Hullabaloo

Saturday, April 17, 2010

 
Saturday Night At The Movies


In the loose palace of exile

By Dennis Hartley

















When You’re Strange: Just another band from L.A.



I can still remember the first time I heard “Riders on the Storm” by the Doors. I was all of 14. It haunted me then and haunts me now. Even though it wasn’t a movie, it was my introduction to film noir. Distant thunder, the cascading shimmer of a Fender Rhodes and dangerous rhythms. “There’s a killer on the road. His brain is squirming like a toad.” Fuck oh dear, this definitely wasn’t the Archies. I’ll tell you this-it sure as hell didn’t sound like anything else on the radio at the time (especially considering that it squeaked in at #99 on Billboard’s Top 100 for 1971, sandwiched in between the Fifth Dimension’s “One Less Bell to Answer” and Perry Como’s “It’s Impossible”). Jim Morrison’s vocals really got under my skin. Years later, a friend of mine explained why. If you listen carefully, there are three vocal tracks. Morrison is singing, chanting and whispering the lyrics. We smoked a bowl, cranked it up and concluded that yes, it was a pretty neat trick.

By the time “Riders on the Storm” hit the charts, the Doors had ostensibly begun to dissolve as a band; Morrison had left the U.S. to embark on an open-ended sabbatical in France. When he was found dead in his Parisian apartment in July of 1971 at age 27, it was no longer a matter of academic speculation-the Doors, Mk 1 were History. But what a history-in the short 4 ½ years that keyboardist Ray Manzarek, guitarist Robbie Krieger, drummer John Densmore and lead vocalist Jim Morrison enjoyed an artistic collaboration, they produced six timelessly resonant studio albums and the classic Absolutely Live (which still holds up as one of the best live albums ever by a rock band). They are also one of the first bands to successfully bridge deeply avant-garde sensibilities with popular commercial appeal. It was Blake and Rimbaud… that you could dance to.

There have been a fair number of books about the band over the years; a few in the scholarly vein but chiefly of the “tell-all” variety. Like many Doors fans, my introduction to the Jim Morrison legend came from reading No One Here Gets Out Alive many moons ago. The book was co-authored by journalist Jerry Hopkins and Doors insider Danny Sugarman. In retrospect, it may not be the most objective or insightful overview of what the band was really about, but it is a wildly entertaining read. That was the same takeaway I got from Oliver Stone’s way over-the-top 1991 biopic. Interestingly, I found his film to be nowhere nearly as “cinematic” as the Doors music has always felt to me (Francis Ford Coppola nailed it-it’s all there in the first 10 minutes of Apocalypse Now).

Surprisingly, it has taken until 2010, 45 years (!) after UCLA film students Jim Morrison and Ray Manzarek first starting kicking around the idea of forming a band, for a proper full-length documentary feature about The Doors to appear, Tom DiCillo’s When You’re Strange. You’ll notice I said, “about The Doors”. Stone’s film ultimately lost its way as a true portrait of the band, I believe, because it was too myopically fixated on the Jim Morrison legend; Morrison the Lizard King, the Dionysian rock god, the drunken poet, the shaman. Yes, he was all of that (perhaps more showman than shaman), but he was only 25% of the equation that made The Doors…well, The Doors. That’s what I like about DiCillo’s film; he doesn’t gloss over the contributions of the other three musicians.

In fact, one of the things you learn in the film is that Morrison himself always insisted that all songwriting credits go to “The Doors” as an entity, regardless of which band member may have had the dominant hand in the composition of any particular song (when you consider that Morrison couldn’t read a note, that’s a pragmatic stance for him to take). The band’s signature tune, the #1 hit “Light My Fire” was actually composed by Robbie Krieger-and was allegedly the first song he ever wrote (talk about beginner’s luck). He’s a damn fine guitar player too (he was trained in flamenco, and had only been playing electric for 6 months at the band’s inception). Manzarek and Densmore were no slouches either; they had a classical and jazz background, respectively. When you piece these snippets together along with Morrison’s interests in poetry, literature, film and improvisational theatre (then sprinkle in a few tabs of acid) you finally begin to get a picture of why this band had such a unique vibe. They’ve been copied, but never equaled.

The film looks to have been a labor of love by the director. Johnny Depp provides the narration, and DiCillo has assembled some great footage; it’s all well-chosen, sensibly sequenced and beautifully edited. Although there are a fair amount of clips and stories that will qualify as old hat to Doors aficionados (the “Light My Fire” performance on the Sullivan Show, the infamous Miami concert “riot”, etc.), there is a treasure trove of rare footage. One fascinating (but all too brief) clip shows the band in the studio constructing the song “Wild Child” during the sessions for The Soft Parade. I would have been happy to watch an entire reel of that; I’m a real sucker for films like Sympathy for the Devil, Pink Floyd - Live at Pompeii and Let It Be which offer a glimpse at the actual creative process. The real revelation is the interwoven excerpts from Morrison’s experimental 1969 film HWY: An American Pastoral, which I’ve never had an opportunity to screen. Although it is basically a bearded Morrison driving around the desert (wearing his trademark leather pants), it’s mesmerizing, surreal footage. DiCillo must have had access to a pristine master print, because it looks like it was shot last week. It wasn’t until the credits rolled that I realized this wasn’t one of those dreaded recreations, utilizing a lookalike. As a matter of fact, Morrison has never appeared so “alive” on film. It’s eerie.


.
Dennis Hartley 4/17/2010 05:30:00 PM |

 
Biased Sisterhood

by digby

The following was written by the editor of The Las Vegas Review Journal. It is not satire:

Bias is not a good thing. Right? We all agree on that, don’t we?

People and candidates for public office should be judged on the basis of their ideas, stance on the issues, character, experience and integrity, not on the basis of age, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion or disability.

Therefore, we must repeal the 19th Amendment. Yes, the one granting suffrage to women. Because? Well, women are biased.

Just look at the poll results in today’s newspaper.

Men favored the attractive former beauty queen Sue Lowden over the graying Harry Reid by 22 points, while women shunned their gender mate, choosing Reid by a 2-point margin. Which proves women favor Democrats.

Not convinced? Well let’s back it up a week and look at the poll results published this past Sunday.

In a head-to-head match among Reid, Lowden and Tea Party pretender Scott Ashjian, the men favored Lowden by 19 points over Reid and women picked Reid by a 3-point margin. Ashjian was in single digits.

But change the Republican option from Lowden to former basketball star Danny Tarkanian and it is a different tale. Men still favored the Republican by 16 points and doubled their support by Ashjian to 15 points. Women, on the other hand, chose Reid by 16 points, proving they’d rather vote for a woman than a male Republican.

Men are consistent. Women are fickle and biased.

Not convinced?

Then look down the questionnaire to the 3rd Congressional District race pitting Republican Dr. Joe Heck against Democratic incumbent Dina Titus. Men went with Heck 58-36, while women leaned toward Titus 52-40.

Repeal.

Right. Because 13% of the women who would vote for a moderate Republican would switch to the moderate Democrat rather than vote strict party line or teabagger insanity like the male automatons, they are "biased" and should have their right to vote repealed. It couldn't possible be that they dislike Tarkanian for reasons other than the fact that he has a penis. (You know how those biased women hate those things.)

And in the other race the bitchuz picked the Democratic woman over the Republican man purely because she's a woman while the men who are favoring the male Republican are obviously basing their votes purely on the issues. Why? Because men aren't biased.

The fact is that nationally more women vote for Democrats and more men vote for Republicans. That means --- in general --- women are more liberal and men are more conservative. And I think that really explains why this sexist creep wants to take away their right to vote, don't you? I would imagine he'd like to remove the franchise from people under the age of 30, blacks and Hispanics too. Then he'd be able to remove a whole bunch of that irresponsible bias from the system."Those people" just can't be trusted.

When you strip away everything else,all the prejudice and the bigotry and the arrogant privilege, it all comes down to the fact that these wingnuts just don't like democracy.



h/t to TJ
digby 4/17/2010 04:00:00 PM |

 
Fully Subscribed

by digby

Last night's Moyers with James Kwak and Simon Johnson was a must see. (You can see the videoat the link if you missed it.) It was a timely discussion of the systemic problem we face. Essentially we are an oligarchy. And it's getting worse, not better.

I think this comment from Kwak, gets to the nub of it:

BILL MOYERS: How can it be that a Robert Rubin, former Secretary of the Treasury, pulls down $100 million as a senior advisor to Citigroup and claims he doesn't know the risk that was involved in what he was trying to sell to clients and foreign officials? How can that be?

JAMES KWAK: I think there are two things. There's a narrow and a broad view of this. The narrow view is I think Rubin is actually not lying. I think it is true that Rubin did not know what the risks were. Although he certainly should have known what the risks were. And that's because he was fully subscribed to this ideology that free markets are good. That the market will take care of itself.

That, he also suffered from a lot of the blindness that corporate officers and directors have. Corporate officers and directors manage these enormous organizations with tens of hundreds of thousands of people. They have very little idea what's going on. They're getting their information from subordinates, who are giving them a filtered view of the world.

On the other hand, when he says, no one could have foreseen this. This is what I call an intellectual cover up. And I say that because it's very disingenuous. Over the past 20 years, these banks used their economic power and their political power to engineer an unregulated financial environment in which precisely this sort of thing could happen. And in that sense, I think that this was not an accident. It was not a natural disaster. It was not unforeseeable. It was the product of the efforts by the sector over the past 20 years to reshape Washington and to engineer an environment that would allow them to make as much money as possible.

Simon talked earlier about money. And we know that the financial sector, especially Wall Street, has been, has made enormous contributions to both campaign contributions and lobbying expenses. But I think there were, there were two more potent weapons in their arsenal. One is the revolving door. So, we've seen an enormous number of people passing back and forth between Washington and Wall Street over the past 20 years. This is not a new phenomenon. It happens in every industry. But there are certain things that make it especially pernicious when it comes to finance. One is that, one is a question of incentives. So, compared to other industries, Wall Street can simply offer enormous amounts of money. I'm not saying that everyone did that. I'm not saying that even the majority of people did that. But that is, that is very clear.

Yes it is. For instance, I had no idea that Mike Oxley --- the guy whose name is on the Sarbanes-Oxley Act which was enacted in the wake of Enron to penalize those who obscure publicly reported financial information --- is now working as a lobbyist for the financial industry. It just doesn't get any more obvious than that.

Johnson and Kwak are both big proponents of the Volcker rule which would break up the big banks. They are having a bit of an academic argument with Paul Krugman, who thinks that the size of the banks isn't the problem but rather the lack of regulation. What I gleaned from this show however, is that the break up of the banks isn't just intended to prevent TBTF but also to break up some of the political power that's pooled in these huge institutions. I think it may be the more important element.

In any case, watch the show if you missed it or at least look over the web-site and catch the high points. We're about to go into intense negotiations on financial reform and if you aren't up to speed on this, you won't be able to follow it.

My biggest fear, as I've written before, is that this fantasy of bipartisanship is going to lead them to allow the Republicans to water down the bill to uselessness only to have the Republicans vote against it and successfully demagogue it for the fall as another bail out. In other words the worst of all possible worlds.

Of course, if what Kwak and Johnson say is correct, that would be exactly what all the incentives in our system would predict would happen. It's all win-win for the individuals involved in the game. The rest of us, not so much.


.
digby 4/17/2010 02:30:00 PM |

 
Right Is Just Wrong

by digby

Fox news is fair and balanced and everyone else is way liberal, so "the right" has decided that it has no choice but to launch its own network. I'm not kidding:

Boy, they sure have hit upon a winning formula with that one. Fatuous, aging, wingnut frat boys sitting around playing poker and making fun of liberals. Breitbart is a genius.

This is going to be huge. Huge!

h/t to bill
digby 4/17/2010 01:00:00 PM |

 
LA Isn't Blue Dog Country

by digby

I'm sorry, it's just not right for any liberal district in California to be represented by a member of congress who says she's "proud to be introduced as the best Republican in the Democratic Party." Yet that's what Blue Dog Jane Harman says about herself.

Marcy Winograd is running against her in the Democratic primary this June and she sent every delegate to the California Democratic Convention this weekend this letter:

I need your support to block the endorsement of Blue Dog Jane Harman on the floor of the California Democratic Party convention in Los Angeles this weekend. Harman is a formidable opponent for the 36th congressional district seat (West LA to San Pedro), particularly since she has hired campaign consultant Harvey Englander, notorious for engineering the passage of Howard Jarvis’ Prop 13.

You will hear Harman’s appointees argue that we should not usurp the local caucus’s power to endorse. Our Party’s bylaws, however, provide for exactly this type of challenge because when a candidate is endorsed that endorsement reflects the will of the entire statewide Party, not just local delegates. Moreover, when a corporate Democrat, funded by military contractors and personally invested in those same contractors, takes us to war without exercising her oversight responsibility all of us pay the price.

You may hear that we must respect what Party activists in the 36th congressional district want. Please know that I am proud to be endorsed by the majority of grassroots Democratic clubs in my district, including the San Pedro Democratic Club; Torrance Democratic Club; Progressive Democratic Club (Harbor); Gardena Valley Democratic Club; Progressive Democrats of America-36th District.

Our efforts begin on Friday night when the Progressive Caucus convenes with national radio broadcaster Jim Hightower at the Palm Restaurant, 1100 Flower Street, across from the Marriott Hotel, where the convention will be held. All are welcome to attend and commit to gathering signatures for my petition to overturn Harman’s endorsement in the local caucus Saturday evening.

That local caucus, comprised of many elected officials and their appointed delegates, will undoubtedly endorse Harman, the candidate who once introduced herself to convention delegates as “the best Republican in the Democratic Party.”

Following her local caucus endorsement, we need to collect 300 delegate signatures within a few hours on Saturday night to overturn the endorsement and push this fight to the floor on Sunday morning. Dozens of Winograd for Congress supporters will circulate with clipboards, fanning out to collect the required petition signatures.

To block Harman’s endorsement on the floor, I will need 50% plus 1 delegate to reject her candidacy. For me to obtain an endorsement, I will need 75% of the floor.

Winograd vs. Harman: What’s the Difference?

I am a proud progressive, a public school teacher on leave from Crenshaw HS in South Los Angeles, and an organizer of the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party.

This is not a contest between two corporate Democrats.

It’s between Our Street vs. Wall Street.

Homes vs. Banks.

Jobs vs. Wars.

At stake are the values and soul of the Democratic Party.

Who are we? What do we stand for?

As a co-founder of Progressive Democrats of America’s Los Angeles chapter, I helped write, along with author Norman Solomon and Progressive Caucus Chair Karen Bernal, the resolutions putting our Party on record calling for an end to the US air and ground wars in Afghanistan. I also put our party on record calling for a cap on usurious bank interest rates, parole and sentencing reform, and an end to unfair trade agreements.

As a leader in the anti-war movement, I organized a 1,000-strong town hall with Congresswoman Maxine Waters, and then led a delegation to Washington to introduce our representatives to wounded veterans with Iraq Veterans Against the War. On the election protection front, I worked hard to elect SOS Deborah Bowen and to make sure she stayed in office to enforce her ban on most touch screen machines. In the labor movement, I organized with Cesar Chavez and became active in my own union: United Teachers of Los Angeles.

I support clean money, both in word and in deed. I am not taking a dime of corporate
contributions because I am the People’s Candidate for the People’s House.

My opponent is smart and tough. Unfortunately, she has used her strengths in the service of:

• big banks and military contractors;

• supporting a bankruptcy bill that makes it easier for banks to hike your credit card rates, punish you for medical bankruptcy, and foreclose on your home;

• voting to deny you affordable generic medications for breast and brain cancer, HIV, and Parkinson’s disease;

• defying a majority of House Democrats to take us to war in Iraq, then escalate in Afghanistan;

• working to re-elect George Bush by pressuring the New York Times to suppress the story of Bush’s massive illegal wiretapping program;

• finally, becoming the subject of an FBI investigation after being caught in an NSA wiretap allegedly offering to use her influence on the House Intelligence Committee to get spying charges dropped against AIPAC analysts – this in return for their reported promise to defund House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party if Pelosi did not make her chair of the House Intelligence Committee.

Enough.

I am not in the pocket of any lobby group-- and am deeply committed to the pursuit of peace with justice in the middle east.

It’s time for a change-- and a commitment at home to transforming our war economy into a new Green economy. We need a Green New Deal along the lines of the Works Progress Administration. Together, we can put Americans back to work repairing our infrastructure, strengthening our public school system, developing new energy, and building mass transit.

Enough of perpetual wars and occupations that create greater instability and rob our treasury of trillions needed for health care, education, and housing.

The ILWU Southern California District Council, University of California AFT, Mexican American Bar Association, Progressive Democrats of American, and the Armenian National Committee are among my endorsers.

I ask all delegates and grassroots activists to help me challenge Jane Harman to a floor fight at the California Democratic Party convention. Thus far, my opponent has refused to debate me, but rumor has it she will make a rare appearance at the annual convention.

I look forward to the challenge-- and to the moment on the floor when delegates will have an opportunity to stand tall.

Thank you,

Marcy Winograd
36th Congressional District Candidate

Politico reports:

Winograd told POLITICO Friday she was planning a concerted push at the convention, beginning with a meeting of her allies in the Progressive Caucus. Liberal radio host Jim Hightower will be assisting Winograd’s effort, and she is organizing a robocall effort to target the delegates who will be attending the convention.

The effort comes a little more than a week after Winograd staged a successful petition-gathering campaign to strip Harman of the pre-endorsement she had won at the 36th District’s March 20 caucus meeting – a move that set this weekend’s expected floor fight in motion.

“It means something when a party endorses a candidate. It’s worth fighting for,” Winograd said in an interview. “The bylaws allow this kind of challenge. If it wasn’t allowed, it wouldn’t be in the bylaws.”

The convention’s first skirmish is set to take place Saturday evening, when the 36th District Caucus meets again to vote on a pre-endorsement. Should Harman win the usually pro forma pre-endorsement, Winograd will have until 11 pm that evening to collect 300 signatures from statewide delegates in order to strip Harman of the endorsement.

If Winograd succeeds in collecting the 300 signatures, the battle will move to the convention floor on Sunday. Whomever receives the vote of a majority of delegates will win the party’s endorsement in the district for the June 8 primary.

Harvey Englander, a Harman consultant, said Winograd was waging a fruitless fight that threatened to divide Democrats in a heavily Democratic seat.

“I expect Congresswoman Harman will get an overwhelming show of support,” said Englander. “It’s unfortunate that Winograd is shooting inward in a safe seat.”

This excuse is common among incumbents and it's nonsense. Primaries are perfectly legitimate in all cases and completely necessary in seats in which the incumbent is not representing the district as in Harman's case. The fact that it's a safe seat is not due to Harman's Blue Dog sensibilities but because it's overwhelmingly Democratic. We're talking about the Westside of LA, here, two blocks from where I live. Believe me, it's not a Blue Dog bastion. Harman wins here in spite of her record, not because of it.

As Howie says:

I don't know what the delegates will decide tonight, but I do know what progressive activists must do to elect the most outstanding candidate running for election to the House of Representatives this year. Blue America has Marcy on our main endorsement page, on our Sending Democrats A Message page and on our page dedicated to fighting against the Blue Dogs. Can I ask you to pick one and contribute what you feel comfortable giving, even if only $5 or $10? Like I said, Harman is the wealthiest Democrat in the House, and she will spend whatever she thinks she has to to hold onto her power base. Marcy could never match her-- but she doesn't need to. All she needs to do is get enough grassroots contributions so that she can get her message out to the people of the 36th District.

There is anti-incumbency in the air and Winograd's in a district that could very well toss out the woman who says she's proud to be the Republicans' favorite Democrat in a year of teabags and militia nuts. She got nearly 40% against her in 2006. It would send a shock wave through the Democratic establishment if she did it. If you can help, please do. (And if you know any delegates to the convention, buttonhole them today as well.)



.
digby 4/17/2010 11:30:00 AM |

 
Just Like Your Neighbor

by digby

'Average citizens' find voice in Tea Party ideals

Tea Party tax rallies occurred all over the nation on Thursday. Members oppose high taxes, government spending, and what they see as a lack of adherence to the Constitution by a Democrat-led Washington. Members of the Tea Party say they represent the “average citizen.”

“Look around,” said Ernest Comisac, a retired engineer from Pennsylvania. “When you walk up to people here, they are like your neighbor. They go to work, pay their taxes, try to put their kids through college.”

Joe Vinskey, an employee of the federal government in Dayton, Ohio, said that one of the things that made him become involved with the Tea Party was that it’s a nationwide movement with no leader in Washington to make it “D.C.-centric.”

“They're not trying to start another government party,” Vinskey said. “They are trying to fix what we already have.”

Raymond Tignall, an estimator for a mechanical contractor in Eldersburg, Md., said he and his wife heard of the Tea Party through conservative talk radio.

“I don't want to be a government-controlled country,” Tignall said. “We're all leaders. We give the government its power. And the Tea Party embodies that.”

“I'm here primarily to support the idea of small government,” added Comisac. “You can't depend on your politicians so how can you allow the government to have this much control?”

Comisac cited the recently-passed health care overhaul bill and the Wall Street bailouts as examples of the government's over-intervention in citizen's lives and the country's economy.

“I want to see non-partisanship in our government,” he said. “Non-partisanship to the point that barely any legislation will be passed, because I hate to say it, but when anything happens in Washington, it's bad.”

Carowick, echoing a sentiment held by many party members, said she thinks the welfare system is out of control.

“I think we do need to help those who have less,” she said. “But the taxes are too much and we aren't seeing any difference in the situations of those less privileged.”

Members at Thursday’s Washington rally decried politicians for failing to listen to constituents.

“The way health care was pushed through was potentially a constitutional crisis,” Vinskey said. “Our elected representatives today aren't respecting the Constitution.”

It's all been said and I don't have the energy this morning to say it again. But suffice to simply reiterate that it isn't unconstitutional to pass legislation with a majority under the rules of both houses of congress. It just isn't.

Now, calling the Vice Presidency a fourth branch of government and holding that the President has unlimited powers during what he alone defines as "wartime" actually is an assault on the constitution, but these people don't mind that because they are quite sure no president will ever use such powers against them. Considering their loathing of Obama, I wonder if they've thought that through?

Here are your "average citizens" according to the NY Times poll last week, graphically illustrated by Charles Blow:

It's pretty clear they are anything but "average."

.
digby 4/17/2010 10:00:00 AM |

 
Iceland's Volcanoes And Climate Change

by tristero

I've been wondering whether there might might be some kind of link between volcanic eruptions in Iceland and global warming. Apparently not. Yet.

They said there was no sign that the current eruption from below the Eyjafjallajokull glacier that has paralysed flights over northern Europe was linked to global warming. The glacier is too small and light to affect local geology.

"Our work suggests that eventually there will be either somewhat larger eruptions or more frequent eruptions in Iceland in coming decades," said Freysteinn Sigmundsson, a vulcanologist at the University of Iceland.

"Global warming melts ice and this can influence magmatic systems," he told Reuters. The end of the Ice Age 10,000 years ago coincided with a surge in volcanic activity in Iceland, apparently because huge ice caps thinned and the land rose.

"We believe the reduction of ice has not been important in triggering this latest eruption," he said of Eyjafjallajokull. "The eruption is happening under a relatively small ice cap."

Carolina Pagli, a geophysicist at the University of Leeds in England, said there were risks that climate change could also trigger volcanic eruptions or earthquakes in places such as Mount Erebus in Antarctica, the Aleutian islands of Alaska or Patagonia in South America.

Yeah, but wadda they know? Check out the comments. There you'll find the truth! That's because people who took some high school chemistry once are much better able to evaluate complex problems in geology, climatology, and meteorology than scientists who have devoted their entire lives to studying the science.

(This post is dedicated to my friends JB, JS, and BM, volcanoed in London, London, and Amsterdam, respectively. See you all soon, I hope!)

UPDATE: Very cool shots of volcanoes from around the world set to Hekla, by Jón Leifs:



h/t The great Alex Ross.

UPDATE: This link provides a somewhat different set of insights into the science:

the key to this problem (in my mind) isn't melting point but rather the volatiles dissolved in the magma. Most magmas can dissolve more volatiles (from the source of the magma, not a surface source of water) under high pressure than low pressure. If you release that pressure, then the volatiles escape in the form of bubbles and you can get an explosive eruption (like popping the top of shaken soda can). If you happen to have shallow magma chambers with volatiles near the surface and deglaciate (remove the ice), you might be prompt a reaction of the volatiles (gases) coming out of solution with the magma. Now, if you combine that with even a small amount of additional melting from lower pressures brought by deglaciation, then, maybe you could produce a temporary, larger supply of eruptible magma. Magma does not need external water to produce explosive eruptions (such as an ice cap/glacier) - and it seems that the current eruption is silicic enough to produce its own explosivity due to its viscosity and water content - so the lack of an ice cap should not preclude more explosive eruptions in Iceland.

Klemetti goes on:

Now, this is all just speculation on my part and I'm not trying to connect it to global warming, global cooling or the Red Sox subpar start to the season. However, what I can say is that we need to stop trying to look at every study with the lens of climate change - and especially stop treating each side of the issue as adversaries if you don't agree with them. Science is about discussion not confrontation, but a lot of this debate becomes "Jeez, the other guys are idiots because they don't agree with me!" A little civility and open-mindedness goes a long way.

Sorry, Dr. Klemetti, but you share the naive attitude of many scientists who have failed to follow carefully the cultural war about evolution. You should read the comments to the previous link. The rightwing insists on confrontation instead of discussion. It's not going to change until all us, scientists included, are prepared to be confrontational right back and push them to the margins of public discourse, where they clearly belong.

Eventually, you will have to be confrontational if you wish to preserve truly independent inquiry within your discipline. You might as well start now as it will be much easier.

h/t shirt in comments

tristero 4/17/2010 07:56:00 AM |

 
Rove Nearly Handcuffed, Again

by tristero

Full disclosure: I have a good friend who is deeply involved in Code Pink. As I wrote Digby privately yesterday, many of their actions are not to my taste, but this one most certainly is:

Earlier this week, for the second time on his book tour, former White House adviser Karl Rove was faced by an antiwar activist determined to arrest him for "war crimes."

Rove and activist group Code Pink cofounder Jodie Evans first met last month in Beverly Hills, Calif., when Evans confronted Rove in the theater where he had planned to take questions about and autograph copies of his memoir, "Courage and Consequence." In that encounter, Evans approached Rove with handcuffs, announcing that she was performing a citizen's arrest.

The incident rattled Rove enough that he did not stay behind to sign any books.

Then, this week in a Las Vegas bookstore, Evans approached Rove again. She had waited in line with a copy of his book, along with other autograph seekers. When she reached the head of the line, however, she again announced that she intended to arrest Rove.

When she pulled handcuffs from her sleeves, however, Rove recognized her and let nearby security officers know that she was the same woman who had approached him in Beverly Hills. Evans was rapidly escorted from the store.

On the other hand, let's not throw things, people. The absolutely last thing we need is a Sarah Palin who can claim martyrdom for anything. What's the diff?

A picture of Karl Rove in handcuffs? A priceless image.

Pelting Palin with tomatoes? You'll make people feel sorry for her. Only a righwing agent provocateur, or a crazy person, would want that. Don't do it.

tristero 4/17/2010 05:15:00 AM |

Friday, April 16, 2010

 
A Rout?

by digby

I keep hearing that it's inevitable that the Democrats are going to be wiped out in November because everyone hates them so much. But it doesn't necessarily follow that they will lose big if everyone hates the other side just as much:

The Republican Party may have a big election year anyway, but Americans sure don't think much of it or its leadership.

Only 28% of voters in the country say they approve of the current direction of the GOP with 51% disapproving. Even among voters who identify with the party just 54% say they like where it's headed. It's predictable that Democrats would give it very low marks but even among independents just 18% think the Republicans are headed in the right direction while 49% dissent.

Not that the Dems are looking any better. But here's the thing --- every voter ends up having to choose among the candidates who are running. It's just the way it is. Turnout matters, of course, especially in mid-terms. And maybe the hardcore right is more motivated and will prevail (although I would guess that if it's only the 18% that identifies as teabaggers that the Dems can match them.) But since the Republicans are behaving like such asses, I'm not sure it's going to work out the way people think.

Sure, the Dems will probably lose some seats. Just as Al Gore lost the members that came in his coat tails in 2002 (even though he was denied the presidency) Obama will probably lose some this fall as well. But it may not be rout that everyone's predicting. If nobody likes either party, then it implies that we will get more or less the status quo.

On the other hand, there's this. So who knows?

.
digby 4/16/2010 06:00:00 PM |

 
Today's Miraculous Factoid

by digby

And the quarterly fundraising reports show that the GOP's top national target, Rep. Alan Grayson from Orlando, who takes no money from lobbyists, banksters or anyone with business before his committees, raised more money-- almost entirely from small grassroots donations-- than anyone else running for Congress in the United States, his second quarter in a row with over $800,000.

Wow.

Lot's of other fascinating stuff from Florida in this DWT post.

.
digby 4/16/2010 04:30:00 PM |

 
Threats And Coverage

by digby

After the all day teabag news orgy yesterday I thought I'd do a little research on the coverage of the antiwar rallies before the invasion of Iraq to see if I remembered the blase attitude correctly. I did. The New York Times, for instance, didn't just fail to publish in-depth polling of the movement above the fold on page one, they just put a small story about the marches (which featured hundreds of thousands of people all over the country) on page 8 claiming they were smaller than the organizers had hoped for.

But I had forgotten about this from 2003:

WASHINGTON, Nov. 22— The Federal Bureau of Investigation has collected extensive information on the tactics, training and organization of antiwar demonstrators and has advised local law enforcement officials to report any suspicious activity at protests to its counterterrorism squads, according to interviews and a confidential bureau memorandum.

The memorandum, which the bureau sent to local law enforcement agencies last month in advance of antiwar demonstrations in Washington and San Francisco, detailed how protesters have sometimes used ''training camps'' to rehearse for demonstrations, the Internet to raise money and gas masks to defend against tear gas. The memorandum analyzed lawful activities like recruiting demonstrators, as well as illegal activities like using fake documentation to get into a secured site.

F.B.I. officials said in interviews that the intelligence-gathering effort was aimed at identifying anarchists and ''extremist elements'' plotting violence, not at monitoring the political speech of law-abiding protesters.

The initiative has won the support of some local police, who view it as a critical way to maintain order at large-scale demonstrations. Indeed, some law enforcement officials said they believed the F.B.I.'s approach had helped to ensure that nationwide antiwar demonstrations in recent months, drawing hundreds of thousands of protesters, remained largely free of violence and disruption.

[...]

The memorandum, circulated on Oct. 15 -- just 10 days before many thousands gathered in Washington and San Francisco to protest the American occupation of Iraq -- noted that the bureau ''possesses no information indicating that violent or terrorist activities are being planned as part of these protests'' and that ''most protests are peaceful events.''...The memorandum urged local law enforcement officials ''to be alert to these possible indicators of protest activity and report any potentially illegal acts'' to counterterrorism task forces run by the F.B.I. It warned about an array of threats, including homemade bombs and the formation of human chains.

The memorandum discussed demonstrators' ''innovative strategies,'' like the videotaping of arrests as a means of ''intimidation'' against the police. And it noted that protesters ''often use the Internet to recruit, raise funds and coordinate their activities prior to demonstrations.''

The teabagger rallies don't seem to have activated any of these alarms despite the fact that we know for a fact that sympathetic members of the far right are currently plotting violent activity, which the anti-war marchers had no history or intention of doing. Hell, the antiwar protesters didn't even get any coverage in the press despite having millions take to the streets all over the world.

The teabag extremism doesn't seem to bother anyone much. Perhaps it's because they are all lumpy,middle-aged white people who spend more time watching beck than sharpening their guerilla warfare skills. But, you have to wonder what the government thinks about this:

[T]he extremism of the Tea Partiers will be far eclipsed on Monday when another band of American patriots rides into town to demonstrate against the government. On April 19, an assortment of gun-rights groups will mount the Second Amendment March at the grounds of the Washington Monument. On the Web site for the march, its founder, Skip Coryell, calls it a "peaceful" event. But these folks, as the Violence Policy Center points out in a new report, are pushing a virulent strain of anti-government extremism that certainly could drive a body to take violent action.

Last month in an article for Human Events, a conservative magazine, Coryell noted that one aim of the march is to imply the threat of violence:

My question to everyone reading this article is this: "For you, as an individual, when do you draw your saber? When do you say "Yes, I am willing to rise up and overthrow an oppressive, totalitarian government?"

Is it when the government takes away your private business?
Is it when the government rigs elections?
Is it when the government imposes martial law?
Is it when the government takes away your firearms?

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating the immediate use of force against the government. It isn't time, and hopefully that time will never come. But one thing is certain: "Now is the time to rattle your sabers." If not now, then when?

... I understand that sounds harsh, but these are harsh times. ...

I hear the clank of metal on metal getting closer, but that's not enough. The politicians have to hear it too. They have to hear it, and they have to believe it.

Come and support me at the Second Amendment March on April 19th on the Washington Monument grounds. Let's rattle some sabers and show the government we're still here.

Notice that Coryell says he's not advocating the immediate use of force against the government. That sure makes it sound like he's revving up the gun-rights troops for possible rebellion down the road.

At the march, he will be in good company. One scheduled speaker for the rally is Larry Pratt, the executive director of Gun Owners of America. In 1992, Pratt participated in a Colorado meeting of neo-Nazis and self-proclaimed Christian patriots that marked the birth of the modern militia movement. Another speaker at this pro-gun hoe-down will be Sheriff Richard Mack, who states on his Web site that the "greatest threat we face today is not terrorists; it is our own federal government. If America is conquered or ruined it will be from within, not a foreign enemy."

And the Oath Keepers are sponsoring the march. This is a group of right-wingers -- many of whom serve in the military or police forces -- who pledge to disobey what they regard as "unconstitutional" orders from an increasingly repressive government. Their view of the government is rather dark. They vow not to "obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps" and not to "obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps." As if the Obama administration is on the verge of declaring martial law and rounding up the citizenry.

These will be very peaceful rallies, I'm sure, because few citizens would venture into a crowd like this to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech. After all, they might get shot. So, in a practical sense, their right to speak ends at the muzzle of a gun --- ironically especially when the gun is held by a constitution revering, gun-toting libertarian. ("Sure go ahead and speak up. Better hope I don't lose my concentration or somebody might get accidentally capped.")

I suppose the bigger risk is that these armed zealots might shoot each other. It could end up in a shootout if passions run high as they often do at these things and there's a misunderstanding or a case of mistaken identity. And certainly police would be in danger if these armed anti-government types feel threatened.

But there will not likely be any trouble with the liberals. They'll get the message and stay far away. That's what gun toting political rallies are all about --- suppressing dissent.

But I do wonder how the government feels about this. Perhaps they are sanguine because these are all good Real Americans instead of rambunctious young people who break windows and taunt the police. They just pack heat in a crowd. And anyway, if anything happens, they'll just blame it on infiltrators.

.

digby 4/16/2010 03:30:00 PM |

 
Why The Sudden Burst Of Journalistic Conscience?

by digby

Last night I wrote about Fox News belatedly deciding that it was wrong for their stars to be promoting and hosting political events and broadcasting them. I speculated that they simply didn't want anyone but professional GOP operatives to make money on such things, but I really have no idea what inspired them to put the kibosh on Hannity's teabagging lovefest in Cincinnati yesterday.

And it turns out that Fox was fibbing when they claimed they were "furious" when they found out about the problem. The Cincinnati Tea party calls BS:

The CTP is firing back, claiming that Fox News is lying. They said that not only did they work with Fox News staff on logistics for the event, but executives told CTP organizers Hannity wouldn’t be able to tape his show in Cincinnati because of a “personal emergency”:

Shortly after the scheduled book signing (which was canceled) Fox News producers onsite informed the Cincinnati Tea Party senior leadership that Mr. Hannity had to rush home for a personal emergency. The Cincinnati Tea Party expressed a statement of support and concern to Hannity and family.

The Cincinnati Tea Party received information from local media attributing concerns regarding ticketing to a executive vice president at the Fox News Network. The Cincinnati Tea Party has not been able to confirm the authenticity of this message via a source this statement to any @foxnews.com email or http://www.FoxNews.com website. Emails and phone calls to network went unanswered until 7:48 p.m. — more than four hours after the scheduled appearance; this source has not yet put it in writing despite our request.

Again, Fox has been promoting these events from the very beginning. Hannity, Beck etc have been featured as headliners all along. An event charging 5 bucks a head can hardly be considered the journalistic sin here. I wouldn't put it past Fox to find that the only crime in all this but that tells a bigger story, no?


.
digby 4/16/2010 01:30:00 PM |

 
The Poor Rich

by digby

Here's a very sad story of a financial planner in pain:

A Message from 'Henry'

We're high earners not yet rich, and now the government wants us to pay more?

I'm in the 32% federal and 10% state income tax brackets. I pay a 1.2% property tax on very expensive California real estate. I am subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax. I am self-employed and subject to a 15% payroll tax on the first $100,000 in income and an 8.75% state sales tax. If I have a gain from investing, I pay a minimum of 15% federal and 10% state tax but can only write off $3,000 per year if I lose.

And now the government wants me to pay more?

As a child I mowed lawns, shoveled snow, had a paper route, sold sandwiches at school, and cut up dead trees and split them for firewood to sell during spring break. I have worked every summer since I turned 14. I took out student loans for college and worked 35 hours a week, at night, to pay for the rest.

Since I graduated in 1983, I have been in straight commission sales and have had many 60- to 70-hour work weeks. No secure salary, no big promotions, no pension—just me profiting though helping others while being subject to the swings of the economic cycle. The first 20 years were tough, but it's finally starting to pay off.

I drive a nicer car (bought used), live in a better neighborhood, have more retirement savings than many. But I am certainly not rich, and every month I find my ever increasing bills (and taxes) tend to match my income. I have more than most only because I've worked harder than most and because I am a saver. It was not easy.

Why then does the government feel so entitled to take my money and give it to others? Why should I have to carry so many people on my back? Call me cruel. I don't care. I give to whom I choose—but since so much is confiscated (and wasted in the process) I have little left I wish to give.

This guy makes more that 250k a year and it's not because he works so much harder than the rest of us, it's because he's lucky enough to be a member of a privileged class working in a job that pays him very well for the hours he works. I don't begrudge him his success, but the fact that he thinks his success is solely due to his work ethic is very telling. The fact is that the vast majority of people in this country, many of whom don't happen to be white males like him, don't get the breaks this fellow got and work in equally valuable fields for far less money. (Like the teachers who taught him, for instance.) That assumed superiority is what gives him away as a Randian asshole.

I happen to know financial planners and they are not all like this. One of my best friends is a financial planner and she feels an obligation as a decent human being to pay taxes and believes that giving back is a responsibility of those who do well. There are more like her. And believe me, you'd do much better trusting your nest egg to someone who has some empathy and a sense of social responsibility than to a greed head who considers himself poor because he has to pay a little more in taxes on what he earns over 250k. He's a spoiled idiot with no imagination or integrity who doesn't live in the real world and shouldn't be trusted with other people's money.

He's like this student at Syracuse who said this to an MSNBC reporter today when asked what he thought about Chase CEO Jamie Dimond as commencement speaker:

"He's one of the finest financial minds in the nation right now and especially, for the most part, that he's really going to end up leading us out of this crisis with everything that he's doing."

These Baby Galts aren't rugged individualistic entrepreneurs. They are idol worshipers shilling for their heroes. In fact, John Galt has another word for them.


.
digby 4/16/2010 12:00:00 PM |

 
Simple, Old Fashioned Fraud

by digby

I knew that Goldman Sachs had done some low-down things, but this takes the cake. It's so bad that even the sluggish SEC couldn't avoid taking action:

Goldman Sachs, which emerged relatively unscathed from the financial crisis, was accused of securities fraud in a civil suit filed Friday by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which claims the bank created and sold a mortgage investment that was secretly devised to fail.

The move marks the first time that regulators have taken action against a Wall Street deal that helped investors capitalize on the collapse of the housing market. Goldman itself profited by betting against the very mortgage investments that it sold to its customers.

The suit also named Fabrice Tourre, a vice president at Goldman who helped create and sell the investment.

In a statement, Goldman called the S.E.C. accusations “completely unfounded in law and fact” and said the firm would “vigorously contest them and defend the firm and its reputation.”

The instrument in the S.E.C. case, called Abacus 2007-AC1, was one of 25 deals that Goldman created so the bank and select clients could bet against the housing market. Those deals, which were the subject of an article in The New York Times in December, initially protected Goldman from losses when the mortgage market disintegrated and later yielded profits for the bank.

As the Abacus deals plunged in value, Goldman and certain hedge funds made money on their negative bets, while the Goldman clients who bought the $10.9 billion in investments lost billions of dollars.

According to the complaint, Goldman created Abacus 2007-AC1 in February 2007, at the request of John A. Paulson, a prominent hedge fund manager who earned an estimated $3.7 billion in 2007 by correctly wagering that the housing bubble would burst.

Goldman let Mr. Paulson select mortgage bonds that he wanted to bet against — the ones he believed were most likely to lose value — and packaged those bonds into Abacus 2007-AC1, according to the S.E.C. complaint. Goldman then sold the Abacus deal to investors like foreign banks, pension funds, insurance companies and other hedge funds.

But the deck was stacked against the Abacus investors, the complaint contends, because the investment was filled with bonds chosen by Mr. Paulson as likely to default. Goldman told investors in Abacus marketing materials reviewed by The Times that the bonds would be chosen by an independent manager.

“The product was new and complex, but the deception and conflicts are old and simple,” Robert Khuzami, the director of the S.E.C.’s division of enforcement, said in a statement. “Goldman wrongly permitted a client that was betting against the mortgage market to heavily influence which mortgage securities to include in an investment portfolio, while telling other investors that the securities were selected by an independent, objective third party.”

This guy Paulson made 3.7 billion dollars from this scam.


.
digby 4/16/2010 10:00:00 AM |

 
Box Turtle Ben Emerges from His Shell

by digby

... and unsurprisingly says something stupid:

The White House ripped CBS News on Thursday for publishing an online column by a blogger who made assertions about the sexual orientation of Solicitor General Elena Kagan, widely viewed as a leading candidate for the Supreme Court.

Ben Domenech, a former Bush administration aide and Republican Senate staffer, wrote that President Obama would "please" much of his base by picking the "first openly gay justice." An administration official, who asked not to be identified discussing personal matters, said Kagan is not a lesbian.

CBS initially refused to pull the posting, prompting Anita Dunn, a former White House communications director who is working with the administration on the high court vacancy, to say: "The fact that they've chosen to become enablers of people posting lies on their site tells us where the journalistic standards of CBS are in 2010." She said the network was giving a platform to a blogger "with a history of plagiarism" who was "applying old stereotypes to single women with successful careers."

The network deleted the posting Thursday night after Domenech said he was merely repeating a rumor. The flare-up underscores how quickly the battle over a Supreme Court nominee -- or even a potential nominee -- can turn searingly personal. Most major news organizations have policies against "outing" gays or reporting on the sex lives of public officials unless they are related to their public duties.

Everything I've heard is that Kagan is not a lesbian. Not that there's anything wrong with being gay, obviously, or anything shameful in being called that. But I know far too many straight, single women who are assumed to be gay simply because they aren't married or don't have an active dating life. It's hurtful to them, and not because they have any prejudice against gay people but because it's an assumption about them that isn't true. Everyone deserves to be seen the way they really are, whether gay or straight.

Marc Ambinder, a blogger for the Atlantic, wrote Monday about what he called "a baffling whisper campaign" about Kagan "among both gay rights activists and social conservatives. . . .

"So pervasive are these rumors that two senior administration officials I spoke with this weekend acknowledged hearing about them and did not know whether they were true. . . . Why is she the subject of these rumors? Who's behind them?"

Why? Because every woman who isn't married after a certain age is assumed to be a lesbian by some people, even if she isn't, especially if she doesn't look like a fashion model. And social conservatives and gay rights activists (for different reasons) have a vested interest in her being seen as gay. It's not an insult but it is a misconception and one that isn't entirely benign to the person who is the subject of it. If she says anything publicly to deny it, it sounds as though she has a prejudice against gay people and if she doesn't deny it, she becomes known as something she isn't. It's not fair.

Ben Domenech is right wing hit man and always has been. And he's succeeded wildly here. The rumors are now "out there" and Cokie's Law is in effect. How a known plagiarist came to be employed by CBS is the more interesting story, actually. Especially for a man who's known to hire hookers to powder and diaper him and then sing him to sleep. Or at least that's the rumor. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Update: I'm getting lots of emails on this. Some people are upset with me for failing to uphold the view that "it doesn't matter" if you're gay. Of course it doesn't. If you're gay you should be able to live openly and freely being who you are. But I believe that just as it's been painful for gays to be in the closet or forced to live as if they are something they're not, it's also painful for some straight people to be assumed to be something they're not. I maintain that people should be allowed to define themselves in the world honestly and live authentic lives, no matter whether they are gay or straight.

Anyway, yes, if it doesn't matter to you whether other people label you as something you're not then by all means simply say "whatever" if asked. But if your sexual identity is something that you think is intrinsic to who you are then you should be able say so regardless. I don't think it makes you a bigot or a closet case. In fact, think it's a fairly human thing that doesn't denote political cowardice or homophobia.

I also got notes from several men who say that they too face this question --- and are often assumed to be pedophiles to boot! Assumptions are bad.

Update II: Gay rights groups are not fools and know exactly what's going on. And Ben Domenech is a lying scumbag. He knows what he did and he did it on purpose. Despite his unctuous, insincere defense of gay rights, he knows very well that this will hugely gin up the fundraising and activism against her from the far right and make it more difficult to confirm her. I hope he extracted a big payment from his wingnut benefactors. He earned it.

Update III: None of this is meant as an endorsement of Kagan. I'm hoping the administration picks someone far less amenable to executive power than she seems to be. But this campaign is designed to force the administration to pick someone more conservative than she is on a whole panoply of issues. I hope the White House just picks the most liberal person they can find and forces the Republicans to filibuster the nomination if they can't wrap their minds around that.


.
digby 4/16/2010 09:00:00 AM |

 
Overt Racism In The Tea Party. And Beyond.

by tristero

We need to make this very clear: the self-styled "Tea Party" is white, elitist, and racist:

Demonstrators began gathering early Thursday for speeches at Freedom Plaza. Among them was Jerry Johnson, 58, a lawyer from Berryville, Va...

Johnson expressed opposition to Obama. "It's not just because he's black," he said. "I wish I could tell you that I loved this guy, that he was a great president, that I had faith in him. But I have none. Zero."

"Just."

I'm sure Mr. Johnson will protest that he simply misspoke, totally unintentional. Uh huh. Lawyers are many things: inarticulate is not one of them. This is a a guy whose entire professional training - and let's not forget, he's way more educated than the average American - goes towards using words with an obsessive precision most of us can't even begin to approach.

But before we begin to think that teabaggers and only teabaggers are racists, here's one that I'll bet hardly anyone will notice. And yet it's just as ugly an expression of racism and bigotry as Jerry Johnson's: Author Simon Winchester writes about the Iceland volcano and compares it to the Krakatoa explosion of 1883:

The last time the world was so mightily affected in this way was in 1883, when a similarly tiny vent in the earth’s surface opened up on the island of Krakatoa, between Java and Sumatra, in what is now Indonesia. Some 40,000 people died because of that eruption — it was a much more fierce event, and in a much more populated place. But the clouds of dust that cascaded upward into the stratosphere affected the entire planet for the rest of the year on the same scale — except that the effects themselves were of a profoundly different kind.

Where Iceland’s volcano has set off a wave of high-technology panic, Java’s event set off something benign and really quite lovely: worldwide displays of light and color that reduced mankind to a state of stunned amazement. Where Iceland has caused shock, Java resulted in awe. And where Eyjafjalla’s ashes seem to have cost millions in lost business, Krakatoa’s dust left the world not just a remarkable legacy of unforgettable art but also spurred a vital discovery in atmospheric science.

There are many ways I would describe a volcanic eruption that killed 40,000 people, and I have a very vivid imagination, but this way? No, I can't imagine it. The level of bigoted callousness on display here is something I can't begin to conceive.

The most profound effects of the Krakatoa volcano on the entire planet were neither "benign" nor "lovely." They were horribly tragic. And while surely Krakatoa's eruption inspired awe, there is also no question that it sent hundreds of thousands of human beings into deep shock. As for the financial cost, Winchester's comparison assigns virtually no economic consequence to the deaths of 40,000 people and the destruction of their ecosystem.

This is jaw-droppingly blatant Eurocentrism. Winchester minimizes the significance of a dreadful tragedy in order to make specious comparisons with Eyjafjalla. Thus, Krakatoa's importance becomes its impact, not on the world, but only on the most refined aesthetic and intellectual palates in Europe. White Europe. This is racism.

Don't get me wrong. There are many ways to discuss the multifarious impacts of Krakatoa's eruption and my recollection of Winchester's book is that he did a pretty good job (he also got a few minor facts wrong, but that's another story). But this op-ed is simply disgusting. Unintentional? Well, possibly unconscious. Nevertheless, a professional writer, like a lawyer, has no excuse. It is an indication of how far Western culture has to go in order to understand what racism is that Winchester, not a stupid man, felt comfortable writing such self-centered trash, and that the New York Times apparently had no problems publishing it.

We'll see if they print any letters that notice this. I certainly hope so.

tristero 4/16/2010 04:45:00 AM |

Thursday, April 15, 2010

 
Fox On The Run

by digby

Matt Gertz from Media Matters wrote about the Tea Party scammers and the relationship with Fox News yesterday:

I noted a few months back TPM Media's report that the PAC that organized the Tea Party Express, a series of right-wing nationwide bus tours and rallies, had sent nearly two thirds of its spending during a recent reporting period right back to the GOP consulting firm that spawned it. Today, Politico's Ken Vogel provides more details of the Tea Party Express' operations, including the original memo from a consultant with the firm, Russo Marsh + Rogers, proposing its creation.

Vogel also reports that a substantial percentage of spending from the PAC, Our Country Deserves Better PAC, continues to flow directly into the coffers of Russo Marsh + Rogers. That appears to have been the intent from the beginning; Vogel reports that the firm's operative, Joe Wierzbicki, stated in proposing the Express that it could "give a boost to our PAC and position us as a growing force/leading force as the 2010 elections come into focus."

[...]

This seems as good a time as any to point out Fox News' consistent, full-throated support for the Tea Party Express since its creation. The network even embedded correspondent Griff Jenkins with the Express' first tour; his hard-hitting reporting included declaring its riders "the America that Washington forgot." Our Country Deserves Better PAC repeatedly used Fox's coverage to flog its own fundraising efforts. And notwithstanding the plethora of free media the Express got from the network, the PAC ran ads on Fox urging viewers to "Join the Tea Party Express" on its tours.

Most recently, Fox News provided all-day coverage of last month's kick-off rally for the Express' third national bus tour. Correspondent Casey Stegall provided reports from the rally in Searchlight, Nevada, which highlighted the "real energy you feel from" the protestors; back in the studio, Neil Cavuto declared, "God bless these folks." And of course, Fox News contributor Sarah Palin was on hand to provide the event's keynote address, which was carried live by the network.

All that was just fine with Fox. They have never minded helping fill the coffers of professional GOP con artists. (It's their own version of egalitarianism.) But then some of the little people started getting in on the action and they went ballistic:

Angry Fox News executives ordered host Sean Hannity to abandon plans to broadcast his nightly show as part of a Tea Party rally in Cincinnati on Thursday after top executives learned that he was set to headline the event, proceeds from which would benefit the local Tea Party organization.

Rally organizers had listed Hannity, who is on a book tour, as the headliner of the four-hour Tax Day event at the University of Cincinnati. The rally, expected to draw as many as 13,000 people, was set feature speakers such as “Liberal Facism” author Jonah Goldberg and local Tea Party leaders. Participants were being charged a minimum of $5, with seats near Hannity’s set going for $20, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer, which reported that any profits would go to future Tea Party events. Media Matters for America noted that Hannity’s personal website directed supporters to a link to buy tickets for the Cincinnati rally.

But senior Fox News executives said they were not aware Hannity was being billed as the centerpiece of the event or that Tea Party organizers were charging for admission to Hannity’s show as part of the rally. They first learned of it Thursday morning from John Finley, Hannity's executive producer, who was in Cincinnati to produce Hannity's show.

Furious, top officials recalled Hannity back to New York to do his show in his regular studio. The network plans to do an extensive post-mortem about the incident with Finley and Hannity's staff.

“Fox News never agreed to allow the Cincinnati Tea Party organizers to use Sean Hannity’s television program to profit from broadcasting his show from the event," said Bill Shine, the network’s executive vice president of programming. "When senior executives in New York were made aware of this, we changed our plans for tonight’s show.”

There's no limit to how far Fox hosts can go to hustle the rubes for ratings and to help the Republican party. But they get "furious" when the rubes try to cash in for themselves. All they have to do is find a way to blame the liberals and they're home free.

.
digby 4/15/2010 06:30:00 PM |

 
Secrets Of The Infiltrators

by digby


Michelle Malkin has some tips for the baggers to spot "infiltrators":

1. Ask them what the 10th amendment says.

2. Two letters: B.O. (and I’m not talking about the president’s initials).

3. Glaringly obvious lack of subtlety.

4. Upside-down flags.

5. From reader Amy, a free “Infiltrator” sign (click here to download large size):



6. And from Temple of Mut, another downloadable sign:

Right now I'm watching John King interview Dick Armey at the rally and there's a guy behind him with a sign that says "Imagine having B.O. for 4 years." Real Americans are always babbling about how their unAmerican adversaries stink. It's their way of calling them unclean animals. And it's very, very classy.

(The woman standing next to him is holding a sign that says "You cannot help the people by destroying the rich." Man, they sure have them trained.)

The signs Malkin provides above, well they say much more than these people realize.

Malkin ends her post with flourish saying:

Turning the tables on the Tea Party smear merchants:

I'm sure all 18% of Americans who identify as teabaggers are moved beyond words. The rest of the country is crying with laughter.


Update: Benjamin Sarlin reports that talk of "infiltration" was common at today's DC event. There was also some concern that the African Americans selling flags and pins were ACORN, apparently. But I thought this observation was particularly telling:

One topic that wasn’t addressed on a single sign: anything having to do with financial reform. Despite the frequent anti-Wall Street and anti-bailout rhetoric, the bill making its way through the Senate seemed to elicit no response from protesters.

"You can't help the people by destroying the rich," but the rich are always allowed to destroy the people. That's called freedom.


.
digby 4/15/2010 04:30:00 PM |

 
Volcano Monitoring

by digby

What with earthquakes all over the place and now this, you kind o0f get the feeling the earth is angry. (And can you blame it?)

Civil aviation authorities closed airspace and shut down airports in Britain, France, Scandinavia and other parts of Europe on Thursday as a high-altitude cloud of ash drifted south and east from an erupting volcano in Iceland.

The shutdown, among the most sweeping ever ordered in peacetime, forced the cancellation of thousands of flights and left airplanes stranded on the tarmac at some of the world’s busiest airports as the rolling cloud — made up of minute particles of silicate that can severely damage airplane engines — spread over Britain and toward continental Europe.

The volcano erupted Wednesday for the second time in a month, forcing evacuations and causing flooding about 75 miles east of Reykjavik. Matthew Watson, a specialist in the study of volcanic ash clouds from Bristol University in England, said the plume was “likely to end up over Belgium, Germany, the Lowlands — a good portion over Europe” — and was unlikely to disperse for 24 hours.

British aviation officials said the country’s airspace would remain closed at least until 7 a.m. local time Friday, meaning that only authorized emergency flights would be permitted. All of the roughly 6,000 scheduled flights that use British airspace each day would be affected, aviation experts said.

Deborah Seymour, a spokeswoman for Britain’s National Air Traffic Service, said the closure of the country’s airspace was the most extensive in recent memory. “It’s an extremely rare occurrence,” she said, noting that British airspace remained open even after the September 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States, with the exception of a no-fly zone over central London. She said there had been some brief airspace closings because of technical system failures in the past, but “nothing of this magnitude.”

Seven British Airways flights that departed Wednesday evening to Britain had to turn back after flying less than halfway, according to John Lampl, a British Airways spokesman in New York. They had departed from Chicago, San Francisco, Denver, Mexico City, Calgary, Vancouver and Las Vegas, Mr. Lampl said.

What a bunch of wimps. John Galt would bravely fly through the ash and parachute out of the plane if its engines stopped working. Typical Europeans.


.
digby 4/15/2010 03:30:00 PM |

 
Second Verse Same As The First

by digby


Yesterday Mitch McConnell and John Kyl came out swinging with a classic Luntzian bizarroworld ploy, declaring that the financial reform bill institutionalizes Too Big To Fail and therefore the Republicans have no choice but to vote against it. It was a bold move, pretty much guaranteeing sputtering and shock on the other side as Senate Democrats reeled from the cognitive dissonance.

Here's the smarmy Judd Gregg laying out the parameters of the debate on MSNBC this morning:

Judd Gregg: There really isn't a lot of partisanship in this bill, it's just an issue of trying to get it right, making sure Too Big To Fail doesn't exist, making sure we have good derivatives language on the issue of consumer protection, language on how we move around the regulatory regimes here.And I honestly thought we were going to reach a consensus bill her. For reasons which I'm not entirely clear about it's blown up into one of these political debates where the substance of the debate is sort of overwhelmed by the language, which is very hyperbolized.[He's talking about Chris Dodd here, not Mitch mcConnell --- ed.]

MSNBC anchor: Well there's also huge disparity between that which Senator Dodd is saying and that which Senator McConnell is saying because the latter is saying that this bill will lead to endless bailouts of Wall Street. Is that true? This wouldn't end it?

Gregg: Well the Dodd bill does have some problems on the issue of Too Big To fail in that it sets up a process where the treasury or the FDIC could keep alive a bank or a finacial institution which had gotten into significant financial trouble.Whereas the agreed to language which was supported by Republicans and a lot of Democrats, the Corker/Warner agreement, which wasn't included in the Dodd bill essentially required that any financial institution that got into trouble would have to go into a process of what amounted to bankruptcy and would not survive. And that's the course we should take, of course. We've got to end TBTF as a concept because it perverts the marketplace. It means that capital is not flowing pursuant to what they see as a risk, but what they see as a taxpayers coming in to support and that's not healthy for the economy.

This is utter nonsense and Gregg knows it. But he is playing an important role in the kabuki dance: "the broker:"

MSNBC anchor: So do you think there's room for compromise in the Senate on this?

Absolutely there is. The question is how do we get back to the table. I think Senator McConnell is absolutely right. He's saying, hey talk to us on this issue. If you're not going to talk to us then we're not going to support taking the bill across the floor and we'll use our capacity to stop the bill, but what we really want to do is sit down and reach agreement because these agreements should be very doable.

Yeah sure. As Ezra reported this morning:

[I]f you're looking for help predicting the ultimate amount of bipartisan cooperation on this bill, the fact that Cornyn and McConnell are basing their fundraising strategy around their opposition to financial regulation should offer a clue.

Judd's job is to ensure that the bill is watered down to something that Wall Street is happy with, but which Republicans can still vote against in the end, this time saying "it doesn't go far enough." It worked with health care.

The difference this time is that liberals are not nearly as invested in this bill as they were in health care. There could easily be defections on the left if they water this thing down any more than it already is. Nobody's life is literally at stake and Obama can't keep going to the "my legacy depends on it" well.

The Dems would do better politically to tell the Republicans to go to hell, pass a tough bill and take it to the people. Conservatives voting against financial system reform are in a much more difficult political position than liberals because everyone knows that Republicans are the party of big business and have been for a century. They'll try to muddy it up with cries of socialism, but only the veriest teabagger will be able to absorb the dissonance in all this without their heads exploding. If the Democrats allow the GOP to water down their bill even further so they can then vote against it in a faux populist hissy fit, they get what they deserve. They'd be better off walking away and running the fall campaign on the GOP's obsequious obeisance to Wall Street bankers.


.
digby 4/15/2010 02:00:00 PM |

 
Taxing Numbers

by digby


For those of you who might find yourself arguing with a teabagger today, Campaign For America's Future has put together a nice little primer on what Tax Day really means for average Americans.

$604:
The average tax cut the working poor got in 2009 under President Obama.

$22:
The average tax cut the working poor got under President Bush's tax cuts.

10 percent:
The increase in the average tax return that most working families are receiving this year due to tax cuts enacted under President Obama.

66.7 percent:
The percentage of U.S.-owned corporations that paid no income tax in 2005, according to the Government Accountability Office.


The average American is receiving a refund of nearly $3,000—up more than 10 percent over last year—thanks to the Obama tax cuts for 95 percent of Americans [The White House]. Tax reductions that benefit working families include the Making Work Pay tax cut ($400 for individuals, $800 for couples) and changes in the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit that made more people eligible to take those deductions.

Families in the bottom 20 percent of income (up to $19,792 in 2009) received an average tax cut of $604 under the 2009 tax cuts [Citizens for Tax Justice]. The 2001 and 2006 tax cuts under President Bush resulted in an average tax cut for the bottom 20 percent of income earners of just $22 [Tax Policy Center]. The next 20 percent of earners (making up to $38,000 in 2009) got an average tax cut of $628 under the 2009 tax cut. The same group only got an average reduction of $360 under the Bush tax cuts.

read on

These numbers will only upset them, of course, because no matter how much you do for the middle class, as long as the poor are also benefiting, teabaggers are unhappy. They really don't like poor people.

.
digby 4/15/2010 12:30:00 PM |

 
"I'm Fighting Communism Three Days A Week"

by digby


Following up on the latest tea party poll (my take here), here's Perlstein on the same subject in the New York Times:

Watching the rise of the Tea Party movement has been a frustration to me, and not just because it is ugly and seeks to traduce so many of the values I hold dear.

“I just don’t have time for anything,” a housewife told a newsmagazine in 1961. “I’m fighting Communism three nights a week.”

Even worse has been the overwhelming historical myopia. As the Times’ new poll numbers amply confirm — especially the ones establishing that the Tea Partiers are overwhelming Republican or right-of-Republican — they are the same angry, ill-informed, overwhelmingly white, crypto-corporate paranoiacs that accompany every ascendancy of liberalism within U.S. government.

“When was the last time you saw such a spontaneous eruption of conservative grassroots anger, coast to coast?” asked the professional conservative L. Brent Bozell III recently. The answer, of course, is: in 1993. And 1977. And 1961. And many more.

And so yet much of the commentariat take the Bozells at their word, reading what is happening as striking and new.

I’ve studied the reactionary fluorescence of 1961-1962 most closely (I wrote about it in “Before the Storm”), and the parallels are uncanny.

The same “spontaneous eruption” of folks never before engaged in politics. (“I just don’t have time for anything,” a housewife told a newsmagazine. “I’m fighting Communism three nights a week.”) The same blithely narcissistic presumption that the vast majority of Americans (or, at least, “ordinary Americans”) must already agree with them, and incredulity that anyone might not grasp the depth of the peril. The same establishment conservative opportunists taking advantage, setting up front-groups (it’s one of the reasons so many people in such movements report they’re in politics for the first time; they soon find themselves so ill-used that they never get involved in politics again). The same lunatic persecution fantasies. (In Robert Welch’s 1961 it was probable internment camps for conservatives. In Glenn Beck’s 2009 it was … probable internment camps for conservatives.)

The only thing that changes is the name of the enemy within. And sometimes not even that: “They’re not 90 miles away. They’re already here,” was a slogan in 1961, referring to the twin socialists Fidel Castro and John F. Kennedy; only now the socialist is also a Muslim.

Read on ... There's more from other writers as well. Unsurprisingly, Amity Schlaes shows the same analytical acumen with these numbers as she does with the Great Depression. In other words, she gets it completely wrong.
digby 4/15/2010 11:00:00 AM |