DOWNLOADS: 876

PLAYS: 382

Embed

James Dobson got together with his pals Chuck-the-felon Colson, lawyer Robert George and theology professor Timothy George to gnash over Judge Walker's ruling on Proposition 8.

When they were all done with their collective hand-wringing, they got down to the business of rallying the troops. Colson stepped up with the first round, claiming that this was really an opportunity because the Supreme Court will not defy the general will of the people.

COLSON: But let me say this. The gay rights movement has thus far avoided the federal courts and I think they've done so for a reason. And I think this could turn around and be a great opportunity for us because every one of the cases starting with Roe vs. Wade and the prayer in school decisions before that, there was a popular consensus behind the change that the Supreme Court made. This is the first one to come along since 1997 where there isn't a moral consensus in support of it. and...the Supreme Court has not ever handed down a decision which flew into the face and teeth of a strong moral consensus against it. They didn't do it in 1997 and this is where our opportunity comes from.

Having laid the ground work (and mangling all logical thought in the process), he then reveals the corner of a strategy:

I don't think if we build a real groundswell of opinion now over the next several months that the Supreme Court will rule in supporting what happened in California two days ago. I don't believe it. I believe that this is an opportunity we have to build a groundswell of support that will cause the Supreme Court not to legalize gay marriage.

As Right Wing Watch noted, it appears that the strategy is going to be to simply stomp their feet and say NO! We won't tolerate it.

They spent a great deal of time chewing on this, with Dobson weighing in with his deep, deep concerns that people won't rise up. But of course, they came up with a plan for that, based on their database of signators to the Manhattan Declaration -- a somewhat creepy document declaring support for the sanctity of life, marriage, and religious liberty.

Robert George weighs in on the strategy thus:

Chuck Colson's right! It might very well depend on whether we make clear to the justices that the redefinition of marriage, uh, the destruction of the historic understanding of marriage as the union of one man and woman simply will not be accepted by us, we the people, as legitimate.

Did you hear THAT, people? It simply. will. not. be. accepted. by us. The people.

Yeah, right.

Now the interesting thing here is that in the days when Loving vs. Virginia was moving through the courts, more people viewed interracial marriage as an abomination than the number who view gay marriage in that light.

Via The Moderate Voice:

The take away message is clear: in 1968 Gallup found that 73% “disapproved” of interracial marriage with 20% “approving.” By contrast 30% say they support gay marriage and 28% civil unions.

And yet, the court ruled very clearly against popular opinion, because the issues at stake here are not moral issues. They are constitutional issues that hit right at the heart of the core principles of our country. We did not fight a bloody Civil War to come out on the other side of it agreeing to discriminate against another group in our society and more fundamentally, strip away their basic rights.

There are some actual thinking Christians in this country who view the crusade against gays and gay marriage as more of an abomination than anything we could dream up. Those pastors and thinkers have chosen NOT to sign the Manhattan Declaration. But never fear, this little cabal has already got a way to get them fired up too.

GEORGE: Christians have to recognize that the logic of Judge Walker's opinion not only undermines the institution of marriage but it also jeopardizes our religious liberty. Under the logic of the Walker opinion in this case, the fact that someone holds a view not he basis of his religious faith essentially disqualifies that view as a basis for public policy. So your vote as an American is in part shaped by your faith, perhaps your faith in the equality of all human beings and civil rights and so forth, under Judge Walker's reasoning, that vote is illegitimate and policy put into place as a result of that vote can be invalidated.

Oh noes! Your vote doesn't count! Quick, call out the teabag police, we can't have THAT.

Toward the end, there was one truth spoken by Timothy George:

This ruling gets to the heart of who we are as human beings. What kind of lives we want to have, what kind of society we want to have.

That's right, it does. It forces each and every one of us to ask ourselves whether we're comfortable with the idea of enjoying our rights to choose whom we wish to marry and building a life with them while not only excluding an entire class of citizens, but actually stripping them of their rights.

So the strategy goes this way: Stoke up a lot of fear about lost liberties in an effort to strip liberties away from others in our country. Allrighty then. Sounds like injustice to me, not justice, and certainly not "liberty for all."

Iran starts feeling heat

• Whoa, whoa... I'm starting to get a funny feeling in my pants... I haven't felt this way since 2003... what could it be? Oh God! OOOOHHH GOD, YES!!! WE MIGHT HAVE ANOTHER WAR!!!! YESYESYES!!!! OOOOOOOHHHHH GOD!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!

  *pant, pant*

  So, Iran, was that as good for you as it was for me?

DOWNLOADS: (2652)

PLAYS: (6351)

Embed

(h/t Heather)

This clip of Anthony Weiner going ballistic on the House floor is one for the ages -- it should be watched again and again and again, and not only because he was angry and frustrated, but because he spoke a truth that all of us expect from our representatives. It's really quite simple: "If you believe that it's right, you vote yes. You don't hide behind procedure and give cover to your pals."

It's really that simple, but here's the backstory. The House has been trying to re-open the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund through 2031 for 9/11 responders whose health has been affected.

When it became apparent that the Republicans were going to attach "poison pill" amendments to the bill that had nothing to do with 9/11 and everything to do with their political agenda, Democrats shut down the possibility of amending the bill by moving it to the suspension calendar, where a minimum 2/3rds vote is needed for it to pass.

Republicans applied the same old talking points, calling it a "massive new entitlement program". Actually, that's not quite right. They called it a "massive job-killing new entitlement program", because that's the Frank Luntz mantra of the week. (I was monitoring the Senate at the same time, and somehow the Small Business Jobs bill also became another "massive job-killing new entitlement program.") Of course, that's nonsense too, given that it had been structured to be paid for by closing a tax loophole for foreign corporations.

If you believe it's right, you vote yes.

Continue reading »

So I was watching a CNN panel today and the subject up for debate was something along the lines of, "Is Obama shedding constituents? Critics say he's abandoned Wall Street."

My first reaction was, "Wait, critics are saying this? Are you sure that wasn't what his allies said?" But no -- I actually had to listen to a debate over whether Obama was making a huge political mistake by "abandoning" his bestest pals in the world at the megabanks.* You know, the guys whose greed and irresponsibility caused the worst financial collapse since the Great Depression.

(*Obama hasn't actually "abandoned" the banks in the least, but that's a story for another post.)

And then I thought, "Why the hell are we the only culture in the whole goldurned world where it's seen as a political risk to abandon the people who are responsible for causing widespread economic hardship?" And all this got me thinking about the super-weird "We-Must-Be-Nice-to-Rich-People" doctrine that has run through our national discourse since the 1980s.

You see, there was a time when American politicians could say things such as "It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes" (Andrew Jackson) and "Too much cannot be said against the men of wealth who sacrifice everything to getting wealth" (Teddy Roosevelt) and "We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace — business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering... They are unanimous in their hate for me — and I welcome their hatred" (FDR) and no one thought anything of it. Indeed, as Simon Johnson and James Kwak show in their excellent book 13 Bankers, hating on financial oligarchs is as American as hating on soccer, dating all the way back to Thomas Jefferson.

But starting in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan began popularizing Randroid mythology about how rich people were necessarily our betters because they were the only ones capable of "creating wealth" in the economy.

(For some reason, Big Ron forgot to mention they were also capable of creating multi-trillion-dollar housing bubbles, overpriced Pets.com stock certificates and made-to-fail synthetic interest rate swaps that bankrupt entire counties.)

And ever since then, every Democratic president and politician has had to reassure members of our elite media that he's just as capable of kissing rich-guy keisters as the Republicans. If you want a prime example of this dynamic at work, check out this Washington Post piece (via Harper's) that places giant red warning lights over Paul Krugman's views but that quotes some sleazeball Wall Streeter as though he were a perfectly objective analyst. First, his take on Krugman:

When you read Krugman on economics, you need to read him through a filter. He believes that the $787 billion government stimulus approved last year was not enough to really kick-start the economy and that much more is needed. You can correctly read many of his columns -- including this one -- as arguments for more taxpayer-funded stimulus. So just know that.

And now, the equity strategist:

I started with Peter Boockvar, equity strategist at Miller Tabak.

My e-mail was short: "Double-dip or slowdown?"

His response was equally abrupt: "Depends on who wins Nov. elections and what taxes get hiked in 2011."

The tax cuts enacted by President George W. Bush expire at the end of this year. President Obama has proposed extending those cuts -- except for families that make more than $250,000 a year. If Republicans win Congress in November, it's a good bet that the wealthiest Americans will keep their tax cuts. If the Democrats hold the Hill, it's unlikely.

"Our fragile economy CANNOT handle any tax hikes whatsoever, particularly on capital and the income of those who invest, save and spend the most," Boockvar wrote, meaning those American families that make more than $250,000 a year. The all-caps are his, but the feeling is shared by many.

Now, I'm of the general mindset that it's daft to raise taxes or cut spending in the middle of a severe economic downturn. But at the same time, note Boockvar's emphasis on whose taxes we should really be opposed to raising: "Those who invest, save and spend the most." In other words, people like Peter Boockvar.

I personally find it highly unlikely that if Mr. Boockvar's taxes were to rise back to the level of the 1990s that he'd suddenly lose all will to work and would instead spend his remaining days sipping Purple Drank outside his local 7-11. People like this are generally addicted to making money and they'd sell penny stocks and junk bonds to special needs children if they thought they could get away with it. What Mr. Boockvar would have written if he were being honest was, "I've already put off buying cocaine and pricey call girls enough during this recession and I CANNOT handle any tax hikes whatsoever."

And that's where we are. Despite the fact that our banking oligarchs destroyed the entire financial system and were only saved from homelessness by the United States government, they still must be treated as "special" people who are "the only ones" capable of creating new jobs for the lesser people. It'd be nice if this particularly insidious piece of mythology were to be sent to the ashcan of history, but methinks it's going to take some time...

The Wrigley Field protest of the Diamondbacks was very cool on such short notice and now it's expanding.

There's a new Facebook page called Baseball Fans of Florida and they are asking for you to sign a petition to move the Cubs' spring-training facilities out of Arizona and over to Florida.

We are petitioning for the Cubs to move Spring Training to Florida!

Illinois is NOT Arizona. Go Cubs GO!

My pals at ICIRR write:

Cubs fans want a winning team that shows its values and respects all fans. That's why ICIRR is partnering with Cubs fans across the country to have the Chicago Cubs move their spring training from Mesa, Arizona to Naples, Florida.

The Cubs have been considering moving Spring training, and evidence shows that Florida would be better for building a winning team. Now the Arizona legislature’s failure to provide funding to keep the Cubs, choosing instead to pass the most radical anti-immigrant law in the country, is the final proof that Florida is the better choice for our team.

More than half the players on the Cubs are foreign born, and Latinos are well represented on most teams. Like immigrants and people of color across the country, baseball players are outraged at how this law violates their rights and opens them up to harassment—with some threatening to boycott the All-Star game if it is held in Arizona.

Keep the pressure up.

(Follow me on Twitter@ JohnAmato

DOWNLOADS: (835)

PLAYS: (1894)

Embed

Beck sure seemed to throw a lot of his longtime pals and allies under his personal bus yesterday, while calling for his audience to eschew "violent behavior":

Beck: Get away from anybody who's calling for a revolution -- whether it's a Tea Party revolution, or a Communist revolution!

Hmmmm. Sounds like good advice, actually.

Especially considering just who we've been hearing talk about a new American "revolution". All of them, as it happens, are part of the same Tea Party crowd Beck seemingly just threw overboard. You know, the crowd he's been exhorting for the past year.

Folks like Sarah Palin:

Palin: And I am a big supporter of this movement, I believe in this movement. Got lots of friends and family in the Lower 48 who attend these events and across the country, just knowing that this is the movement, and America is ready for another revolution, and you are a part of this.

Or her wingnut-in-arms, Rep. Michele Bachmann:

At this point the American people - it's like Thomas Jefferson said, a revolution every now and then is a good thing. We are at the point, Sean, of revolution. And by that, what I mean, an orderly revolution -- where the people of this country wake up get up and make a decision that this is not going to happen on their watch. It won't be our children and grandchildren that are in debt. It is we who are in debt, we who will be bankrupting this country, inside of ten years, if we don't get a grip. And we can't let the Democrats achieve their ends any longer.

This one, by the way, received a warm on-air endorsement from Beck's Fox colleague, Sean Hannity:

Bachmann: Right now I'm a member of Congress. And I believe that my job here is to be a foreign correspondent, reporting from enemy lines. And people need to understand, this isn't a game. this isn't just a political talk show that's happening right now. This is our very freedom, and we have 230 years, a continuous link of freedom that every generation has ceded to the next generation. ...

Hannity: It's not -- you are not overstating this case, Congresswoman, and you don't need to apologize for it. And as a matter of fact, it's refreshing. And I can tell you, all around this country, on 535 of the best radio stations in this country, people are saying "Amen," "Hallelujah", "where have you been?"

And then there was the actor Bob Basso, who Beck hired to play "Thomas Paine" for one of Beck's pro-Tea Party rants. Beck hired Basso because he is fond of portraying Paine for his Birtherite rants and putting them up on YouTube, including this one -- a nativist, immigrant-bashing rant calling for a "Second American Revolution":

Basso: Join the grassroots movement of the Second American Revolution -- not of guns and violence, but of pressure, pressure, pressure. ...

Take back America now! Choose to be part of the Second American Revolution! Pressure, pressure, pressure! No presidential candidate, no political party can save you now. Only an aroused citizenry will turn this uncommon sense around. And he or she who does nothing now is helping them to destroy America!

We won't even mention the outfit that was an original sponsor of the "9-12 March on Washington" while calling for a "Second Civil War".

It's almost as if Beck is starting to turn on the very creature he created. It's all getting weirder by the day. But then, with Beck, that's pretty much what we've come to expect. "Erratic" doesn't begin to cover it.

DOWNLOADS: (678)

PLAYS: (2334)

Embed

John Brennan, who isn't beloved by the left has actually been speaking up for the administration quite forcefully against the Republican bedwetter attacks on the way Obama is handling our national security. For conservatives, that's a little too much for them to handle.

mcjoan writes about the always pathetic Kit Bond, who is now calling for Brennan to be fired because they aren't used to being called terrorist enablers.

Republicans are back to their usual election year trick of fear-mongering, attacking--of all people--John Brennan, the former Bush director of the National Counterterrorism Center and current counter-terror chief. Kit Bond has called for him to step down, primary because Brennan has been taken the lead in fighting against Republicans attempts to protray Obama as weak on national security. The White House is on the offense...read on

Chris Wallace then dutifully did his part as a GOP shill to help embrace conservative criticisms of the president by feigning outrage over what Brennan had to say to his pals yesterday on Fox's Happening Now with Jane Skinner:

Wallace: Well, I don’t know if there’s a precedent or not, but it really is more a matter of the kinds of things Brennan has said. He went on one of the Sunday talk shows – not Fox News Sunday – last week, and really went after the Republicans. And then he had an article in USA Today on Tuesday, in which – and I don’t have it in front of me – he basically said, and this is pretty close to a quote, that the politically motivated criticism of opponents served the purposes of Al Qaeda.

That gets awfully, ah – and the Republicans certainly were offended, and I think there’s a question as to whether or not that really crosses a line, the idea – I mean, you can agree or disagree on the way that Abdulmutallab was handled, or the decision to try the co-conspirators, the alleged co-conspirators in 9/11 in downtown New York, but for the top counterterrorism advisor for the president in the White House to be saying that criticism of those policies serves the purposes of Al Qaeda, ah, it kind of crosses a line.

And you know, we’ve seen this crossed before. We saw the Bush administration do it after 9/11. But to somehow equate political criticism, or policy criticism, with lack of patriotism really doesn’t do much to help the debate.

Wallace does admit that Republicans used this tactic immediately after 9/11, but now that the shoe is on the other foot, it's totally unacceptable for him.

George Bush and Darth Cheney attacked our patriotism because they wanted to invade a country that didn't attack us and lied in the process of selling the Iraq war to the American people. Then they made sure that anyone who disagreed with them was labeled either a traitor, anti-American or simply soft on terrorism.

It's kind of funny watching their heads spin in shock like Linda Blair after being played by Brennan, who played by their own rules to do so.

And as usual, Fox News gets involved in an all-out smear campaign against Brennan.

It sounds like a really good idea. But really, this is bribery. And it wouldn't have been necessary to give them everything they want if Geithner and pals put reasonable conditions on the bank bailout in the first place:

The Obama administration is developing a major initiative to tackle the economic and political problem of unemployment by getting federal bailout funds into the hands of small businesses.

The proposal involves spinning off a new entity from the Troubled Assets Relief Program that could give banks access to the government money without restrictions, such as limits on executive pay, as long as they use it to make loans to small businesses. But officials are not yet certain whether carving the program out of TARP would be the best way to lure banks to participate in small-business lending, said sources familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the plans were not final.

As an alternative, officials are prepared to ask Congress to modify TARP itself, easing the pay limits and other restrictions that would be imposed on small-business lenders taking the money, the sources said.

Since the summer, the administration has been facing an uncomfortable dynamic in the economy. The ranks of the jobless have been growing, while big financial firms that got taxpayer bailout money have been thriving. In response, officials have been trying to recast TARP as aid for Main Street rather than Wall Street.

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner told a congressional oversight panel Thursday that TARP would focus on aiding small-business lending, community banks and homeowners struggling to keep up with their mortgage payments, and he hinted at the new program.

Banks are "very reluctant to come and do business with the government and they're concerned that, if they come, they will be stigmatized and they will be subject to the risk of conditions in the future that might make it harder for them to run their businesses," Geithner told the TARP oversight panel. Solving that problem, he added, is "going to be something we cannot do on our own. It's going to require some help from Congress to help deal with those basic concerns."

Elizabeth Warren, who heads the oversight panel, chided Geithner for taking so long in setting up several other small-business lending initiatives, two of which were announced last spring.

"It's not news to anyone that small-business lending is important," she said. "Small businesses are closing every day. But Treasury has now announced three plans and clearly has not gotten the job done."

DOWNLOADS: (1639)

PLAYS: (9456)

Embed

And the dumb keeps coming. CNBC's Maria, I just met a girl named Maria Bartiromo is so intent on sticking up for her Wall Street fat cat pals that she makes an idiot out of herself when she asks Rep. Weiner how come he doesn't use Medicare if it's all that!

Well, Weiner is half way to fifty so he's not eligible, but as we know facts are useless things when conservatives want to destroy something. Actually I wonder of she got confused with the other conservative talking point that says if the public option is so great, why doesn't the Democratic Congress sign up for it. Can you tell? I know it's hard to pin down the crazy.

Nico Pitney:

Earlier today, MSNBC's Carlos Watson hosted Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and CNBC anchor Maria Bartiromo for a discussion on health care.

At one point, Bartiromo was critical of the government-managed health care system in the United Kingdom. "How do I know the quality [of health care in the United States] is not going to suffer" with a public option? she asked.

Rep. Weiner reminded her that there already is government-managed health care in the United States -- namely, Medicare, the system created for Americans 65 years and older -- and that patients with Medicare report very high satisfaction rates.

Bartiromo's response to this argument was a true head-scratcher. In a mocking tone, she pressed the congressman: "How come you don't use it [Medicare]? You don't have it. How come you don't have it?"

Rep. Weiner, who turns 45 this week, tried to walk Bartiromo through it. "Because I'm not 65." But she was insistent. "Yeah... c'mon!" she exclaimed, laughing incredulously.

DOWNLOADS: (1433)

PLAYS: (8355)

Embed

Talk about ego and image control. Because of King James and the actions NIKE took, they've created a LeBron-Gate. It's so ridiculous.

The first mistake Nike made in the viral video mess that is LeBron-gate was trying to hide something from Gary Parrish. If you dropped Parrish in the middle of Afghanistan he'd emerge with Osama bin Laden's carcass in one hand, the details of John Calipari's new contract in the other, and a cell phone secured between his teeth. Nice work, Nike. Who did you think you were trying to fool, anyway? ESPN? The second mistake Nike made in LeBron-gate?

It underestimated the angry mood of the country toward arrogant mega-corporations who think they can do what they want, when they want. Nike believes that because it runs cute commercials and pals around with handsome athletes, it's no different from a sniveling credit card company or predatory bank.

To many people, Nike is the sports equivalent of those entities. By confiscating video of LeBron James getting his muscled-up head dunked on and subsequently acting like the release of the video is a threat to national security, the company confirmed what many have long believed: Nike is a ruthless corporation no different from other cutthroat companies.

Nike has, after all, been repeatedly accused of running sweatshops. More on that in a moment.

I mean, I'd like LeBron to sign on with the Knicks because they've stunk for so long, but this is Cheneyesque behavior.

There's something about James and Nike that makes this story more stringent than it ordinarily would be. There wouldn't be as much outrage if there were video of Dwyane Wade or Kobe Bryant getting dunked on. There'd be interest, of course, but James is the most arrogant and guarded superstar in the NBA and Nike is the most arrogant and guarded company in sports. That combination has turned this story from pedestrian to interesting and, until Nike releases the video, it'll stay that way.

It's Nike's corporate-ness which is at the center of this entire fiasco. It's not just the public enjoying watching a giant company feel the pain of stepping on the wrong end of a rake. No rational human being would ever be this angry over a simple dunk video. This isn't about the dunk. This is about rage over the actions of the wealthy and powerful.

What harm would it have done to King James' image? Nothing. Who cares if he got dunked on? John Starks had an incredible dunk on Michael Jordan. Who remembers that now?

Did that dunk hurt his marketing image? Of course not. People should not buy their products until they release the footage so they never do this again. It wasn't a crime scene. The way they handled this situation is Gestapo-like. Only NBA fans would watch it and nobody would care at all. It was just fine for James to have 60 Minutes film him doing amazing things and making him out to be, well, a King, but this is somehow unacceptable to him.