P.M. Headlines

(New Republic): "John McCain, undecided 2016 voter"

(Washington Post): "House approves deal that would save students millions in loan fees, sends bill to White House"

(ThinkProgress): "Paul Ryan wants Boehner to bring immigration reform to a vote even if most Republicans don't support it"

(New York Times): "U.S. outlines N.S.A.'s culling of data for all domestic calls"

(Politico): "Ted Cruz taunts fellow Republicans in Obamacare fight"

Read More

The mystery of the lead coffin

By Mustang Bobby 

From the annals of archaeology...

Archaeologists were surprised when they opened an excavated stone coffin only to find another coffin made of lead inside. The team said they've never seen anything like it.

The remains of King Richard III were lost for centuries beneath a parking lot in Leicester, England, until archeologists discovered the site in Sept. 2012 and later confirmed the match. But other mysteries have been found, including a double coffin thought to have been sealed more than 100 years before Richard was buried.

Archaeologists returned to the Grey Friars monastery site in early July for more study. After several weeks of excavation, eight people lifted the lid off of a heavy coffin made of stone on July 23. They discovered that an inner coffin made of lead was sealed within the outer stone coffin.

The 7-foot-long stone coffin was thought to have been sealed in the 13th or 14th century. After its opening, the lead inner coffin was moved to the University of Leicester for researchers to analyze how to access it without damaging the remains inside.

This is how every scary movie about demons from the past being disturbed from their slumber starts. All we need is Brendan Fraser* as the dashing archaeologist and a score by Jerry Goldsmith.

*Or Harrison Ford or Stewart Granger, depending on your generation.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Read More

Fox zealot vs. mainstream Aslan

By Frank Moraes

The Fox News interview of Reza Aslan was interesting and fun. (For those who haven't seen it, it is embedded below.) He was on to hock his book, Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth. And basically, the entire interview was about why a Muslim would write a book about Christianity. I understand why they approached Aslan and his book this way. The truth is that he was only being interviewed because according to conservative ideology the only interesting thing about the book was that Aslan is a Muslim. And really: who in the mainstream press is interested in New Testament scholarship?

What is sad about the current state of Biblical scholarship is that the field is overflowing with Christians. To me, there is no question that a Muslim can be a good Biblical scholar. But I have great questions as to whether any given Christian can be a good Biblical scholar. This isn't to say that there aren't Christian Biblical scholars who are good. In fact, there are great Christian biblical scholars. But there is a natural concern that these scholars will try to conform their scholarship to their religious beliefs. A Buddhist, for example, doesn't have that problem.


The attitude on view at Fox News is typical. It is also an indictment of modern American Christianity. The way I see it is that "believers" are so insecure about the truth of their belief that they can't brook any objective discussion of it. What's funny about it is that such people think they are protecting the religion. But any objective viewer can see the terror in their attacks.

I haven't read Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth. What's more, I have no intention of doing so. Based only on the title of the book, it sounds distinctly like well traveled territory. In particular, it sounds like John Dominic Crossan -- himself a Roman Catholic. I don't mean that as an insult. Crossan is brilliant. I just don't see why I would read yet another book on biblical scholarship that says more or less what I already know.

Plus, in the interview, Aslan said something that I really disagree with. He said that there was no question that Jesus was crucified. There is very much a question about that! There are no non-Biblical sources for the Crucifixion. What's more, the Crucifixion stories are not consistent. I think it takes a great will to assume that somehow there must be some historicity behind what are at least mostly legend. As Robert M. Price wrote in The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man:

One wonders if all these scholars came to a certain point and stopped, their assumption being, "If Jesus was a historical figure, he must have done and said something!"

His point (in this comment and the book as a whole) is that as scholars dig into the Bible, they find very little that works as history. So believers have a tendency to simply stop working at a certain point and figure what they haven't studied must be true. Regardless of who Jesus was or was not, it just can't be determined by what is in the Bible. Regardless of all this, Aslan is firmly in the middle of New Testament scholarship. He isn't arguing that the historical Jesus isn't to be found in the Bible, much less that Jesus was a myth. Clearly, he thinks we can determine who Jesus really was based upon the Bible. And that man most likely is very much the man who Crossan finds in the Bible.

I used to have a roommate named Jerry. He was very conservative. He was also a hardcore Christian. Or so he thought. He never went to church. He never read the Bible. He commonly hired prostitutes, did drugs, and was extremely mean to many of God's creatures. He was only a Christian in the sense that he would explode in rage if anyone suggested that Jesus was the one, true way. That's what the whole Fox News interview seemed like to me. The truth is that Aslan's book falls somewhere within the mainstream of Biblical scholarship. But such people can't accept anyone who is not a true believer discussing their religion. It really comes down to the fact that they know almost nothing about their supposed faith. And that is something that is worthy of outrage.

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Read More

John Kerry, peacemaker?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Well, this is something:

Secretary of State John Kerry said Tuesday that Israeli and Palestinian negotiators would convene again in the Middle East within two weeks and that their goal would be to work out a comprehensive peace agreement within nine months that would lead to an independent Palestinian state. 

"The parties have agreed to remain engaged in sustained, continuous and substantive negotiations on the core issues," Mr. Kerry said at the State Department, flanked by Tzipi Livni, Israel's justice minister, and Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator.

"Our objective will be to achieve a final status agreement over the course of the next nine months," Mr. Kerry said. "We all understand the goal that we're working towards: two states living side by side in peace and security."

It's good to see the U.S. again assuming a productive leadership role with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian situation, something that only seems to happen when a Democrat is in the White House, but a meaningful agreement on a two-state solution, however desirable, seems less likely than Kate giving birth to another undeserving "royal" in nine months.

Nonetheless, if Kerry pulls it off, the Nobel is his, deservedly so, and all of us who thought he was a fantastic pick to be secretary of state, perhaps better even than Hillary, and thought he would have been a similarly fantastic president, will be proven right.

Read More

Manning up

By Carl

Attention, Edward Snowden: This is how you do it and maintain the higher ground.

FT. MEADE, Md. — Army Pfc. Bradley Manning was convicted Tuesday of violating the Espionage Act and faces up to 136 years in prison, but his acquittal on the even more serious charge of aiding the enemy was hailed as a victory for the press and the Internet against the government's crackdown on leaks of classified information.

Manning's leak of more than 700,000 State Department cables, terrorism detainee assessments, combat logs and videos was the largest breach of classified secrets in U.S. history. Among the information was a now-infamous 2007 video of an Apache combat helicopter attack in Iraq in which U.S. soldiers fired on civilians and killed 12, including two Reuters journalists.

Manning becomes one of only two people ever convicted under the Espionage Act for making classified data available to the public; the other, Samuel L. Morison, a government security analyst convicted in 1985, was pardoned by President Clinton on his final day in office.

I would expect President Obama to do something similar on his way out the door, and Manning will not have to rely on the kindness of totalitarian dictators to eke out a survival existence, the constant threat of either retaliation by the US government or continuous monitoring by his “host” ever looming in the background.

The Manning verdict seems pretty fair: found innocent of aiding and abetting an enemy of the United States, but convicted of stealing and releasing classified information. We may agree with the spirit of what he did (or not), and we may welcome the exposure his information has gotten, but the law is the law. At least Manning, this frail looking Marine, stood up and took responsibility for what he did.

Which is why I’m persuaded to believe that Obama will end up pardoning him. It’s the right thing to do.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Read More

No such thing as bad publicity (for Reza Aslan)

By Mustang Bobby 

Reza Aslan is raking it in after the mega-cringe-inducing interview on Fox News:

Since then, the Buzzfeed page featuring the video has been viewed nearly four million times. Mr. Aslan quickly amassed an additional 5,000 Twitter followers. On Monday, Random House, Mr. Aslan's publisher, said the interview had clearly helped book sales: in two days, sales increased 35 percent.

On Friday, "Zealot" was in the No. 8 spot on Amazon.com, the nation's biggest seller of books; by Sunday, it had hit No. 1.

Random House is rushing to meet the surge in demand for the book. On Monday, the publisher ordered 50,000 copies, bringing the total to 150,000 copies in print by the end of the week.

An investigation of the historical Jesus, "Zealot" has been praised by many reviewers since its publication on July 16. In a review in Tablet magazine, Adam Kirsch called "Zealot" a "coherent and often convincing portrait of who Jesus was and what he wanted."

But some conservative critics have suggested that the book is not a work of scholarship, but merely "an educated Muslim's opinions about Jesus and the ancient Near East," as John S. Dickerson, an opinion columnist, wrote on FoxNews.com last week.

[...]

Mr. Aslan said that after reading Mr. Dickerson's essay on FoxNews.com, he was prepared for a similar line of attack from Ms. Green.

He was so eager to promote the book on Fox News that his publisher tried — in vain — to secure an interview spot on "Fox & Friends," a morning show.

"I'll be perfectly honest — I'm thrilled at the response that people have had to the interview," Mr. Aslan said. "You can't buy this kind of publicity."

Mr. Aslan should send Ms. Green a plate of baklava.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Read More

Obama's economic clique and the Summers pick

By Frank Moraes 

When Obama and Clinton were running for the Democratic nomination for president, I tended to side with Obama. The reason was not one I've heard anyone else mention. My fear was that Clinton would be another George W. Bush, just on the left. By that I mean that she would have been to insular. I thought that Obama would be more broad in where he looked for input. But that hasn't been the case. Obama has been very insular. And when it comes to economic policy, it seems that the people he listens to are a group of New Democrat, pro-banking nitwits.

I've been thinking about this because of all the speculation about Larry Summers being nominated as Federal Reserve Chair. It isn't that Summers would make a terrible choice for the job. I have big problems with him, especially his strong dollar policies (under and then following Robert Rubin) while he was in the Clinton administration. But there are far worse candidates for the job. The big problem is: why would Obama be so keen on Summers?

The answer, I think, is just that Obama's insular economic decision making team is dominated by the kind of people who think that Larry Summers rocks. Obama could have just picked Janet Yellen, the current Vice Chairman of the Fed. She is extremely well qualified for the job and she is, as the pronoun indicates, a woman. Obama could have nominated arguably the best person for the job and also done something historic. Apparently, that didn't matter. Or more likely, that didn't even occur to Obama's economic clique.

It's pretty clear that a Summers nomination is not going to fly with most of the Democratic Party.


As Dean Baker wrote, "There is a multi-count indictment that includes his support for the repeal of Glass-Steagall, his opposition to regulating derivatives, his notorious comment about women possibly lacking the ability for sophisticated mathematical reasoning, and his protection of the big banks in his years as President Obama's National Economic Adviser." And now a Senate Democratic leader told Talking Points Memo, "Given the level of opposition to Larry Summers within our caucus, confirming him would be a huge challenge and probably a pretty ugly process."

But that doesn't mean Obama won't do it. In fact, he has often taken pride in thumbing his nose at the Democratic base. That's how he got his New Democratic economic team in the first the place. Think what a Summers pick would mean, however. It would mean that Obama didn't care about shoring up his base for the coming fights with the House Republicans. It would mean that he thought that Summers was so important that it trumped everything else going on in his second term. It would mean that he really didn't care about his party.

I wonder if that's not the case. After all, this talk about a Summers nomination has been festering. The White House could have leaked information to indicate that Summers isn't in contention. Hell, they could have forced Summers to withdraw his name from consideration because he wanted to spend more time with his kids. But we haven't heard a peep. And remember: that wasn't the case with Susan Rice. So I think it is possible that Obama is still thinking he can ram Summers through as the Fed chair. It isn't hard to believe. Generally, Janet Yellen is seen as a fiscal dove who isn't obsessed with inflation. And in Obama's insular economic club, that may disqualify her. 

Update 

Matt Yglesias sent me to a Bloomberg View article by Al Hunt, "Could Geithner End Up the Next Fed Chairman?" The important bit of the article is what people in the Summers camp are saying about Yellen, "No one doubts Yellen's credentials as an economist, but questions have been raised, mainly by those in the Summers camp, about whether she has the gravitas to manage a financial crisis." As Yglesias notes, it is hard to see this as anything except pure sexism.

I will go Yglesias one further: if Obama decides to pick Geithner as Fed chair, it will be an even more sexist pick. Then it won't be a matter of thinking that Summers just has some great ability that no one else has. It will be that Obama just doesn't want to pick Yellen. And what reason could there be for that? After all, no one doubts Yellen's credentials as an economist. What else could it be? (Also: Geithner is a little weasel; who could think that he has "gravitas"?)

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Read More

A.M. Headlines

(Politico): "Harry Reid: White House has given enough to GOP"

(Maureen Dowd): "Quit is the way to roll"

(New York Times): "Kerry says goal is Mideast peace deal within 9 months"

(Businessweek): "The Bradley Manning verdict and the wisdom of judicial statesmanship"

(Fox News): "San Diego City Council to sue Filner over costs from sexual harassment lawsuit"

Read More

Bradley Manning found guilty, while the real criminals remain free

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Following up on my post from earlier, (courageous whistleblower) Bradley Manning was indeed found guilty today, just not on the most significant, and most ridiculous, charge:

A military judge on Tuesday found Pfc. Bradley Manning not guilty of "aiding the enemy" for his release of hundreds of thousands of military and diplomatic documents to WikiLeaks for publication on the Internet, rejecting the government’s unprecedented effort to bring such a charge in a leak case.

But the judge in the court-martial, Col. Denise R. Lind, convicted Private Manning of six counts of violating the Espionage Act of 1917 and most of the other crimes he was charged with. He faces a theoretical maximum sentence of 136 years in prison, although legal experts said the actual term was likely to be much shorter.

While advocates of open government celebrated his acquittal on the most serious charge, the case still appears destined to stand as a fierce warning to any government employee who is tempted to make public vast numbers of secret documents. Private Manning's actions lifted a veil on American military and diplomatic activities around the world, and engendered a broad debate over what information should become public, how the government treats leakers, and what happens to those who see themselves as whistle-blowers. 

Okay, well, let's look at the elements of that debate:

First, according to the U.S. federal government -- which, let us not forget, is currently led by Democrat Barack Obama -- no information should become public that is in any way sensitive regarding national security (or pretty much any other area), and certainly no information that might in any way expose what the government is really up to, not least its criminal or even questionably ethical activities.

Second, the U.S. federal government treats leakers like traitors.

Third, the U.S. federal government, including the military, tortures whistleblowers and persecutes them relentlessly.

A fierce warning? Yes, I'd say so. Cross the government, expose its criminal activities, and you're done for.

Now, it's great that Manning was aquitted on the charge of "aiding the enemy," but let us not forget that the government pursued that charge right up to the end. And no doubt it will do so again, if at all possible, with the next whistleblower.

On the other hand, it's quite likely that the Obama White House is privately content with this outcome. The president has rightly been taking a lot of heat over NSA surveillance, from a combination of both left and right, and his approval numbers have been declining. Yes, the government wants Edward Snowden back to prosecute him for that leak, but a guilty verdict for Manning on a stupid, trumped-up charge like "aiding the enemy" would only have given Obama's critics -- and I'm one of them on this -- even more cause for criticism. (For this reason, it's possible that Obama is privately content to let Snowden find asylum, avoiding a high-profile trial back home.)

Now, there's no doubt that Manning will go back to jail. A presidential pardon would be most just, but that isn't happening, and the judge isn't about to let him off with a slap on the wrist (though, of course, he has already been in custody for three years, facing gross mistreatment, so that's hardly just a slap). I would hope for a fairly minimal sentence, one that would allow him to be paroled in a few years, but perhaps that's unlikely as well. In any event, let's hope for a fair sentence that recognizes that Manning did not aid the enemy and is a whistleblower who acted in the service of the American people, not a hardened criminal.

Bradley Manning, after all, was just the messenger, not the criminal. He didn't kill innocent civilians, he just helped expose the crimes.

And for that he is being punished.

But shame on the government, and shame on President Obama, just as on Bush and his crew before him, and everyone else involved in this travesty. They will not be held to account for these crimes, and therein lies the true injustice here.

Read More

P.M. Headlines

(New York Times): "Manning acquitted of aiding the enemy"

(Politico): "Concern grows for Huma Abedin within Clinton world"

(Reuters): "Obama offers 'grand bargain' on corporate tax rate, infrastructure"

(CNN): "Paul: Christie is the 'king of bacon' on government spending"

(Roll Call): "Democrats, too, plan to slam Washington in August"

Read More

Your STFU list for today

By Carl

I’m tired, I’m pissed off, the Bag of Salted Rat Dicks I work for is trying to cause trouble for me, and I’m on deadline, so posting is a bit of an exercise is getting ahead of the curve.

Anyway, I realized this morning there is an entire list of people who need to shut up and go away. Dig a hole, climb in and sew it closed behind you. Get dropped in the middle of a tundra naked and alone. Close the door, and bolt it shut.

1) Anthony Weiner – JUST! SHUT! UP! You’re toast. Your candidacy is dead in the water. You’ve humiliated your wife again (altho she must have had plenty of warning which speaks really bad about her, as well.) I wanted to believe your comeback. Hell, I was ready to vote for you, along with tens of thousands of other New Yorkers, and elect you mayor. I wanted the reformation to be real. You may have had Bill Clinton officiate at your wedding, but you ain’t the Big Dog, the greatest President since FDR. You just ain’t.

2) In a similar vein, Eliot Spitzer – Dude, I will vote for you, but you have to get out of commenting on the mayor’s race unless you plan to switch races. By your own admission, you aren’t a saint and you made mistakes. If you expect us to forgive and forget, you have to lead by example.

3) Sarah Palin – Go away. Your fifteen minutes were over five years ago, except in your own slow spiraling descent into the black hole of obscurity that is your fate (that obeys the laws of physics, by the way: time does slow down near a black hole.) And you lied. The McCain campaign let you shoot your mouth off enough times that you shot McCain in the foot.

4) Mitt Rom…Romney? RomBot? Romalomadingdong? Whatever… -- OK, so you know how there’s videotape of you quoting you at length? Go lend a shoulder to your would-be queen wife, Ann. She’s been crying since last November.

5) Brooke Goldstein – Never heard of her before? Don’t worry, neither have I. Neither has anyone else. And with any luck, you don’t need to worry about this wanna-be Ann Coulter. She needs to dye her hair blonde and grow a set first.

6) Maureen Dowd – Huma Abedin is too, errr, mewling, to leave Weiner? Really? HILLARY’S Chief of Staff?

7) Sydney Leathers – Girlfriend, the NY Post is NOT your friend. Your time is up, you lost the story a week ago and with a body like this, you won’t even get the inevitable Playboy offer. Sorry, hon. You’re done.

8) George Will – Because African American single moms lent money to Detroit at usurious rates, and are sitting at home on the couch, clipping bond coupons, I bet. ARGH! SHUT UP!

9) Rand Paul – Not in my town, Brillo-top.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Read More

Five reasons GOP government shutdown is suicide

By Frank Moraes 

Whenever I read Ramesh Ponnuru, I wonder why it is the conservative movement can't be more like him. After all, it isn't like he is exactly reasonable. I can't usually read more than two paragraphs without being forced to sit through silly Republican talking points. For example, he never misses an opportunity to slam Obamacare as though he wouldn't be firmly on board with the program if it had been enacted by President McCain.

And last Friday, he argued that one of the reasons the recent Republican efforts (to defund Obamacare via government shutdown) will look bad is because the Republicans don't have an alternative for healthcare reform. This is just silly. As I've argued before, Obamacare was the conservative alternative to health-care reform. When they decided that it was a communist conspiracy, they left themselves with nothing. Ponnuru must know that the there is no alternative to Obamacare and thus his suggestion that the Republicans need to have one is just pure conservative propaganda.

But most of the article -- "Drop the Disastrous Plan to Defund Obamacare" -- is quite good. In it, he provided five reasons why the Republican plan to shut down the government or even default on our debt is a bad idea for the Republicans themselves:

1. Republicans are less popular than the Democrats and thus all else equal will lose partisan finger-pointing contests.
2. The executive has natural advantages over a group of legislators in a crisis atmosphere.
3. People will be naturally inclined to assume that the more anti-government party must be responsible.
4. Some Republicans will say that government shutdowns or defaults are just what the country needs, and those quotes will affect the image of all Republicans.
5. The news media will surely side with the Democrats.

I think this can all be boiled down into what I have come to think of as Biden's Law. You may remember in the vice-presidential debate that Paul Ryan was talking about the almost $600 billion taken out of Medicare. He was arguing that the Republicans were the true defenders of Medicare. Joe Biden didn't even counter the specifics; he just said, "Look, folks, use your common sense. Who do you trust on this?"


And that is why the Republicans will hurt themselves if they shut down the government. People may not be too thrilled with Obamacare, but they don't think it is so bad that the government should be shut down over it. What's more, everyone knows that the Republicans are itching to shut the government down. Only the true believers will applaud this move. In the end, people will use their common sense and decide that this is not about Obamacare at all -- it's just about the fact that the Republicans hate the government.

None of this means that the Republicans won't shut down the government and default on the debt. I think I know why conservatives are so keen on doing this -- or at least threatening to do it. In the conservative world, politics is simple. If only we sent strong willed people to Washington, all problems would be solved. (Interestingly, this is part of the authoritarian mindset.)

But that isn't the way things work when you aren't in control of the White House and Congress. So they try through force of will to get what they want. That's why the House has voted 37 times to repeal Obamacare. I heard one Republican claim that they were going to continue to vote for repeal until it happened -- as though the 37 votes would have any effect on the one vote they would take after they do have control of Washington.

The move to threaten all of government is just the next logical step for the Republicans. And it does have the advantage of being an actual strategy. It isn't just a hope and a prayer -- there is an actual mechanism by which they might win. The problem is that the very small chance they have of winning is not worth all the damage they will do to their party if they lose. As I wrote in "The Next Three Election Cycles," if the Republicans manage to destroy the world economy, they will bring on their reckoning in 2014 rather than 2018.

Ponnuru isn't the only one trying to save the Republican Party from itself. I'm just not sure what he's saying will be enough. The only argument that might stop the most radical elements of the party is to say that Obamacare will be so terrible that the people will demand its repeal once it is in effect.

The problem is that no one ever believed that argument. Republicans are saying we should repeal Obamacare right now because they know that once it is in effect people will like it. Both the extremists and the more practical members of the caucus understand that this is their last chance. The only difference between these two groups is that the practical members don't want to destroy the party for this cause. The extremists don't care; they were sent to Washington to destroy it; if it is a suicide mission, so be it. (Interestingly, destruction is also a part of the authoritarian mindset.)

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Read More

Bradley Manning to be found guilty today

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The show trial of Bradley Manning, the courageous whistleblower whose leaks documented U.S. military crimes and other misdeed and who for revealing the truth has been tortured in custody, is almost at an end:

After spending three years in custody, the man accused of the largest leak of classified information in U.S. history will learn Tuesday whether he has been found guilty of aiding the enemy.

A verdict from the judge in the court-martial of Pfc. Bradley Manning will be announced at 1 p.m. ET Tuesday, according to a spokeswoman for the military district of Washington.

If found guilty on the aiding the enemy charge, Manning could be sentenced to life in prison. He has pleaded guilty to nearly a dozen lesser charges that carry a sentence of up to 20 years behind bars.

The aiding the enemy charge is ridiculous, just as the persecution of Bradley is outrageous, but it shouldn't come as a surprise if he's found guilty -- it's what the government wants, because it wants at all costs to prevent any more of the truth from getting out, and obviously this trial is an effort to send a message to anyone else who might want to follow Manning's lead.

But even if for whatever reason he gets off on that charge, there's hardly any doubt he'll get the max, or close to it, for the rest -- again, because a message must be sent, because the country's crimes are, apparently, top secret. Isn't this also why the government wants to make an example of Snowden as well?

In America, after all, you're only really free if you play by the very narrow, government-determined rules of the national security state.

According to #BradleyManning trial, U.S. govt says anyone who exposes its criminal and otherwise reprehensible activities is a traitor.
— Michael Stickings (@mjwstickings) July 25, 2013

Obama had better have that pardon ready for #BradleyManning. Because this gross injustice is on him too. (He won't.)
— Michael Stickings (@mjwstickings) July 25, 2013

Read More

Fast food revolt: Striking for fair wages, striking for opportunity, striking for justice

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Salon, with a piece worth reading in its entirety to get a sense of the gross injustice facing workers at fast food establishments:

[Yesterday] morning [marked] the start of what will likely be the largest fast food worker mobilization in U.S. history, with a New York City walkout today kicking off strikes in seven cities over four days. These work stoppages by non-union workers are the latest escalation in an embattled labor movement's unprecedented challenge to the overwhelmingly non-union industry, whose ranks are growing and whose conditions are spreading elsewhere in the U.S. economy.

"I know you're tired of suffering," KFC employee Naquasia LeGrand told fellow workers gathered with clergy and politicians at a rally last Wednesday announcing that New York City worker-activists had voted to strike this week. "I don't want to see the next generation suffering and suffering. I don't want my kids suffering. I want to make sure they have a better future than I do." Looking out on a crowd of about 150 at the entrance to Brooklyn's Prospect Park, LeGrand added, "So if I want that to happen, I need you guys to stand with me just as long as I'm standing with you."

As Salon first reported, the fast food effort went public last November, with a strike by about 200 employees of various chains in New York City. Over the past four months, that walkout has been followed by similar work stoppages in five other cities, and a second New York City strike roughly twice as large. Each of those strikes has been backed by the Service Employees International Union and local allies, and each has shared the same demands: a raise to $15 per hour, and the chance to form a union without intimidation by management.

I wish them well. I really do. It is a society that is rotten to the core that treats its workers this way.

**********

In related news:

Four out of five Americans will live near poverty, without work, or relying on welfare at least once during their lives, according to a new survey from the Associated Press.

The survey shows signs of a deteriorating economy, growing economic inequality, and a disappearing American dream, just as the president looks to re-energize his economic agenda and champion the middle class.

"This growing inequality is not just morally wrong, it's bad economics," President Obama said last week in Galesburg, Illinois. "When the rungs on the ladder of opportunity grow farther and farther apart, it undermines the very essence of America -- that idea that if you work hard you can make it here."

America's wealth distribution looks like a lopsided ladder: The bottom 40% of the population owns just 0.3% of the nation’s wealth, while the top 20% has 84% of the nation’s wealth, according to a 2010 study on wealth distribution and balance.

According the latest Census, 46.2 million Americans -- 15% of the country -- are poor. But the Associated Press/GFK survey notes that Census figures are a snapshot -- they don’t account for those who shift in and out of near-poverty, welfare reliance, or unemployment. When those numbers are accounted for, the number of Americans who face such hardships surges to 79%.

Land of opportunity? The greatest country in the history of the world? Yeah, sure. Whatever.

Read More

A.M. Headlines

(Atlanta Black Star): "FBI arrests 150 pimps and rescues 105 children forced into prostitution"

(ABC News): "Sources: Clintons' patience growing thin with Anthony Weiner"

(Mother Jones): "Mitt Romney's incredible 47-percent denial: "Actually, I didn't say that"

(New York Times): "Big name GOP donors urge members of Congress to back immigration overhaul"

(Washington Post): "Heiresses apparent: Daughters take their turn for the political dynasty"

Read More

P.M. Headlines

(Maureen Dowd): "Time to hard-delete Carlos Danger"

(First Read): "Cruz: Republicans not willing to 'stand up' to defund ObamaCare"

(USA Today): "Verdict reached in WikiLeaks court-martial"

(Associated Press): "Pope Francis says he will not judge gay priests"

(The Hill): "White House says Hillary Clinton, Obama lunch meeting 'chiefly social'"

Read More

Not so long road to GOP authoritarianism

By Frank Moraes 

Last week, Robert Reich wrote an article trying to explain, Why Republicans are Disciplined and Democrats Aren't. Basically he argued that this is because of the kind of people who are attracted to the two parties. Republicans tend to lean toward authoritarianism, and thus it isn't surprising that their politicians would be good at delivering the same brainless talking points over and over and over again. I don't think there is much question of this. When I was a libertarian, I hated the Republican Party and still had a certain fondness for the Democrats for exactly this reason. (Sadly for the movement, most people are exactly the opposite, which ought to tell you all you need to know about libertarianism as a practical matter.)

What confuses me is that according to Reich, it ever was so. He quotes Will Rogers saying, "I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat." He likely said that before the first World War. But I'm not sure it means what Reich claims. After all, people normally make that kind of joke about whatever organization they are associated with. But I do think the joke works because Democrats have long recognized themselves in it and Republicans have felt superior for that reason. But is that image correct?

In many ways, the Republican Party has always been conservative. When the party started in the 1850s, it had a very compelling slogan, "free labor, free land, free men." The "free land" part of that referred to the fact that plantation owners tended to own all the good farm land in an area. As a result of this, free (white) farmers were kept down because the system was proto-feudal. But it's clear that the slogan is laser focused on slavery. The first and third phrases are about slavery and the second is about slave holders. The truth is that from the beginning, the Republican Party was very much pro-business, although it is certainly true that business then was quite different from now.

Moving forward into the progressive era, Theodore Roosevelt would seem to push against the idea that the Republican Party was always conservative. But his liberal policy of trust busting was very unpopular within his party and he eventually went on to run as a Progressive. That can certainly be seen as a practical matter -- he just wouldn't admit defeat. But that was also true of Joe Lieberman, who has also stood outside his party on important issues.

Since I was a kid, I've wondered how it is that a liberal party becomes a conservative party. I think what I've talked about here is part of the issue -- but not all of it. To some extent, the GOP has reached its current position by starting out as rather conservative -- at least on economic issues. Equally important, in many ways the party simply hasn't evolved.

In the 1950s, there were lots of Republicans like Dwight Eisenhower who had made their peace with progressivism and the New Deal. But there was always a strong minority in the party that accepted nothing -- people who wanted to return to 1880. During the beginning of Obama's presidency, there was a wave of conservative concern about the 17th Amendment to the Constitution: direct election of senators. That was a movement that started in the 1890s that became law in 1913. This part of the party has been ascendant in recent years.

In many ways, the party has regressed. There is a tendency among all of us to learn narrow lessons rather than broad ones. For example, most Americans now think the Nazis were bad simply because they killed so many Jews and other "undesirables." But even without the Final Solution and the racism, the Nazis were a terrible authoritarian political movement.

I think the same thing is going on with Republicans regarding slavery. There is little doubt in my mind that if slavery were an issue today, most Republicans would be apologists for it. The Christians would rightly note that slavery is in the Bible; it wouldn't be their fault; it is God's law. The economic conservatives would make arguments like, "Slavery is not optimal, but eliminating it would be terrible for the economy." Conservative economists would come up with complex models to show how slavery actually makes poor whites better off than they would otherwise be. Am I going too far here? Maybe, but I seriously doubt it based upon some of the outrageous claims that otherwise good economists have made over the last five years especially.

I'm come to the conclusion that what ties conservatives together is authoritarianism. Their rhetoric is all about freedom, but you hardly need to scratch the surface to see what they really think. Tax cuts are not for the poor, they are for the power elite. And when taxes are cut to a point where the poor pay no federal income taxes, Republicans grouse about how outrageous that is. And that's the best case they have for not being an authoritarian party. Certainly their positions on guns, war, welfare, abortion, and just about anything else you can think of are explicitly authoritarians. Does anyone really doubt that if abortion was a medical procedure done to men that it wouldn't be controversial?

The Republican Party is doubtless more authoritarian than it has ever been. But for a long time it has been authoritarian and the roots of this have always been present. What's more, there has been a steady trend toward authoritarianism in the Republican Party. And the opposite has been the case with the Democratic Party. And this is why, despite my great disappointment with it, I self-identify as a Democrat. It is also why any thoughtful person should distance themselves from the party of Abraham Lincoln. Because other than the issue of slavery, they weren't so great. And today, it hardly stands out as a party that would end slavery.

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Read More

Angels wanna wear my red shoes

By Carl

Well, well, well... this is a refreshing change of heart:

ABOARD THE PAPAL AIRCRAFT — Pope Francis reached out to gays on Monday, saying he wouldn’t judge priests for their sexual orientation in a remarkably open and wide-ranging news conference as he returned from his first foreign trip.

"If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?" Francis asked.

What? No "Burn in Hell!"? No "God hates fags!"?

Whatever is religion coming to?

God is what?

Yes, there are plenty of things from yesterday's papal press conference (!) that we can criticize, such as the "investigation" into a monsignor on his staff on pedophilia charges, but this position, seemingly unqualified and unconditional, leaps off the page.

People of all colors, creeds and orientations struggle to find meaning in life. Even atheists have been known to try and answer what is essentially a spiritual dilemma: What's the point?

For me, for this Christian, the pope strikes the right tone about religion. It's a voyage of self-discovery. It's about finding a place for one's higher power in one's life, because let's face facts, there are times you need one, and wish you had one. Maybe it doesn’t answer your questions or solve your problems, but a god or goddess or enlightened plane or what have you help you get ready to get through and then past a crisis.

Many of my friends, scientists and realists, are atheist (or at least agnostic), and I respect them for that, but a lack of a system of faith is, well, still a system of faith, since none of us can ever really know the answer to the ultimate questions we all have.

Even Francis has tacitly endorsed atheism. It's not about holding a book or hands folded in prayer, it's about how we all behave towards one another.

On that point, I believe we can all find common ground.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Read More

A word from the sponsor

By Mustang Bobby

Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity may be changing channels:

In a major shakeup for the radio industry, Cumulus Media, the second-biggest broadcaster in the country, is planning to drop both Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity from its stations at the end of the year, an industry source told POLITICO on Sunday.

Cumulus has decided that it will not renew its contracts with either host, the source said, a move that would remove the two most highly rated conservative talk personalities from more than 40 Cumulus channels in major markets.

The decision comes after negotiations between Cumulus and Premiere Networks, the division of Clear Channel that distributes Limbaugh and Hannity's shows, broke down due to disagreements over the cost of the distribution rights, the source said. Cumulus is known to drive a hard bargain on costs, and Clear Channel is known to seek top dollar for big names.

No, it doesn't mean either of them are going off the air. The most it will mean is that they will go from one radio station in major markets to another. This has nothing to do with ratings or popularity, and your crazy uncle will still be able to get his fix of racist xenophobia. He'll just have to change the radio pre-set in his 1975 Ford Granada.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Read More

A.M. Headlines

(John Avlon): "Pope Francis's lessons for the GOP"

(Politico): "Cumulus planning to drop Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity"

(The Hill): "Obama, Hillary Clinton set for Monday lunch"

(New York Times): "Detroit looks to health care law to ease costs"

(Politico): "GOP senators to Liz Cheney: We like Mike Enzi"

Read More

P.M. Headlines

(New York Times): "Israelis and Palestinians to resume peace talks"

(Fox News): "Pope Francis delivers mass before reported 3 million faithful in Brazil"

(USA Today): "Anthony Weiner vows to stay in NYC mayor's race"

(ABC News): "Longtime Tenn. Lawmaker Lois DeBerry Dies at 68"

(Houston Chronicle): "AP Photos: 60th anniversary of Korean armistice"

Read More

Behind the Ad: The latest from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC)

By Richard K. Barry

(Another in our extensive Behind the Ad series.)

Who: The DCCC

Where: Web ad

What's going on: Good question. What is going on? The DCCC captures here just a few random idiocies from some of the more ridiculous members of the GOP just so we won't forgot how stupid things have become. Not much chance of that.



(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

Read More

In which Matt Taibbi is a prude

By Frank Moraes

I have tried my best to avoid coverage of the Anthony Weiner scandal, but I made the mistake of clicking on a link to a Matt Taibbi article that I thought might give an interesting perspective as he often does, Electing Anthony Weiner Isn't as Funny as it Sounds. It was really disappointing—surprisingly hand wringing, middle America, Villager outrage.

According to Taibbi, the Weiner scandal isn't just about sexting. He says of Weiner, "This marriedpolitician sent unsolicited pictures of his penis to female strangers on the Internet!" Now I couldn't care any less than I already do about the fact that he was married and despite what Taibbi claims about not wanting to sound like a prude, the fact that he italicized the word "married" does in fact make him a prude. But if Weiner sent unsolicited pictures to these women, that's a whole other story. It does, as Taibbi points out, make Weiner a "a 21st-century flasher who used the U.S. Congress as a raincoat." If that's true of Weiner, he really needs to get some help and the decade that Taibbi suggests sounds about right.

The problem is that I had never heard anything about this. Admittedly, I've done my best to avoid learning about this case. But I would have thought that Weiner forcing himself on disinterested women would have stood out. So I read the whole Wikipedia page on the scandal and a number of referenced articles. And I found nothing. All I can think is that what Taibbi means by "unsolicited" is that the women didn't send him explicit messages, "Please send me a picture of your crotch ASAP!"

Let me be clear, I find what I know Weiner has done creepy in the way I find most human sexuality creepy. But I don't find it offensive. And I would find it very offensive if Weiner was texting to women about Republican obstruction in the House and suddenly sent a picture of his dick. That would show a shocking lack of socialization—although many if not most men do lack such socialization.

The rest of Taibbi's article is just repeated attempts to make a joke out of the Weiner scandal. He does this, despite the fact that the whole idea of his article is that it is no joke. He says, for example, "I'm not saying the guy can't have a career after what happened, but his options should be pretty limited—a rodeo clown, maybe, or one of those guys who hands out fliers for strip clubs in Times Square." That's a funny way to put it—but really?! Rapists have far more career opportunities than that. Taibbi's statement is indicative that he has not succeeded in keeping this scandal in perspective.

He makes one good point. "But Mayor of New York City? I know the bar was set pretty low when Mike Bloomberg bought the office outright in 2001..." Exactly! That's what's really wrong with our political system. It isn't that narcissists get elected. But then he blows it by adding, "But we can't have sunk this far." So the logic here is that government by, for, and of the rich is a-okay. What's more, I'm sure those rich people are just as narcissistic—just in different ways. But a known narcissist is not okay.

Matt Taibbi is usually much better than this. I guess he thinks that he's pushing back at all of the media snickering going on. The problem here is that I haven't noticed much snickering. There's been a lot schadenfreude, of course. Mostly, however, the coverage has been the same kind of prudish outrage that Taibbi is peddling. But I feel certain that soon the old Taibbi will be back and Weiner, at least for a while, will be gone.

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Read More

A.M. Headlines

(New York Times): "Interview with President Obama"

(Ross Douthat): "Going for Bolingbroke"

(The Hill): "Report: Weiner's campaign manager quits after revelations"

(Reuters): "Lew says stubborn Congress risks repeating U.S. fiscal wounds"

(National Journal): "Why it finally makes political sense to talk about climate change"

Read More

Steven Wilson: "The Raven that Refused to Sing" (live)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It's been some time since I've posted anything from Porcupine Tree or Steven Wilson -- and, if you know me, you know how much I love them (and perhaps also how much I blog about them).

So without further ado, here is the great Steven Wilson, with his incredible band (not PT -- this is a solo effort for which he has put together a new band), performing the title track off his brilliant 2013 album, The Raven that Refused to Sing (and Other Stories), in Neu-Isenberg, Germany, on March 23 of this year.

It's the best song on the album, in my view, and one of the best songs he's ever written. I saw them perform it in Toronto in April and it was truly one of the highlights of what was simply an awesome show. (Back in February, I posted the video for the song.)

Enjoy!

Read More

P.M. Headlines

(New York Times): "Obama says income gap is fraying U.S. social  fabric"

(The Hill): "Family ties no guarantee of success"

(Reuters): "Teresa Heinz Kerry leaves rehab hospital, full recovery expected"

(Fox News): "Accused Fort Hood shooter releases statement to Fox News"

(Roll Call): "Steve King's district will get DREAM gathering courtesy of Durbin, Harkin"

Read More

The mythical political center

By Frank Moraes

Yesterday on the cover of the New York Times, Jonathan Martin wrote one of those stupid Villager articles we all know and despise, Some Democrats Look to Push Party Away from Center. This is an issue I've been ranting about for years. There is no "center." All the mainstream press does is define the "center" somewhere to the right of the Democrats and to the left of the Republicans. What that means is that the Republicans can and have moved the "center" far to the right, just by being extreme. The effect is that the left is defined by a practical approach to politics and the right is defined by the most extreme elements of our political system. As a result, we end up with a "center" that is skewed to the extreme right.

Ezra Klein pushed back on Martin's article, There's No Such Thing As 'The Center'. He puts a different take on what the "center" actually means. "It's more a reference to an amorphous Washington consensus." That's another way to look at that is undoubtedly more accurate. Because the truth is that on social issues, the far right turn of the Republican Party has not caused the mainstream press to move the center of debate on gay or abortion rights. It is just on economic issues—the issues that the nation as a whole cares the most about—on which the center gets constantly pushed to the right, despite the fact that nation is far to the left.

The whole thing makes me wonder—and I've written about this in the past—does the press move the economic playing field further to the right because the Republicans move right or does it work the other way around. I'm afraid it is the latter. When it comes to social issues, the country is relatively divided. But liberal economic ideas are hugely popular. So I doubt that the Republicans would have moved so far right if it hadn't been that they got no push back from the press. A great example of this is the "professional moderate" industry. I wrote this last year about Serious Centrist Saletan's Selfishness:

What most people find annoying about centrist pundits is the arrogance of their supposed objectivity. A quick look at their almost comically stereotyped views within the social and economic areas shows this clearly. Saletan's social views are typically liberal: pro gay rights; pro abortion rights. I'll bet he even believes in evolution! But his economic views are typically conservative: pro free trade; vaguely anti-union. Would you believe he's very concerned about the deficit?!

The reason that Saletan and his peers share this kind of political outlook is clear enough: it speaks to their personal interests. They are socially liberal because the corresponding views improve their lives. They have friends who are gay. They've had girlfriends who have had abortions. Their careers depend upon a strong first amendment. So their lives would be poorer and their bank accounts too, if the social conservatives got power in the United States. As a result, they are socially liberal—even extremely so.

On the other side of things, they are rich. Whether on the TV, in newspaper, or increasingly even on the internet, pundits are rich. They are all well inside the top 20% of earners. As a result, Saletan finds it easy to be a booster for so called free trade. No Chinese worker is going to takehis job. (Not that there aren't about a million who could do it as well.) But unionized IT professionals might reduce his income. And increased taxes on the upper class could certainly reduce his income. So it just makes sense to argue that Social Security must be cut while ignoring the obvious fix of increasing the payroll tax cap, which it just so happens would increase his tax burden.

It is no accident that professional moderates like Saletan so often skew socially liberal and economically conservative. It is in their own best interests. And I don't blame them. But I do blame the system itself, which selects for exactly this kind of thinking. It does it in the name of objectivity or "even handedness." When accused of liberal bias, they can trot out conservative economic bona fides. When accused of conservative bias (Rarely!) they can trot out their liberal social bona fides. But these pundits are not objective or even handed. They are on the extremes in a very predictable way.

And this is what is happening with people like Jonathan Martin. (And even Ezra Klein at times!) They are surrounded by like minded people who have the exact same interests that they have. Thus they think they really are being objective; they are blind to their own assumptions. A good example of this is how "free" trade agreements are really unpopular but in the mainstream press, it is considered radical and stupid to suggest that these agreements are anything but the best possible policy.

To a large extent, this is why I applaud biased news sources. If you are reading this blog, you know that I am biased. I don't claim to be "objective." Just the same, I would never intentionally misinform you. And I try very hard to provide the strong counterarguments, when they exist (in the current political environment, that is sadly rare). But knowing my biases allows you to decide if you are going to listen to me. Much worse are people like Martin who play the part of objective reporter when they have as many skewed opinions as I.

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Read More