we are presented with a vision that says the American people, the United States of America -– the greatest nation on Earth -– can’t afford any of this.

Subtle but strong, I thought. And then later the followup gently reinforces the shift.

The America I know is generous and compassionate. It’s a land of opportunity and optimism. Yes, we take responsibility for ourselves, but we also take responsibility for each other; for the country we want and the future that we share. We’re a nation that built a railroad across a continent and brought light to communities shrouded in darkness. We sent a generation to college on the GI Bill and we saved millions of seniors from poverty with Social Security and Medicare. We have led the world in scientific research and technological breakthroughs that have transformed millions of lives. That’s who we are. This is the America that I know. We don’t have to choose between a future of spiraling debt and one where we forfeit our investment in our people and our country.

And the closer perfectly reclaimed patriotism -- for everyone.

But no matter what we argue, no matter where we stand, we’ve always held certain beliefs as Americans. We believe that in order to preserve our own freedoms and pursue our own happiness, we can’t just think about ourselves. We have to think about the country that made these liberties possible. We have to think about our fellow citizens with whom we share a community. And we have to think about what’s required to preserve the American Dream for future generations.

This sense of responsibility -- to each other and to our country -- this isn’t a partisan feeling. It isn’t a Democratic or a Republican idea. It’s patriotism.

Yes, I know words, even eloquently delivered, are not policy. However, you need words in order to redirect the national conversation and create a new syntax for the policy. They were the right words and the right place to start. But one speech won't be enough.

Addendum: If you also missed it live, Moderate Voice has the full video. I haven't been able to get it to load but I'm guessing it's just my computer.]

Mother Earth is calling you

I love this. Bolivia is proposing a United Nations treaty giving "Mother Earth" the same rights as humans. Makes more sense than the corporate "person."

The bid aims to have the UN recognize the Earth as a living entity that humans have sought to "dominate and exploit" — to the point that the "well-being and existence of many beings" is now threatened. [...]

The wording may yet evolve, but the general structure is meant to mirror Bolivia's Law of the Rights of Mother Earth, which Bolivian President Evo Morales enacted in January.

The Bolivian law reflects the "traditional indigenous religious belief in the Earth deity known as Pachamama [which] is the centre of all life, and humans are considered equal to all other entities." Indeed, our planet is a living, breathing organism and respect for that has long been lost in Western traditions. That's why we're on the brink of environmental disaster and possible extinction of the human species now.

Obama's long range strategy

Yes I hate polls, but I read some of them anyway. It's no surprise that Republican approval rates are tanking now that the low info voters have been reminded how GOPers govern. If you can call their endless politicking governance. But the reason I'm linking in is because this one sentence resonated:

These poll numbers also point to the reality that Republicans taking control of the House may have been one of the best things that could possibly have happened for Obama's reelection prospects.

I often thought during the 2010 campaign that the White House didn't necessarily care if they lost control of the House for precisely this reason. The voters are impatient, have notoriously short attention spans and are easily taken in by the latest narratives that ignore or rewrite history. They needed to be reminded and what better way than to let the GOPers demonstrate their true motives for a couple of years?

Outsourcing my outrage

I''ve been crazy busy and have company on the way. So I'm outsourcing my outrage to John Cole who has been a ball of fire for the last few days. If you're not reading Balloon Juice reguarly, here's the must read posts, with excerpts:

If you read nothing else, this is the must read on vacuous paid punditry.

What I don’t know for sure is if Brooks, Klein, Sullivan, etc. are cowardly careerist sociopaths, just plain stupid, or both.

Well, both, obviously, but I would add a couple more things- lazy, incurious, insulated, and well-rewarded for staying that way.

What's the difference between IKEA in Sweden and their plant here?

Laborers in Swedwood plants in Sweden produce bookcases and tables similar to those manufactured in Danville. The big difference is that the Europeans enjoy a minimum wage of about $19 an hour and a government-mandated five weeks of paid vacation. Full-time employees in Danville start at $8 an hour with 12 vacation days — eight of them on dates determined by the company.

What’s more, as many as one-third of the workers at the Danville plant have been drawn from local temporary-staffing agencies. These workers receive even lower wages and no benefits, employees said.

A whole lot of shrill out there.

Ryan’s plan is anchored in an open contempt for anyone who isn’t wealthy enough to completely take care of themselves in their old age. He describes Medicare as some kind of cushy “hammock” that people laze about in, when in fact it has been the difference between moderate comfort and grinding poverty for generations of retired Americans.

Bummed out? John reminds us why we have to F. We have to I. We have to GHT.:

And btw, we’ve talked about the Ryan plan to gut medicare and medicaid and give the proceeds to the rich while feeding the warpig, and it is important to recognize this is not some one-off. This is what they want. They are also coming for your pension, they are after your social security, they want to destroy your union so you can not organize against them, they will go after your minimum wage next, they want to get rid of the EPA so their donors can pollute your water, air, land, and food and not have to worry about being punished, they want to deregulate Wall Street more so they can screw you again and not face any consequences, they want to tell you what you can do with your body, and they are spending lots of time and money making it harder and harder for you to vote. The Ryan plan isn’t an isolated incident, it was just shots fired on another front. If you are disheartened by the budget deal the other night, which is one small skirmish in a big war, you probably should just give up and go buy yourself a ton of lube.

No retreat. No surrender. Too much at stake.

[More posts daily at the Detroit News.]

A simple strategy to beat the GOP

It was a little depressing to watch the White House and the Democrats blow a winning hand and allow the GOP take the country hostage in order to win insane and counterproductive budget cuts. And this was just a tiny skirmish. They should listen to Matt's excellent plan to avoid another bloodbath over the debt ceiling.

It’s a two pronged strategy. The first one is a credible, repeated commitment not to surrender anything in exchange for getting congress to agree to the debt ceiling being increased. After all, why should anything be given up. Everyone knows that increasing the debt ceiling is the right thing to do. If the government were operating under uniform Republican control, the GOP would be increasing the debt ceiling. There’s nothing to bargain over. If some members of congress genuinely think that no increase in the debt ceiling is a superior options to raising it, then they’re entitled to be wrong. But there’s no reason that Obama should be trading votes with guys like John Boehner who know perfectly well that an increase is in order. This frames the issue correctly as one of whether or not Republicans who think an increase is warranted will nonetheless refuse to allow one in order to extract unrelated concessions.

It's all about framing the debate. The Dems found their message discipline on defending Planned Parenthood. There's no good reason they couldn't translate that to calling Boehner's bluff on the next hand. That is if they really want to win this game.

A brief shining moment

One thing that's clear is Democrats are lousy negotiators. There's no good reason for them to have come out with so little in this shutdown showdown. But they lost the narrative from the moment they accepted the GOPers' frame that austerity cuts are necessary, when it's so painfully obvious, as Atrios says nearly every day, more jobs would reduce the deficit. In a sane world, the Democrats would be asking "where are the jobs" non-stop.

But as Greg Sargent already pointed out, "The showdown over Planned Parenthood was an admirable moment for Democrats."

Harry Reid and Dems deserve credit for drawing a bright line on Planned Parenthood funding and refusing to budget. It’s true that the GOP’s insertion of the Planned Parenthood rider into the debate at the last minute gave them more leverage to push up the level of spending cuts even higher. It’s also true, as Digby noted, that the Dems’ drawing of a bright line on Planned Parenthood felt a bit like an effort to take a stand on something to buy off the base, even as Dems kept capitulating on spending cuts. But nonetheless, Boehner was ultimately forced to cave on this point, and it showed that Dems look strong when they fight and refuse to budge. The degree to which this spirit will animate Dems in future fights remains to be seen.

Sadly, if I had to guess, I'd predict this was a one-off and Digby's assessment is the correct one. Nonetheless, it was good to see that they're actually capable of this sort of message discipline and it gives us a frame within which to remind them they could be doing it more often.

[More posts daily at the Detroit News.]

Generational theft

If you missed this and you do nothing else today, read this Joseph Stiglitz article. Most succinct explanation of real generational theft I've seen in a long time. A few excerpts to get you started:

"The upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income every year. In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent. Their lot in life has improved considerably. Twenty-five years ago, the corresponding figures were 12 percent and 33 percent." [...]

"Virtually all U.S. senators, and most of the representatives in the House, are members of the top 1 percent when they arrive, are kept in office by money from the top 1 percent, and know that if they serve the top 1 percent well they will be rewarded by the top 1 percent when they leave office. By and large, the key executive-branch policymakers on trade and economic policy also come from the top 1 percent. ..." [...]

None of this should come as a surprise—it is simply what happens when a society’s wealth distribution becomes lopsided. The more divided a society becomes in terms of wealth, the more reluctant the wealthy become to spend money on common needs. The rich don’t need to rely on government for parks or education or medical care or personal security—they can buy all these things for themselves. In the process, they become more distant from ordinary people, losing whatever empathy they may once have had. They also worry about strong government—one that could use its powers to adjust the balance, take some of their wealth, and invest it for the common good. The top 1 percent may complain about the kind of government we have in America, but in truth they like it just fine: too gridlocked to re-distribute, too divided to do anything but lower taxes.

As Stiglitz points out, in time it will become apparent this is an inequality even the wealthy will come to regret. But for most of us, it will be too late.

[More posts daily at the Detroit News.]

The driving force behind the GOP

You didn't need a crystal ball to predict the Great Government Shutdown docudrama wouldn't end until the very stroke of midnight. They wrote the script to give Boehner cover with the Tea Party tyrants in his caucus. It was important that it looked like he was fighting until the last possible moment. But as always, it came down to this:

In a private party meeting Friday afternoon, Mr. Boehner told Republican lawmakers that he was fighting for all the cuts he could get, and regaled them with reports of how angry Mr. Obama was with him for the hard line he has taken in the talks — news that elated his membership.

Today's GOPers don't understand the realities of good governance and they don't care to figure it out. Even if they destroy everything, including themselves, all that matters is pissing off liberals. Especially that uppity guy in the White House.

[More posts daily at the Detroit News.]

First government shutdown averted - now what?

I was already asleep when it happened but it played out pretty much the way I thought it would. Our political overlords reached a compromise, if by compromise you mean the GOPers get more than they asked for at the start and in return agreed to let the EPA function and not destroy Planned Parenthood -- this time.

This is of course, is just the first skirmish, (or squirmish if your native tongue is Palinese), and the big battles are not far in the future. Haven't seen a list of the "historic" and "painful" cuts yet, but I'm sure they won't be making the Democrats' former progressive base happy. I cruised the internets this morning. Lot of pissed off people out there swearing they'll sit out 2012 too to teach the Democrats a lesson they apparently didn't learn in 2010.

I'm as pissed off and disgusted as anybody. Maybe even more. It's clear the Dems aren't listening to us and once again allowed the GOPers to set the narrative. But I look out there and see a GOP that is out of control and not even pretending that their agenda isn't to utterly destroy the middle class and restore feudalism. Agree we need to send Dems a message. My problem is I think we're doing it wrong. Too much focus on the executive and not enough on the Congressional side. So we get stuck with a weak, triangulating President for another four years. If we could elect more strong progressives in House and Senate, THEY could "make him do it," in a way that we obviously can't.

Thinking that's where the Tea Party has outplayed us in 2010. I know they had a lot of help from the plutocrats who exploited Citizen United. But still, progs sat it out. Tea Party organized and elected maniacs who are now pulling the strings and suceeding in moving the narrative even more to the far right. Wondering if we could take a lesson from that strategy.

[More posts daily at the Detroit News.]

Malicious Intent

This would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. In their flailing to pass the blame for a government shutdown on the Democrats, the GOPers are really digging deep into the septic tank to find something that will stick. Or maybe, freshman Tea Party Republican Senator Mike Lee just can't read the fine print on his pocket version of the rules of governance and someone could get him a large print version?

“Why was it that a few months ago … when the president had both Houses under the control of his party — why did he opt not to pass a budget for fiscal year 2011?” asked Lee, who helped found the Senate’s Tea Party Caucus earlier this year.

“It was either irresponsible on one hand or deliberate and malicious on the other with intention to bring about a sequence of events that would culminate inevitably in a government shutdown,” said Lee.

Of course, you high denominator readers know that the President can only propose budgets and the onus is on Congress to authorize appropriations. These people are always demanding testing before allowing citizens to register to vote. Maybe they should hold the same standard for their candidates' understanding of the processes of governance before they're allowed to run for office.

Meanwhile, the slightly more informed right wing narrative going around the internets, with the establishment media charge being led by Jake Tapper on twitter is the Congressional Democrats are equally to blame because they didn't pass an appropriations bill when they had the majority. This, of course, ignores the relentless obstructionism and run out the clock strategy of the GOPers from the day in early 2009 when they declared their primary mission was to make Obama fail.

It would have been a collosal waste of time to try to pass a budget bill in that environment. You might recall the GOPers were fighting bitterly against such small funding as health care aid to 9/11 responders. A big appropriations bill would likely have ended in an impasse anyway. So the Democrats focused on what could get done. Thus, despite all the GOP sabotage, Nancy Pelosi's 111th Congress was the most productive since the 60s.

Furthermore, I'm all for historical context, but if the GOP's apologists are going to dig up past history, maybe they want back a little further. The appropriations process has been a mess for years under either party majority. Also seem to recall a whole lot of emergency appropriations for Bush's Folly in the Middle East in order to keep the funding off the books so they could pretend the deficit was smaller. Would be nice if our media would bother to inform the public about that context.

[More posts daily at the Detroit News.]

Trash Flash Mob

Funny. I was just wondering about this last night. Apparently, DC trash collectors are not essential federal employees. So if the GOPers succeed in shutting down the government this weekend, DC will be one stinking mess in a matter of days. Especially with the weather warming up.

This leaves Speaker Boehner ripe for a flash trash action. I'm generally against littering but since the GOP apparently wants to throw the process of responsible governance into the refuse pile, there's a certain poetic symbolism to this citizen response that you have to love. [graphic via]

[More posts daily at the Detroit News.]

Why the GOPers won't back down on a shutdown

The Republicans only have themselves to blame. They told these unhinged people to believe they speak for the majority of Americans and they lied to get them enraged. I suspect the GOPers thought they could direct the rage solely against Democrats. Don't think it's working out quite as they expected.

Found this post, the work of some nutjob in Arizona, entitled Cantor Shut Down The Damned Government, when I was looking for something else. The salient quotes:

We have 545 snakes in D.C. who are supposed to be working for us, but it appears that Dems and Repubs alike are working for themselves instead.
435 congress people
100 Senators
9 Supreme Court Justices
1 Usurper
545 Total

Here is a quote from Claire Wolf’s book, 101 Things to do Till the Revolution Starts:
“It is too late to work within the system, and it is too early to shoot the bastards”, however, here is a little more math for your consideration.

1 9MM round costs approximately .89 cents.

.89 cents X 545 = $485.05, a lot less than $14 Trillion dollars wouldn’t you say? [...]

Mr. Boehner, we gave you and your bunch a chance in this last election, however it seems you are back to business as usual.

Do you people not know how to deal honestly and straight up with folks instead of always making some kind of sly underhanded game out of everything?

You might want to keep the General Patton Policy in mind which I mentioned a few paragraphs ago.

I figure this is far from the only Tea Party Patriot ranting about Second Amendment Solutions on the internets, and probably he's all talk, but these days you never know. I wouldn't blame Boehner for being scared. Hell, I'm a little scared for him.

[More posts daily at the Detroit News.]

Stop calling them entitlements

This has been bugging me for a long time, and I'm guilty of it myself, but it's a mistake to label Social Security and Medicare as entitlement programs. They are not entitlements. They are contractual obligations. We've paid in our hard earned money, from every paycheck, for our entire working lives specifically for these programs with the express promise the money would be paid back to us on our retirement in a specifically defined manner.

Subsidies to profit taking industries, no-bid contracts for government goods and services, special tax breaks for only certain classes of taxpayers, lower tax rates on capital gains, cushy gold-plated pension plans for retired lawmakers and such are entitlements. Social Security and Medicare are not.

Alternative realities

As I'm sifting through the commentary on Ryan's *very serious* budget proposal, I keep recalling how at the beginning of the Iraq war, as the Bush admininstration's false narratives were being exposed, how little it concerned them. There's that famous quote about how they were creating their own new realities even as the fact checkers were exposing their lies. I saw this then, and now, as their own personal "shock and awe" campaign against the American people. Ryan's new "plan" is just the latest volley in that purely political operation. And now, as then, the media blithely play along, credulously repeating their slogans as if they meant something real.

Take for instance this new narrative that the GOPers just delivered a "serious proposal" and they're just patiently waiting for Obama's alternative. The media dutifully parrots this, apparently forgeting that Ryan is presenting the alternative to Obama's budget which was filed long ago. Quoting Benen again:

Second, if the request is for an "alternative" budget, I might remind Halperin and Boehner that the White House already presented Obama's alternative. Mid-February really wasn't that long ago, but that's when the administration presented a budget plan for the next fiscal year. They put it online, and it generated a lot of discussion. Halperin and Boehner might have heard about it.

"The president is certainly entitled to disagree with our budget, but what exactly is his alternative?" Halperin seems to like the question, but Obama's alternative was sent to Congress nearly seven weeks ago.

Twitter also reminds me that a Congressional Democrat offered an alternative, realistic, deficit reduction proposal in November, 2010.

Today Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), a member of the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, offered a comprehensive proposal to reduce the federal deficit without making middle class Americans foot the bill. Schakowsky's plan is an alternative to the Bowles-Simpson plan and would reduce the deficit by $441 billion in 2015, surpassing President Obama’s $250 billion target. Critically, the Schakowsky plan accomplishes deficit reduction without making cuts to essential federal expenditures that benefit the middle class.

The media dutifully ignored her sensible plan. No one called her serious, or bold. They did say that about Bowles and Simpson though, whose plan was more similiar than different from Ryan's Roadmap to Middleclass Destruction. These superlatives are apparently reserved only for those who seek to rob from the poor to pad the wallets of the rich.

The Path to Prosperity ends at the ruins of the middle class

I was offline most of yesterday and came home to an explosion of news. I've been sifting through the internets trying to make sense of it all but it's one of those times when I have so much to say, I don't where to begin. So I'll start by quoting Steve Benen on Ryan's new Roadmap, cleverly called The Path to Prosperity, which pretty much sums up my initial thoughts:

Except, of course, that's ridiculous given the plan itself. This has nothing to do with fiscal responsibility, and everything to do with an ideological crusade. Ryan and his backers don't want to shrink the deficit; they want to shrink government.

Indeed, yesterday, Ryan declared, "This isn't a budget. This is a cause." It's perhaps the only thing he said yesterday that actually made sense. [...]

The key takeaway, in other words, is understanding exactly what the "cause" is. Ryan wants to "repeal the 20th century," shred the modern social contract, poke gaping holes in the safety net, and change the very nature of how Americans interact with their government -- telling the public, "Good luck, you're on your own."

This, of course, has been the GOPers burning desire for decades. They don't actually want to get rid of government entirely, to the extent that it's been paying them very well, with no penalities for screwing up, and affords them the power to rig the rules in their favor. They simply want to get government oversight out of their way, except as a means to collect the world's entire wealth for themselves. What Ryan doesn't mention is his path to prosperity is paved with the bleached bones of the destroyed middle class.

The shutdown game

Just another high stakes gamble in The Village. The Caucus posts the he said/she said on the pending government shutdown. Shorter version:

Boehner: If the government shuts down it's the Democrats fault for not meeting the extreme terms of the Tea Party GOPers.

Schumer: Compromise deal is on the table. Okay with us if you have to pretend to play tough to fool the Tea Party rubes.

Me to Schumer (and Obama): WTF? You're holding the high cards. Why are you underplaying your hand? #thoughtIelectedbetterpokerplayers

2084

George Orwell was clairvoyant. He was just off by about a hundred years. This is the most frightening news I've seen in a long time.

Prepare yourself for the next stage in the enactment of Total Information Awareness. The Obama administration is in the process of enacting a “mass surveillance state.” Raw Story reports that the FBI is working on “an advanced biometrics facility” that will also be used by the Pentagon.

I gave up on the notion of privacy and flying under the radar in about 2003 when I finally bought my own computer. I realized at that point, even if you only have a checking account, the government can track you and the only way to get off the grid is to live in a cave in the wilderness. But this program takes surveillance to a truly Orwellian level.

I admit, even knowing that no politician willingly forfeits vested power, that I had harbored a fool's hope Obama would reject this sort of expansion. Sad to be so wrong.

[Via Avedon who has so many must read links right now that I should have just copied her posts and pasted them here so you don't miss any of them.]

Wisconsin GOPers run from the law

Now that the huge mass demonstrations are over, the teevee news is pretty much ignoring the state but big doings afoot in Cheesehead Central. Wisconsin Republicans are in legal trouble over their hasty machinations in pushing through the union busting bill. Do read the whole article at the link to see the breadth of their problems but this one graf is a good summation:

The Wisconsin Republicans’ strategies from the beginning of this debacle have been so foolish as to make one question their ability to lead in any capacity. Legislators should be able to strategize and plan, but these folks have fumbled the ball at every pass and it looks like their own hubris will block them from a first down, let alone a touchdown. In fact, it almost appears as if they scored one for the other team because the court is just beginning to hear testimony about the open meetings law violation, and this alone is enough to make serious problems for the Republicans. There is a mountain of evidence to back up the claim that they violated the open meeting laws, including their own press conferences, videos, testimony of police officers working the Capitol that night, and a petition signed by just under 3,000 witnesses.

This makes the upcoming election of the state Supreme Court justice even more important than usual.

In related news, Wisconsin Democrats have enough signatures to force the first recall election. This "less than halfway through the 60-day window for gathering the signatures." The local paper also reports, "It is expected to be the first completed of 19 active recall efforts registered between Feb. 24 and March 2 against 16 senators."

They only need three wins to realign the Senate. Even if they only get one or two, it would be a big win for the workers. If they won all 19, well, future historians will probably look back and call it the beginning of the workers revolution.

Sardonic laughter

Krugman does his civic duty and reports catching George Will in moment of hypocrisy. Seriously, I laughed out loud, but it wasn't a happy chortle.

[More posts daily at the Detroit News.]

Afraid to watch

I really want to see this movie but seriously, I'm afraid to watch it. Having seen a lot of people, who are normally able to withstand copious assaults of the crazy, reporting they've had to watch it in increments because it's so infuriating, I'm afraid I might stroke out from outrage.



[More posts daily at the Detroit News.]

Stupid electorate

You know I hate polls, but this one is worth noting briefly. A huge number of voters are hopelessly misinformed on government spending. They wrongly believe public broadcasting gets $178 billion a year. The real figure? About $420 million. They also have no idea how little goes to foreign aid.

Why would they be so misinformed? Think it has something to do with the establishment media uncritically airing Republican lies and treating faked, criminally edited "sting" videos by far right extremists as legitimate news? Nah, me neither. Must just be a coincidence.