Year: 2015

Sunday Morning Coffee

~ R. Stanton Scott ~ Leave a comment

A few links I read this morning over coffee:

“The Believer,” a short essay on how Abu-Bakr al-Baghdadi became leader of the Islamic State.  Lots of insight here, but I”d like to highlight this passage:

Many of the ex-Baathists at Bucca, some of whom Baghdadi befriended, would later rise with him through the ranks of the Islamic State. “If there was no American prison in Iraq, there would be no [Islamic State] now,” recalled the inmate interviewed by TheGuardian. “Bucca was a factory. It made us all. It built our ideology.” The prisoners dubbed the camp “The Academy,” and during his ten months in residence, Baghdadi was one of its faculty members.

It appears that the US invasion of Iraq not only created the power vacuum that helped create the conditions for the rise of ISIS, our treatment of civilians radicalized some and provided the schoolhouse prison that helped them prepare their leadership.  Another data point suggesting that George W. Bush, a Republican and neoconservative, made the US less safe.

Speaking of W., this Salon article about the 2000 election reminds that in fact Americans almost certainly elected Al Gore President that year though the Electoral College did not reflect this intent.  Though we have no way to know how differently events might have unfolded under President Gore, it’s a good bet that his administration would have paid more attention to the Bin Laden threat in 2001, and would not have responded to a terrorist attack by invading Iraq. Whether or not this would mean a world without ISIS…

A recent New Yorker article, “The Siege of Miami,” highlights another issue President Gore might have formulated a policy to address: climate change.  I”m not a scientist, but it seems straightforward enough to me that venting all manner of pollutants and other crap into Earth’s atmosphere and water has to have some effect.  In any event, the scientific consensus    seems pretty solid that human activity has at least helped to warm the planet.  Perhaps we can innovate our way out of this mess, but we won’t if our political leaders keep sticking their fingers in their ears singing “la, la, la, I can’t hear you.”

Last night’s Democratic Primary debate of course touched on terrorism, and once again the Democratic candidates provided a much more nuanced discussion than what we’ve heard from the GOP field.  Bernie Sanders, for example, in a poke at Donald Trump’s bigotry, hinted that conservatives wish to inspire fear of terrorism in voters as a way to distract them from corporate threats to US economic health and the Middle Class.

The tone this campaign has taken fascinates me.  Republicans repeatedly argue that the US is going to hell in a hand basket – debased culture, corrupt government, feminized men – in a way that makes me wonder why they hate America.  In today’s conservative world, Americans – except wealthy ones – get nothing right.  How in the world does this resonate with voters?

 

Sunday Morning Coffee

~ R. Stanton Scott ~ Leave a comment

Still working on posting more often…in the meantime, more Sunday links:

Damon Linker wants to know “Why Aren’t Conservative Intellectuals Disgusted with the GOP?”  Good question, and it begs the “what is a conservative intellectual” follow up.  Whoever it is, I think they’re wondering what to do now that they’ve constructed an electoral coalition on racism, nativism and a reactionary theological/cultural movement based on imagined existential threats to American society.  They’ve painted themselves into an ideological corner and handed extremists the brush.  To the extent any conservative intellectuals exist, I suspect they do feel disgust for today’s GOP.  They just lack the moral courage to say so.

Googling around for background on Linker lead me to this post from over a year ago by Rod Dreher.  Quoting a Linker piece about “…why its not right for same-sex marriage proponents — as he is — to say that Christians who oppose SSM are on the same footing as racists,” Dreher argues in effect that it’s impossible to “…reconcile normative Christianity with sanctioning gay relationships, without doing serious violence to Christian teaching.”  Since this teaching so permeates the very essence of Christianity and its moral teachings, it justifies discrimination against homosexuals in a way it failed to justify racial discrimination.   In the end it still comes down to using religion to justify discrimination.

Al Mohler responds to folks who wonder why evangelical Christians can’t just get with the program: “Now, at least some people seem genuinely perplexed that conservative Christians will not just go along with the program to redefine Christian morality, marriage, and doctrine.”  I would respond to Mr. Mohler, and to Dreher as well, that no one wants them to change their views on morality, marriage, or doctrine.  They and their churches can and should continue to apply their values as they see fit within these institutions.  What they cannot do is use the machinery of the State to discriminate against those who don’t share them.

 

Sunday Morning Coffee

~ R. Stanton Scott ~ Leave a comment

In no particular order, a few links:

Take a look at this very interesting article at Bacon’s Rebellion about the tension between conservation easements in Virginia and corporate efforts to push through pipeline and transmission line projects over the objections of landowners.  One key point here is that these easements may mean less than landowners think.  If so, we’ll see fewer of them.

Was Ohio’s Marijuana Vote Stolen?  Hard to believe, but note the screenshots that show the “Yes” vote going down from almost a million votes with 39% of precincts reporting to a bit over 600 thousand with 45% in.  This might be nothing more than mistaken labeling, but it bears watching given the importance of Ohio as a swing state in Presidential contests.  If an anti-voting-rights Secretary of State is willing to fix a corporate pot referendum he’s certain to make sure his party wins Ohio’s electoral votes.

I’ve written about the silliness of the “Pick-Up Artist” community before, but this is just too much. This guy is a very special kind of…uninformed.  H/T Lawyers, Guns and Money and We Hunted the Mammoth.

At The Federalist (America’s Most Poorly Named Web Magazine), G. W. Thielman tells conservatives how to fix their “Single Woman Problem.”  His recommendations?  Help single mothers through charities and tell them stories about villainous government authorities.  Or, conservatives could stop calling them sluts because they want reproductive health care.

Sunday Morning Coffee

~ R. Stanton Scott ~ Leave a comment

More like Sunday Brunch this week, but a few interesting reads:

Man walks down the street in Colorado Springs just shooting people with a rifle. Looks like he killed three, including a bicyclist who got between the gunman and a woman.  No information yet about who or why, but Colorado’s fairly liberal carry laws apparently did not deter the man.  This was not a “gun-free” zone.

A pretty good outline in Salon of how today’s Republican Party has moved away from real Conservatism from Mary Barker,.  I have to say I like the term “Conservatives in Name Only.”

Speaking of Conservatives in name only, here’s the Bearing Drift take on the CNBC debate.  Anyone who watched the debate or read the transcripts can easily see that his complaint about “gotcha” questions holds little water.  The question that sent Senator Cruz off on his “liberal media” rant was about the budget compromise deal John Boehner and President Obama made the day before.  Cruz didn’t want to answer it so he changed the subject.  At the end of the day, GOP candidates in that debate could have discussed anything they wished, and their choice to attack news organizations instead of laying out their vision for the nation says a lot.

Interesting interview with Joseph Stieglitz, who points out that the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal has more to do with restricting the power of national governments to regulate than about free trade (via Lawyers, Guns and Money).  Some political science research suggests that corporate power and private authority have been eroding State power for some time.  The State is in retreat, and not just domestically.

 

From Dog-Whistle to Open Racist Politics to…Stand Your Ground?

~ R. Stanton Scott ~ Leave a comment

A Donald Trump supporter dragged a protester out of a rally in Miami today.  A large man in a red polo knocked Ariel Rojas, a senior at Florida International University and a pro-immigration activist, to the ground and dragged by force out of the room before walking back into the crowd with his arms raised.  Onlookers shouted “USA! USA!” rather than stopping the violence.

Many Trump supporters come from the same constituency that responded to Republican dog-whistle politics and the Southern Strategy (welfare queens, state’s rights). They like him because he says out loud what they believe – that immigrants come here to commit crimes while abusing the US social safety net.  Other conservative candidates dog-whistle this message with rhetoric about makers and takers and sanctuary cities.  Trump backers want it said more openly and clearly.

It’s not just immigrants and foreigners.  At a Mobile, Alabama rally supporters yelled “White Power” during Trump’s speech.   This of course does not make Trump himself a racist, though his campaign manager said of the incident “I know there were 30-plus thousand people in that stadium. They were very receptive to the message of ‘making America great again’ because they want to be proud to be Americans again.”  He also praised the “passion” of two men in Boston who responded to his message by beating and urinating on a homeless Hispanic man.  And in 1991 he said “Laziness is a trait in blacks.”

Now Trump’s goons – really can’t think of another word – have begun to violently suppress speech in opposition to their views.

I wonder how this would have turned out had Mr. Rojas been armed.  Under Florida’s “stand your ground” law he might have defended himself by shooting the man in the red polo without having to worry about prosecution.  Except for one thing: Mr. Rojas is not white, and his assailant was not black.

Sunday Morning Coffee

~ R. Stanton Scott ~ Leave a comment

It’s difficult to overstate how much the Select Committee on Benghazi hearing on Thursday helped Hillary Clinton.   Republicans on the panel came across as defensive, dishonest, and disrespectful.  Secretary Clinton looked…Presidential…while withstanding a total of about 11 hours of interrogation.  She appeared to be in control of the facts, the proceedings, and herself.  Conservatives by and large agreed.

Republicans held this hearing because they wanted to showcase their attacks on Secretary Clinton.  The problem is that their attacks have no real factual basis – they cannot show that Clinton did anything wrong.  That they refused to back off – and instead gave her a golden opportunity to prove it – showcases the poor political judgement of the people Republicans send to Congress these days. But if you think Trey Gowdy is an amateur, wait until the new special committee to investigate Planned Parenthood.starts holding hearings.  This Committee will attempt to use demonstrably fake videos to make a case for withdrawing federal funding from the organization.  Like the Benghazi Committee hearings on Thursday this will backfire by giving those they’re out to get a prominent platform on which to defend themselves.

Check out this post attacking Congressman Dave Brat on immigration at Bearing Drift, self-described as “Virginia’s Conservative Voice.” This blog provides a broad range of conservative voices and sometimes even offers valid and well-reasoned challenges to liberal thought.  But the real fun comes in the comments when the more…activist…wing of the Republican Party stops by to show its bigotry. As an example take a look at this comment from “mpolito.”  To this person blacks and Hispanics “are more prone to crime [and] welfare use…emphatically, unequivocally, and consistently.”  And the only way to stop them is to put them all in jail.  As of right now this post has 231 comments, all too many of them in this bigoted vein.

An Actual Act of Journalism

~ R. Stanton Scott ~ Leave a comment

I’m not a huge Andrea Mitchell fan.  She is a true Washington insider – married to Alan Greenspan – and I wonder sometimes if the bubble she lives in affects her reporting.

But yesterday on Meet the Press she actually committed an act of journalism and challenged a claim made by Representative Mike Pompeo (R-KS).  When asked why the Benghazi Committee had called on Clinton aides like Sid Blumenthal and Huma Abedin rather than those who could actually speak to the security situation and possible failures, Mr. Pompeo responded that “…Secretary Clinton relied on Mr. Blumenthal for most of her intelligence.”

Though I expect this kind of claim will resonate with many conservatives – it could feed their general sense of the Clintons as corrupt officials who rely on a shady cabal of allies – to most this claim sounds silly on its face.  Ms. Mitchell challenges the claim: “That is factually not true.”  Transcript below the fold. Continue reading →

Sunday Morning Coffee

~ R. Stanton Scott ~ Leave a comment

Federal ruling allows Texas to deny birth certificates to some US-born children.  Not sure why the validity of the parents’ identification documents matters.  These children are US citizens, whoever their parents are and whatever their status, and their birth certificates belong to them and no one else.

David Brat’s appearance on Meet the Press last week apparently annoyed some conservatives as much as it did me, though perhaps for different reasons.  My chief complaint: his repeated claim that “the American People” support his Freedom Caucus priorities.

David Neiwert is one of the best writers out there on white supremacists, domestic terrorism and…orcas.  This rundown of the way rhetoric in the US promotes Islamophobia is worth a read.  I can also recommend his Rush, Newspeak, and Fascism (PDF), an important “journalistic survey of the academic literature on fascism” how it relates to American politics.

Booman thinks Vice President Biden should run for President.  I disagree.  The conversation Bernie Sanders has started is the one the Democratic Party needs to have, and I think he and Hillary are the right candidates to have it.  (Psst…Hillary…maybe a “join the official campaign” screen designed to capture my email address isn’t what you want new visitors to see when they visit your website.)

And finally…One of many reasons why I am slowly migrating to Apple products.

Taxpayers Subsidize Wealthy Capitalists

~ R. Stanton Scott ~ Leave a comment

Steven Attewell, over at Lawyers, Guns and Money, gives a pretty good rundown of the politics behind Mario Cuomo’s call for increasing the minimum wage for some workers in New York City. Can’t think of anything to add on this.

But I would like to highlight this statement in the Cuomo op-ed Attewell cites:

Fast-food workers and their families are twice as likely to receive public assistance compared with other working families. Among fast-food workers nationwide, 52 percent — a rate higher than in any other industry — have at least one family member on welfare.

Yes, US taxpayers support fast food workers with $7 billion in public assistance every year while the industry generates huge profits and generous CEO salaries.  And it’s not just the fast food industry.  Retail giants like Wal-Mart generate huge fortunes for small groups of people while taxpayers subsidize their wages to the tune of billions of dollars.  Fast food and retail CEOs take multi-million dollar salaries, and wealthy families and stockholders take billions in profits while their workers live in poverty and taxpayers subsidize their business models.

These CEOs and shareholders will argue that paying higher wages would cut into profits and force them to raise prices.  But BLS statistics show about 3.3 million workers making the minimum wage or less.  Paying them all $15 an hour, plus employer contributions for Social Security and Medicare, comes to less than $110 billion a year.  This is not the total cost of increasing the minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 – this is the total cost of paying all current minimum wage workers $15 an hour, 40 hours a week, for 50 weeks each year.

This is less than 1.5% of all US corporate after tax profits in 2014.  This means that Corporate America could pay a $15 minimum wage to all current minimum wage or below workers – and still generate more than $7 trillion in profits.

Why don’t they do this?