Three Cheers For Institutional Corruption
A secretive network of Republican donors is heading to the Palm Springs area for a long weekend in January, but it will not be to relax after a hard-fought election — it will be to plan for the next one.
Koch Industries, the longtime underwriter of libertarian causes from the Cato Institute in Washington to the ballot initiative that would suspend California’s landmark law capping greenhouse gases, is planning a confidential meeting at the Rancho Las Palmas Resort and Spa to, as an invitation says, “develop strategies to counter the most severe threats facing our free society and outline a vision of how we can foster a renewal of American free enterprise and prosperity.”
I know, I know — Koch Industries, trying to manipulate the US democratic system on behalf of pro-business right-wing boilerplate.
But, as per usual, the Gray Lady buries the lede:
To encourage new participants, Mr. Koch offers to waive the $1,500 registration fee. And he notes that previous guests have included Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court, Gov. Haley Barbour and Gov. Bobby Jindal, Senators Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn, and Representatives Mike Pence, Tom Price and Paul D. Ryan.
DJ rewind:
…previous guests have included Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court… .
A bitter observation: if the highest members of the (unelected) US judicial branch are attending super-secret partisan events that aim to “develop strategies to counter the most severe threats facing our free society and outline a vision of how we can foster a renewal of American free enterprise and prosperity”, the structural integrity of your democratic system is far from sound.
I’m just sayin’…
h/t Jonathan Singer
Related: Check out this must-read Boston Review symposium on FCC v. Citizen United, perhaps the most egregious SCOTUS decision since Dred Scott. Features commentary by Lawrence Lessig and responses from Will Wilkerson, US Rep. Donna Edwards, John Bonifaz & Jeffrey Clements, Ciara Torres-Spelliscy and more.
Gray Lady’s Paywall Will Allow Links from Blogs, Social Media
MediaPost provides details on the New York Times’ upcoming “metered” paywall — and it provides some comfort for bloggers/social media mavens:
[T]he so-called “metered model” will allow readers who are referred from third-party sites such as blogs, social media networks and search engines access to specific content “without triggering the gate, which will preserve NYTimes.com’s significant reach and advertising inventory,” according to [Janet Robinson, president and CEO of The New York Times Co.].
Interesting — appears they have at a partial (grudging) understanding of how the link economy works, even if they ultimately wish to destroy it.
h/t IWantMedia
Recruiters Instructed to Accept Gay Recruits
Impressive even if only temporary.
The Department of Defense announced today that it is instructing military recruiters to accept enlistees who identify themselves as gay in order to comply with a court order to stop enforcing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
According to a spokeswoman, recruiters have been told to begin processing gay recruits, even if they acknowledge their sexual identity.
But they’re also being told to warn recruits that, if they say they’re gay, they could still face discharge if the order ending DADT is stayed, or a judge’s ruling that the policy is unconstitutional is overturned.
The real question is how long will this last and what happens to those people accepted if the practice is stopped?
INSIGHTS: The Most Poignant Piece of Prose You May Ever Read
I picked up John Scalzi’s novel Old Man’s War one day because I was looking for some good Science Fiction and noticed that it had received a Hugo nomination for best novel in 2006. It was only after completing five of his works that I discovered his blog Whatever. Well yesterday he posted on his blog what I would classify as one of the most poignant pieces of prose I have ever read. Here is a snip but you must visit his site to read the entire piece entitled Things I Don’t Have to Think About Today.
Today I don’t have to think about those who hear “terrorist” when I speak my faith.
Today I don’t have to think about men who don’t believe no means no.
Today I don’t have to think about how the world is made for people who move differently than I do.
Today I don’t have to think about whether I’m married, depending on what state I’m in.
Today I don’t have to think about how I’m going to hail a cab past midnight.Today I don’t have to think about whether store security is tailing me.
Today I don’t have to think about the look on the face of the person about to sit next to me on a plane.
Today I don’t have to think about eyes going to my chest first.
Today I don’t have to think about what people might think if they knew the medicines I took.
Today I don’t have to think about getting kicked out of a mall when I kiss my beloved hello.
Please read the piece in it’s entirety.
WTF?: Now THAT is Schadenfreude
What a flippin’ brilliant five minutes of unedited television.
When a Jonah Goldberg Book TV panel on CSPAN turn’s into a nerdy right-wing version of Bachelorette the Men Tell All you know it is going to be awesome!
Revelation: Kurtz Blames the Media for Pending Dem Losses
I have to admit that whenever I see an article penned by a major media figure purporting to reveal a significant failure on the part of the media my ears perk up. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t get pleasure from seeing the media fail. This is not schadenfreude, rather my affinity for journalism – the profession I had all intentions of taking up were it not for the pesky mounting debt problem I had coming out of University – has me always hoping that one day there will be an “Ah Ha! moment” that enlightens the collective media to how far they have fallen from the tree of their roots and shocks them back to their collective senses.
Today’s piece in The Daily Beast by Howard Kurtz entitled How the Media Blew the Midterms preemptively blaming the media for the pending Democratic losses in 15 days shows some signs of this kind of enlightenment but ultimately stops short of really sending home the message. He manages to serve up the series of softballs that should have been hammered home successfully by the media only to have been whiffed upon.
This is a year in which facts—the preferred currency of the reality-based media—often don’t seem to matter. Journalists report that Sharron Angle had favored privatizing Social Security, spoke of people considering “Second Amendment remedies” and counseled rape victims to turn “a lemon situation into lemonade” by giving birth—and she’s still competitive with Harry Reid. Media outlets report that Christine O’Donnell, the onetime witchcraft dabbler, opposes masturbation and considers evolution “a myth,” and she laughs it off (while trailing in the race). New York gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino calls gay pride parades “disgusting,” hurls baseless charges about Andrew Cuomo’s sex life (after fathering a child out of wedlock himself) and tells a New York Post columnist “I’ll take you out”—and still hasn’t been laughed out of the race.
Let’s not forget that facts have been the inconvenient problem getting in the way of the media narrative for quite some time now. Kurt knows this as he has a sordid history of ignoring the facts himself.
Anyway, Kurtz then goes on to make a the argument that the media has taken to blaming this error-fest on the electorate for being uninformed rather than recognizing that they controlled the bullpen but neglected to put in the closer because they were distracted by a peanut vendor who strolled by.
On the merits, journalists are right that Obama’s accomplishments have been minimized. Health care reform, however it pans out, was a huge achievement; the overall package remains unpopular, the individual parts (such as not excluding kids for preexisting conditions) not so much. Tightening financial regulation was a heavy lift against the forces of Wall Street. Even the much-derided stimulus law saved plenty of jobs.
All that has been overshadowed because many voters believe the president bobbled the economy while setting his sights on social engineering. But here, too, the short attention span of today’s journalism played a role. The health care and banking battles were covered ad nauseum, but once they passed, the press lost interest and moved on to mosque mess and the Koran-burning preacher and whatever other diversions were available.
Good points Howard but the fact of the matter is that 1) you are a part of that media and 2) this election is not over. Rather than pen an easy piece making yourself look like an oracle just two weeks out from the election which will guarantee you another two years of playing the expert on t.v. you use that position to defend the points you made in this article. You could in fact go on CNN tomorrow and take to hammering anyone that try’s to spin away from the truth you so clearly outlined in the above quotes. The question is will you do that or will you continue to act as though you are not a part of the media that is delivering this mess to the American public?
ABA Spends over $17 million to Kill Pop Tax
Yep, over $17 million to cut taxes on pop.
There’s some things you need to know about Washington to understand this initiative.
1) Washington State uses sales tax as a primary means of collecting money into their coffers, rather than income tax.
2) Food was and is excluded from sales tax, for obvious reasons.
3) When less money was coming into the state coffers (due to the recession and the fact that people are spending less money), the state government implemented a tax upon candy and soda pop. Once excluded from sales tax, the government decided that these were luxuries as these consumables generally add nothing to one’s nutrition.
When the American Beverage Association heard that Washington state was now taxing soda pop, they leaped into action. It is reported that they had spent an estimated $1 million gathering petition signatures for the July 2, 2010 statewide deadline to help put this initiative on the ballot.
Since that time they have donated an astounding $16,727,750 to fight these taxes.
Lovers vs. Fighters
I am not sure how much I like the lovers vs. fighters analogy Digby puts forward here but her point is never the less valid and well reasoned. Bottom line, the activists on the left need to find another way to ensure their voices are heard because what they have done thus far has simply not worked. Not so sure? Think Ralph Nader.
Daily WTF? Graham, “Obama takeover of Most of Society.”
Can someone please help me understand what exactly Obama has taken over? Is it Wal-Mart, or Dairy Queen, your local grocery store or what? I just don’t get this. I would very much like to know why bulls%^ like this can be repeated without being challenged.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) accused President Obama of “turning his agenda over to the most liberal people in the House,” and pointed out that few Democrats are campaigning on the Democratic health-care bill. “Most Democrats in swing states are running against Nancy Pelosi and against the Obama takeover of most of society,” Graham said.
Was WikiLeaks Defamed?
It is clear why the Pentagon went on the offensive against Julian Assange of WikiLeaks, they were afraid of having their missteps and misdeeds revealed to the public.
Period.
That said, the argument they used against him – basically that the “indiscriminate” release of these Afghan War documents could possibly reveal the names of individuals who are collaborating with U.S. and NATO forces thus endangering their lives and the lives of their handlers – has enough merit that it was perfect bait for a weak media both looking for the next story to fill their 24 hour news cycle and wanting to curry favor with the military establishment that sees them as part of the problem rather than the solution.
Sadly this case proved to be, like so many others, a case of intentional defamation.
Let’s repeat that. Despite Gates’ ongoing assertion that “the initial assessment in no way discounts the risk to national security” and that “there is still concern Afghans named in the published documents could be retaliated against by the Taliban,” even the DoD and NATO admit that the WikiLeaks release “did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods” and that “there has not been a single case of Afghans needing protection or to be moved because of the leak.” Nonetheless, the accusation that WikiLeaks and Assange have “blood on their hands” was — as intended — trumpeted around the world for weeks without much question or challenge.
It’s been clear from the start that — despite the valid concern that WikiLeaks should have been more vigilant in redacting the names of innocent Afghan civilians — the Pentagon (and its media and pundit servants) were drastically exaggerating the harms, as The Associated Press noted on August 17:
Of course it is not too late for the media to publicly apologize possibly redeeming the credibility of Assange but that would require both a conscience and willingness to look critically at their own actions.
Harry Reid is Giving Me An Ice Cream Headache (Redux).
Worst Senate Majority Leader Ever is apparently also the Worst Debater Ever:
Why Harry Reid agreed to have a debate with Sharron Angle is a bit of a mystery to me. If your campaign is based on portraying your opponent as loony, then why give that opponent a chance to look reasonable? Lyndon Johnson never debated Barry Goldwater. Then again, I’m no political strategist. And neither, I’ve come to see, is Harry Reid. So let’s focus on what matters now: that a debate was held in Nevada last night between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his Republican challenger Sharron Angle. And its upshot was—sorry, folks—that Angle improved her chances.
I’m not suggesting that Sharron Angle, having been granted the opportunity to look reasonable, looked reasonable. On the contrary, she was very much herself—smiling maniacally in her crimson suit and hurling out bizarre fictions. But she looked reasonable enough. Lies about policy don’t really hurt you in a debate, especially when they’re voiced with conviction. What hurts you is looking evasive and squishy. Sharron Angle provided the lies. Harry Reid provided the squish.
Be sure to read the rest, assuming your desk can handle making a repeatative up-close-and-personal acquaintance with your forehead. Seriously, if ones get one’s ass handed to them by Sharron freakin’ Angle and her tinfoil-swaddled Tea Party boilerplate, it’s time to reconsider one’s career as a public official.
Last graph nails it:
Anyway, the biggest problem wasn’t that Harry Reid is a bad debater, though that he clearly is. The trouble was that Reid faced an opponent of far stronger beliefs and far fewer scruples. In an appraisal of the rambling style of George Bush the Elder, Michael Kinsley once speculated on the relationship between convictions and manner of speaking. “A man anchored in true beliefs of some sort not only would be more articulate in expressing those beliefs,” wrote Kinsley. “He would make a better liar, too.” This was why “Ronald Reagan, a man of a few, clear, rock-hard beliefs, was a brilliant liar.” Harry Reid basically offered the truth, but with little conviction or coherence. Sharron Angle offered conviction and coherence, but with very little truth. You might prefer the former type of salesperson, but which one makes the sale?
Bottom line: voters will line up behind someone who can at least fake a coherent, consistant message, bulwarked by strong convictions. So why can’t Democrats harness the strength of supposedly genuine conviction into electoral gain? Because, dear readers, over the years the Democratic leadership has continually misappropriated cowardly pragmatism (ie, scurry from the dreaded ‘liberal’ tag as if it were the new ‘n*gger’).
Duh.
Whatever one says about Obama’s tenure two years in, at least in 2008 his campaign team crafted a clear, coherent message, stuck to it, and wasn’t afraid to have their candidate believe in something resembling liberalism (even though some might argue that stance proved to be Reaganesque in the Kinsley sense of the term, ie, bullshit). C’mon, kids — isn’t it about time you gave the American people some credit and stood up for your beliefs, even if the body politic’s support for GOP-friendly policies that work against their interest belies bestowment of the benefit of the doubt?
Update: Perspective: Lance Mannion can has it (h/t Kevin Hayden via Facebook):
At one point, NBC’s Chuck Todd tweeted, “Angle didn’t really explain very well how eliminating Dept. of Education would work.”
But Angle doesn’t have to explain. She doesn’t have to explain anything. All she has to do is show her potential voters she’s as incoherently angry at everything and everybody they hate as they are. This is the year of Republican Revenge and all they want is to bring the temple crashing down around their ears in order to enjoy the sight of their enemies being crushed in the rubble. That anger is what’s bringing them out to vote.
Reid, on the other hand, like too many Democrats, apparently thinks that all that’s needed to bring out his voters is their sense of civic responsibility, which is why he puts so much effort into reminding people of their second least favorite high school social studies teacher, the one who couldn’t bring himself to get mad at students for not paying attention because he bored himself too.
Of course, it is our civic responsibility, not just those of us living in Nevada, but all of us in every state to get out there and vote against those who want to pull down the temple for the sheer satisfying mean spite of it.
The object is not to save Harry Reid or even Russ Feingold, who deserves to be saved. The object is to save ourselves and everybody, including Republicans, from the likes of Sharron Angle.
This.
Impeachment? Here We Go Again
When your entire electoral philosophy is predicated on convincing your base that it is imperative to elect people who believe that their opponents are somehow treasonous Socialist-Marxist-Communist-Fascists (or whatever the latest “ist” is) then it is no wonder impeachment is your only tactic…
That’s the subject of a disagreement between Jonathan Chait, who says they will if they retake the House of Representatives, and Jonah Goldberg, who disagrees so strongly that he wants to bet $500 on the matter. Chait wants different stakes:
“If Obama wins a second term, and a GOP-controlled House has not impeached him by 2017, I will let Goldberg write an item on my blog explaining why I was wrong. I’d hope he’ll let me do the same on his blog if I’m right. Oh, I also predict that said impeachment will be endorsed by Goldberg.”
Hold your gold. It’s on now.
I am with Chait, impeachment is an inevitability.
Hill Poll Proof Propaganda Rules the Day
Sorry but this Hill 2010 Midterm Election Poll is proof positive that the GOP political infrastructure running FoxNEWS and it’s little sibling radio empire echo chambers have effectively used propaganda to insulate a large segment of the U.S. voting population from reality.
The polling firm Penn, Schoen and Berland conducted the survey, contacting 4,047 likely voters by phone between Oct. 2 and Oct. 7. The margin of error for this sample is 1.5 percent.
More than one in every five Democrats (22 percent) in The Hill’s survey said their party was more dominated than the GOP by extreme views. The equivalent figure among Republicans is 11 percent.
Results for independent voters reflected the larger sample. Forty-three percent of likely independent voters said the Democratic Party is more dominated by its extreme elements, compared to 37 percent who thought the GOP had fallen under the sway of extreme views.
This is the direct result of systematic, intentional right wing media deregulation. If reasonable people wish to ever see their political process return to some semblance of sanity then the focus of grass roots efforts on reform needs to directed on reversing the decades of destruction wrought on the journalism.
As Amy Goodman said so appropriately,
UPDATE: Thanks to The Atlantic Wire for picking up my post as well as comments from Outside the Beltway, Booman Tribune and JammieWearingFool.
Florida: Our “Slow” Electoral Cousin
It looks like Florida is taking the short bus to this years election yet again.
Rich Whitney is the Green party candidate for governor in Illinois this year. But there’s been a small matter of a typo on the state’s electronic voting machines. On electronic voting machines in 23 wards — about half of which are predominantly African-American districts — Whitney’s name is set to appear as “Rich Whitey“.
Yes Florida, we know you are “an excellent driver.”
TNR Helps to Debunk Right Wing Propaganda RE: Healthcare
Jonathan Cohn of The New Republic uses the McDonald’s example to point out that the Professional Right has taken to misleading their followers in an attempt to overturn heath care reform.
Two weeks ago, the Wall Street Journal reported that, because of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, McDonald’s might stop offering limited health benefits to 30,000 employees around the country. If you read the story carefully or understood the actual provisions of the Affordable Care Act, then you knew that it was an unlikely eventuality. The law gives the federal government leeway to grant temporary exemptions on new insurance regulations when, for example, they’d be disruptive to current arrangements.
Sure enough, just a few days after the Journal story appeared, the administration issued McDonald’s (among others) a waiver on one such regulation and signaled its clear willingness to do the same for another.
But that hasn’t stopped the McDonald’s story from becoming propaganda in the campaign to discredit and, eventually, repeal health care reform. From Rush Limbaugh to the National Review, conservatives have seized on the story, arguing it proved the Affordable Care Act was already starting to wreak havoc with American health care. And this isn’t the only such incident.
He then offers up three “clip’n'save” questions (the context to which I have intentionally left out so that you will have to read his article) to ask yourself and your wing-nut Uncle, parent, brother-in-law, kids football coach, etc. when confronted with potential spin about the Affordable Health Care Act:
1) Is something actually changing?
2) Is the change related to the Affordable Care Act?
3) Is the change really for the worse?
blog advertising is good for you
