President Obama took to the podium on Thursday to declare that “we are on track to achieve our goals” in Afghanistan, although the war there “continues to be a difficult endeavor.” This assessment wouldn’t have anything to do with two big setbacks … Related Entries December 16, 2010 Assange Freed on Bail in Britain December 16, 2010 White House Sees Progress in Afghanistan
Continue reading …On Thursday, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was sprung from jail on bail in London, where he addressed a press throng, cracking wise about how justice in the British system is “not dead yet” and thanking his legal team and journalists who “were not all taken in and considered to look deeper in their work.” While he was at it, Assange discussed a rumor that his legal team was heeding about an indictment made against him in the U.S. and said he was more concerned “about being extradited to the U.S.” than to Sweden.
Continue reading …Okay, I admit it: I’m a weeper. I cry during abandoned dog commercials, the final scenes of “Field of Dreams” and “Marley and Me” and honestly, pretty much all other times. My kids laugh at my tendency to go to tears. But for as much as I cry, I do have the ability to hold it together in a professional setting. I have never once cried in an office or work setting. But curiously, John Boehner feels no similar need to button up his emotionality and there are videos galore of him tearing up on the House floor. It’s so ubiquitous that the progressive blogosphere even dubbed him “Cryin’ John Boehner”. But now the traditional media is noticing it too…and they’re beginning to wonder if Boehner is tough enough for the job : I’m sure we’ll get used to having a speaker of the House who weeps a lot. That would be John Boehner, the new guy. “He is known to cry,” the outgoing speaker, Nancy Pelosi, told Deborah Solomon in The Times Magazine. “He cries sometimes when we’re having a debate on bills.” Pelosi, of course, does not cry in public. We will stop here briefly to contemplate what would happen if she, or any female lawmaker, broke into loud, nose-running sobs while discussing Iraq troop funding or giving a TV interview. (Pause) O.K., moving forward. Boehner is a gravel-voiced Ohioan who wears snazzy suits and hangs out a lot with lobbyists. One of the few cheery prospects the new year holds for Democrats is his upcoming demonization, since there is no such thing in 21st-century America as a loveable leader of the House of Representatives. Unless America is totally won over by the idea of a Sobbing Speaker. Can you imagine the field day that the right wing noise machine would have had if Nancy Pelosi teared up as much John Boehner? The mind reels. The most arresting moment came when Boehner told Stahl he can no longer make visits to schools, or even look at the little kids on the playground, because he immediately starts crying. That had me alarmed. I thought there was going to be some terrible story about an ailing child that would then force me to have warm and sympathetic thoughts about John Boehner. But no. The reason, Boehner finally choked out, was because “making sure these kids have a shot at the American dream, like I did, is important.”[..] “I spent my whole life chasing (sob) the American dream,” he told the cameras. “Put myself through school, working every rotten job there was …” The American Dream has had such a bad year. During the campaign, it was tossed around by billionaire candidates who insisted on telling groups of underprivileged children that they, too, could someday own a mega-yacht or run a slimy but extremely profitable health care corporation. Now, John Boehner is blaming the Dream for making him howl like an abandoned puppy. Oh snap! Maddow also suggests that perhaps if Boehner changed his policies, he’d have less to cry about . And while some other sensitive men might defend Boehner, there is also a growing whisper that his tears may be symptomatic of a larger problem : John Boehner’s latest public crying episode has gotten Capitol Hill talking, and some are speculating that there’s a simple explanation for the waterworks: He’s drunk. “For years, political professionals have quietly discussed Boehner’s drinking,” writes Matt Lewis of Politics Daily . “Some have told me off the record that his mannerisms remind them of that of an alcoholic.”[..] So is the drinking to blame for the crying? Politico once noted that Boehner “cries more often later in the day,” and he often seems to slur his words right before such outbursts. Well, he’d hardly be the first alcoholic in Congress, but I think there should simply be a rule: THERE’S NO CRYING IN POLITICS.
Continue reading …Well, we here at Truthdig already think he’s the best, but it’s fantastic news that the Greater Los Angeles Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists has singled out veteran journalist, author and Truthdig editor in chief Robert Scheer as this year’s recipient of The Distinguished Work in New Media Award. This award from the SPJ/LA truly puts the “new” in new media, as it’s only been in existence for two years. Our heartiest congratulations to Scheer for his well-deserved honor, proving once again that his vision and voice have made their indelible mark, even in a medium that’s constantly changing.
Continue reading …Click here to view this media John McCain went on Sean Hannity’s show last night to rail like an aging old crank again, this time against Republicans’ pet target of the week: the omnibus spending bill making its way through the lame-duck session of Congress. In the process, he seemed to be calling out the Tea Party troops to action: McCain: It’s a direct repudiation of the voters of last November 2, it is a direct insult, to stick their thumb right in their eye. I was on the phone with the Tea Partiers all over Arizona today. They are enraged. They are outraged. And I want to see an uprising all over this country. The same people that caused the victories, we’ve got to hold these people to account. He’s actually going to have to hope that none of his newfound Tea Partying friends — remember, they weren’t always so close, back when J.D. Hayworth was making him sweat — actually heed his call in the way some of them are likely to.
Continue reading …Click here to view this media It appears fear mongering flame thrower Rep. Louie Gohmert has found himself a new target other than those “terror babies” he warned us about . This week it’s “teh gays” that are going to literally destroy our military if they’re allowed to come out with the possible repeal of DADT, or worse yet, allowing gay members of the military to serve openly might just mean the end of America’s “existence as a great nation.” Right Wing Watch has more — Gohmert: Without DADT, Military Stands to Lose Thousands and US Will Reach the “End of its Existence as a Great Nation” : While debating the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), of “terror-baby” fame, claimed that the policy’s repeal may doom the military and the nation as a whole. Gohmert blasted the recent Pentagon study , which showed that an overwhelming number of military service members do not oppose repealing DADT, and said that the military could potentially lose “many thousands, or tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands” if the policy is repealed. Gohmert uses no scientific evidence of his own to back up his claim that “hundreds of thousands” of troops could leave, even though the Pentagon’s own polling found that the vast majority of troops do not have problems serving alongside gays and lesbians, and 92 percent of those who believe they have already served alongside gays did not believe that their “units functioned poorly as a result.” Gohmert went on to suggest that the House, which today voted to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell 250-175, is opening up the floodgates to a disorganized and ineffective military. According to the Congressman, “when militaries throughout history of the greatest nations in the world have adopted the policy that it’s fine for homosexuality to be overt…they’re toward the end of its existence as a great nation.” Here’s the transcript of Gohmert’s remarks from Right Wing Watch and as they noted, he’s just channeling the remarks of The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins who just earned a spot on the SPLC’s list of hate groups for their anti-gay rhetoric. You want an accurate poll? Take one where military members can answer privately with no ability of the commanders to figure out who answered where. And then let’s find out how many thousands, or tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands we can lose with this activity. That’s important. Now we were told Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is inconsistent with American values, I would submit the military is inconsistent with American values. It does not have freedom of speech, it does not have freedom of assembly, it does not have the freedom to express its love to those in the military the way you can out here because it’s an impediment to the military mission. You can’t do that. Can you imagine military members being able to tell their commander what they think of him using freedom of speech or assembling where they wish? It doesn’t work. This is one of those issues that is so personal to the military; we need to have an accurate poll. And to my friend who said history would judge us poorly, I would submit if you look thoroughly at history, and I’m not saying its cause and effect, but when militaries throughout history of the greatest nations in the world have adopted the policy that it’s fine for homosexuality to be overt, you can keep it private it’s fine if you can’t that’s fine too, they’re toward the end of its existence as a great nation.
Continue reading …enlarge At the ominous word “liberality,” Scrooge frowned, and shook his head, and handed the credentials back. “At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge,” said the gentleman, taking up a pen, “it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.” “Are there no prisons?” asked Scrooge. “Plenty of prisons,” said the gentleman, laying down the pen again. “And the Union workhouses?” demanded Scrooge. “Are they still in operation?” “They are. Still,” returned the gentleman, “I wish I could say they were not.” “The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?” said Scrooge. “Both very busy, sir.” “Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,” said Scrooge. “I’m very glad to hear it.” “Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,” returned the gentleman, “a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?” “Nothing!” Scrooge replied. “You wish to be anonymous?” “I wish to be left alone,” said Scrooge. “Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned—they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.” “Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.” “If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.” A Christmas Carol Bill O’Reilly’s most recent column: “Keep Christ in Unemployment” There comes a time when compassion can cause disaster. If you open your home to scores of homeless folks, you will not have a home for long. There is a capacity problem for every noble intent. America remains the land of opportunity, but you have to work for it. The unemployment rate for college graduates is 5%. For high school drop-outs, it is 16%. Personal responsibility is usually the driving force behind success. But there are millions of Americans who are not responsible, and the cold truth is that the rest of us cannot afford to support them. Every fair-minded person should support government safety nets for people who need assistance through no fault of their own. But guys like McDermott don’t make distinctions like that. For them, the baby Jesus wants us to “provide,” no matter what the circumstance. But being a Christian, I know that while Jesus promoted charity at the highest level, he was not self-destructive. The Lord helps those who help themselves. Does he not? Since that aphorism appears in no known religious work — particularly not any known Scripture — we’ll refer instead to what Jesus actually said about the poor. And about rich men like Bill O’Reilly. Matthew 19:21 “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” Luke 14: 12-14 “When you give a dinner or a banquet, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your kinsmen or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return, and you be repaid. But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just.” Matthew 19:23-24 “Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
Continue reading …Clearly, there’s a lot of anger in America right now. Much of it justified, as some can afford shower curtain rings that would dwarf others’ weekly wages (and the latter are the ones who are lucky enough to have jobs). When you take this fact, combine it with the Orwellian “Newspeak” so pervasive in our media (which David Neiwert has written so articulately about ), and multiply that by the NRA’s mission to fight for the rights of criminals, the mentally ill and even terrorists to have access to guns , you have a toxic stew, ready to erupt. Scene: Panama City, Florida. A school board meeting is interrupted by a man with a criminal record of assault (with a gun) waving a gun, and furious that his wife lost her job, his benefits have run out and the board members were unwilling to raise sales taxes so she and others like her wouldn’t be fired (it should be noted that reports are still sketchy, so not all of what he says about his wife and himself during the 5 minutes when the board members try and talk him down can be confirmed yet). We don’t yet know where he got his gun — but we do know his criminal record and history of mental illness made it illegal for him obtain a gun of any kind. We also know that you can walk into a gun show in many states, such as Virginia, and buy any weapon, no background check necessary . The Governor of Virginia thinks that this is a-ok. No matter that everyone from members of Hezbollah to the Columbine killers to the Pentagon shooter got their guns in this manner. Apparently, to make an omelette, you have to shoot a few eggs. But the gun lobby marches on: Much harm, no foul. The NRA has spent years trying to destroy and delegitimize the ATF , such that nobody has been leading this important law enforcement agency for the past 4 years. Why? Because they try and track where guns come from when they kill people . Crazy. right? And of course we know that we are creating our very own Bonus Army, as millions are filled with despair and anxiety as we give them a pittance while extending tax cuts for people who make Richie Rich look like Oliver Twist. So is this our future? Videos of killers wielding illegal guns and holding innocent people hostage — or worse. Reality TV, gone very, very wrong. Unless/until we decide that gun safety, economic equality, and preventing pundits from inciting riot/slandering whole groups of people on air are reforms worth fighting for. Stay tuned on this one. In the meantime, sadly, I can promise you one thing: Many mini-revolutions such as this will be televised. And it will be ugly.
Continue reading …Click here to view this media Greta Van Susteren asks Tim Pawlenty about this nasty little screed he wrote recently attacking public sector unions and their benefits. Here’s the opening. Tim Pawlenty: Public-sector unions burden the taxpayer : When Americans think of organized labor, they might think of images like I saw growing up in a blue-collar meatpacking town: hard hats, work boots, tough conditions and gritty jobs. While I didn’t work in the slaughterhouses, I did become a union member when I worked at a grocery store to help put myself through school. I was grateful for the paycheck and proud of the work I did. The rise of the labor movement in the early 20th century was a triumph for America’s working class. In an era of deep economic anxiety, unions stood up for hardworking but vulnerable families, protecting them from physical and economic exploitation. Much has changed. The majority of union members today no longer work in construction, manufacturing or “strong back” jobs. They work for government, which, thanks to President Obama, has become the only booming “industry” left in our economy. Since January 2008 the private sector has lost nearly 8 million jobs, while local, state and federal governments have added 590,000. Pawlenty apparently thinks if you don’t wear a hard hat or steel toed boots as part of your job, you don’t deserve the protection of a union. I guess he also thinks that no one who’s drawing a check from the government does physical labor. Transcript and a response from the Minnesota Nurses Association below the fold. VAN SUSTEREN: All right, you have an op-ed piece in which you talk about government employees. And you say that according to your op-ed piece, government employees have an average income of $123,000, which is twice the average pay, according to you, of the private sector. And you go after the unions. You used to be a union guy. What happened? PAWLENTY: Well, I grew up in a meat-packing town, Greta, and for seven or so years of my life, I was in a union. I come from a lunchbucket union family. My dad was a truck driver. My mom died when I was 16. These unions played a role when the workers were being exploited in places like coal mines and meat-packing plants and other dangerous circumstances. But now you have the biggest growth in unions in government employees, government unions, the public employee unions. They are some of the most protected, secure employees in the country. And they have pay and benefits that are better, in most instances, than the taxpayers who are actually paying the bill. It’s unsustainable. It’s unfair. This — I call it a silent coup in some ways. But obviously, this has to be taken head on. We’ve done this in Minnesota and made some good steps. We’re getting sued over it, by the way, in a case that’s probably going to go to the U.S. Supreme Court. But if we don’t get this fixed, it is going to go a long ways towards taken down California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and places like that, and many other states won’t be far behind. But we’ve got to make sure that we get people more aware of, really, the scandal that is the public employment pension and benefit Ponzi scheme. MN Nurses Respond to Tim Pawlenty’s Attack on Unions, RNs : Soon-to-be-former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty recently penned a blistering attack on state employee unions, including state-employed nurses. Below is MNA President Linda Hamilton’s official response, which has been sent to the Star Tribune and The Wall Street Journal, which originally published Pawlenty’s Op-Ed on December 13th. Here is the response: Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s recent opinion piece (“Public Sector Unions a Burden”) was filled with the political rhetoric that our soon-to-be-former Governor has been using to start his 2012 Presidential bid instead of serving the people of Minnesota. According to Mr. Pawlenty, government employees who care for our sick, plow our streets and teach our children should feel ashamed and embarrassed to be part of a union. Apparently, it is our state-employed nurses, snowplow drivers, janitors and teachers that are responsible for Minnesota’s nearly $6 billion budget deficit – not Tim Pawlenty’s failed leadership. Perhaps the most absurd part of Mr. Pawlenty’s feeble attack on the working class is his contention that we should strive to rely on “predictable” retirement benefits such as 401(k) plans. Maybe our Governor missed the recent financial collapse where these “predictable” 401(k) plans of countless Americans evaporated into thin air? Maybe he thinks unemployed workers are able to save for their retirement? Speaking as a nurse who spends her time working here in Minnesota rather than campaigning for higher office all across the country on the state’s dime, I can say without reservation that Tim Pawlenty’s true legacy is one of trying to pin our state’s budget woes on the backs of the working class while doing everything in his power to protect and reward those private sector, multimillionaire CEOs who continue to bankroll his political platform. Sincerely, Linda Hamilton, President Minnesota Nurses Association
Continue reading …enlarge Good mornin’! Let’s get started: Republicans on the financial crisis investigation commission reached new levels of insanity yesterday when they chose to adopt a blame-it-on-ACORN narrative to the causes of the financial crisis: The four Republicans appointed to the commission investigating the root causes of the financial crisis plan to bypass the bipartisan panel and release their own report Wednesday, according to people familiar with the commission’s work. The Republicans, led by the commission’s vice chairman, former congressman and chair of the House Ways and Means Committee Bill Thomas, will likely focus their report on the explosive growth of subprime mortgages and the heavy role played by the federal government in pushing mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase and insure them. They’ll also likely focus on the Community Reinvestment Act, a 1977 law that encourages banks to lend to underserved communities, these people said. The Republicans’ report is expected to conclude that government policy helped inflate the housing bubble and that prices weren’t expected to crash because the government pushed homeownership so aggressively. This cute little narrative — which I called the “We didn’t want to give houses to all those swarthy poor people, the government made us, WAAAAAAAH!” narrative — has absolutely no basis in reality. This chart from Barry Ritholz tells you everything you need to know (click to enlarge): enlarge As you can see this housing bubble was global in nature . And looking at the chart you can see that the U.S. actually had things relatively good compared to Ireland, Spain and the UK. And I’ll let you in on a little secret: The Community Reinvestment Act did not force Irish, Spanish or British banks to make no-doc mortgages. The reason so many banks made so many crappy loans over the years is the simplest of all reasons: Because the securitization process made it profitable for them to do so. The incentives within the system were such that the original lender never had to live with the consequences of making a crappy loan because he would just fork it off to Wall Street, which was hungry for loans to bundle up into CDOs. Ratings agencies had no incentives to point out that these CDOs were full of crappy loans because they were being paid by the banks to rate their products favorably. For good measure, add in the fact that the Fed kept interest rates low during the buildup of the bubble and gave banks lots of easy money to play with. And finally, when banks started issued synthetic CDOs backed primarily by unregulated credit derivatives, well, you have a recipe for a massively over-leveraged financial system where everybody is basically making money out of thin air. Heidi Moore has a more-nuanced take over at DealBook that makes roughly the same points: The government-sponsored enterprises fueled bad lending but it was the investment banks’ packaging of the same bad mortgages over and over again into toxic collateralized debt obligation bundles that created billions of dollars in losses. If every mortgage could only be securitized once, the losses would have been bad but not horrible. But because fancy Wall Street chicanery reproduced those mortgages and mirrored them in bundles of increasing size, the investment banks took far bigger losses than they would have otherwise. As those losses grew, the banks struggled to find enough cash to stay well capitalized. Investors grew scared that the banks would not be able to, and the government had to step in to bolster the banks’ capital with the Troubled Asset Relief Program and other bailout programs. (Incidentally, people like Dean Baker were writing about this way back in 2004 when nobody else was talking about it. But for some reason people like Dean Baker never get appointed to key government positions. Only people who couldn’t see a multi-trillion dollar housing bubble get that sort of work.) We’ve been on a “happy news roll” for the past couple of days and I think this qualifies : The Obama administration has selected Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray, a vocal critic of the banking industry, to head the enforcement division of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, according to a Treasury official. Cordray, a Democrat, has been a leader among state attorneys general in the probe into mortgage foreclosure practices. The probe is examining whether banks submitted faulty legal documents in foreclosure proceedings. This has “Elizabeth Warren lobbying” written all over it. To which I say, “Thank God!” If Obama had taken more advice from Warren over the past two years and less from the Geithner-Summers tag team, he wouldn’t be in the predicament he’s in today. Let’s hope this is the start of a trend (though I’m cynical enough to know it isn’t). Another data point you can use against Glen Beck fans you know who are screaming “ZOMG TEH INFLATION!!!!” The cost of living in the U.S. rose less than forecast in November, indicating higher prices for commodities such as fuel aren’t filtering through into other goods and services. The consumer-price index increased 0.1 percent after a 0.2 percent rise the prior month, the Labor Department said today in Washington. The median estimate of economists in a Bloomberg News survey called for a gain of 0.2 percent. The so-called core measure, which excludes more volatile food and energy costs, also rose 0.1 percent, matching the median forecast. I’m much more worried about 10% unemployment and a massive foreclosure crisis than I am about inflation at this point in time. In fact, I would gladly trade some inflation if it meant people were getting back to work and demand for goods started rising. Ireland’s parliament voted to pass the Permanent Servitude to the Eurocrats Bill €85 billion EU-IMF bailout package today. This bit tickled me: Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan said it mystified him that anybody in the Dáil could oppose the measure. “The suggestion that the Opposition could negotiate a better interest rate from the IMF is, frankly, laughable,” he added. “The rate of interest charged by the IMF is calculated using the standard formula which it applies to all countries.” Another way of putting this is: “The Opposition tells you they could have given you a crap sandwich with wholewheat bread, lettuce and tomatoes. Balderdash! We know the IMF only serves its crap sandwiches on Wonder Bread with no vegetables! There’s only one party that will get you the best deal on crap sandwiches and that’s Fianna Fáil!” And finally, I’d be remiss if I didn’t express happiness at the House voting overwhelmingly to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell yesterday. Now it goes back to the Senate where it should get done… but this is the Senate… they have been known to pull stuff like this in the past: But, uh, let’s hope the Senate is more competent than the Washington Redskins. Gulp.
Continue reading …