Jul 212010
 

Yesterday I kept up.  Today depends.  My COPD had been especially severe the last couple of days.  I may forego co-facilitating the therapy group for that reason, but I have a board meeting tomorrow and have work to do preparing for that.  Tomorrow is also volunteer day in the prison.   I just wish I had some energy.

Jig Zone Puzzle:

Today it took me 4:36.  To do it, click here.  How did you do?

Fantasy Football:

To join our fantasy football league, click here.  When Lisa resisters, we will need two more players.

Short Takes:

From Alternet: The US Senate voted Tuesday to advance legislation restoring unemployment benefits to help some 2.5 Americans ahead of November mid-term elections shaped by deep voter anger at high joblessness.

Lawmakers voted 60-40 to end debate on the bill, as just two Republicans joined all but one of President Barack Obama’s Democratic allies to back the 34-billion-dollar bill to help the long-term unemployed.

Now Reid can finally schedule a straight up or down vote.  I expect Republicans to vote for it in mass, since passage is assured, just so they can lie that they supported it.

From Common Dreams: A new report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) shows that with a job growth path comparable to the last recovery, the economy will not recover all of the jobs lost in the recession until March 2014. Assuming the trend rate of growth in the labor force, the unemployment rate will not fall back to the pre-recession level until April 2021.

This demonstrates the desperate need for a massive federal jobs program.

Hat Tip Daily Kos: a new DNC ad.

Just what I’ve been saying all along.

Cartoon: from Cagle.com

21lester

Happy hump day!

Share
Jul 202010
 

constitution

We have been covering the US Constitution line by line.  When Republicans wave their paper props and parrot their vile machinations, we will be prepared to expose the lies.  We have finished the main body of the Constitution.  Now we continue with the Amendments.  You can find the last article on the main body of the Constitution here. It has links to all the others.  The text comes from The US Constitution.  Previous articles in the Amendment series:

Article I
Articles II and III
Article IV
Article V
Article VI
Article VII
Article VIII

 

Article [IX]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

How often do you hear the Republicans parrot, “The right to ________ is not in the Constitution, so you don’t have it.”?  Recently I’ve heard it applied to privacy, integration, women’s reproductive rights, appeals, and more.  The Ninth Amendment  these Republicans lie. We have several rights that the Constitution does not enumerate.  One is the right to the pursuit of happiness from the Declaration of Independence, although in my younger days, I was more inclined to interpret it as the happiness of pursuit.

Article [X]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Tenth Amendment draws a line between Federal and State powers.  It becomes controversial over federal funding.  For example, the federal government may not dictate speed limits on Interstate highways.  However they can offer funding for those highways, contingent on states accepting 55 MPH.  NCLB was interesting, because the Republicans mandated the program under the threat of withdrawing funding states were already receiving.  Then they cut the funding anyway.  GOP secessionists claim that the Tenth gives them the right to secede.  If it does, the first Republican put that notion to rest.

I shall try to put up a new article in this series almost every day.  It will take some time to cover it all, but when we’re done, we shall be immune to the lies with which Republicans seek to undermine our freedoms.

Share
Jul 202010
 

This is what happens when Republicans promote violence and encourage Second Amendment solutions.

20hate Yesterday, 45-year-old parolee Byron Williams opened fire on Highway Patrol officers in Oakland, California. After a brief shootout, Williams, who was wearing body armor, was shot and is currently in an emergency room in stable condition at a local hospital.

In an interview with the local news, Williams explained that her son was unemployed, angry at “left-wing politicians,” and upset about Congress “railroading through all these left-wing agenda items.” Williams went on to say that she kept guns in her house which her son stole. She also warned of a coming “revolution”:

She said her son, who had been a carpenter and a cabinetmaker before his imprisonment, was angry about his unemployment and about “what’s happening to our country.” Williams watched the news on television and was upset by “the way Congress was railroading through all these left-wing agenda items,” his mother said. […]

Janice Williams said she kept the guns because “eventually, I think we’re going to be caught up in a revolution.” But she said she had told her son many times that “he didn’t have to be on the front lines.”

…Earlier in the year, disgruntled software engineer Joe Stack used his plane to launch a suicide attack against an IRS building in Austin, Texas. Stack left behind a suicide note detailing his grievances against the government. Right-wing hate radio hosts and pundits have denied that their rhetoric is provoking violence against the government.  [emphasis original]

Inserted from <Think Progress>

Republicans argue that Williams is seven cans short of a six pack, so they cannot be held accountable for the acts of deranged people.  I do not believe that the Republican hate purveyors on Radio and TV and in Congress intended or could have foreseen this specific action.  They say it’s only rhetoric go mobilize their base.  I agree.  However, they have invited vile people into their tent and accepted race and hatred in every form, and they know that among those people are some who are unbalanced enough to take their rhetoric seriously enough to act on it.  And yet, they keep parroting the hateful rhetoric anyway.  They are to blame for the actions their hate inspires.

Share

Voodoo Economics

 Posted by at 2:00 am  Politics
Jul 202010
 

Last night Rachel Maddow had an excellent piece on Republican economic policy, which she discussed with Oregon’s Jeff Merkley.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Pure and simple, what Republicans are saying about extending tax cuts for the rich is a lie, and Republicans from the old days, before the GOP lost its last shreds of sanity, are calling them on it.

I am glad I worked to help Jeff Merkley defeat goose-stepping Gordon Smith, the “progressive” GOP Senator who was willing to cross the line, but only when we didn’t need him.  I commend Jeff for having the courage to agree that Republicans are intentionally sabotaging our economy now, hoping to use the bad economy to their advantage in November.

Share
Jul 202010
 

Yesterday I felt tired from lack of sleep and napped without my CPAP device most of the day, but I still stayed up to date and should today as well.  After today, my week will be very busy with volunteer work, so I’ll be falling behind again.

Jig Zone Puzzle:

Today it took me 3:45.  To do it, click here.  How did you do?

Short Takes:

From CBS: A House committee has approved Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann’s proposal to create an official House Tea Party Caucus.

Wacky-doodle-do!!  So far only Mike Pense has joined the Teabagger caucus.  I’m sure more of the most dangerous racists, machine gum mavins, and hate-mongers will follow.

From TPM: Tea party conservatives are not happy with former Majority Leader-turned-lobbyist Trent Lott who ripped the movement over the weekend, saying: "We don’t need a lot of Jim DeMint disciples. As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them."

These Teabaggers are so stupid that the do not realize that the GOP will throw them under the bus, even when a leading Republican comes right out and admits it.

From ABC: Authorities in California said today they have opened an investigation into Goldline International, a company that pioneered the practice of weaving its sales pitches into broadcasts by popular conservative political personalities — including two former presidential candidates and Fox News host Glenn Beck — to sell hundreds of millions of dollars worth of gold every year.

"There are two main types of complaints we’re seeing," said Adam Radinsky of the Santa Monica City Attorney’s office, which has launched what it described as a joint investigation with the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office.

"One is that customers say that they were lied to and misled in entering into their purchases of gold coins," he said. "And the other group is saying that they received something different from what they had ordered."

There it is.  The companies that Beck panders are every bit as crooked an the propaganda Beck imparts.

Cartoon: from Cagle.com

20matson

Tuesday is a good day to fight right wing insanity.

Share
Jul 192010
 

constitution

We have been covering the US Constitution line by line.  When Republicans wave their paper props and parrot their vile machinations, we will be prepared to expose the lies.  We have finished the main body of the Constitution.  Now we continue with the Amendments.  You can find the last article on the main body of the Constitution here. It has links to all the others.  The text comes from The US Constitution.  Previous articles in the Amendment series:

Article I
Articles II and III
Article IV
Article V
Article VI
Article VII

 

Article [VIII]

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The Eighth Amendment is pretty straightforward.  Exactly what constitutes “excessive” is purely subjective.  The interpretation has changed over time and will continue to do so.  There can be no doubt that torture is cruel and unusual punishment, and that adds the Eighth to the list of things in the Constitution that Republicans have violated.

The controversy in this Amendment arises over capital punishment.  In my opinion, it has been constitutional for most of our national history, but is rapidly becoming unconstitutional.  To be unconstitutional a punishment must be both cruel and unusual.  Few things are more cruel than snuffing out the life of defenseless individuals, regardless of what crimes  they may have committed, unless it is mandatory to preserve public safety.  Life imprisonment without possibility of parole removes that mandate.  Nevertheless, for most of our nations history, capital punishment has been the usual means for dealing with the most egregious crimes, worldwide.  However that is changing.  Virtually every civilized nation on earth has outlawed the death penalty.  Only eighteen nations executed prisoners in 2009.  The US ranked fifth behind only China, Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.  Therefore capital punishment is unusual as well.  There are other constitutional issues surrounding capital punishment, but they do not involve this Amendment.  Republicans favor expansion of capital punishment and elimination of the rights of criminal defendants in capital cases.

Share
Jul 192010
 

8500-MarvaD

Cellophane, aka Marva Dasef, is a solid progressive and fellow Oregonian.  She is also a published author.  I have personally purchased and read her work and found it enchanting.  You can find her here.

Congrats, Marva!

PS – Lisa missed it by one again… for the fourth time.

Share

Why Warren?

 Posted by at 2:16 am  Politics
Jul 192010
 

Three days ago, I posted an action alert requesting support for Elizabeth Warren to head the new CFPB.  But why?  Robert Kuttner offers some excellent reasons, but leaves a few out as well.

19warren For the past several days, people who care about whether financial reform is to be real or sham have been following the drama of whether President Obama will name Elizabeth Warren to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The Bureau is the best thing about the financial reform bill that Obama will sign later this week, and its prime architect was Warren, a folksy Harvard law professor who has become a well known and admired public figure championing reform.

It’s no secret that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner doesn’t want Warren. As Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel monitoring the Treasury’s conduct of the bank bailout under TARP, Warren turned what might have been an obscure and toothless agency into a feisty forum for challenging the Treasury’s coddling of the big banks. She did not pull her punches in asking tough questions of the treasury secretary and demanding sometimes embarrassing documents.

Over the past several days, the Treasury has leaked other names being considered for the job, giving the deliberate impression that Warren is just one candidate among many. White House political adviser David Axelrod, given the chance to clearly deny that Geithner was trying to block Warren’s appointment, described her as well qualified but his statement was widely taken as faint praise.

All of this infighting and leaking must be amusing to President Obama, the man who ultimately will make the appointment. It was Obama who personally decided that he wanted a strong consumer protection agency in the financial reform bill, partly to offset the perception that the administration was too cozy with Wall Street.

The provision survived lukewarm support by many in the administration because it was one of the few provisions in which Obama took a direct personal interest. Obama, not Tim Geithner, will choose the first head of the new agency. Strong presidents, like Franklin Roosevelt, tolerate advisers with differing viewpoints.

A reform package that should have been a clear winner politically has turned out to be a political draw because too many voters believe that the Administration has favored Wall Street over Main Street. The best possible antidote to that perception would be the appointment of Warren. She is the rare public official involved with financial regulation seen as a passionate fighter for regular people. The Administration desperately needs a dose of that.

There is a whispering campaign that Warren would be given a rough time in a confirmation hearing. But a contentious confirmation process would be a pure gift to theWhite House and the Democrats.

Much of the financial reform package is fairly obscure and technical. Mention the words credit default swap, and it just reinforces the impression that the government is in bed with Wall Street. But consumer protection is the easiest part to grasp. Do we want banks to gouge consumers on overdraft charges, mislead them on the cost of credit cards, and devise deceptive mortgage products? Most Americans would say no.

This is the fight Warren has been waging. If Republican senators want to hold hearings defending the poor misunderstood bankers, and giving the compelling Warren a hard time for protecting consumers, bring it on. It would make terrific television and nothing would be more clarifying about which party is the bigger stooge for Wall Street. This administration needs a few star players who stand up for regular people.

Obama needs to make his decision soon, because the longer this question hangs fire the more annoyed the Democratic Party base becomes with the White House and the more the Treasury invites pressure from the bankers to give the job to anybody but Warren.

This is actually a story not just about Warren, but about three public officials. This is going to sound very down-in-the-weeds, but stay with me because here’s where the politics get really interesting. The other two are named Michael Barr and Richard Neiman.

Barr, the assistant treasury secretary for financial institutions, is said to be the Treasury’s preferred alternative to Warren. The banks are lobbying hard to get Barr the job.

In fact, Barr worked hard inside the administration to get a strong consumer protection agency, and he and Warren enjoy a good relationship. A University of Michigan Law Professor on leave to work at Treasury, Barr is friendly to some forms of regulation. However, on other key regulatory issues, such as too-big-to-fail, and a strong version of the Volcker rule separating commercial banking from financial gambling, Barr has been very much Geithner’s man.

During the final weeks of the legislative fight for financial reform, Barr infuriated progressives in Congress by pressing for weaker rather than stronger forms of regulation. But as someone with credibility on consumer protection and loyalty to Geithner, Barr is seen by the banking industry as the perfect anti-Warren.

There is a third person in this tale, Richard Neiman, who is up for another key regulatory job, the chief regulator of national banks. (That post is known, misleadingly, as the Controller of the Currency.) Neiman’s current day job is New York State Banking Superintendent, and he also serves with Warren as one of three Democrats on the Congressional Oversight Panel that Warren Chairs.

Throughout his career, Neiman has been known as a Wall Street Democrat. He spent ten years at Citigroup, and another twelve with the TD Waterhouse group, another large bank holding company. As New York Banking Superintendent, Neiman was seen as so banker-friendly that Goldman Sachs opted to become a New York state-regulated bank under Neiman’s supervision.

On the Congressional Oversight Panel, Neiman has often sided with Republicans and bankers against the Panel’s two progressive Democrats, Warren and Damon Silvers of the AFL-CIO. He frequently issued separate statements taking issue with the Democratic majority, and even wrote a dissenting report co-authored with Republican panel member John Sununu.

If President Obama names Barr to head the new consumer agency and Neiman to regulate national banks, it will be a signal that Wall Street is still in the saddle, an affront to Warren, as well as a huge missed opportunity.

However, there is an elegant trifecta solution. Give Barr the more technical job of regulating national banks — he is well qualified and a lot less beholden to Wall Street than Neiman. And then make Warren the head of the new consumer bureau… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Huffington Post>

Kuttner’s points are all spot on, but he did not cover one key area. When Congress passed TARP at the end of America’s worst eight years, the bill called for using the $700 billion to purchase toxic assets to take the off the banks books.  But Paulsen, head of Treasury under Bush, ignored Congress and invested the money in the TBTF banksters instead.  Instead of lending it out, they made profits on the market, but what happened to all those toxic assets?  They are still on the banks books, still toxic, and festering.  Geithner has  plan to keep the TBTF banks solvent, and keep his fat-cat bankster buddies employed and able to bathe in bonus cash.  The way banks can keep up their cash-flow is to increase the interest and especially fee income from small business, but mostly from consumers.  Let me put that another way.  Geithner’s plan to save the banks is to help them rip-off you and me.  The only way that plan can succeed, with the CFPB officially tasked to prevent that very thing, is to make sure that the CFPB becomes one more case of appointing foxes to guard the henhouse.  If you haven’t signed that petition yet, please do.

There is one scenario in which I would support putting someone other than Warren at CFPB.  Fire Geithner and put Warren at Treasury.

Share