;)
The Commentariat -- July 2, 2014
It's not crazy, it's not socialism. It's not the imperial presidency -- no laws are broken. We're just building roads and bridges like we've been doing for the last, I don't know, 50, 100 years. But so far, House Republicans have refused to act on this idea. I haven't heard a good reason why they haven't acted -- it's not like they've been busy with other stuff. No, seriously. I mean, they're not doing anything. Why don't they do this? -- President Obama, Tuesday, speaking near the (Francis Scott) Key Bridge on the Georgetown waterfront
... Julie Davis of the New York Times: "President Obama called on congressional Republicans on Tuesday to take quick action to fund infrastructure projects throughout the country, arguing that failing to do so could mean huge layoffs for Americans this year.Stepping up criticism of his opponents on Capitol Hill, Mr. Obama poked derisive fun at Republicans as he urged them to join Democrats to pass legislation that would replenish the Highway Trust Fund, which is expected to exhaust its resources by August":
Thomas Black and Caelainn Barr of Bloomberg News: "Employment may be headed for a 'breakout year' as companies feel more secure adding to payrolls following several years of demand rising only to stumble on threats from U.S. budget standoffs, a debt-ceiling induced default and a European credit crisis, said Marisa Di Natale, a director at Moody's Analytics. 'It's the first year in several where we haven't had some kind of manufactured fiscal showdown in Washington, which weighs on business confidence and consumer confidence,' Di Natale said." CW: In case you missed the point, here's an independent analyst effectively blaming Republicans for repeatedly tanking the economy. The example President Obama illuminates in his speech embedded above is just one small example of the GOP's wanton willingess to hurt millions of Americans in service of their own agenda & perceived self-interests.
Hillary Owes Boehner a Thank-You Note. Jonathan Chait: "The failure of the House to pass a bill of any kind represents a fascinating case study of a party unable to act on its recognized political self-interest."
** AP: "The Supreme Court on Tuesday confirmed that its decision a day earlier extending religious rights to closely held corporations applies broadly to the contraceptive coverage requirement in the new health care law, not just the handful of methods the justices considered in their ruling.... Oklahoma-based Hobby Lobby Inc. and a Pennsylvania furniture maker won their court challenges Monday in which they refused to pay for two emergency contraceptive pills and two intrauterine devices.... Tuesday's orders apply to companies owned by Catholics who oppose all contraception.... The justices also ordered lower courts that ruled in favor of the Obama administration to reconsider those decisions in light of Monday's 5-4 decision." ...
... Joan McCarter of Daily Kos: "That argument you keep hearing from the Right, about how Hobby Lobby still offers 16 kinds of birth control that they don't believe is abortion-y, so quit your bitchin' libs? Yeah, well, the Supreme Court punched a hole in that one." ...
... Abby Haglage of the Daily Beast: "There are at least 80 other companies fighting to be the next Hobby Lobby." CW Note: Haglage wrote this piece before the Five Dancing Supremes took their encore Tuesday, indicating that these companies don't have to sue. They can just move forward with their program to deny whatever type of contraceptive coverage the CorpPerson doesn't "believe in." ...
... Dawn Johnsen, in ScotusBlog, writes a terrific summary of the devastating effect this ruling with have on women. "The typical American woman wishing to have only two children spends thirty years, three-quarters of her reproductive life, seeking to avoid unintended pregnancy. Half of all pregnancies in the United States (more than three million a year) are unintended. More than half of American women will experience an unintended pregnancy. Forty percent of unintended pregnancies end in abortion. Three in ten American women will have an abortion at some point in their lives. Reducing unintended pregnancy through the contraceptive coverage guarantee undeniably will reduce the need for abortion." Read the whole post....
... CW: The ruling is not so much about abortion as it is about controlling the sex lives of working women. These "good Catholic" justices believe the purpose of sex is procreation, so if (poor) women are going to have sex, they should be having babies, too. It's what God intended. ...
... For some reason, the rules don't apply to justices themselves. The five justice have fathered zero, one, two, three & nine children, so I'd guess the wives of at least three of the five used contraceptive drugs or devices at some time in their childbearing years. Of course, they could afford whatever they chose.
... Steve Coll of the New Yorker compares American conservatives' efforts to restrict women's reproductive rights to the Taliban's ban on polio vaccines. "Perhaps the Supreme Court's majority cannot fully imagine that religiously motivated litigants -- Muslim, Christian Scientist, Hindu, or other -- as qualified and as American as the Hobby Lobby owners might ultimately use Monday's ruling to enforce beliefs far outside of the decades-long campaign of Christian evangelicals and Catholics to limit the reproductive rights of women."
... Steve Stromberg of the Washington Post argues that Congress should repeal or revise the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a "law erected very high barriers to the government regulating anything that conflicts with anyone's religious beliefs," & which conservatives on the Supreme Court applied to the Hobby Lobby case. The Post's editors made the same point in Tuesday's paper. CW: Well, yeah. And that's going to happen. In an election year. When Republicans are celebrating the Hobby Lobby decision as a win for "religious freedom." I think even Democrats would vote against gutting a law titled the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act," especially one that Congress passed almost unanimously & Bill Clinton signed. ...
... Paul Horwitz, in a New York Times op-ed, elaborates: "... it was easy to lose sight of the fact that [Hobby Lobby] was a statutory case, not a case decided under the First Amendment's protection of freedom of religion." ...
... The New York Times Editors urge the Supreme Court to grant ScotusBlog press credentials, something it has refused to do for spurious reasons. "Professional standards are necessary, but, by any measure, Scotusblog meets them. Its importance is demonstrated by its audience, which is not just top journalists and members of the public. According to the site's internal data, Scotusblog's single biggest user is the Supreme Court itself."
Ellen Nakashima of the Washington Post: "An independent executive-branch board has concluded that a major National Security Agency surveillance program targeting foreigners overseas is lawful and effective but that certain elements push 'close to the line' of being unconstitutional. The 'unknown and potentially large' collection by the agency of e-mails and phone calls of Americans who communicate with foreign targets is one aspect that raises concerns, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board said in a report released online Tuesday night." The Guardian's report, by Spencer Ackerman, is here. The report is here (pdf).
Michael Schmidt of the New York Times: Ahmed Abu Khattala, "the militia leader who has been charged in connection with the 2012 killing of the United States ambassador in Benghazi, Libya, has provided American interrogators with 'voluntary statements' that corroborate 'key facts' about the attacks, the Justice Department said in a court document filed Tuesday night." CW: Gee, that happened when he wasn't in solitary confinement an exclusive suite at the Guantanamo Resort? Doesn't seem possible. ...
... Sari Horwitz of the Washington Post: "Ahmed Abu Khattala, one of the suspected ringleaders of the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, voiced opposition to the presence of a U.S. facility there in the days before the assault and organized the attacks out of a sense of ideological fervor, according to government prosecutors.... Abu Khattala, who was indicted Saturday on a charge of conspiracy, will appear Wednesday morning in U.S. District Court in Washington for a detention hearing...." ...
... "The Government's Motion for Pretrial Detention" is here.
Maureen Dowd has a good column on Cheney & Co.
Martin Savidge of CNN: "Bowe Bergdahl, the U.S. soldier held captive for five years by militants before his release a month ago, has ventured several times off an Army base in Texas as part of the effort to get him used to everyday life in America, a military spokeswoman said." Via Margaret Hartmann of New York. ...
... Kirk Johnson & Matt Furber of the New York Times profile Beau Bergdahl. OR, what happens when a kid reared on "a conservative theology of biblical inerrancy" is exposed to the world of ideas.
Beyond the Beltway
Rick Hertzberg of the New Yorker skims the surface of the Texas Republican party platform. "... if you want a glimpse of what a nontrivial and apparently growing segment of one of America's two great political parties believes in its heart of hearts, and what it says when it is essentially talking to itself," read on.
Brett Barrouquere of the AP: "A federal judge in Kentucky struck down the state's ban on gay marriage on Tuesday, though the ruling was temporarily put on hold and it was not immediately clear when same-sex couples could be issued marriage licenses." ...
... Winger Allahpundit: "The judge is a Bush 41 appointee, nominated to the federal bench by, er, Mitch McConnell."
Right Wing World
In Right Wing World, even gag gifts are evidence that a psychotic Iranian Muslim (Shiite, I presume) Hitlery-y woman is secretly running the U.S.A. (& making white men bow down to her).
News Ledes
New York Times: "The abduction and killing of a Palestinian teenager whose burned body was found in a Jerusalem forest on Wednesday further poisoned relations between Israelis and Palestinians and prompted international outrage as the police investigated the death as a possible Israeli revenge killing."
Reuters: "U.S. companies hired 281,000 workers in June, marking the biggest monthly increase since November 2012 and well above market expectations, a report by a payrolls processor showed on Wednesday. Private job gains in May were 179,000. Economists surveyed by Reuters had forecast that the ADP National Employment Report would show a gain of 200,000 jobs last month."
Ann Coulter gets a break. Elitist frites-eating Belgians knock U.S. out of World Cup competition.
NIMBY. Los Angeles Times: "Amid rising concern over a surge of young immigrants crossing the border illegally, flag-waving protesters blocked three busloads of detainees in Riverside County on Tuesday, preventing them from reaching a Border Patrol processing station in Murrieta[, California].... The incident came one day after [Murietta Mayor Alan] Long urged residents to protest the federal government's decision to move the recent immigrants -- the first of what he said was to be a series of arrivals -- to the facility in his city."
Share Article
Reader Comments (17)
I'm re-posting Victoria D's comment, published late in the day Tuesday:
Re your insightful and empathetic comment. I can't speak for all women, but for myself I can say: Yes, I feel incredibly disrespected. I am shocked that the highest court in the land could hold women's rights, to privacy and equal treatment specifically, in so little regard. I have two daughters of childbearing age and shudder to think of the America that is shaping up for them regarding their rights. These two decisions were horrifying and I'm especially saddened that the "liberals" on the Court bought the argument in McCullen v. Coakley. Women don't need sidewalk "counselors" to help them make ANY important life decisions. I can't imagine the Court applying the same rationale to a decision regarding men.
Victoria D.
There are five wives of five Supreme court justices who, to paraphrase Tom Robbins, should have applied the vaginal wrench to their husbands long, long ago. I'm a long way from home just now, but I feel the disrespect for women, American women, which oozes from Alito, Kennedy, Thomas, Scalia and Roberts every time they attain consciousness.
While the Hobby Lobby decision may have been shocking, I think this is a case where "free market solutions" will eventually prevail. Pregnancy is easily the greatest "liability" for payers covering women of childbearing age. I think if the payers run the numbers, it is far more cost-effective to simply provide contraception (especially what is know as LARC--Long Acting Reversible Contraception) as a basic feature of all plans offered on the exchanges. This doesn't change the remarkable tortured legal reasoning for the decision, but to paraphrase Churchill, the Americans will do the right thing every time, once all other possibilities are exhausted.
At what point will we reach a point where we say that indulging religious fantasies has become too expensive? Clearly fantastic thinking, encouraged by those who patiently tell us that reality is more than we can sense, supports regressive and often cruel behavior toward those who must live in the realities of this world.
MoDo's column about Vice is pleasantly harsh toward his homespun reality, but she touches oh so lightly both the media and the audience, both of whom love cowboys and Indians stories. Cheney is the high priest of the American religion, and just like other high priests before him, he makes stuff up, trumps it up, and shouts it out, and his congregation cries, "Hosanna!"
We have become the collateral damage of irrational but pleasant beliefs, yet we dare not criticize those beliefs because doing so might hurt somebody's feelings. In ancient Greece, people believed that the gods lived on Mount Olympus. As far as I can tell, most Greeks have evolved to a different mythology now. Change can happen, but perhaps this time we won't need to offer methadone to replace the heroin?
Today throughout the halls of the White House strains of "Sue Me" from "Guys and Dolls" can be heard; not from a recording of Nathan Lane and Faith Prince, but from Obama himself whistling that happy tune and then breaking into a full fledged falsetto. Our "imperial king" is in rare form and is giving his finger to the "do nothing Congress." He is also going on the road with his message and from the clips I've seen of his performances (see above insert on R.C.) he's just loving it. So "luck be a lady" Mr. President, and sock it to em!
Republicans have decried the concept of an activist judiciary for decades, in my time, at least, going back to when a previous Court (in another world, it seems now) believed that certain decisions in a woman's life are nobody's business but hers. Such is not the case anymore. If Roberts and Scalia and Alito want to make sure that religious zealots have an opportunity to pry into a woman's life, get in her face, scream at her, call her names for acting on her own privately arrived at decisions, they will make sure of it. They call it "conversation" but it is right-wing bullying and invasion of privacy of the first order.
In fact, these guys have gone far beyond simple activism. Johnny, Nino, Sammy, Tony, and Lumpy are not just judges, they're also legislators. Their work on the court over the last few terms has demonstrated this as clearly as could be. If their Republican colleagues in congress are unable to pass laws advancing conservative agendas, these five do it for them. If the president tries to lift a finger to counter GOP intransigence and treason, they hold him down and tie his hands.
So in a way, they have made themselves not just judges, but legislators and presidents. Five guys comprise all three branches of government. Five guys control everything.
Isn't this exactly the sort of tyranny that conservatives are always screeching about? Isn't this the sort of tyranny that Jefferson referred to in the Declaration? Isn't this just the sort of tyranny that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights sought to short circuit?
Too bad the guys interpreting the Constitution are now the ones breaking and making the laws. No doubt each of them looks into a mirror before leaving home every day and whispers to themselves "Maintenant, l'etat c'est moi!"
Was just entering the Spokane Convention Center early Monday morning when number 2 son called with the Hobby Lobby news. I could not say I was dumbfounded, but the rest of the day the delight of seeing old friends was muted by the pall the Supremes' decisions have recently cast on the nation.
That morning I noticed the women especially. These intelligent, dedicated, hardworking, professional educators whom the Court did not think had the right or intelligence to make their own contraception decisions; that they needed the guidance of a male, Catholic Court or a geriatric ideologue lest they stray from the correct moral path. Not the Nanny State the Right is so worried about, but the bankrupt, condescending paternalism of the past...And I'd wager neither the Court nor the ideologues see their pattern of strengthening the rights of the top-down, hierarchically organized, mostly male-dominated corporations and institutions at the expense of guaranteed Bill of Rights freedoms for individual citizens is symptomatic of their chauvinism. Their detestation of the Nanny State doesn't derive from a love of freedom; it arises from some powerful but frightened males' sense that women are too weak or weak-minded to govern, more likely perhaps from a fear that they are not. The Hobby Lobby issue is not about control only; as it is in so many other contentious cases, it's about who is in control, and a whole lot of Republican men want to be sure it's never going to be women. The whole thing is making me like Hillary...
My son hadn't read the Harris decision yet, so could not give me that grim news...I heard that only yesterday, traveling back across the state..It seems the fears expressed here a few days back were also well-founded.
@PD. I, too, thought the President's speech was good up until the very end. With his closing lines of:
"Thank you, everybody.
God bless you.
God bless America.
Go Team USA!
Let’s build some bridges!"
Huh? I guess even he believes that congress won't act unless a superior being intervenes to save us from our exceptionalism.
When Earl Warren was Chief Justice, he would ask, after an oral argument, "But is it fair?" Obama, during his teaching of Constitutional Law, said the questions should also be, "Is that what we aspire to be as a country? Is that who we are?"
It seems to me, as Akhilleus has so colorfully illustrated, the Fatuous Five do indeed possess a tyrannical element in their "laying down the law" and I imagine their mirrors are continually smudged by self made kisses; always a bitch to clean.
@Unwashed: I know, I know––have said before I hope before I die this "God Blessedness" business will have seen its day, but it sure doesn't look that way. Every time Obama ends with it, I cringe a little.
Unwashed and PD: "God Bless the USA..." is the verbal flag pin. You saw what happened some years ago when he didn't wear the gd flag pin...I guess it is a reflex to just say it, even if it makes lots of us gag. In some sense, he is giving the one-finger salute and at the same time telling the RWNJ that they don't OWN the USA. If he didn't say it, it would be just another lie about him that went into the talking points. But it does still make me gag, too...
A Quinnipiac poll published last night touts Barack Obama as the worst president since WWII. Wingnuts delirious. Fox trumpets the news as if someone had discovered the cure for cancer "See, see, see?? We're RIGHT!! We're ALWAYS RIGHT!!"
Well, I suppose so, if you buy the idea that a poll is truly reflective of reality. It certainly sounds true that those polled responded that way, but that's not saying much if all you ever hear is "Obama is the worst ever", "He thinks he's an emperor!", "He hates white people", "He lost Iraq after Bush had fixed it all up, and he bungled the economic plan that Republicans put in place", "Death panels", "You lie", "Watermelons", "Gorillas", "Mind control", "Worst ever"...etc.
So according to this poll, Bush was not nearly as bad as Obama. Okay, class, let's compare.
One president lied to start a war that may end up costing three trillion dollars, killed or wounded tens of thousands of American troops, ruined the economy, thrusting the nation into a ditch nearly as deep as the 1929 Great Depression, put hundreds of thousands out of work, then handed hundreds of billions to corporations and banks. This president also had unqualified support from congress, the press, and business interests.
Another president brought a ruined economy back from the brink to the point where unemployment figures are lower than before the crash. He ensured that millions of previously uninsured Americans would have healthcare, some for the first time in their lives, thus improving the quality of life for millions of Americans and reducing costs into the bargain. He also ended an illegal and immoral war and stanched the flow of billions of dollars a month into a black hole.
But the second guy is the worst in 80 years, right? Oh, I almost forgot. The second president did all of that with congress aligned against him on almost every issue, had to deal with one of two parties (and some from his own party) who publicly announced that they would do everything in their power to make sure he (and the country) failed. He also deals with an enormous media empire which rails against him 24/7 and spreads rumors, innuendo, and lies as if they were facts.
But then again, another Quinnipiac poll sees Chris Christie picking up ground quickly on Hillary Clinton. A different poll suggests that Romney would have been a much better president (because counterfactual questions always make for accurate readings), and yet another indicates that 40% of voters would pull the lever for Aqua Buddha for president.
Really, the only thing this poll measures is the effectiveness of propaganda and, in part, the problems the Obama administration and Democrats in general have in communicating with voters.
I hate to say it, but I'm pretty sure if Quinnipiac took a poll of German voters in 1933, the little corporal would have come off looking great. We already know that propaganda is effective. This poll tells us little else other than that.
To show you how deep the propaganda runs, and how extreme it's become, the most recent steaming pile of dung from the disturbed mind of George Will, a guy most wingers consider the height of intellectual perspicacity, proclaims on the recent extreme SCOTUS rulings . The verdict of the boy genius? Conservatives on the court are too nice. They have been exhibiting too much judicial "minimalism", "aka judicial restraint". They need to get with the program and not pussyfoot around.
I am not even kidding. Judicial-fucking-restraint! He really said that.
So, when you have that kind of attitude ("Hey, I don't think that guy you just shot in the head is really dead. Better hang him to make sure, then set him on fire!") being communicated day and night for years, on major news networks, newspapers, websites, and hundreds of radio stations, you could probably get poll results that would demand we make Louie Gohmert president for life.
The last few days have been pretty depressing, but here's a story that might make you feel better. This is a local (DC) story, but is no doubt replicated in many places, and it is good to know that such person are out there.
And I don't think her kitchens provided beef stroganoff (but, who knows? Maybe.)
The obit doesn't say so, but her organizations have about the highest possible donor effectiveness ratio, i.e. almost all of a donation to SOME actually becomes food for the needy -- low overheads.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/veronica-maz-helped-start-3-dc-social-service-agencies-dies-at-89/2014/07/01/0f2eea5a-007e-11e4-b8ff-89afd3fad6bd_story.html
And lest we forget, the company that self-righteously and loudly trumpets its adherence to Biblical principles, which means no birth control at all, Goddy Lobby still invests in companies that manufacture birth control:
From CNN Money: "At least eight of those funds [company retirement funds] have been invested in companies that produce contraceptives such as Teva Pharmaceutical (TEVA), Bayer (BAYRY), and Pfizer (PFE), according to a CNNMoney analysis. Teva makes Plan B. At least one fund also held Forest Laboratories, which makes a drug that is used to induce abortions."
But we all know that the word "hypocrisy" does not appear in any wingnut dictionaries or lexicons. It is only ever used in relation to liberals or progressives, or anyone else who tries to puncture far-right delusions and lies.
So women who are employed by Goddy Lobby, if they wish to indulge in sex without the permission of company owners, and not worry about pregnancy, have to foot the bill themselves, even though the ACA handles contraceptives as nothing more or less than standard medical coverage. But the Goddy Lobby owners themselves are free do make money off that which they claim to abhor.
Does anyone wonder why the founders wanted to keep religion far away from the operation of government so it couldn't hurt or discriminate against or lecture Americans who don't give a shit about it?
Pigs.
AK - That Quinnipiac poll is puzzling. Regarding the respondents, one has to ask, "Who ARE these people?"
One factor I keep in mind with all these negative toward Obama polls is this: It's all relative. It seems in this fraught environment large swaths of folks hate all politicians. If Obama comes out super-bad in some of these polls, Congress usually comes out far worse.
My guess is Obama's numbers will shoot up - after he leaves office. Hindsight is a beautiful thing.
How long before corporations will require vaginal camera inserts to monitor their employees' sexual behavior as a condition of employment? Unions are heading quickly toward extinction as the power of money, via the 1%, in both their individual and corporate forms (corporations are people) gain enormous purchase over the lives of the 99%.
If the government pays for birth control in the instances of religious objection, I wonder if there is room for a challenge under equal protection, for "non religious" and corporations that are not closely held. I would think that those employees effected by the exclusion in yesterday's decision are a fairly large number. I'm thinking a step toward single payer.
Pretty good GQ piece on Clevin Bundy's war.
http://www.gq.com/news-politics/newsmakers/201407/cliven-bundy?printable=true