Meet the Villagers

Saw MTP this morning for the first time in months.  Nothing has changed.  Its still nothing more than open mic night for republicans.



Given the fact of the democrats having won the election going away on the very issues that are being "debated" today, you'd think the press would at least show some of the "balance" they hold Obama accountable for.  Instead, David Gregory and company carry the GOP's water in their attempt at rewriting recent history and essentially invalidate the 2012 election, the way republicans are featured in the media.

Kicking off the festivities, Bobby Jindal trotted out the GOP's latest attempt at avoiding being part of the solution with its greed of Wall Street vs. greed of Washington line of bullshit.  The stupid are supposed to hear that and go, oh yeah, hey Moe, we mad at Wall Street last time, now we can be mad at "Washington" cause they greedy too! No, Curly, Wall Street's greed was all about the 1%, "Washington greed" is about the 1% paying their fair share of the things the 99% said they want paid for in the last election; that includes you numbskull!

The good news was Jindal had Deval Patrick to contend with who, unlike most "democrats" they have on the show, was not only well prepared but gave a good, fact-based defense of Obama and democrats without being apologetic for it.  He was smiling and polite while doing it, so they won't be able to dismiss him with the angry democrat/black man trope.   Jindal was clearly out of his depth, and a couple of times Patrick made him look foolish.  He even leveraged Jindal's points to show how today's GOP is so extreme they're even at odds with positive things the party once supported Bush II on.  Patrick was so well prepared, had such a good grasp of the facts that he made Jindal, and by extension the "conservative agenda" appear clearly the problem and not part of any solution the country needs.  And he made it look easy.

At one point Patrick even said, quote, "republicans need to be called out" on the fact that they have obstructed the President in his first term vowing to make Obama a one term president, and now by doing all they can to sink the economy.  The host David Gregory, seeing how Patrick wasn't toeing the Villager line and making sense as a result, gave Jindal big assists, at one point throwing in the falsehood that the sequester is Obama's idea right at the end of a break so Patrick couldn't respond, and another time giving Jindal several minutes to wax unchallenged about the superiority of supply side economics under the guise of asking him about his presidential aspirations.  And once again, Jindal showed that no, he is not of presidential material.  But after this, I don't think Patrick will be back on MTP for a while.

The "round table" portion was the worst.  This was Village culture at its finest (or worst).  You had Peggy Noonan, CNBC's Maria Bartiromo, Jim Cramer, NPR's Steve Inskeep and Harold Ford Jr.  You could tell how Villager sentiment and culture was driving this, when the so-called "democrats" Ford and Inskeep went out of their way to agree with Noonan, and her insane interpretation of reality.  Ford especially made a point repeatedly of saying, literally, how much he was in agreement with Noonan, "as surprising as that might be."  No, clown, no one is surprised how much you agree with her, and judging by the obviously pleased look she had every time Ford open his mouth to grovel at her feet, you could clearly see the dynamic, of Noonan being a key Villager, with Ford doing his damnedest to make sure he remains in good graces and on the Georgetown guest lists.


In the end, it was an affirmation of GOP alternate reality: the sequester is Obama's idea, that there is no agreement is Obama's fault because he's not leading, and that Obama is engaging in "scare tactics" by talking about the impact of the sequester, which really will have no impact at all.  At least not on their world.  But what else is there?

Grover Norquist and His Bathtub

It has become de rigueur for republican pundits to advise their brethren that the way to party salvation begins with a high-profile throwing under the bus of Grover Norquist:

The Republican Party needs a reality check

In the summer of 1999, George W. Bush chose the first major policy speech of his presidential campaign to pick a fight with Grover Norquist. Bush flatly rejected the “destructive” view “that if government would only get out of our way, all our problems would be solved” — a vision the Texas governor dismissed as having “no higher goal, no nobler purpose, than leave us alone.” 

Norquist had proposed to define conservatism as the “leave us alone” coalition — a movement united by a desire to get government off our backs. Bush countered that “the American government is not the enemy of the American people.”

Ed Crane, then the president of the libertarian Cato Institute, said the speech sounded as if it had been written by someone “moonlighting for Hillary Rodham Clinton.” I can formally deny that charge. But the Bush campaign was purposely attempting to alter the image of the Republican Party. And the party — rendered more open to change by eight years in the presidential wilderness — gave Bush the leeway to make necessary ideological adjustments.

The interesting thing about the Norquist "Club for Growth" is it straddles both the social wingnut and corporatist wings.  The nexus is "small government."

The wingnuts want it because they don't want "their tax dollars" going to help someone else.  They'd rather do without themselves if any help means "those people" would benefit.

The wall street crowd have a different end game in mind.  They want access to the Treasury, and in particular, the social security trust fund.  They've been salivating for decades over the fees they could wring out of that.

Both are on board for drowning the government in a bathtub, but for their own different reasons, however the wingnuts don't realize the extent that they will go down with the ship once government, if Norquist has his way, finds itself in Davey Jones locker.

Which is why these pundits advice to throw Norquist under the bus is a bunch of bs.  And they're fooling no one but themselves.

Ain't Misbehavin'

I've said every chance I got that not only is racism without any logical foundation, but is also stupid, and renders those who can't live without it, stupid as well.  

Case in point...

A different kind of black and white issue

This week I received an e-mail with the subject line: “Please Colbert, write about Jesse Jackson Jr and father.” The message from Dennis Flynn was brief: “Please write about the part genetics play in the problems in the Jackson family lineage. Out of marriage children by a Minister. Fraud and stealing by a congressman. What an example for young African Americans.”   

It was a racial taunt, perhaps best ignored. 

But the attempt to twist the knife also displayed ignorance. 

The writer chose to view the fall of Jesse Jackson Jr. through the lens of race, ignoring how widespread the conduct he deplored has become. 

Public figures fathering a child out of marriage? The e-mailer failed to mention former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R); former senator and Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards; Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.); former New York representative Vito Fossella (R); the late Republican senator Strom Thurmond, a former presidential candidate; or former New Mexico senator Pete Domenici (R) — all of whom did what Jesse Jackson Sr. had done. 

Misconduct while in public office? The list of violators is endless and spans the racial and religious spectra. But surely this e-mailer knows that. 

Less speculative and more serious, however, is the writer’s suggestion that the two Jacksons are poor examples for “young African Americans.” 

People who think this should take off their racial blinders. They have obscured perception of a chronic plague in public life: the temptation to misuse and abuse power.

Bigots like the one being responded to in that column typically don't have an intellectual pot to piss in, let alone a mind to do it with.  As King points out, Jacksons Sr and Jr have plenty company among men amd women of all races for that behavior.  

And this is how they express their superiority...My God.

Bob Woodward, Village Court Jester

Its really sad what's become of Bob Woodward since his Watergate days.  He's become the official Court Jester of the Village:

Obama's Sequester Deal Changer

There was an insistence on the part of republicans in congress for there to be some automatic trigger, Lew said while campaigning in Florida.  It was "very much rooted in the Republican congressional insistence that there be an automatic measure.

The President and (Budget Director Jack) Lew had this wrong.  My extensive reporting for my book "The Price of Politics" shows that the automatic spending cuts were initiated by the White House and were the brainchild of Lew and White House Congressional Relations chief Ron Nabors - probably the foremost experts on budget issues in the senior ranks of the federal government.

<snip> 

A majority of republicans did vote for the Budget Control Act that summer, which included the sequester.  Key republican staffers said they didn't even initially know what a sequester was - because the concept stemmed from the budget wars of the 1980s, when they were not in government.

Seriously, is that the best you can do, Bob?  The poor dears weren't alive then, so they couldn't tell their leaders what it was, and thus the republicans were somehow snookered into voting for the sequester.  Damn.

Woodward is just dead wrong on the basic fact of who wanted the sequester.  The GOP "budget wonk" and long distance record holder Paul Ryan (R- WI), House Budget Committee Chairman crowed about the republicans getting the sequester into the Budget Control Act.  Then there's this:

The PowerPoint That Proves Its Not Obama's Sequester After All

Sets up a new sequestration process to cut spending across the board - and ensure that any debt limit increase is met with greater spending cuts -- IF Joint Committee fails to achieve at least $1.2T and the deficit reduction enacted as a result of Joint Committee.

Read the other bullet points and its clear that, what the republicans proposed in the presentation IS the damned sequester, lock, stock and barrel.  If you are doing research for a book where you'll discuss the budget shenanigans between Obama and the GOP, you couldn't not know about this and still lay claim to being a competent reporter, let alone the "insider" Woodward never ceases to remind us he is.

Woodward is giving the Villagers what they want, the false equivalence of "both sides" always being to blame for whatever goes wrong in "Washington" with democrats as "the grown ups" ultimately being responsible for whatever tantrums the spoiled children of the GOP are throwing.

Doing his best in a silly effort to entertain the villagers, Woodward focuses in on blaming Obama for the sequester, when it really doesn't matter who proposed it; the congressional republicans voted for it, making it law.  But as Woodward refuses to "report," the republicans not only wanted it, it was their brainchild.

In the end, the media focus on who owns the sequester is just a ridiculous dodge.  The focus needs to be on how we can move forward without unnecessarily blowing up the damned economy.

Obama's Executive Orders on Guns

Here's a .pdf listing a high-level description of each of the steps Obama proposes to implement via executive  order:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/gun-proposals/GunViolenceReductionExecutiveActions.pdf

This is pretty innocuous stuff. No new laws, nothing Draconian, no "jack-booted thugs," just basically leveraging existing laws by calling for enforcement, including background checks, collecting data on guns resulting from crimes, mental health, training for law enforcement and sharing background check information between agencies.  

These proposals would help law enforcement prevent the proliferation of guns in the hands of criminals, and if the NRA is truly concerned about that, which I have my doubts, they would embrace them.  Its the wide open, "unfettered" access to guns that allow them to slip through cracks in the already flimsy laws the NRA insists upon, and land in the hands of criminals.  The NRA and the GOP know that criminals are not getting their guns through theft, but through straw and other illegal purchases, and unregulated sales (Fast and Furious?).  But a sale is a sale, and they know enforcement of existing laws and these common sense additions means sales go down.  Sales,  not "constitutional rights," is their number one goal.

To hear the NRA/GOP's over the top telling of it, Obama is negating the entire Constitution.  These orders are common sense things we should have been doing all along.   None of this affects current gun owners in any way.  The NRA is probably right, in that if all of these proposals were in place, it may not have stopped the Sandy Hook fool, but that is no reason not to do anything.

This statistic haunts me: 85% of the children in the world killed by guns are killed in the US.  If that's not enough to drive a civilized nation to action, I don't know what would.  If for no other reason than just having the appearance of being concerned over Sandy Hook, it would make sense to get on board with what the President is proposing.

Its stupid of the far right not to embrace these executive orders,  declare themselves "working with the president in a bipartisan fashion" and go home, still clinging to their guns and paranoia.  Rather, they come off as the irrational, rigid ideological extremists that they are.  They do what they do...

But their response is another indication of the knee-jerk, off the hook, obsessive opposition to the President, because of who he is.  Obama could have gone to the NRA and said I will support whatever you propose, and then they would have urged the House to vote against that, because Obama is supporting it.

The over the top response just provides more proof of their insanity.  And the source of it is not surprising:

The toplines show that Americans support an assault weapons ban by 58-39. I asked the Post polling team for a detailed demographic breakdown:

* White non-college men are by far the least supportive, at 43-55. 

* Meanwhile, white college educated men support a ban, 57-41.

*  White college educated women are even more supportive, 73-25.

* Nonwhites overall are also very supportive, at 63-33. 

* Americans from the ages of 18-39 support a ban, 52-46.

Non-college white men are the only constituency that opposes a ban. 

I'm not a big Michael Moore fan, but he was on to something with "Stupid White Men."  They are acting very stupid; they're a minority increasingly out of step with the rest of the nation and are at the bottom of damn near every policy that makes us exceptional in a negative way vis a vis the western world, holding us all back, preventing sensible, common sense steps to improve things.  This group seems to have an irrational obsession with guns that has a perverse psychological hold on them, where "the gun" is their last chance of maintaining the kind of dominance and control they've had over society, historically, that they feel is slipping away.  Guns have become a religion, as there is no other issue, including faith, that conjures up the kind of absolutist position they take with guns.  For example, their opposition to these proposals:

"5. Propose rule making to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun."

And this:

"13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime."

If you really are against criminals having guns, then why not enforce the laws on the books, or do common sense things like this?  If you are a law abiding gun owner, none of this affects you.

Then again, this is more about that tribal obsession of an increasingly paranoid white minority, preventing this country from moving into the 21st century, than it is about anything else.

What its come to...

Now consider the gravity of that statement, and what it means for children growing up in the US.  Not to mention what it says about us as a society.  And yet we are paralyzed by tribal gun freedom bullshit to the extent the likelihood of reinstating a ban on the kind of weapon used in the Newtown massacre, the kind of gun that serves no useful purpose outside of the military, even in the wake of the murder of 26 innocents, is already a nonstarter.

For one, because of lies like this that go unchallenged.  That end up being the basis for the craziness of guys like this who are paranoid out of their minds.  And here's what they believe:

SHAPIRO: I told you, why the general population of America, law-abiding citizens, need AR-15s.
MORGAN: Why do they need those weapons?
SHAPIRO: They need them for the prospective possibility for the resistance of tyranny. Which is not a concern today, it may not be a concern tomorrow.
MORGAN: Where do you expect tyranny to come from?
SHAPIRO: It could come from the United States, because governments have gone tyrannical before, Piers.
MORGAN: So the reason we cannot remove assault weapons is because of the threat of your own government turning on you in a tyrannical way.
SHAPIRO: Yes.

Crazy.

Yet these guys are all over the airwaves, spewing destructive, misleading nonsense such as this from Alex Jones during his incredibly ignorant, CNN rant:

Hitler took the guns, Stalin took the guns, Mao took the guns, Fidel Castro took the guns, Hugo Chavez took the guns!"  Jones ranted.  "And I am here to tell you, 1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms!

And here's what happened when one gun conspiracy nutcase and Jones fan took his lies to heart:

Police: 3 Officers killed in Pa. shooting

Richard Poplawski, 23, met officers at the doorway and shot two of them in the head immediately, Harper said.  An officer who tried to help the two was also killed. 

Poplawski feared "the Obama gun ban that's on the way" and "didn't like our rights being infringed upon," said Edward Perkovic, his best friend.

Not only was there never any talk of banning guns in 2008, there was little discussion, let alone any legislative action, around the 2nd Amendment.  The most Obama has ever said on the subject was that he "respects Americans Constitutional rights to bear arms" but favors "common sense gun laws."

But paranoia is the lifeblood of the far right, and these people revel in senseless, false victim-hood, and that innocuous statement and the lack of action accompanying it was blown up into Hitler, Mao and Stalin false redux on guns.  Incredible.  And its sad, and frightening that they are so easily driven to such destructive acts by the likes of people like Jones.

In 1776 it was single shot muskets and citizen militias.  Today its machine guns, tanks and aircraft, drones and "smart weapons."  If the government did decide to go tyrannical, does anyone actually believe that a "Red Dawn" scenario is even possible up against the largest armed force in the world? Do they actually think wingnuts with no gun training whatsoever are going to fight off the US Army, if it ever came to that?  These idiots are more likely to blow off their own damned feet, or shoot their loved ones "accidentally," as is typically the case.

Do assault weapons serve any other purpose than what was done at Sandy Hook Elementary?  Had the Newtown shooter came to the school with a bolt action rifle, there would not have been 26 dead that day, and he would have been stopped long before the carnage that resulted.

If banning assault weapons, as they have been banned before, could accomplish that goal and save the lives of innocents, doesn't the welfare of our children demand nothing less?  Are we really that wedded to tribal nonsense and lacking in focus that we cannot do that much for our children?

How we treat the least of us...

It is said that a test of character is how the most vulnerable are treated.  Being honest, we have to admit that we live in a society devoid of any character at all.  Sure, we hear now and then of isolated of individual heroism and sacrifice, and they not only make us feel human but give us hope that every one in need will be taken care of.  But the reality is, this is not the case.

We, all of us, have created a society, either by direct intent, apathy or ignorance, where in those who are the most vulnerable always bear the burden of the heaviest sacrifices to be made, whether that be economic, or even of life and death in war.  We enforce the avoidance of this reality with the insistence that, damn near every utterance of our political leaders, when discussing some aspect of America, is prefaced or qualified with the statement, "the greatest country in the world."

But it really doesn't matter who is in power, democrat or republican; the process template of all legislative action is always first do no harm, to the interests of the oligarchy.  In EVERY piece of legislation, nothing is passed that calls for any real sacrifices on the part of those at the top.  Sure, there is a lot of wailing over "paying their fair share," but rest assured that the "little bit more" the wealthy are asked to pay is the equivalent of most of us being asked to be lighter by a few pennies.  Meanwhile, sacrifices are demanded of the rest of us that usually carry significant consequences, in some cases even life and death.

Republicans don't even bother with the pretense any more of pretending to be for "working families." (when was the last time you heard them trot that chestnut out?) And, if we are being real, all the Obama happy talk of "hope and change" has its limits as well.  For the latest evidence, you need look no further than the recent fiscal cliff deal to see the ridiculous giveaways.  If anything, I hope he changes when it comes to negotiating!  When it comes to the 1%, addressing their wants is the priority, while the needs of the rest of us must be sacrificed.  That is the template, whether its democrats or republicans.

On the one hand, all this is written off as the "legislative sausage making," the ugly underside of how things get  done, e.g. is what it is.  Accepting that view is to accept the status quo and tacitly acknowledge that this is how it should be.  In other cases, you have those who can be counted on to say, after every "deal," that this was "the best that could be done." If you look at the political process as a sporting contest between democrats and republicans, its fitting.  We argue over who won and who lost.

But we avert our eyes from who the real losers are, even when in many cases, its us.  And we lie to ourselves, or readily accept lies in order to accept the status quo.

Take for example, the references to "reforming" social security.  You hear this from democratic and republican leaders, and that this must be done to "make sure the program is available for future recipients," and also to "deal with the deficit."  The facts are future recipients will be taken care of until 2036, at which time there will be enough in the trust fund to pay 75% of benefits without making some adjustment.  The other fact is, social security's funds have nothing to do with the deficit; its trust fund is, by law, separate from the general fund.

They want to "reform" social security by applying the so-called Chained CPI, a method of calculating future benefits.  By all accounts, this amounts to a cut.  Every other method of "reforming" the program has also been some form of a cut, including raising the retirement age.

Proponents of Chained CPI, democrats and republicans, crow about the billions of dollars this will save, but just know that when we are talking about saving money, this is money we are also talking about denying seniors.   Putting this in a wider context, what we are really talking about is denying thousands of dollars to senior citizens who are already squeezed to death trying to make it on an average social security income of $15,000 per year in retirement, to "save billions of dollars" that does not impact the deficit one way or the other.  So why do it?  Essentially we're saying: let's cut their benefits today, so we don't have to apply some solution in 2036.  It makes no sense at all.  Why not apply a solution today?

And there is a simple solution: raise the cap on payroll taxes used to fund the program.  Right now, for an individual, its $106,000 per year.  Social security is due to everyone, no matter the income, so why not raise it?  Here's an example of the impact:  I make more than $106K per year.  I hit that point about a 6 weeks or so before the end of the year.  The paycheck I get that is the first one that after I've made the $106K for a given year does not have any payroll taxes taken out.  The difference is negligible either way.  Why not raise the cap to address the shortfall?

And yet, this simple solution has been practically ignored, by both parties.  Instead we hear talk of making sure the poor and middle class have "skin in the game," which essentially speaks to the weird obsession by the political and wealth classes to not only have those at the bottom fund the excesses of the top, as we did with the bank bailouts, but also to make sure that we experience pain in return for the few crumbs that are left after they've taken yet another "share."

I have recently heard more discussion over raising the cap, including among some in the democratic party, but this simple solution remains a heavy political lift at this point, and because of that I don't expect more to stick their necks out for it.  And it is a heavy lift because here is a solution that is not favored by the oligarchy, those who pay for the political campaigns for both democrats and republicans.

We say we want to "reform" social security when we don't have the balls to admit that we want to cut the already meager benefits of senior citizens just to sate the warped sensibilities of the oligarchy who demand sacrifice for the sake of it.  And its not out of a sense of shame that the political class hide behind the Orwellian "reform" moniker, but expediency.

Mean Guns

This guy is absolutely nuts.  He couldn't have been a more perfect poster child for gun nuttery if he tried.

Even Glenn Beck, no stranger to insanity himself, had this to say about his fellow radio host and right wing moron:

Want to know who the media wants to make the face of the pro-gun argument in America?  Look no further than conspiratorial radio host Alex Jones, best known for his 911 truther theories and his love of Charlie Sheen's hernia.  Jones is the man behind the petition to deport CNN host Piers Morgan for his views on gun control.  Morgan invited Jones onto  his show to debate the gun issue yesterday, and not surprisingly, Jones made a fool of himself, giving the left the perfect poster boy for their attempts to paint every logical conservative as an extremist nut job.

"The media" didn't have to do anything; Jones does it all himself, providing us his own evidence that he is a raving lunatic, the last person any sentient being would want possessing a weapon.  On the one hand, one might think, being a radio guy, Jones is simply oblivious of optics and is just carrying out his on air radio schtick as radio hosts, lacking visuals, rely heavily on emotion and hyperbole to excite and in likely incite listeners.   On the other hand, Jones fit the mold of your typical, fearful, conspiratorial driven, far right partisan who doesn't go anywhere without black helicopters following overhead and "jack-booted government thugs" in the shadows behind every door and around every corner.  Everyone is out to get them.

But its scary to think that this is the kind of person who wants to "exercise" their 2nd amendment rights to own weapons.