;)
Monday
May272013
The Commentariat -- May 28, 2013
Michael Shear of the New York Times: "President Obama will soon accelerate his efforts to put a lasting imprint on the country's judiciary by simultaneously nominating three judges to an important federal court, a move that is certain to unleash fierce Republican opposition and could rekindle a broader partisan struggle over Senate rules. In trying to fill the three vacancies on the 11-member United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit at once, Mr. Obama will be adopting a more aggressive nomination strategy. He will effectively be daring Republicans to find specific ground to filibuster all the nominees."
Eyal Press in a New York Times op-ed: "... a barely noticed memo quietly released by the Obama administration earlier this year ... instructs the director of national intelligence and the Office of Personnel Management to establish standards that would give federal agencies the power to fire employees, without appeal, deemed ineligible to hold 'noncritical sensitive' jobs. It means giving them immense power to bypass civil service law, which is the foundation for all whistle-blower rights."
As the Tan Man Shrivels. Jim VandeHei & Mike Allen of Politico, the Beavis & Butthead of political reporting, do have a point here: "House Speaker John Boehner, who by title and position should be the second most powerful person in Washington..., has little ability to work his will with fellow House Republicans. He has quit for good his solo efforts to craft a grand bargain on taxes and spending. And he hasn't bothered to initiate a substantive conversation with President Barack Obama in this calendar year. All of this recently prompted Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, herself a former speaker, to declare on MSNBC that if Boehner were a woman, he would be known as the weakest speaker in U.S. history." ...
... Tim Alberta of the National Journal: "For 40 years, the Republican Study Committee has prized ideological purity over partisan loyalty. That mindset now dominates the GOP.... For decades, the group was seen as a parasitic anomaly -- a fringe organization of hopeless ideologues surviving off the perception of undue moderation among Republican leadership.... But the 2010 midterms -- thanks to an influx of ideologically charged lawmakers converging with an increasingly conservative GOP -- changed everything.... The committee ... was now, for the first time in history, a majority of the House majority." Take a look at that chart of how RSC members dominate important House committees.
Grumpy Old Meddler. Andrea Shalal-Esa of Reuters: Republican Senator John McCain..., an outspoken advocate for U.S. military aid to the Syrian opposition, met with some of the rebels during a surprise visit to the war-torn country on Monday, his spokesman said." CW: I'd like to know if McCain got State Department clearance for his hotdogging expedition. ...
... Update. Margaret Hartmann of New York: "McCain's trip was coordinated by the Syrian Emergency Task Force, an American nonprofit supporting the Syrian opposition. A State Department official said the department was aware that McCain crossed into Syria.... The White House ... declined requests to comment on the senator's excursion." ...
... Andy Borowitz: "During a meeting yesterday with Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona), Syrian rebels told the senator that he still seemed 'really bitter' about losing the 2008 election to President Obama and advised him to 'get over it.'" ...
... On a much more serious note, Dexter Filkins of the New Yorker: "... the war in Syria has spread to Lebanon. In an extraordinary speech Saturday, Hassan Nasrallah, the bearded and bespectacled leader of the Lebanese militant group, Hezbollah, promised an all-out effort to keep the murderous regime of Bashar al-Assad in power in Syria.... This is a terrifying development; the beginning of a regional war.... It's difficult to overstate how dangerous this new phase is."
Digby has news for the Village People: "CNN with the latest polling on Obamacare: 'Fifty-four percent of Americans oppose President Barack Obama's signature domestic policy achievement, according to a CNN poll released Monday, while 43 percent support the law.' But, for once they asked the most relevant follow-up question: 'Thirty-five percent of the country opposes the law because it's too liberal, while 16 percent argues it isn't liberal enough.' That's right. It is not a majority position against a national health care plan or 'big gummint' or any other of the typical beltway signifiers of a 'center right nation.; It turns out that only 35% of the country has that attitude. The majority either support the plan or want more." ...
... You won't find out that a majority supports ObamaCare or wants something more if you read Politico. Kevin Robillard's report carefully omits Digby's critical yeah-but. ...
... Steve M. of No More Mister Nice Blog finds more polls that support the CNN finding: "... the GOP position (Obamacare is the worst law ever passed in the history of human civilization, and is the end of American civilization as we know it) has support well under 40% in every poll -- and majorities absolutely want our health care system improved."
** See No Evil. Mike McIntire & Michael Luo of the New York Times: "The world's firearms manufacturers have been largely silent in the debate over gun violence. But their voices emerge from thousands of pages of depositions in a series of liability lawsuits a decade ago, before Congress passed a law shielding them from such suits in 2005, and the only time many of them were forced to answer such questions.... A review of the documents, which were obtained by The New York Times, shows the industry's leaders arguing, often with detachment and defiance, that their companies bear little responsibility, beyond what the law requires, for monitoring the distributors and dealers who sell their guns to the public." CW: one reason not to buy guns: to avoid enriching these unusually repugnant scumbags.
One-Way Ticket, Please. Brian Bennett of the Los Angeles Times: "Conventional wisdom holds that most of the estimated 11 million immigrants who are in America illegally sneaked across the southern border. But Homeland Security Department officials estimate up to 40% -- or 4.4 million people -- arrived on legal visas and never departed." The immigration reform bill currently mandates a system for tracking visitors who leave the country -- something the U.S. does not now do -- but such a system would not help locate those who overstay their visas.
Tom Vanden Brook of USA Today: "Federal law enforcement officials are investigating a former Marine and several active-duty Marines after they allegedly posted threatening and lewd messages on social media sites that targeted President Obama and a California congresswoman [Jackie Speier (D-Calif.)], according to a government official informed of the investigations."
Paul Krugman's "maudlin memories" of his youthful stay in Portugal ends on a substantive note: "... the European project, the construction of peace, democracy, and prosperity through union, is one of the best things that ever happened to humanity. And that's why the misguided policies that are tearing Europe apart are such a tragedy."
BBC News: "Google's executive chairman Eric Schmidt has said he is 'perplexed' by the ongoing debate over the company's tax contributions in the UK. Mr Schmidt told the BBC that the company did what was 'legally required' to pay the right amount of taxes.... Mr Schmidt said it was up to the government to change its tax system if it wanted companies to pay more taxes." CW: big corporate executives are right to fault legislators for Swiss-cheesing tax laws with loopholes, but of course it is these very same corporations who bribe lobby lawmakers into writing the loopholes. Nothing too "perplexing" about that, Eric.
Ryan Lizza of the New Yorker on what News Corp. knew about the James Rosen subpoenas and when they knew it. Not surprisingly, there are conflicting accounts. ...
... Mr. Holder Regrets. Daniel Klaidman of the Daily Beast on AG Eric Holder's culpability in the Rosen case & how he intends to think about thinking about establishing guidelines that might prevent him from signing off on subpoenas of reporters' correspondence in the future. Bear in mind as you read that Klaidman's source is Eric Holder.
"Sex & the City" Comes to White House. Juliet Eilperin of the Washington Post stroganoffs Kathryn Ruemmler: "It may say more about Washington than White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler that she's known in the West Wing for her fabulous shoes.... She wears Manolo Blahniks and Christian Louboutins into the Oval Office." CW: yes, indeed. Jack Lew is known for his wingtips & when anyone mentions Jay Carney, his Gucci glasses come first to mind.
** Frank Rich writes a moving & "elliptical" account of an early mentor -- Clayton Coots, a closeted gay man.
Local News
Kelly Heyboer of the Star-Ledger: "Rutgers President Robert Barchi released a statement today backing the university's new athletic director as she faces allegations she verbally and mentally abused players while she was a volleyball coach in the 1990s."
News Ledes
Our Far-Flung Diplomatic Corps. New York Times: "Two staff members of the American Embassy in Caracas, Venezuela, were shot and wounded at a strip club there early Tuesday, according to officials. The two men were members of the support staff in the office of the defense attaché, according to a State Department official.... The official said there was no immediate indication of a political motive behind the shootings, which appeared to have occurred after a fight broke out in the club."
The PayPal of the Underworld. New York Times: "The operators of a global currency exchange, [Liberty Reserve,] ran a $6 billion money-laundering operation online, a central hub for criminals trafficking in everything from stolen identities to child pornography, federal prosecutors in New York said on Tuesday."
Share Article
Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.
Reader Comments (12)
Barbarossa-
Thanks for your Memorial Day reminiscence, the long walk in the hot sun.
Yesterday I heard Justice Sotomayor talking to middle school kids in Colorado, sometime last month, in a C-SPAN replay. One of her points was that life brings lots of “stuff” and none of it is inherently good, or bad, but mixed. And a lot depends on your perspective.
My perspective on that day, were I there, would have come from a different angle – it would have been an opportunity to do my job, and take some pleasure from your trooper’s misfortune.
I was Dustoff 80 in 1970 (which I think was after your time in RVN), and we covered almost all of IV Corps, from Moc Hoa to Tan An as northern limit line, down to Camau. All paddy and canal except for the mountains near Cambodia. Flat, hot and wet.
When you call for the Dustoff, we get to do what we live for – come and get your wounded no matter what, as fast as Hueys can fly. On average we’re overhead in less than half an hour (that was a big AO!) at 1200 feet, just above tracer burnout. You confirm your smoke color and enemy location, and about ½ mile from your smoke I kick the Huey over on its side and drop like a rock, flattening out at about 100 feet altitude and flying at you treetop-level at about 100 knots, into your smoke. Side-flare at the end of the run (don’t want to bend the tail boom), left pedal all the way in, and there we are. Keep power and pitch up, skids light, in case we need a rapid exit. The medic and crew chief are out the door, and your man is on board in seconds. Patient (no longer a trooper, now a patient) secure, doors closed, pick up the aircraft straight to translational lift, nose down, power all the way, ten feet off the ground, accelerate to about 100 knots moving away from the contact, then haul back on the cyclic and climb as fast as it will, back to the cool air at 1200 feet. Head for the 3rd Surgical Hospital at Binh Thuy, and the medic begins his work. Airway check, bleeding check, overall body check (you thought he lost a foot; he could also have a punctured lung, lots of other stuff the guys on the ground don’t see), IV in (REALLY hard to do in a helicopter, with a patient who is probably in shock with collapsed veins), morphine if no head or spine trauma, bandage check, initial debridement, blanket (shock makes you cold), and all the while talking to the patient to make him understand that he’s going to be fine, talking that shock down.
At the 3rd Surg, nurses and orderlies take the patient from the pad straight to the OR next to the pad. Less than an hour from blast to OR, ideally much, much less.
For you, a really bad day. For me, a chance to make it not your worst day.
Perspective!
@Patrick: In spite of the Dustoff and the hospital's best efforts, the soldier, SP4 Gordon Wise, contracted septicemia and died a few days later. What a waste. His name is on the Vietnam Memorial.
I searched my limited reserves of brain cells and still fall far short of understanding how 35% of the country believes others should experience either early death or bankruptcy for preventable reasons. It is breathtakingly shortsighted, never mind that its just plain evil to perpetuate avoidable pain and sickness. I suspect there are more people who believe Comcast cable should be a right than universal health care.
A thought on the Rutgers travesty comes to mind "killing 2 birds with one stone" - fire Barchi and rescind the offer to Hermann. This is one time I'd like to see a little bullying from Christie.
@Diane, wrap your extra brain cells around this:
Thirty-five percent of Americans know that the IRS will comb through their medical records to find out they have Herpes & put them on an STD watch list -- and audit their taxes for the fun of it.
If you get too old or too sick or maybe just can't find a job, unelected government death panels will slate you for extinction.
Thinking of holing up in a mountain cabin to save yourself from the death panels? Too bad. You can't defend yourself because the ATF will check medical records & will confiscate the guns of anyone who has ever had one visit with a psychiatrist or psychologist or social worker under the mental health exception to the Second Amendment.
Plus, Obama is sending those legions of nurses he likes so much out into the hinterlands to secretly place chips in every American's brain so the government knows where you are -- and what you're thinking -- at every moment.
Marie
Diane,
I would suggest that of that 35%, a large number are Fox zombies who believe whatever someone wearing a flag pin and passing out "I Hate President Osama" literature has to say. Another group are guvmint hatin' malcontents who spend all their available cash on new guns. Just because. Another group might be those who are not quite so bonkers but just hate the government anyway. Just because. And finally we have those who are garden variety, greedy misanthropes who believe they deserve everything they have but others (wink, wink) don't deserve shit and are just freeloading. Granted that last group takes succor from the puerile piss peddled daily on Fox and throughout the conservative echo/horror chamber, but there ya go.
Conservatives are unhappy. Oh, but you already knew that, right?
Well, it seems that several sources of dire vexation, lately, are the belief that they receive far too much criticism and it must stop. Immediately. Also, there appears to be a fair amount of falling-down distress that liberals are mean to them and show entirely too little respect for conservatives, their ideas and beliefs.
According to Leften Wright, wrighting, I mean, writing in the Guardian this weekend (a pseudonymical writer—I’m assuming--offering much right and little left), liberals are disrespectful meanies and should be ashamed of themselves for not being polite to that nice man Bill O’Reilly, or paying close attention to the brilliant ideas and achievements of such as Sarah Palin (hang on...).
Over on Salon, Jonathan Bernstein relates the sad tale of watery, doe-eyed Mitch McConnell, among others, who believe that the First Amendment allows them to spout any species of brassy nonsense, lies, smears, ridicule, etc, without fear of the impolite and impolitic responses of those who take umbrage at their tactics and/or wish to direct some critical fire in the general direction of their oh so delicate persons.
So the second is easily disposed of. Your run for office? You're in the media? You’re in public life and perhaps you say something stupid, or outrageous, blatantly untrue, or even mildly interesting but perhaps riddled with flaws. From whence emanates the expectation that none should be able to offer the slightest riposte, gainsay, or question? Who do you think you are? George W. Bush? Sorry, you’re in public life and you need to be able to hold up your end. You say potatoe, we say potato. You can’t expect to be liberated from any and all critical commentary.
This is callow. And silly.
But the other complaint, that liberals need a lesson in manners, is a bit more troublesome. I will be the first to offer my own commentary as evidence of a less than courteous approach to addressing conservative statements, ideas, and persons. And it would be easy to say something along the lines of "But they do it all the time!”, but I subscribe to the belief that every person is deserving of a baseline level of respect. I have never been entirely comfortable with the idea that respect has to be earned. In some circumstances that is true, but too often this sort of thing is used as moralistic sleight of hand by people like the Romneys to mean that THEY deserve respect automatically, but those Blah people and lazy moochers need to EARN it, which, in a rigged game ain't never gonna happen. Sorry, as human beings we are all deserving of respect. Respect is ours to lose. And certainly some people deserve a great deal more respect for their actions and demeanor and some others, quite a bit less.
But I digress.
The problem I see with the Guardian piece is the usual one of warped viewpoint. The writer depicts an extremely one-sided world in which liberals are nasty, mealy mouthed assholes who simply cannot bring themselves to say a good word about kind, generous, well meaning Conservatives.
My question would be, at this point, to whom are you referring? Ted Cruz? Rand Paul? Rush Limbaugh? Matt Drudge? Michele Bachmann? Glenn Beck? You see where I’m going with this. We decry (at least I do, on occasion, believe it or not) the total lack of civility on the part of public conservatives without worrying too much about the same on the part of liberals, myself included.
And yes, this does trouble me.
A bit.
But not so much that the generation long barrage of hatred, misanthropy, lies--scurrilous and otherwise, disgraceful hypocrisy, character assassination, cheap smears, sanctimonious pontification, revilement, and categorical, planned disrespect from the right has completely slipped my mind. You all recall that Gingrich, in his monkey climb to the top of the canopy from which he proceeded to bombard all enemies real and imagined with cocoanuts and dung, wrote and disseminated a war plan to all his eager little disciples during the run up to the GOP Contract on America takeover, which instructed them all to never, ever, ever, respect or listen to anything a Democrat or, god forbid, actual Liberal, has to say. Instead, he provided them with long lists of demeaning and offensive barbs with which to pepper one’s foes and never allow them to make any realistic or reasonable points. And how can one write a piece on incivility without acknowledging the chronic, intemperate viciousness of the average conservative person or group?
Speaking of which, when was the last time any major conservative, individual or group, offered a reasonable or realistic idea for public consumption? Their plan is annihilation, chaos, political anarchy. At what point does one continue to treat such people with even baseline respect and civility? Would one ask a psychopath, inexplicably invited over to lunch, to please pass the salt, and thank you very much, ignoring the severed head in his lap and the leer on his face?
It’s certainly too bad it’s come to this, but for Leften Wright and others possessed of similarly jejeune views, to berate liberals for not being nice to all those polite conservatives out there seems ingenuous in the extreme. (I was going to say “soft as shit” but I’m being polite).
Reactions? Ideas?
Don’t criticize us!
Liberals are so rude!
Sorry, the second link didn't come through. I guess I was rude to it.
Liberals are so rude!
Sorry, that second link didn't come through. I must have been mean to it.
Liberals are so rude!
Sorry...I believe I meant "disingenuous in the extreme"....I'm all riled up now!
And sorry, that second link didn't come through. I must have been mean to it.
Liberals are so rude!
Sorry...I believe I meant "disingenuous in the extreme"....I'm all riled up now!
I'm beginning to think that brave Leften Wright closet case is either an idiot or one of The Onion's top punkers.
@Patrick: Every combat soldier owes a big debt of gratnitude to all of the heroic Dustoffs. Many a former soldier is alive today because of them.