Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has officially been placed under investigation for allegedly paying for sex with a 17-year-old girl, providing even more fodder against the scandal-addicted Italian executive. While some may think paying for sex with underage women is bad enough, Berlusconi defended himself with the off-putting, “As always, I work without interruption and if occasionally I happen to look a beautiful girl in the face, it’s better to like beautiful girls than to be gay.” —JCL The Guardian: Silvio Berlusconi has been formally placed under investigation on suspicion of paying for sex with a 17-year old girl, according to a statement issued today by prosecutors in Milan. He was further accused of abusing his position as Italy’s prime minister by bringing pressure to bear on the police to cover up his alleged relationship with the girl, who was working as a prostitute. The two alleged offences carry sentences totalling 15 years in jail. The statement said Berlusconi, who has not been charged, had been invited to present himself for questioning. The prosecutors said he had been formally made a suspect on 21 December, but the news only broke today on the website of the Italian daily Corriere della Sera. Read more Related Entries January 13, 2011 White House Mum on Palin’s Latest Words January 13, 2011 WikiLeaks Exposes the Danger of Pakistan’s Nukes
Continue reading …enlarge First of all, this isn’t my idea. It’s my oldest son’s, and he told me about it a few years ago when he was trying to figure out a way he could make money. (Did I mention the kid is a genius? If you use this idea, you owe him.) He said it made more sense to sidestep the entire gun control controversy and instead pass state laws that require anyone who owns a gun to carry insurance. If they have risk factors (like teenagers in the house), their rates go up. If one of their kids sneaks a gun out of the house and gets caught, or uses it to commit a crime, the insurance gets canceled for some meaningful period of time — say, 10 years. And if someone steals your gun and you don’t report it in a 24-hour window of you finding out, your insurance is suspended. If you have a rifle and it’s only used for hunting, low rates. If you have a Glock and you carry it in an open-carry town or state, your rates will be very high — because odds are so much higher that innocent bystanders may get caught in a shootout. Homeowners could be required to carry gun insurance as long as they’re still paying on a mortgage, because a gun accident or misuse could result in a large legal judgment against the house. Oh yeah, and you have to buy coverage for each gun you own. I think it has real possibilities. What do you think?
Continue reading …The next few years is not going to be fun for us or for the White House, but what we do know is that there will be a major assault on Social Security by the TeaGOP crowd, and the President must stand tall and with his base on this upcoming challenge. Social Security: Keep The Promise President Obama has said that he: Won’t cut benefits Won’t raise the retirement age Won’t cut the cost of living adjustment (COLA) In effect, the President has said: Keep Social Security’s Promise! We agree. Social Security belongs to the people who have worked hard all their lives and contributed to the program. Let’s help President Obama keep Social Security’s promise. Let’s stop politicians in Washington from taking that promise away from us. Here’s what the President told bloggers like myself at our meeting in the White House right before the midterm election. Q Mine is an easy question. Will you rule out raising the retirement age to 70? THE PRESIDENT: We are awaiting a report from the deficit commission, or deficit reduction commission, so I have been adamant about not prejudging their work until we get it. But I think you can look at the statements that I’ve made in the past, including when I was campaigning for the presidency, that Social Security is something that can be fixed with some modest modifications that don’t impose hardships on beneficiaries who are counting on it. And so the example that I used during the campaign was an increase in the payroll tax, not an increase — let me scratch that. Not an increase in the payroll tax but an increase in the income level at which it is excluded. And so what I’ve been clear about is, is that I’ve got a set of preferences, but I want the commission to go ahead and do its work. When it issues its report, I’m not automatically going to assume that it’s the right way to do things. I’ll study it and examine it and see what makes sense. But I’ve said in the past, I’ll say here now, it doesn’t strike me that a steep hike in the retirement age is in fact the best way to fix Social Security. At the time, the President was hedging a bit, because he was still waiting for the cat food commission to come out with their report, but he did say he’s in total favor of raising the salary cap on payroll and won’t impose hardships on the people who are counting on it. Raising the retirement age would seriously be a hardship. CFA has some great information about where Social Security stands: Speaking Truth About Saving Social Security What we really need is an increase in our benefits: In fact, if anything, Social Security benefits need to be strengthened. The average Social Security benefit—$1,155 per month, or about $13,860 per year for a retired worker in 2009—is only slightly higher than the U.S. poverty thresholds. And it’s less than what a retired person actually needs to meet all of their basic needs when you take into the account the rising cost of medical care and housing. The average retiree still paying a mortgage on their home would need almost twice what they’re receiving in Social Security in order to make ends meet, according to one recent report. A popular argument is that since people are living longer, we should raise the retirement age. Under current law, the age at which people are eligible for full Social Security benefits is set to increase to age 67 for people born in 1960 or later. That means Social Security’s full retirement age is already much older than eligibility ages in private (or public) pension plans, which remain 65 or earlier. Moreover, it is older than the ages for penalty-free withdrawals from 401(k)s or IRAs (59½). Also, consider that, according to a Center for Economic and Policy research study , 45 percent of workers 58 and older work in jobs that are physically demanding or have difficult working conditions; it is neither fair nor humane to ask these workers to put their health and perhaps their lives at additional risk. Finally, at a time when some economists argue that the country is going into a long-term period of historically high unemployment, it makes no sense to force older workers to stay in the workforce longer than they want. It’s been leaked that the SOTU will focus at least partially on the deficit so we need to make our feelings known about Social Security made very clear. I think we have been doing so, but we have to keep it up. Mr. President, please do not be held hostage by the GOP over the debt ceiling and the appropriations bill. If the GOP or Third Way Dems tries to touch Social Security in any way that is harmful to Americans that are dependent upon it then that should be a non-starter. Be true to your words and promises — the ones you uttered in the above video.
Continue reading …Click here to view this media For some reason, conservatives seem to believe “they won” the recent national conversation about the nature and content of our national conversation, sparked by Saturday’s tragedy in Arizona. That, at least, was their takeaway from President Obama’s speech at the memorial on Tuesday. Indeed, the usual disinformation specialists are spreading the claim that Obama “threw liberals under the bus” because he didn’t come out and openly adopt the argument posed by many Democrats — namely, that the vicious and violent rhetoric that has become part and parcel of the American Right’s dealings with Democrats has created an environment where death threats and violence are now everyday acts, scarcely worth a shrug of the eyebrow. See, for instance, Jennifer Rubin in the WaPo yesterday : A chorus on the left claimed causation between Sarah Palin and the killings (and then the amorphous “climate” and the deaths) and didn’t much care for a careful analysis until it became clear their preferred narrative was false. As for the president, he doesn’t buy it at all. He said: “And if, as has been discussed in recent days, their deaths help usher in more civility in our public discourse, let’s remember that it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy, but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation, in a way that would make them proud.” (Emphasis added.) Or, as I put it, rhetorical civility and mental illness are discrete problems. And it doesn’t help the liberal line when it turns out this particular lunatic was a-political and didn’t watch news. So, for my friends on the left: facts count. You can’t spin a narrative and not be expected to be called on the underlying, flawed premise. Indeed, if the premise had been that there was “causation” between Palin’s incendiarism and Jared Loughner’s act, it would have been flawed — but no one said that, particularly not Paul Krugman, whose Sunday column is the focus of much of the Right’s animus. What most of us said from the start is that it was undeniable that the killings took place in a charged atmosphere in which all kinds of violent rhetoric had created an environment in which nearly everyone present on the ground felt something like this was inevitable — because it creates permission for violent acts, and fuels the irrationality that makes violence possible. Sarah Palin’s “target map” was only the most obvious example. So, for that matter, was that “target shoot” fundraiser by her Tea Partying opponent. And for what it’s worth, it’s certainly not a settled matter that Loughner was not acting out of unhinged beliefs that he obtained from radical-right sources — as we said earlier, his online contributions heavily indicated such influences. Mark Potok of the SPLC has much more, and a thoroughly balanced take, on that. But in the end, Loughner’s motive matters less than the realities that people like Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik are well acquainted with already : Dupnik had all the evidence he needed to make the kinds of remarks he made about the political and social environment in Arizona — one that has gotten so virulently ugly that Democrats and liberals in Arizona increasingly are fearful for their physical well-being and are reluctant to self-identify as liberals. ( Will Bunch had a terrific piece at Media Matters recently on this very subject; as someone with family and friends in Arizona, I can personally attest to this reality.) Unlike Bill O’Reilly or Megyn Kelly or Monica Crowley, Dupnik actually lives in Arizona, and does know whereof he speaks. Moreover, there is abundant evidence about the vicious eliminationist hatred, some of it officially sanctioned by the GOP and Tea Parties, that was directed at Giffords personally. Rubin right: The facts do matter. Especially if you refuse to sweep them under the carpet. And here are the facts about the mounting list of tragedies that folks on the right keep insisting are just “isolated incidents” : — July 2008 : A gunman named Jim David Adkisson, agitated at how “liberals” are “destroying America,” walks into a Unitarian Church and opens fire, killing two churchgoers and wounding four others. — October 2008 : Two neo-Nazis are arrested in Tennessee in a plot to murder dozens of African-Americans, culminating in the assassination of President Obama. — December 2008 : A pair of “Patriot” movement radicals — the father-son team of Bruce and Joshua Turnidge, who wanted “to attack the political infrastructure” — threaten a bank in Woodburn, Oregon, with a bomb in the hopes of extorting money that would end their financial difficulties, for which they blamed the government. Instead, the bomb goes off and kills two police officers . The men eventually are convicted and sentenced to death for the crime . — December 2008 : In Belfast, Maine, police discover the makings of a nuclear “dirty bomb” in the basement of a white supremacist shot dead by his wife. The man, who was independently wealthy, reportedly was agitated about the election of President Obama and was crafting a plan to set off the bomb. — January 2009 : A white supremacist named Keith Luke embarks on a killing rampage in Brockton, Mass., raping and wounding a black woman and killing her sister, then killing a homeless man before being captured by police as he is en route to a Jewish community center. — February 2009 : A Marine named Kody Brittingham is arrested and charged with plotting to assassinate President Obama. Brittingham also collected white-supremacist material. — April 2009 : A white supremacist named Richard Poplawski opens fire on three Pittsburgh police officers who come to his house on a domestic-violence call and kills all three, because he believed President Obama intended to take away the guns of white citizens like himself. Poplawski is currently awaiting trial. — April 2009 : Another gunman in Okaloosa County, Florida, similarly fearful of Obama’s purported gun-grabbing plans, kills two deputies when they come to arrest him in a domestic-violence matter, then is killed himself in a shootout with police. — May 2009 : A “sovereign citizen” named Scott Roeder walks into a church in Wichita, Kansas, and assassinates abortion provider Dr. George Tiller. — June 2009 : A Holocaust denier and right-wing tax protester named James Von Brunn opens fire at the Holocaust Museum, killing a security guard. — February 2010 : An angry tax protester named Joseph Ray Stack flies an airplane into the building housing IRS offices in Austin, Texas. (Media are reluctant to label this one “domestic terrorism” too. ) — March 2010 : Seven militiamen from the Hutaree Militia in Michigan and Ohio are arrested and charged with plotting to assassinate local police officers with the intent of sparking a new civil war. — March 2010 : An anti-government extremist named John Patrick Bedell walks into the Pentagon and opens fire, wounding two officers before he is himself shot dead. — May 2010 : A “sovereign citizen” from Georgia is arrested in Tennessee and charged with plotting the violent takeover of a local county courthouse. — May 2010 : A still-unidentified white man walks into a Jacksonville, Fla., mosque and sets it afire, simultaneously setting off a pipe bomb. — May 2010 : Two “sovereign citizens” named Jerry and Joe Kane gun down two police officers who pull them over for a traffic violation, and then wound two more officers in a shootout in which both of them are eventually killed. — July 2010 : An agitated right-winger and convict named Byron Williams loads up on weapons and drives to the Bay Area intent on attacking the offices of the Tides Foundation and the ACLU, but is intercepted by state patrolmen and engages them in a shootout and armed standoff in which two officers and Williams are wounded. — September 2010 : A Concord, N.C., man is arrested and charged with plotting to blow up a North Carolina abortion clinic. The man, 26-year–old Justin Carl Moose, referred to himself as the “Christian counterpart to (Osama) bin Laden” in a taped undercover meeting with a federal informant. Mind you, this list is strictly directed toward incidents involving serious acts of domestic terrorism. It doesn’t even begin to include the litany of violent threats and violent acts that have been directed with increasing intensity toward liberals in the past year alone: — The head-stomping of a liberal protester by a Rand Paul campaign official in Kentucky. — Mentally unstable nutcases threatening liberal campaigners in Washington state, Illinois and Vermont. — A swastika-laden white-powder-terrorism attack on a Democratic congressman’s offices. — Thugs hired by the Republican candidate in Alaska roughing up and handcuffing a reporter for asking questions at a public event. If Jennifer Rubin (or any other right-winger, for that matter) really wants to seriously deal with the reasons Americans — particularly liberal Americans — responded to Saturday’s tragedy as they did, they need to look at both of these lists and make an honest reckoning. Now, it may be true that liberals occasionally say some mean, cruel and unpleasant things about conservatives. But I challenge the would-be equivocators out there who wants to claim that “the left does it too” to come up with a comparable list of liberal nutcases committing acts of domestic terrorism, heinous violence, threats and intimidation, and mass murder in which Republicans are all the targeted victims. So when another one comes down the pike — and it will, especially now that everyone on the Right has closed ranks, covered their ears and screamed in unison that they’re not inciting violence with their violent rhetoric — we’ll know what to expect then, too. No matter how irrevocable the evidence establishing that this is another act of right-wing terrorism, they’ll claim that it has nothing to do with them. It’s just another “isolated incident” by a “lone nutcase”. Now, did President Obama really throw his liberal base under the bus the other night? Here’s what Rubin says: The final lesson for the left is this: for the sake of a second term, the president is willing to throw liberals under the bus. He’s going to undo their economic mantra (by supporting the Bush tax cuts). He is going to undermine their approach to their war on terror (with drones, a long-term commitment to Afghanistan). And he is even going to make the liberal icons — Krugman, the New York Times editorial board, Keith Olbermann and the rest — look like fools. The “paper of record” has revealed, for any doubters, that the truth is the first casualty of its op-ed page. Here’s the only thing the president really said, which seems to be the source of their claim that he’s repudiating their base: If, as has been discussed in recent days, their death helps usher in more civility in our public discourse, let us remember it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy–it did not–but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to the challenges of our nation in a way that would make them proud. The WSJ’s James Taranto thinks this is highly relevant too. But all Obama really said here is that “a simple lack of civility” was not the cause of the tragedy, and frankly, I’ve looked around, and there really isn’t anyone making that case, though many on the right are trying to characterize their critics that way. Obama was on a mission to heal last night. He didn’t need to engage this fight — indeed, it would have been a big mistake for him to have done it. But I didn’t get the sense that he’s sold on the idea that there’s no problem here and that we should just move along, either. Time will tell on that front. Meanwhile, I’ll let Steven Budiansky’s insights stand as all the answer necessary to Rubin’s premature assertion that the conversation is over and her whitewashing side has “won”: The unstable young man who opened fire yesterday, it is already clear, was more of a nut than a political agent. But to those who would suggest that political violence is just some random occurrence, a meteorite falling from the sky and claiming its victims by chance, I would suggest they look to the way that delegitimization of democratic institutions, inflammatory and demagogic appeals to what our founders called “passion” over reason, and glorification of brutality have ever been the handmaidens of the descent to hell of once-civilized societies. What we have seen in the last few years is not the usual political theater of opposing candidates who put on histrionic performances at election time and then are great pals off-stage; what we have seen is an ugliness and a willingness to play with fire that is something different — a willingness on the part of too many on the Republican side to pull down the temple itself if they calculate they might be able to salvage more of the ensuing rubble than the other guys. The Arizona sheriff in whose jurisdiction the shootings took place noted the unprecedented rise in death threats against all public officials that has taken place lately. The Secret Service does not talk about threats against the President but credible reports make clear that President Obama faces threats on a scale unlike anything ever before encountered. Never mind even the childish braggadocio about “second amendment solutions” and “lock and load”; the daily inflammatory rhetoric about “tyranny” and “the end of freedom as we know it” and even the name “tea party” itself, invoking revolutionary resistance to despotism, have accelerated an unprecedented delegitimization of the democratic process itself, a suggestion that those who advance opposing viewpoints are not just political opponents but usurpers. [Read the whole post, as well as his follow-up. ]
Continue reading …“Rush Limbaugh needs to choke to death on his own fat,” deranged left-wing radio show host Mike Malloy hissed on his February 18, 2009 program. Michele Bachmann should “slit [her] wrist!” Montel Williams told his Air America radio show audience in September 2009. “We ought to rip [Dick Cheney's heart] out and kick it around and stuff it back in him,” MSNBC's Ed Schultz blustered on his February 24, 2010 radio program. Those are just three examples of left-wing hate that the mainstream media haven't denounced while accusing conservatives like Sarah Palin of engendering violence in the wake of the Rep. Gabrielle Giffords shooting. “Have you ever heard any reporter… denounce these examples?” NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell asked Fox News' Sean Hannity after watching the montage during last night's “Media Mash” segment on “Hannity.” [For the full segment, watch the video below the page break or listen to the MP3 audio here .] “Conservatives don't talk this way, yet they're attacking us for something we have nothing to do with,” Bozell concluded. Bozell later noted that the media's complaints about Sarah Palin's “target map” are specious and hypocritical. “How about this, Sean? How about the original logo of the show “Crossfire”? What did it have? It had crosshairs!” Bozell reminded Hannity.
Continue reading …Felix Salmon makes an excellent point . Now are the officials of the Obama administration ready to call the bluff of the GOP extremists? Greg Ip makes a very important poin t today, which I haven’t seen made anywhere else: even if the US debt ceiling isn’t lifted, that doesn’t mean the government will default. In any given month, the government’s income dwarfs its debt-service obligations, which means that the government could simply pay all interest on Treasury bonds out of its cashflow. Greg hasn’t run the numbers on principal maturities, but I’m pretty sure that they too could be covered out of cash receipts—and when that happened, of course, the total debt outstanding would go down, and we wouldn’t be bumping up against the ceiling any more. The point here is that the government has enormous expenditures every month, and debt service constitutes an important yet small part of them. If the debt ceiling weren’t raised, it stands to reason that just about any other form of government spending would get cut before Tim Geithner dreamed of defaulting on risk-free bonds. Some of those spending cuts could be implemented almost invisibly. For instance, Social Security runs a surplus for the time being; it invests that money in special non-marketable Treasury securities, which count as Treasury debt. If the Social Security trust fund accepted instead just some kind of promise of a top-up at a later date, that could save billions of dollars right there. Beyond that, large defense contractors aren’t going to stop working for the government just because they’re late in being paid; neither are doctors, hospitals or most of the rest of the healthcare industry. But maybe the smartest thing for Geithner to do would simply be to stop paying the salaries of members of Congress and their staffs . It probably wouldn’t take long, in that event, for Congress to vote Obama the debt-ceiling raise he needs. The bigger picture here is that the US government, like any other company or individual, has enormous freedom when it comes to which creditors it chooses to pay when. Just like GM had every right to privilege some creditors over others, even when those creditors were legally pari passu, the US government can do exactly the same thing. And there’s no way that this administration, or any other that I can think of, would choose to cut debt service given that they have every choice in the matter.
Continue reading …For going on six days, dishonest media members have blamed prominent conservatives for inciting last Saturday's tragedy in Tucson. On Wednesday, radio host and attorney Mark Levin threatened to sue anyone – including MSNBC's Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, and Joe Scarborough – that tried to tie him to that event (YouTube audio follows with transcript and commentary): MARK LEVIN: Now I’m going to tell you something. Maybe I shouldn’t, but I will. I’m waiting for an allegation that is very specific against me because I’m going to sue. I don’t care if they’re bloggers, I don’t care if they’re television hosts, I don’t care if they’re radio hosts. I’m going to drag your ass into federal court. Oh, you’ll have due process. It’ll all be nice and legal. I’m going to personally depose you. I’m going to drag you in front of a jury, and I’m going to get your assets. Somebody has to stand up to this. Somebody has to draw the line. Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Joe Scarborough – test me. Test me. David Frum, you little weasel, test me. All of you. I believe in the law. I believe in free speech. I believe in responsible speech. Now, you want people to tone it down? Okay, good. Anybody who accuses me of inciting mass murder in Tucscon, Arizona, is going to be sued. Period. I don’t mean, “Oh his rhetoric is incendiary.” I don’t. Anybody who tries to tie me to that monstrous event. I’m going to tell you why. When you get behind this microphone every day, and you speak from the heart, and millions of people are listening, and family and friends, they’re listening, too. They’re affected by all these things. Now I’m a public figure. I’m a big boy. I can handle this. The question is whether these other boys can handle it. You think I’m kidding? Try me, because I’m not kidding. The laws of libel are actually older than the first amendment. According to the American Spectator, Levin moments before this issued a challenge to Matthews: “I challenge Chris Matthews, I'll put $100,000 on the table, to find any example where Sarah Palin has promoted the murder of anybody,” said Levin — specifically excluding terrorists and the Taliban. Levin went on: “A hundred thousand on the table if Chris Matthews can find anywhere Mark Levin has urged the murder of people who have different political viewpoints. That's the murder of politicians …where I said go out there and kill X,Y,Z…go out there and kill A,B,C. I challenge him right now. Sarah Palin. Me. Go ahead.” Levin, as usual, was 100 percent right. What we've witnessed in the past six days has been a national disgrace. Within minutes of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) getting shot, media members began accusing conservative politicians and pundits of inciting the shooter. This was before anyone knew anything about him. We have since learned that whatever politics Jared Lee Loughner had, they were certainly not right-wing, and that he apparently didn't watch television or listen to talk radio. But this didn't stop the folks responsible for disseminating the news via the airwaves, cable and print to continually and dishonestly misrepresent to their viewers, listeners, and readers that folks like Palin, Levin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and members of the Tea Party all had a hand in this incident. This nonsense has to stop, for what these shameful accusers in the media don't understand is that it's they that are exacerbating the heated rhetoric and ideological divisions in this nation. Every time they jump to malevolent conclusions and disseminate their evil assumptions, their viewers, listeners, and readers feel greater antipathy and hatred for fellow Americans.
Continue reading …Click here to view this media Posted without much need for comment. A brief video on the sad events in Tucson. Perhaps we will all begin to open our eyes after yet another senseless tragedy.
Continue reading …The anti-war publications of the Vietnam era have given way to how-to manuals by former military men who seldom deal with moral aspects of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Continue reading …By Eugene Robinson Listening to Obama’s speech brought back memories of Obama the candidate, a mesmerizing orator with the power to summon visions of a better America. Related Entries January 13, 2011 Obama and Palin Speeches Compared January 13, 2011 WikiLeaks Exposes the Danger of Pakistan’s Nukes
Continue reading …