Race, the Race, and Summer Storms....

Been away for a while, but with the campaign truly heating up.  These are the things that caught my attention:

First up I am glad Chris Matthews said this to RNC chairman Reince Priebus:


The naked and wanton racial animus that the Republican Party is trucking in, is saddening.   Republicans have suffered no consequences for this.

Now some of this is because talking about racial issues is horrifically difficult.  This piece by Ta-Neshisi Coates, Fear of a Black President, is one of the best pieces I have read on race in sometime.  I would highly recommend reading it if you have not.  

What the Stimulus has wrought

This is an election year and you are going to hear a lot about how the Stimulus (ARRA) has failed from Republicans.  The folks over at Mosler Economics have put together a report with some lovely charts showing pre and post Stimulus statistics for the country.  

Things are not great and I will be first to say, that the administration should have been more aggressive on that front.  A recalcitrant congress definitely was hurdle.  But I will not let them off easy, it wasn't, as if they were not warned.   That being said, this should put the lie to the "stimulus failed!" rhetoric.  I know it won't.  But it is nice to see graphical proof.  A couple of examples:

 

Thrusters On-line

Yeah, I know.  I have been silent for a bit this year.    But now that we are officially in campaign season, it is time to get to work.


So here you go, the new campaign video from the folks at Obama central. 

Firing up and getting ready to go.  Indeed.

-Cheers

Not a progressive value.....

This poll question, in the new Washington Post poll, is a tad depressing.

What if those suspected terrorists are American citizens living in other countries? In that case do you approve or disapprove of the use of drones?

Approve: 65

Disapprove: 26

This should not be the "liberal" view on the matter. American citizens have rights under the law. Even if they are suspected of terrorism. That is an American value and enshrined in our law.

So this is very disappointing.

-Cheers

State of the Union Address

....And I am back.

Took a little time off from ranting about politics to spend quality time with Old Republic, as well as recharge before the election craziness got fully into gear.

So what better time to get back into things then with the Presidential State of the Union address to congress and the nation?

I cannot think of another myself actually!

By and large, I liked the speech. Let me start off by saying, if you expect the SotU to be about specifics you are fooling yourself. The SotU is all about the President talking about what they have done and what they would like to do. It is an "explaining" speech, for the great unwashed masses, who do not have the time or inclination to scour the inter-tubes. This is an important thing politically and substantively. The President gets to make his case to the American people, laying out what his priorities have been and are. While the American people get an opportunity to evaluate the words their leaders speak versus their actions taken.

So as you can guess, I tend to be a fan of SotU speeches. I have watched them all since President George H. W Bush was in office, and whether I agree with the current office holder or not, I listen intently. Why? Because they are my President, whether they chose to ignore me or pander to me.

Back to the speech itself. The portion of it that really caught my attention was the middle section. Starting here:

...the basic American promise that if you worked hard, you could do well enough to raise a family, own a home, send your kids to college, and put a little away for retirement.

The defining issue of our time is how to keep that promise alive. No challenge is more urgent. No debate is more important. We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by. Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules. What's at stake are not Democratic values or Republican values, but American values. We have to reclaim them.

Opening shots for '12...

This is the sort of the comparative combative narrative the White House should have been embracing since late '09. Take a look beneath the fold for the infographic.

Fire up that TARDIS....

The estimable Ezra Klein does thorough cataloging of the what went down with the Obama administration during the Great Recession of 2008. It is a very interesting read and does a good job of getting a lot of the relevant information, that is easily forgotten today, out there.

Pretty much the gist of it is: We were more screwed then we thought, and our systems of governance are just not good at handling these sorts of problem.

But I will let the man speak from himself on the subject:

Austerity Now!

Well they released the August jobs numbers, and they are terrible.

Here is a rundown of "teh librurl coverage":

• Steve Benen at the Washington Monthly:

  Whether the GOP wants to admit it or not, the economy is advancing exactly as they want it to. The private sector is being left to its own devices; the public sector is shedding jobs quickly and scrapping investments; and the only permitted topic of conversation is about debt-reduction.

• Ezra Klein of the Washington Post:

  Though the trends might be better than they were in early-2009, the labor market is in much worse shape, and it's clear that more action, and perhaps even big action, is desperately needed. I do not, however, expect that to be the actual response to this news.

• Bill Gross of PIMCO over at Bloomberg is soundingly some wild-eyed hippie.

I would just like to echo what Benen has said. This is exactly what the policies advocated by conservatives yields. I am not saying they sit around trying to screw the economy (though it is hard not to speculate how they might be acting if they controlled the White House and one other branch i.e "in control of government"), but the policies the champion have this effect in a recession. They have told us time and time again, that shrinking government, cutting taxes, and deregulation would spur job creation.

Well not to get into a post hoc fallacy mess, but here are two graphs which show jobs creation since the Obama administration began (via Steve Benen).

Democratic control of Congress


Republican control of the House
Again I know, causation and correlation and all that. But is anyone really going to make the argument that we haven't been essentially following the Republican plan over the last 6-8 months? Basically less government spending and leaving the private sector to its own devices?

This is what austerity gets you in the midst of a severe financial contraction. I wait with baited breath to see the bipartisan rush to ameliorate this. Basic macroeconomics spells out clearly what you do in this situation.....

-Cheers

What the Stimulus did...and didn't do....

Dylan Matthews over at Ezra Klein's blog has been doing serious work. He has gone and compiled the most recent studies looking at whether the ARRA was a net positive or not. I would go into the details of it, but it is definitely worth the read.

I have been hugely critical of the size of the stimulus, mainly that it was not big enough. But that was never to imply that it should not have been done.

But enough of my babbling, I will let Mr. Matthews take over:

Each approach runs into its own set of problems. The econometric studies have to deal with what social scientists call “endogeneity”: that is, the variable whose effect we’re trying to determine (the stimulus) could itself be affected by what we’re trying to study its effect on (the state of the economy). In this specific case, this means that econometric studies sometimes have to correct for the fact that harder-hit areas tend to get more stimulus spending. This says nothing about the stimulus’ effectiveness, but it can confuse attempts to evaluate that effectiveness statistically.

All of these studies have their own methods of overcoming the endogeneity problem, some of which are more effective than others. Whichever corrections one uses, however, one cannot run a perfect experiment with messy, real-world data, which necessarily limits what these studies can say. Of the five econometric studies detailed here, three conclude the stimulus had a significant positive effect, and two conclude it did not have much of an effect at all.

I know this will not really change anyone's mind, but having data always makes me feel a little better on the subject.

-Cheers

News of the day

It is hard to judge or measure the effect of these events, and I am sure I could write reams on various issues with regard to the death of Osama bin Laden.

Evidenced by the numerous writing battles I have engaged in on Facebook. But I think here, in this space I will instead just be relieved that someone so heinous is no longer walking the earth.

And well this:


-Cheers

Backing it up...

The other day the frustrations of the last couple of day boiled over into this post.

Some may have noticed that the President gave a speech this past week on the budget. It was a pretty good speech actually.

But consider me skeptical. I need to see some steel and fire out of the democrats. I need to see them willing to engage and argue for progressive aims. They may lose that argument, but they need to make it. Dr. Krugman sums up most of my feelings on the speech here.

To get my active support, that is what will be necessary. Make the Republican party pay for their fecklessness.

And since it is tax day this little chart for you all:

Yep, collectively we are paying way too much.

-Cheers

Enough is Enough....

I have been a fairly reliable supporter of the President and his Administration, but at what point does a person stop reacting to the fear of "Palin, Bachmann, or Newt" and actually hold their elected officials responsible?

The President has done an absolutely horrid job negotiating with a petulant GOP. He has shown no inclination whatsoever, to defend any liberal/progressive alternative, or even offer one.

Bipartisanship is no virtue in service to bad policy.

I am tired of the constant pre-capitulation on every issue. The GOP's plan is to destroy the democratic party and this administration. Look at who and what they target. If there is a
source of democratic support, they attack it, they defund it and if they can they try to outlaw it
(unions, "trial lawyers"/tort reform, ACORN, NPR, voter ID laws).

The president says and does nothing about this. Have to protect that brand after all.

Whether it was the budget deal, the tax cuts, or even the ACA all we ever get is increasingly a right wing frame on right wing terms.

I promise if I get a fund raising letter from OFA, I may have to slap someone.

I will vote, I always do. But unless I see some fire and steel from Obama and the dems, they need to just forget about my enthusiastic support.

The GOP has become a party of bullies, unless you are willing to stand up to them and make them pay a price for their actions they will continue what they are doing.

Don't like them playing "games" with budget? Stop. Fucking. Pre-negotiating. They want a far
right propsal? Then you slap down a far left one and then haggle from there. That is how negotiating works.

Not happy.

-Cheers

It bears repeating....

I am glad that Dr. Krugman went back to this issue again. With all the strum und drang over the deficit, it is worth remembering that this is always the case. Once again I think Matt Yglesias' (By way of Greg Sargent) comments on the subject ring true:

Public understanding of fiscal policy is hazy, inaccurate, and dominated by fallacious analogies between a national government and a household. What’s more, voters believe that deficits are primarily driven by wasteful government spending. So when a recession strikes the deficit spikes, and people complain.

The government is not like your household. It just isn't. It is like comparing a remote control car to the space shuttle. Sure they both have "engines", but they do very different things.

As Steve Benen notes, I do not even know why most republicans in congress are being treated like they have any authenticity on deficit reduction:

I'd be remiss if I neglected to mention how amusing it is to hear Mitch McConnell express concern about the debt. The Kentucky Republican voted for the Bush tax cuts, and added the costs to the national debt. McConnell then voted to finance the war in Afghanistan by adding the costs to the national debt. He then voted to put the costs of the war in Iraq onto the national debt. McConnell supported a massive expansion of the government's role in health care, Medicare Part D, and voted to pile all of its costs right onto the national debt, and then backed the financial industry bailout, and added the bill to the national debt. All the while, McConnell had no qualms about voting to raise the debt limit.

But now McConnell is willing to risk default unless Democrats agree to a plan to help clean up the mess McConnell helped create. Fascinating.

It would be fascinating if it weren't so terribly frustrating.

In other news. With all the focus on Japan after the horrific earthquake/tsunami that struck late last week. I have found this post to be the most important in regards to the reactor issues going on there.

Finally this is one of those stories (via Glenn Greenwald) that has people wondering if the parties are any different. I have to admit this is horribly disappointing on the part of the administration. This is not the sort of treatment that someone who speaks honestly on a despicable situation should be treated. And why exactly should the military be the objective source consulted when talking about possibly illegal activities that the military is involved in?

Just poor form on the part of the Administration. Just leading more credence to the the David Frum axiom: The Republicans fear their base, while Democrats despise theirs.

-Cheers

So it is going to be Kagan.....

Got to say I am not impressed with the Presidents pick to replace Justice Stephens.

Glenn Greenwald lays out the case against Elana Kagan here. With follow-up here and here.

The problem here is a standard one with Mr. Obama, he constantly tacks to the middle, to avoid conflict. Ignoring the concerns of his core supporters and trying to court the ephemeral "middle". Especially in a time where the conservative base is rabid, and his own base is depressed.

I wanted a fire-breathing liberal to counter the likes of Justices Scalia and Alito, as well as a legal heavy weight. Diane Wood or Harold Koh would have been excellent choices. Yes there would have been a fight. There was going to be a fight anyways. Mr. Greenwald again (emphasis mine):

The New York Times this morning reports that "Mr. Obama effectively framed the choice so that he could seemingly take the middle road by picking Ms. Kagan, who correctly or not was viewed as ideologically between Judge Wood on the left and Judge Garland in the center." That's consummate Barack Obama. The Right appoints people like John Roberts and Sam Alito, with long and clear records of what they believe because they're eager to publicly defend their judicial philosophy and have the Court reflect their values. Beltway Democrats do the opposite: the last thing they want is to defend what progressives have always claimed is their worldview, either because they fear the debate or because they don't really believe those things, so the path that enables them to avoid confrontation of ideas is always the most attractive, even if it risks moving the Court to the Right.

Ms. Kagan's legal philosophy is a black box. She has done an excellent job of not leaving any trail. From what we do know her views on executive power, are at best disturbing. But I find the relative dearth of any record absolutely terrifying. She is, in many ways, as bad a choice as Harriet Myers.

I am sure I will be getting e-mails from OFA asking me to donate and support this nominee. I will not. Instead, I intend to write my senators to ask them to vote against her confirmation. He wanted someone young. But there were simply better choices.

If Mr. Obama and his administration want my support they are going to need to work for it and to stop expecting it.

A shitty birthday present Mr. Obama.....

-Cheers

Presidential Speech on Health Care Reform

I will be honest, I am finding it hard to comment on the substance of what the president said last night mainly do to the unctuous behavior of the republican caucus last night. That is truly sad because there were some noteworthy subjects talked about during the speech. But, that being said, I do not think I have seen a more uncivil, peevish bunch, revel in their perceived sanctimony then last night.

Say what you will about the right and the left, being equivalent in their ridiculousness. That is just not the case. It is hard to overstate the levels to which the GOP has sunk. Imagine what would have happened if Dennis Kucinich had made catcalls during President Bushes remarks? He would have been labeled a terrorist, treason charges would have been bandied about and the like.

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC), is a ignorant know-nothing. He evidently can not read a bill. I hope, nay, it is my most fervent desire that Speaker of the House Pelosi absolutely censure his prevaricating ass.

Now on to the speech it self. I thought it was a good speech. The president showed some fire, and most of his information seemed to match up with independent analysis of the health care debate. If there was one thing that stood out the most to me though, was that this speech was as full-throated a defense of liberalism as I have seen in the public square.

In particular this bit toward the end grabbed my attention.

You see, our predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem. They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom. But they also understood that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, and the vulnerable can be exploited. And they knew that when any government measure, no matter how carefully crafted or beneficial, is subject to scorn; when any efforts to help people in need are attacked as un-American; when facts and reason are thrown overboard and only timidity passes for wisdom, and we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter - that at that point we don't merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves.

What was true then remains true today. I understand how difficult this health care debate has been. I know that many in this country are deeply skeptical that government is looking out for them. I understand that the politically safe move would be to kick the can further down the road - to defer reform one more year, or one more election, or one more term.

But that's not what the moment calls for. That's not what we came here to do. We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it. I still believe we can act even when it's hard. I still believe we can replace acrimony with civility, and gridlock with progress. I still believe we can do great things, and that here and now we will meet history's test.

Because that is who we are.

This has been a long time in coming. Government intervention is not always a bad thing. Sometimes, it is an effective corrective. Reaganism as an ideology leads to bad government. It needs to be given the long kiss goodnight it has deserved for over a decade.

But that is a different argument.

If you have not I do highly recommend tracking down the speech it is worth a watch. If I get a version I will link it here.

-Cheers

Ants at Obama's Picnic...

The amount of disdain that the Obama Administration and establishment Democrats have shown their progressive base is definitely reaching a boiling point.

I understand that it is important in our society to stick it to those "dirty hippies" as often as possible, but be careful. Digby sums it up well,

But on a political level, the left has been betrayed over and over again on the things that matter to us the most. The village is pleased, I'm sure. But the Democratic party only needs to look back eight short years to see just how destructive it is to constantly tell their left flank to go fuck themselves.

And as always Glenn Greenwald, channels perfectly my personal rage.

-Cheers

Glenn on the warpath...

What I tend to respect about the intellectual "left" is the ability of some of its members to hold on to consistent principles, and not to be ostracized by the party as a whole.

With the implosion on the right, you see the pure sophistry of a political party. The strict and strident adherence to a party line even in the face of an absolutely discordant reality. The GOP is is tossing out its moderate members and doubling down on bigger defense, tax cuts, and no gay marriage. Furiously masturbating to old pictures of Ronald Reagan and yearning for yesteryear.

But on the left, you have many who spent years railing against the gross excess of the previous administration. Diligently chronicling the perfidy, malfeasance, and generally venal nature of those that worked in the Bush administration. It is clear now they are not giving up simply because there is a new boss, or ignoring inequities simply because they happen to support some of the same policies. I would say, in fact, that it is more important that the critiques come from the 'base' in this regard.

I think this may be the most damning comment about our political culture (I recommend reading the post, it is cringe inducing):

What is most damaging about all of this is exactly what Goldsmith celebrated: that Obama's political skills, combined with his status as a Democrat, is strengthening civil liberties extremists -- could possibly object to any of that.
Now, much of the other half of the country, the one that once opposed those policies

-- Democrats, Obama supporters -- are now reciting the same lines, adopting the same mentality, because doing so is necessary to justify what Obama is doing. It's hard to dispute the Right's claim that Bush's Terrorism approach is being vindicated by Obama's embrace of its "essential elements." That's what Goldsmith means when he says that Obama is making these policies stronger and more palatable, and it's what media stars mean when they describe Bush/Cheney policies as Centrist: now that it's not just an unpopular Republican President but also a highly charismatic and popular Democratic President advocating and defending these core Bush/Cheney policies, they do become the political consensus of the United States. Bush/Cheney terrorism policies and solidifying them further. For the last eight years, roughly half the country -- Republicans, Bush followers -- was trained to cheer for indefinite detention, presidential secrecy, military commissions, warrantless eavesdropping, denial of due process, a blind acceptance of any presidential assertion that these policies are necessary to Keep Us Safe, and the claim that only fringe Far Leftist Purists --

This is disappointing, to say the least. Of the things I hoped for the most, it was the dismantling of the national security/terrorism policy of the Bush/Cheney regime. Strengthening it with a coat of new paint and a more polished spokesmen, is not what I signed on for. You can't polish a turd and this stinks to high heaven.

In further depressing news. Democrats have no spines.

THEY NEVER LEARN.... At some point a few weeks ago, Republicans decided that the closing of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay was a political winner. They'd rant and rave about the Obama administration putting terrorists in U.S. "neighborhoods," and Democrats, the theory goes, would back away from a sensible policy.

The argument was absurd, of course, and I'd hoped congressional Democrats would ignore the fearmongering. It looks like the minority party still knows exactly how to push the majority party's buttons.

You know what, this some of the worst sort of demagoguery. I have wrote it before, other commentators have made the case: if there is one thing Americans excel at in this day and age, it is putting people in jail, and keeping them there.

Our prison system houses some of the most dangerous people in our society and nary a one escapes. During WWII we housed, on American soil, over 400,000 enemy troops/POWs, and boy did they run rampant all over the country. Oh wait they didn't.

And we are honestly to believe that 250 individuals, that may or may not actually be terrorist pose more of a threat then Imperial Japan and Nazis Germany?

This does more then strain credulity. It fucking brakes it, bends it over a buffet table and sodomizes it while its small children are watching, all the while kicking puppies and eating kittens.

Let us repeat on more time. They are not not Super-Villains!

-Cheers

Epic Rants Deferred

So I had written another rather lengthy post about torture prosecutions. The Administration has been making loud noises this week and last about granting blanket immunity to the perpetrators, and originators of these memos.

I have some problems with that to say the least.

The least of which not being, that the Department of Justice is supposed (or ostensibly :-)) to be a separate entity from the White House.

Again it is not an issue of political expedience. Some acts are so heinous in their scope and so caustic to the well being of the union, that they must be acted upon. It is a matter of law.

The idea that for the most part, the media has been lockstep with government officials on this is even more disheartening.

While I was in the midst of working my dudgeon into a rich lather. Then this question was asked of the president.

Now I am still more then a bit miffed about the Presidents initial desire to shield those involved, but the admission that it is not his decision to make is a important step away from the Alberto Gonzales led Justice Department.

-Cheers

The art of dissent

This blog was birthed due to my frustration with the last eight years under the Bush Administration. That is no secret.

With the selection of a new administration, one which I actively supported here and around the
Midwest. Many friends asked what I would talk about during this new age. And for the most part, I just said, "There will always something for me to argue about.".

I support the Obama administration when they do things I agree with, and try to call them to task when they do things I do not agree with them. So much so, I sent this letter (via http://www.whitehouse.gov/) to the president to be ignored:

Dear Mr. President and White House Staff,

I am concerned that it has now become formal United States policy, that we have a bifurcated legal system. If crimes were committed and authorized by members of the CIA and/or the DoJ then investigations are necessary.

We have tried individuals for water-boarding in our past. It has the force of legal precedence behind it.

I have heard you speak eloquently on the subject, sir. But rhetorical eloquence is not enough here. Paeans 'to moving forward' and 'retribution' while nice as a salve for conscience, do not follow the rule of law. That you, yourself have spoken of on many occasions, and more importantly in your previous profession. You are uniquely aware of that foundation.

This is not a matter of pragmatism or partisan retribution. This is about returning to the stance that we are a nation of laws. Not of men.I hope you will encourage the DoJ to pursue investigations.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
x

I was moved to comment on this, but also realized, it is much harder to proofread in the little posting box they give. So I am sure I will have to do it again.

The 'rule of law' is important to me. That there be no bifurcation of laws between those with power and those without is a cornerstone of our republic. However, at every turn the governing authority and more importantly the media seek to shield its members from anything of the sort.

That is why I always seem to come back to issues such as NSA wire-tapping, torture, and over-reach in the Executive.

I just want it to be clear, due to a previous conversation I had with a friend on some tea-party related, that I do not have a problem with dissent. I think dissent is natural and a necessary component in a functioning democracy. However, I do have a problem with disingenuous or specious arguments. And that was all I was pointing to.

Concern for our legal system and our personal civil liberties, is what motivated the creation of this blog in the first place, and that is my dissent. That is why you will see lots of links to Glenn Greenwald and the Anonymous Liberal. Lawyers who have an eye toward civil liberties.

Mainly because, in my estimation, without freedom and liberty nothing else matters. If you are not free from unwarranted persecution, what does it matter if the government taxes you are not your gains are not your's. What you have is irrelevant. Because those rights can be suspend on a whim, or abridged, or outright abrogated. It is the adherence to the rule of law that keeps that at bay.

So at times it is unpopular. But the law is there to protect the just and the unjust alike. Common man and King, farmer and President are protected by its embrace.

That is why I harp on torture. If you strip away the moral arguments, it is simply against the law. We signed treaties as such. We have prosecuted people for its practice. That is why it is wrong. Not a political decision. However if you read, the actual memos, it is hard not to wonder (to paraphrase Ezra Klein) when we became the kind of country which would put a person in a small box covered in insects.

That is why the NSA wire-tapping sticks in my craw. Not out of some partisan revenge scheme against former President Bush and his cronies, but out of the fear. Because once freedoms are surrendered they are not easily regained.

That is why I am for prosecutions in these cases. If not investigations at the very least. If it is truly felt that these acts were justifiable then a court of law is where that case should be made.

So yeah. I will engage in active dissent for the rest of my days. It is patriotic. We must always watch those who are in positions of power. Trust is for friends not for any politician ever.

The other day I was trying explain my world view to someone. Trying to articulate what I hoped to accomplish in my life, as far as, moving our dialog forward. And I was reaching. The words weren't really there. It was hard to combine what I was going for. Because I don't wish for world peace or some sort of existential harmony. So it was difficult to settle on what I wanted to convey. Finally I managed to pull some pieces together from various divergent sources. From Serenity, Planetary, and The Story of B it finally gelled.

And it went something like this.

I want a world that I do not belong in. I want a world that is so much beyond what I can imagine that it seems strange to my eyes. I want my children and grandchildren to have such a different frame of reference that my views will seem quaint. Like an archaeologist looking at hieroglyphics in the pyramids.

I want a better world. But I know that I have no place there.

And that is good, and that is my hope, and that is why I blog.

-Cheers