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...

I admit that I was never a really devoted Catholic during the time that I identified myself as a Catholic. But I did learn the tenets of the faith and found a place in my heart for Jesus's teachings, which were about love and acceptance and taking care of one another (I had a seriously hippy priest, can you tell?). Maybe because my mind tends not to go into the gutter when contemplating the sacrifice of Jesus's crucifixion--and the symbolic weighty acceptance of the blame for all our sins--I just saw this as "mighty Jesus with six pack abs" rather than "Jesus with an enormous and exposed member". I, apparently, am in the minority:

Churchgoers are outraged over a crucifix in a Catholic church they say shows Jesus with exposed genitalia.

Janet Jaime is the artist who designed the crucifix hanging in St. Charles Borromeo Catholic Church. She was unavailable for comment, but her husband said critics are misinterpreting a common religious icon.

"This isn't just a subjective drawing. This is a historical icon of the church,” said Reggie Jaime, husband of Janet Jaime, an Oklahoma City iconographer commissioned by the church to design the crucifix. “I can't help what you see in things, or she sees in things, or anyone.”

The church's pastor, Father Phillip Seeton, referred questions Wednesday to the Oklahoma City Archdiocese.

Monsignor Edward Weisenburger said he has no problems with the crucifix and referred specific questions back to Seeton.

Critics of the crucifix take issue with what appears to be a large penis covering the abdominal area.

The crucifix is about 10 feet tall and hangs above the church's altar. It is unclear how long it has been there.

Molly Jenkins said she attended a funeral at the church recently and immediately noticed the crucifix.

“I was appalled at the sexualization of Christ,” said Jenkins, who is not Catholic.

Actually, I find it more than a little appalling that in an age where the church points fingers at everyone other than themselves over inappropriate sexual behavior towards children, adults are working themselves into a tizzy over a work of art that reflects where their brains are more than the work itself.

The sickness known as "teabaggers" are preparing another shameful display of their utter contempt for the American people.

Via Digby:

This is lovely:

So here’s the plan. On Tuesday, December 15 at 8:45 AM thousands of us will meet in Washington, DC at the fountain in Upper Senate Park. From there we will march to the Senate offices, go inside, and demonstrate our opposition to the government takeover of health care. We call this plan “Government Waiting Rooms”. The intention is to go inside the Senate offices and hallways, and play out the role of patients waiting for treatment in government controlled medical facilities. As the day goes on some of us will pretend to die from our untreated illnesses and collapse on the floor. Many of us plan to stay there until they force us to leave. A backup location for this demonstration will be announced if they block us from entering the offices.

We need as many of you as possible to be there to make our point loudly and clearly. Please make plans to attend. We know it’s a sacrifice to do this right before Christmas. But throughout history American Patriots have made far greater sacrifices than this to protect our liberty. Now the burden (and the honor) falls on us.

Of course, they don't actually have to stage some demonstration of the horrors of health care rationing. We have examples of exactly that happening in real life right this minute. Here's one in Kansas City

--

Maybe these teabaggers think that those people don't count and that somehow they'll personally all be spared from these circumstances if they lose their jobs or get sick. I hope for their sake it's true. But the truth is that among those who are staging this little stunt, it's extremely likely that a percentage of them are going to be participating in this rationing in real life at some point. And there is no way of predicting which ones it will happen to. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face...

When karma hits, these psychos will surely face the same fate as all those Americans who went to the Kansas City Free Clinic. Someday they will witness the health of people they care about collapse, and without decent insurance, and they won't be laughing about it. But they are so hypnotized by the wingnut propaganda that when their own loved ones face the same fate at a later date, they then will blame the federal government for doing nothing. These are dangerous idiots.

Julia Mathes, the widow of Army Specialist Marcus Mathes, drapes herself over his casket at Zephyrhills Municipal Airport. His body was flown in for his funeral and burial. (Photo - Christine Delessio)

This is something I wrote for Memorial Day 2005 and I run it every year:

Soldiers are not chunks of identical clay; each of them has a story, their own reasons for being caught in a war.

Brave? Maybe - sometimes, under some conditions. Scared, mostly. The younger they are, the more likely their presence had to do with restlessness, cockiness. The need to be part of a winning team, the desire to even a score. Kick ass, take names. Kill them all, let God sort them out.

The older they are, the more realistic they are. This was a steady paycheck, or a way to supplement the one they already had. When they join, it's with their eyes on the future benefit. When they're in the middle of a war, they think only of surviving the next five minutes. Please, God, please. Let me see my family again.

And when they die in the war, each death leaves a hole in the world. It's important to remember that, to not see them as a monolithic casualty list or as an acceptable loss.

No loss is acceptable. Ask the parents, the spouses, the children. They try. They tell themselves stories of nobility, sacrifice, a greater cause. They cover it up with the ritual rhetoric. But deep down, they must wonder.

Here is how to count the cost: In high school graduation pictures that will never be replaced with wedding pictures. In wedding rings that will never be worn smooth by years. By the daughters who will walk down the aisle with an uncle or brother instead of Dad. By the sons who will find themselves angry and lost, not understanding why. The children who will hear about their mother's eyes, their father's chin but won't ever see themselves reflected in that face.

By the parents who now understand the quiet obscenity of outliving their own children.

Each and every one of these deaths left a hole in the world. That is why we count them.

They mattered.

DOWNLOADS: (2555)

PLAYS: (10433)

Rachel Maddow last night pondered the deep wisdom of Rush Limbaugh as the Ruling Demigod of the GOP -- particularly his latest ugly meme:

The objective is unemployment. The objective is more food stamp benefits. The objective is more unemployment benefits. The objective is an expanding welfare state. And the objective is to take the nation's wealth and return it to the nation's 'rightful owners.' Think reparation. Think forced reparations here if you want to understand what is actually going on.

Limbaugh has in fact pitched this line frequently already, minus the "reparations" line:

So I think we've got a guy -- I think the best way to understand Obama -- and I can't say this enough -- he really believes it his job to return the nation's wealth to its rightful -- quote unquote, rightful owners. And that means he believes the people who have wealth have stolen it, from those who have no wealth. It's been unfair achieved and accrued. And it's his job to take it and redistribute it. And that's what he means by sacrifice. When he talks about sacrifice, he's talking about raising your taxes, taking your assets, and giving them to other people who he thinks you stole them from, who are thus more deserving.

Maddow quotes the response from Melissa Harris-Lacewell, a poli-sci professor from Princeton:

The terms "welfare," "food stamps," and "reparations" are all code words for "undeserving black people." ... Limbaugh is attempting to use the politics of racial fear to appeal to the lowest common denominator of racial anxiety in this country. ... Clearly, Rush is not saying anything that even vaguely, substantively true. He is simply screaming, "There is a black man in the White House! Be very afraid!"

That sums up so many Limbaugh rants that we ought to just encase it in amber and trot it out every time the man speaks.

I'm torn, I really am. What Bybee did was amoral and despicable, and he deserves to be impeached. But it's not too difficult to figure out that Bybee is being made a sacrifice of sorts. The Villagers are hoping if they throw him under the bus, it will appease the angry mobs. The other thing is, he's much easier to hold culpable and punish than the rest of them. (He's Lynndie England.)

Of course Bybee should suffer consequences - no argument here. But don't forget, the people at the top made the policy decisions. Don't be distracted by someone who is essentially low-hanging fruit, even if the Post is trying to protect him with this story (composed mostly of anonymous sources):

Five years along in his new life as a federal judge, Bybee gathered the lawyers and their dates for a reunion, telling them he was proud of the legal work they had together produced.

And then, according to two of his guests, Bybee added that he wished he could say the same about his previous position.

It was, in the private room of a public restaurant, the kind of joyless judgment that some friends and associates say the jurist arrived at well before the public release of four additional memos last week and the resulting uproar that has engulfed Washington. One of the documents, dated Aug. 1, 2002, offered a helpfully narrow definition of torture to the CIA and soon became known as the "Bybee memo," because it bore his signature.

"I've heard him express regret at the contents of the memo," said a fellow legal scholar and longtime friend, who spoke on the condition of anonymity while offering remarks that might appear as "piling on." "I've heard him express regret that the memo was misused. I've heard him express regret at the lack of context -- of the enormous pressure and the enormous time pressure that he was under. And anyone would have regrets simply because of the notoriety."

That notoriety worsened this week as the documents -- detailing the acceptable application of waterboarding, "walling," sleep deprivation and other procedures the Bush administration called "enhanced interrogation methods" -- prompted calls from human rights advocates and other critics for criminal investigations of the government lawyers who generated them.

[...] Still, in the years since the original Bybee memo was made public, his misgivings appeared evident to some in his immediate circle.

"On the primary memo, that legitimated and defined torture, he just felt it got away from him," said the fellow scholar. "What I understand that to mean is, any lawyer, when he or she is writing about something very complicated, very layered, sometimes you can get it all out there and if you're not careful, you end up in a place you never intended to go. I think for someone like Jay, who's a formalist and a textualist, that's a particular danger."

Tuan Samahon, a former clerk who recalled Bybee's remarks at the reunion dinner, said in an e-mail that the judge defended the legal reasoning behind the memos but not the policy decision. Bybee was disappointed by what was done to prisoners, saying that "the spirit of liberty has left the republic," Samahon said.

Our buddy, Cenk Ugyur of The Young Turks appeared on CNN's Headline News yesterday to defend Wes Clark's statement about John McCain's experience with the brave Ben Ferguson, who never saw a conflict he was afraid to send other people's sons to. The purposeful and obtuse willingness on the part of CNN/HLN's Mike Galanos to further the narrative started by his colleague Rick Sanchez that Clark was "swiftboating" McCain by questioning his experience, his patriotism and his sacrifice as a veteran and POW is stunning. There's not even an attempt to see it from the other side. Note even the chyron headline is that Clark is questioning McCain's "service," a shorthand that spins it in a far more malevolent way.

Cenk does what I think all of us have to do when confronted with this kind of illogical and intractable meme, especially when you're outmanned by both the pearl-clutching media host and the indignant conservative "balance": he laughs at it.

FERGUSON: You have a man that was shot down, stayed in captivity as a POW for five years and your guy-if you want to talk about experience-had 147 days in the Senate before he decided he wanted to be President of the United States of America. So it's pretty dumb for Wesley Clark to go out there and yes, it ticked off everyone in the military because this man-I mean, I'm sorry, being shot down, to say that doesn't qualify you to be President-this man has been around war, been in actual war zones while Wesley Clark was sitting in an air-conditioned room, telling people what to do with NATO, so I don't know if he's exactly the right guy to go out there.

It ticked off everyone in the military? Really? Care to back that up, big man? And what's with the disrespect of Clark's service? A retired general who spent his career in command doesn't merit the respect you demand for a pilot? Was he in an air-conditioned room during Vietnam? Bosnia? Not so much. Maybe little radio talk show hosts sitting in the comfort of their air-conditioned studios might want to think twice before castigating any military man for his service.

UPDATE: Cenk reminds me that there was a second part to the segment after the commercial break and you can see both parts here. Cenk got in some good digs too.

(the first part is her swearing in...her statement is at approx. 8:00 in)

In office two days and shows more spine than the rest of her Democratic colleagues.

SF Chronicle:

It didn't take long for Jackie Speier, the newest member of the U.S. House of Representatives, to put her straight-ahead style on display. Just as quickly, some of her new Republican colleagues greeted her with a sample of Washington-style partisanship.

Speier, who won Tuesday's special election to complete the term of the late Rep. Tom Lantos, went right to work with a speech calling for action on a process to bring the troops home from Iraq. She mentioned Sen. John McCain's observation that the United States could be in Iraq for 100 years. "History will not judge us kindly if we sacrifice four generations of Americans because of the folly of one," she said.

Some Republicans booed. Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Vista, walked out of the chamber. Speier, an 18-year state legislator known for taking on tough issues and interests, was nonplussed at the mini-controversy.

"The truth is, I think it was a minority of Republicans that were booing - and they represent a minority of Americans who still support the war," Speier said by phone Thursday.

Quick, can we figure out a way of cloning her?

Daily Kos:

When you go to Las Vegas, you have a lot of choices of where to stay and where to spend your money. You can go high-end, low-end and now, with Sheldon Adelson openly supporting 1,000 years of war in Iraq, you can also go neoconservative-nutjob end.

In 2007, Sheldon Adelson was one of the founders of Freedom's Watch; a right wing political attack machine that is intent on continuing the war in Iraq and with any luck, moving forward and starting another war in Iran.

Thanks to folks who have linked up some pretty amazing stories at Freedom's Watch NewsLadder, we have learned that the chicken hawks at Freedom's Watch have been focus-grouping war with Iran. [..]

Sheldon Adelson has perverted the service of our men and women in uniform and created a front group to promote war. It's run by people who never served, to take advantage of the sacrifice of those who have. His tens of millions of dollars spent will benefit the man who wants war, not just now, but forever, John McCain.

Maybe next time you go to Vegas, you'll consider staying somewhere else - our 150,000 men and women in uniform in Iraq, their families and their children will thank you for it.

GroupNewsBlog:

Writers met Saturday in New York City and Los Angeles to hear the proposal. The New York City membership (WGAE) generally was for lifting the strike. I don't have word yet on Los Angeles (WGAw.)

The Board can a) lift the strike on its own, b) schedule a 48 hour vote, or c) schedule a 10 day vote. I think option b, a 48 hour vote is most politically likely. That puts everyone back to work Wednesday, yet lets everyone be clear it is their choice to take this contract. Which in my view is as it should be, after this much sacrifice and work.

If the writers don't take the deal, most of it will be withdrawn. They will lose all their leverage -- the Academy Awards, Upfronts (selling the fall season), pilot season, hiring for the fall shows -- till June when SAG joins them on the picket lines. That's three more months of walking in circles for nothing, as there is no guarantee they'll get any better deal then.

The writers will take the deal (I say confidently.) Not perfect, but no negotiation is.

MissLaura at DailyKos has compiled some FAQs about the WGA deal. More available at United Hollywood.