Pages

Sunday, June 28, 2015

Changing With The Times, Donkey And Elephant

I get pretty sick of reading on right-wing websites that the Republicans are the party of Lincoln while the Democrats are the true racists -- the party of slavery, Southern rebellion, the Ku Klux Klan, Jim Crow, and all the rest of that unsavory baggage. It's true, of course -- but irrelevant. The racists simply switched sides in the 1960s, out of disgust with what they saw as the backstabbing actions of President Johnson, who passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and the Voting Rights Act in 1965. Nixon, counseled by Lee Atwater, welcomed the bigots to the GOP -- the Southern Strategy -- ushering in the last 50 years of Republican racism. (Shockingly, there are 300,000 registered members of the vile website Stormfront: Does anyone seriously believe that even one of those 300,000 votes Democrat today? I didn't think so.)

Anyway, things were different before the turbulent '60s. The platform of the Republican party under Eisenhower was pretty similar to that of today's Democrats; the most reactionary force in Congress was the Democratic senator from South Carolina, Strom Thurmond. Click here for the Wikipedia entry, "Civil Rights Act of 1957." Here are the opening paragraphs:
The Civil Rights Act of 1957, Pub.L. 85–315, 71 Stat. 634, enacted September 9, 1957, primarily a voting rights bill, was the first civil rights legislation passed by Congress in the United States since the 1866 and 1875 Acts.

The Civil Rights Act of 1957 was also Congress's show of support for the Supreme Court's Brown decisions.[1] The Brown v. Board of Education (1954), eventually led to the integration of public schools. Following the Supreme Court ruling, Southern whites in Virginia began a "Massive Resistance." Violence against blacks rose there and in other states, as in Little Rock, Arkansas, where that year President Dwight D. Eisenhower had ordered in federal troops to protect nine children integrating a public school, the first time the federal government had sent troops to the South since Reconstruction.[2] There had been continued physical assaults against suspected activists and bombings of schools and churches in the South. The administration of Eisenhower proposed legislation to protect the right to vote by African Americans.

Democratic Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, an ardent segregationist, sustained the longest one-person filibuster in history in an attempt to keep the bill from becoming law. His one-man filibuster lasted 24 hours and 18 minutes; he began with readings of every state's election laws in alphabetical order. Thurmond later read from the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and George Washington's Farewell Address. His speech set the record for a Senate filibuster.[3] The bill passed the House with a vote of 285 to 126 (Republicans 167–19 for, Democrats 118–107 for)[4] and the Senate 72 to 18 (Republicans 43–0 for, Democrats 29–18 for).[5] President Eisenhower signed it on September 9, 1957.

Friday, June 26, 2015

How Is Obama's Scorecard Looking?

Click here for an article by Dylan Matthews at Vox entitled "Barack Obama is officially one of the most consequential presidents in American history."

Hint: Obama's scorecard is looking pretty good.

A Republican Problem

Click here for an NYT article by Timothy Egan entitled "A Refuge for Racists." The first paragraph:
In one of the little acts of subversion that creeps into “The Simpsons” every now and then ["The Simpsons" is a Fox show], a helicopter from Fox News was shown in 2010 with a logo, “Not Racist, But #1 With Racists.”
Republicans jump up and down and scream that their party is not racist, and yet the GOP harbors white supremacists and Stormfront members (believe me, no one in those two groups votes Democratic). Egan points out that Dylann Roof was inspired by the Council of Conservative Citizens. Here are the first few lines of the CCC (like KKK; get it?) entry in Wikipedia:
The CofCC was founded in 1988 in Atlanta, Georgia, and then relocated to St. Louis, Missouri. The CofCC was formed by various Republicans, conservative Democrats, and some former members of the Citizens' Councils of America, sometimes called the White Citizens Council, a segregationist organization that was prominent in the 1960s and 1970s. Lester Maddox, former governor of Georgia, was a charter member.
Here's the first paragraph of the Wikipedia entry on the above-mentioned White Citizens Council:
The Citizens' Councils (also referred to as White Citizens' Councils) were an associated network of white supremacist organizations in the United States, concentrated in the South. The first was formed on July 11, 1954[1] After 1956, it was known as the Citizens' Councils of America. With about 60,000 members across the United States,[2] mostly in the South, the groups were founded primarily to oppose racial integration of schools, but they also supported segregation of public facilities during the 1950s and 1960s. Members used severe intimidation tactics including economic boycotts, firing people from jobs, propaganda, and occasionally violence against civil-rights activists.
The article goes on to say:
Unlike the Ku Klux Klan, which had revived for a time, the WCC met openly and was seen as "pursuing the agenda of the Klan with the demeanor of the Rotary Club."
At a large Council meeting in Montgomery, Alabama, during the civil rights crisis of the 1960s, this mimeographed flyer was distributed:
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary to abolish the Negro race, proper methods should be used. Among these are guns, bows and arrows, sling shots and knives. We hold these truths to be self-evident that all whites are created equal with certain rights; among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of dead niggers.
Back to the Council of Conservative Citizens: Egan points out that its leader, Earl Holt III, has donated over 60,000 to at least (I think) 34 Republican politicians, including 2016 presidential hopefuls Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum and Rand Paul. Republican politicians were not ignorant of the open racism of the CCC when they accepted those donations; Holt's donations on behalf of the Council put him in the top 1% of Republican donors.

After Dylann Roof's slaughter of nine African-Americans in Charleston, South Carolina, Hillary Clinton gave a powerful speech excoriating the extreme racist element; you won't catch any of the Republican wannabes giving such a speech, because the hardcore Southern racists are a key part of their base.

Krugman: Hooray For Obamacare

Click here for the latest article by NYT columnist and Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman. Here are some of the highlights (and these are snippets -- click on the link for more:
The Affordable Care Act is now in its second year of full operation; how’s it doing?

The answer is, better than even many supporters realize.

Start with the act’s most basic purpose, to cover the previously uninsured. Opponents of the law insisted that it would actually reduce coverage; in reality, around 15 million Americans have gained insurance.
But how good is that coverage? Cheaper plans under the law do have relatively large deductibles and impose significant out-of-pocket costs. Still, the plans are vastly better than no coverage at all, or the bare-bones plans that the act made illegal. The newly insured have seen a sharp drop in health-related financial distress, and report a high degree of satisfaction with their coverage.
What about costs? In 2013 there were dire warnings about a looming “rate shock”; instead, premiums came in well below expectations.
What about economic side effects? One of the many, many Republican votes against Obamacare involved passing something called the Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act, and opponents have consistently warned that helping Americans afford health care would lead to economic doom. But there’s no job-killing in the data: The U.S. economy has added more than 240,000 jobs a month on average since Obamacare went into effect, its biggest gains since the 1990s.
Finally, what about claims that health reform would cause the budget deficit to explode? In reality, the deficit has continued to decline, and the Congressional Budget Office recently reaffirmed its conclusion that repealing Obamacare would increase, not reduce, the deficit.
And he finishes with these two paragraphs:
Now, you might wonder why a law that works so well and does so much good is the object of so much political venom — venom that is, by the way, on full display in Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissenting opinion, with its rants against “interpretive jiggery-pokery.” But what conservatives have always feared about health reform is the possibility that it might succeed, and in so doing remind voters that sometimes government action can improve ordinary Americans’ lives.

That’s why the right went all out to destroy the Clinton health plan in 1993, and tried to do the same to the Affordable Care Act. But Obamacare has survived, it’s here, and it’s working. The great conservative nightmare has come true. And it’s a beautiful thing.

SCOTUS Rules Same-Sex Marriage Is A Right

And the wingnuts' heads explode. Here's the entirety of a front-page Red State article by streiff:
Civilization was nice. It had a nice 5-6000 year run. Kind of neat to be alive to see it end.

Thursday, June 25, 2015

Interesting Fact

In a recent analysis, Vocativ, an investigative and deep web news outlet, found that fatal police shootings in the United States outnumber all criminal gun homicides in 30 other developed nations.
Click here for an article by By Bryan Schatz at Mother Jones entitled "There’s an International Standard for Cops and Deadly Force. Guess How Your State Ranks."
As the Guardian recently reported, police in the United States kill more people in days than other countries do in years.

Robert E. Lee, Southern Hero?

Click here for an article dated April 14, 1866, in the National Anti-Slavery Standard by Wesley Norris:
My name is Wesley Norris; I was born a slave on the plantation of George Parke Custis; after the death of Mr. Custis, Gen. Lee, who had been made executor of the estate, assumed control of the slaves, in number about seventy.
Warning: It's not pretty.

SCOTUS's ACA Decision - Video

Must watch!

Which Party Wants To ... ?

Which party wants to block legislation regulating predatory for-profit colleges?

Click here for an editorial in The New York Times entitled "Predatory Colleges Find Friends in Congress."

The rules were inspired by data showing that students in for-profit schools account for only about 12 percent of college enrollment, but nearly half of student loan defaults. Other data has shown that graduates of for-profit institutions are more likely than graduates of other institutions to carry debt of more than $40,000 when they leave school. Predatory schools are all the more problematic because they target veterans, minorities and the poor.

The rules cover about 5,500 career training programs, some of which award college degrees but most of which award certificates. To comply, a training program would have to show that, on average, the annual loan payments of its graduates amount to less than 8 percent of their total income, or less than 20 percent of their discretionary income, after the cost of basic necessities like food and housing.

A program that failed to satisfy these criteria for four straight years would lose federal funding. Funding would also be denied if, over two years of a three-year period, the average loan payments exceeded 12 percent of total earnings and more than 30 percent of discretionary earnings. Programs nearing these thresholds would have the further obligation of giving students and prospective students advance warning that they are at risk of losing their federal grants and loans — and might need to find some other way to pay for college.

The rules cover both for-profit and nonprofit programs. But the Department of Education estimates that 99 percent of the 1,400 programs that would probably fail under the new standard are run by for-profit schools.
Which party wants to ... ? Surprise, surprise: It's the Republicans.

SCOTUS Upholds Obamacare - Republican Reaction

So government subsidies will enable poor people to have health insurance? The horror, the horror ... It's the end of freedom in America, and a Republican president must be elected to correct this terrible injustice -- at least, according to these guys: Click here for an article in The New York Times by Alan Rappaport entitled "Republicans Cite Health Care Ruling in Pushing Candidacies."

Obvious anagram (h/t Charlie Pierce) Reince Preibus, chairman of the Republican national Committee:
“Today’s ruling makes it clear that if we want to fix our broken health care system, then we will need to elect a Republican president with proven ideas and real solutions that will help American families,” said Chairman Reince Priebus. “Hillary Clinton supports big government mandates and expanding the government’s reach into our health care system, maneuvers that have made our health care system worse off.”
Krugman's reaction: "Just to put this out there, and let my 60s roots show: Hey, hey, ACA, how many lives did you save today?"

UPDATE - Response by Mississippi governor Phil Bryant:
Today's decision does not change the fact that Obamacare is a socialist takeover of health care forced down the throats of the American people without proper review, and it does not slow the massive and unprecedented transfer of wealth that is at the heart of the subsidy system. Make no mistake—Obamacare is not about helping those in need or improving health care delivery. It is about destabilizing our health care system, ceding more control to centralized government and replacing individual liberty with government dependence. It is incredibly troubling to me that a majority of United States Supreme Court justices—including, again, the Chief Justice—have found yet another way to uphold a portion of this disastrous law. Those who voted in the majority have set a dangerous precedent of blatantly disregarding the plain language of a bill as enacted by Congress. Mississippi was right, as were numerous other states, not to willingly entrench Obamacare by establishing a state-based exchange, and I will continue to resist any efforts that attempt to shove Obamacare deeper into this state. Republicans know there is a better way, and I call on Mississippi's congressional delegation to immediately renew its efforts to repeal and replace this train wreck of a law."
UPDATE 2 - From Barbara Morrill at Daily Kos, a collection of comments by the Republican presidential hopefuls on the SCOTUS decision:
Jeb! Bush: "This decision is not the end of the fight against Obamacare."

Ted Cruz: "You the teenage immigrant washing dishes are paying illegal taxes right now today because of President Obama's deception, because of the IRS's lawlessness and because of the Supreme Court's judicial activism, violating their oaths of office ... I remain fully committed to repealing every single word of Obamacare."

Marco Rubio: "Despite the Court’s decision, ObamaCare is still a bad law that is having a negative impact on our country and on millions of Americans. I remain committed to repealing this bad law and replacing it ..."

Scott Walker: "Republicans must redouble their efforts to repeal and replace this destructive and costly law."

Rand Paul: "This decision turns both the rule of law and common sense on its head." Today's King v. Burwell decision, which protects and expands ObamaCare, is an out-of-control act of judicial tyranny ... repeal ObamaCare, and pass real reform ...

Rick Perry: "While I disagree with the ruling, it was never up to the Supreme Court to save us from Obamacare. […] It’s time we repealed Obamacare and replaced it ...

Chris Christie: "This decision turns common language on its head. Now leaders must turn our attention to making the case that ObamaCare must be replaced."

Bobby Jindal: "President Obama would like this to be the end of the debate on Obamacare, but it isn’t. […] Now that the Supreme Court has ruled, the debate will grow. Conservatives must be fearless in demanding that our leaders in Washington repeal and replace Obamacare with a plan that will lower health care costs and restore freedom."

Lindsey Graham: "Today’s decision only reinforces why we need a president who will bring about real reform that repeals Obamacare and replaces it with a plan that expands consumer choice, increases coverage, delivers better value for the dollar, and gives states more control, without stifling job creation.

Ben Carson: "Those of us who pledge to repeal #Obamacare must redouble our efforts and not waste time and energy mourning today's #SCOTUS ruling."

Mike Huckabee: "Today's King v. Burwell decision, which protects and expands ObamaCare, is an out-of-control act of judicial tyranny. […] As President, I will protect Medicare, repeal ObamaCare, and pass real reform that will actually lower costs, while focusing on cures and prevention rather than intervention."

Wednesday, June 24, 2015

Is The ACA (Obamacare) Working?

Click here for an article in The New York Times by my favorite columnist, Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman, entitled "Most of the Way With Obamacare." He examines how the ACA is doing, not in the states with Republican administrations struggling to overturn or frustrate the law, but in those which have implemented it as it was intended.
There are three issues that, I find, most reporting on the program’s progress tend to ignore. The first is that the ACA was never intended to cover everyone – undocumented immigrants aren’t eligible, yet account for several percent of the population. Second, because signup isn’t automatic, there will always be some leakage, some eligible people who fall through the cracks. Finally, of course, a large number of states are refusing to expand Medicaid and in general trying to obstruct the law.

So it seems to me that to evaluate the program we should (a) look at states that have implemented the law as it was intended to work and (b) compare with a realistic benchmark.
The results are pretty encouraging!

Free Speech: Stormfront?

Click here for an article at the "Hatewatch" blog of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Scary stuff:
Almost 100 people were murdered over the last five years by registered users of Stormfront, the largest racist Web forum in the world, according to a report released today by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The forum in effect acts to nurture budding killers and give them moral support, the report says.
And according to Jessie Daniels, a professor at the City University of New York, in an article at The New York Times, registered users of Stormfront have grown from 124,000 in 2008 to over 300,000 today. That's a lot of hate!

"Why Don't The Poor Rise Up?"

Click here for an article at The New York Times entitled "Why Don't The Poor Rise Up," by Thomas B. Edsall. The final paragraph:
The answer is that those bearing the most severe costs of inequality are irrelevant to the agenda-setters in both parties. They are political orphans in the new order. They may have a voice in urban politics, but on the national scene they no longer fit into the schema of the left or the right. They are pushed to the periphery except for a brief moment on Election Day when one party wants their votes counted, and the other doesn’t.
Hmm; "one party wants their votes counted, and the other doesn't"? Which would be Republican and which would be Democratic, do you suppose?

Monday, June 22, 2015

Was The Civil War About Slavery?

Note: This subject is fully and ably covered by Ta-Nehisi Coates at The Atlantic; click here for his article, "What This Cruel War Was Over." Over the years, various revisionists have argued that slavery was not the sole or even a major reason for the secession of the South -- economics, unfair restriction of trade, states' rights, and unfair taxation are reasons given. Those may indeed have been factors, but South Carolina, where the first shots of the war were fired at Fort Sumter, leaves no room for doubt in its "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union," published on December 24, 1860.

Click here to read that document. (The word "slavery" -- or "slave" or "slaves" or "slaveholding" -- occurs 16 times.)

Here's part of the declaration:
The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.
UPDATE: Here's an excerpt from a companion piece, "A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union":
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin…
Click here for a link to a document consisting of the declarations of Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia.

UPDATE: Here's another piece, from Louisiana's declaration:
As a separate republic, Louisiana remembers too well the whisperings of European diplomacy for the abolition of slavery in the times of an­nexation not to be apprehensive of bolder demonstrations from the same quarter and the North in this country. The people of the slave holding States are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery.
And another, from Alabama:
Upon the principles then announced by Mr. Lincoln and his leading friends, we are bound to expect his administration to be conducted. Hence it is, that in high places, among the Republi­can party, the election of Mr. Lincoln is hailed, not simply as it change of Administration, but as the inauguration of new princi­ples, and a new theory of Government, and even as the downfall of slavery. Therefore it is that the election of Mr. Lincoln cannot be regarded otherwise than a solemn declaration, on the part of a great majority of the Northern people, of hostility to the South, her property and her institutions—nothing less than an open declaration of war—for the triumph of this new theory of Government destroys the property of the South, lays waste her fields, and inaugurates all the horrors of a San Domingo servile insurrection, consigning her citizens to assassinations, and. her wives and daughters to pollution and violation, to gratify the lust of half-civilized Africans.
And here's Texas:
...in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states....
UPDATE, AUGUST 15, 2015: Colonel Ty Seidule, professor and Head of the Department of History at the United States Military Academy at West Point:
Was the American Civil War fought because of slavery? More than 150 years later this remains a controversial question.

Why? Because many people don't want to believe that the citizens of the southern states were willing to fight and die to preserve a morally repugnant institution. There has to be another reason, we are told. Well, there isn't.

The evidence is clear and overwhelming. Slavery was, by a wide margin, the single most important cause of the Civil War -- for both sides. Before the presidential election of 1860, a South Carolina newspaper warned that the issue before the country was, "the extinction of slavery," and called on all who were not prepared to, "surrender the institution," to act. Shortly after Abraham Lincoln's victory, they did.
Click here for the video.

"On Not Canonizing The Gipper"

Click here for Michael O'Donnell's excellent review of a book by H.W. Brands entitled "Reagan: The Life." The book glorifies Reagan; O'Donnell doesn't accept that approach. A quote:
And substantively, Reagan does not warrant mention in the same breath as Roosevelt. Not by miles. Domestically, Roosevelt saved the nation from an existential threat (the Great Depression), while Reagan merely steered it out of a funk (the 1970s). Roosevelt enacted structural reforms to protect the most vulnerable members of society, from the unemployed to the infirm to the elderly. Reagan systematically set about dismantling those reforms and deregulating the economy, leaving everyone to fend for themselves. Reagan also forged the unholy alliance between the Republican Party and the evangelical right: a marriage that continues to infect the United States with intolerance and anti-science thinking. The government-is-the-enemy mind-set that pervades the right today comes to us from Barry Goldwater via Ronald Reagan. As our roads, bridges, and schools fall apart around us, we have them to thank.

Krugman On Race In America

Click here for yet another excellent article, entitled "Slavery's Long Shadow," by NY Times columnist, Princeton professor and Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman.

Words Of Wisdom From Ben Carson (?!)

Click here for an op-ed in USA Today by Ben Carson, longshot Republican presidential candidate. I agree on almost nothing with Ben Carson, but I agree with him on this.

I didn't think any of the Republican candidates would risk alienating their racist right-wing fringe with such a statement; I was wrong. At least one did. Will there be others? No, there won't.

Oh, wait -- I should mention that Mitt Romney has at least gone as far as -- several days ago now -- saying that South Carolina should take down the Confederate battle flag from the state Capitol, a position he has consistently taken since at least 2007.

Extreme Wingsuit Compilation

Click here for a series of wingsuit jumps.

Sunday, June 21, 2015

Take Down The Flag In South Carolina?

Here's a post by Michael Hill at the League of the South website:
Everywhere leftists are calling for the removal of the Confederate battle flag, especially at the State House in Columbia, SC.

We in The League of the South agree that a flag should be taken down. Not the most recognizable historic flag of the South but the flag of our occupiers for the last 150 years. Yes, the one to the far right over there! That ugly gridiron now stands for multiculturalism, tolerance, and diversity–the left’s unholy trinity. It also stands for Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner, Rachel Dolezal, and every other fraud and pervert who is held up as an example of “courage” in 2015 America. It represents the homosexual agenda, open borders and Third World immigration, a culture that is an open sewer, perpetual war for perpetual profit, among many other enormities.

In sharp contrast, our beautiful battle flag stands for the heroic effort our people made 150 years ago to avoid the fate were are experiencing today. And, God willing, it will be the banner that flies over the fight that gains us our liberty in the 21st century!

Obama On The Charleston Shootings

The right claims Obama is dividing the country and fomenting race problems. Listen:

I’ve had to make statements like this too many times. Communities like this have had to endure tragedies like this too many times. We don’t have all the facts, but we do know that once again innocent people were killed because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hands on a gun. Now’s the time for mourning and for healing, but let’s be clear: At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence doesn’t happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency. And it is in our power to do something about it. I say that recognizing that the politics in this town foreclose a lot of those avenues right now. But it’d be wrong for me not to acknowledge it. And at some point, it’s going to be important for the American people to come to grips with it, and for us to be able to shift how we think about the issue of gun violence collectively.

In Your Heart, You Know He's Nuts

Barry Goldwater campaign commercial from 1964: "In your heart, you know he's right."

The Right Wing Replies To Hillary's Speech

This is a continuation of my last post, "Hillary Clinton's Bold Statement On Race." I said that I wanted to see the right-wing reaction to Hillary's speech at the U.S. Conference of Mayors. Click here for a Breitbart response by Katie McHugh, in an article entitled "Hillary Clinton Denounces White Privilege, Calls for Taking Guns From ‘Those Whose Hearts Are Filled With Hate.'" Here's her first sentence:
In an emotional speech that heaped scorn and blame on America for failing to pass gun control measures while it supposedly perpetuates racism, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton said white Americans need to “question our own assumptions and privilege."
McHugh heaps more scorn on Hillary and makes the usual right-wing point that the killer's motives were "unclear," and perhaps not race-based at all. Yeah, right.

Eric Owens, at the execrable Tucker Carlson's site, The Daily Caller, reacts to Hillary's speech with a post entitled "Hillary Clinton Chides America For Racism, Lives In Town With 1.9 Percent Black Population."

Is that the best you've got, Tucker? (I noticed, but didn't bother to read, an item where Carlson suggested on Fox News that as long as Obama supports gun control, his Secret Service contingent should go unarmed. Typical Tucker.)

Hillary Clinton's Bold Statement On Race

Click here for an article by Karoli at Crooks & Liars entitled "Hillary Clinton: America's Long Struggle With Race Is Far From Finished." It's about a speech Clinton gave to the U.S. Conference of Mayors soon after the murders of nine black people in a historic black church in Charleston, S.C. There are presently 16 Republican candidates for president: You won't hear a speech remotely like this from any of them. Follow the link to the article, or listen to the speech here:


I decided to check out the right-wing sites to see how they would spin Clinton's speech. First stop, Red State, a blog edited and run by prominent far-right commentator Erick Erickson. I was distracted by the first headline: "Hillary Clinton: Self-aggrandizing Grifter," by the appropriately named Red State front-page blogger, streiff. It was an attack on the Clinton Foundation, making the preposterous claim that 90% of the Foundation's money is spent "on things like salaries, travel, etc. rather than actually doing something useful."

This is a lie, but it has considerable traction with the far right. It is thoroughly debunked by FactCheck.org in this article -- at Newsmax, of all places! This article is a rebuttal of essentially the same anti-Clinton charges made by Republican dark-horse presidential candidate Carly Fiorina. According to the article:
The bottom line, according to the online information watchdog FactCheck.org: "Fiorina is simply wrong."

Fiorina is referring only to the amount of money donated by the Clinton Foundation to outside charities, ignoring the fact that most of the Foundation's charitable work is performed in-house.

The independent philanthropy watchdog CharityWatch analyzed Foundation funding and concluded that about 89 percent of it went to charity — higher than the 75 percent considered the industry standard.
Streiff's article is mostly about how Condoleeza Rice and Hillary Clinton received speaking fees from a particular children's charity; Rice was paid less and donated half back to the charity. He finishes with this delightful paragraph:
This is the irony of how women are viewed and treated in the Democrat party. When you have a truly accomplished woman like a Condoleeza Rice or a Sarah Palin [!] who works hard, often against significant resistance, and succeeds without any federal agency weighing in to smooth the way they are demonized and ridiculed. Then you get a unremarkable, though obvious vicious and grasping, harpy like Hillary Clinton whose position in the world is due solely to having occasional sex with Bill Clinton… which doesn’t differentiate her from a lot of other women… and she is a role model and a spokesman for women’s issues. The woman is an accomplished grifter, we can give her that. Of course, grifting is easy when you are devoid of shame, ethics, or a sense of propriety. But she is an utter failure at every other venture she has attempted in this life."
He seems nice.

Click here for an article by Jonathan Rauch at The Atlantic entitled "This Is Not Charity" for some more depth on what the Clinton Foundation actually does.

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

Anti-Government Extremists Much Worse Threat Than Muslims

Click here for an article in The New York Times by Charles Kurzman and David Schanzer entitled "The Other Terror Threat."
In a survey we conducted with the Police Executive Research Forum last year of 382 law enforcement agencies, 74 percent reported anti-government extremism as one of the top three terrorist threats in their jurisdiction; 39 percent listed extremism connected with Al Qaeda or like-minded terrorist organizations. And only 3 percent identified the threat from Muslim extremists as severe, compared with 7 percent for anti-government and other forms of extremism.
ISIS was just cranking up when the survey finished; thus the reference to Al Qaeda. The article notes that since 2000, 25 law enforcement officers have been killed by right-wing extremists; none by Muslims.
Since 9/11, an average of nine American Muslims per year have been involved in an average of six terrorism-related plots against targets in the United States. Most were disrupted, but the 20 plots that were carried out accounted for 50 fatalities over the past 13 and a half years. In contrast, right-wing extremists averaged 337 attacks per year in the decade after 9/11, causing a total of 254 fatalities.

Sunday, June 14, 2015

The New Populism - May 22, 2014

Click here for a speech by Bob Borosage.

Florida Healthcare Subsidies For Me, But Not For Thee

Click here for an article at The Seminole Democrat blog entitled "FL GOP kills Medicaid AND refuses to stop their $8 gold packages. HERE'S WHAT WE DO."

The big guns in the Florida state legislature -- 17,589 people, including the governor, cabinet, various management-level employees, and their staff -- get medical insurance subsidized by the state. The cost to Florida taxpayers for this little perk? $1 million a month. The cost of medical insurance for the chosen few? $30 per month for a family, or $8 per month for an individual.

Other state employees pay $180 per month for a family, $50 per month for an individual.

The average cost, to the average person in the state of Florida for medical insurance, is $1,347 per month.

Meanwhile, about 700,000 low-income Floridians are stranded in the state’s “coverage gap,” in which they make too much money to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to qualify for tax credits on the exchange. Governor Rick Scott refuses to accept the Obamacare solution, whereby the federal government would pay 100% of the cost of expanding Medicade to subsidize health care insurance costs for those 700,000 people, falling to 90% over time.

Tuesday, June 9, 2015

Google Photos (From Bob Rankin)

Click here for a Bob Rankin article on Google Photos.

Tuesday, June 2, 2015

Pendulum Motion