Monday, September 22, 2014

A frightening cruise through Ted Cruz's head

Posted by Jim Hightower


Let's take another cruise down the narrow byways and around the twisting turns that form Sen. Ted Cruz's mind.

The first right turn on our road trip brings us to a sweeping view of Ted's Energy Renaissance Act, a proposal so studded with fossil fuel favors that it should be titled the "Exxon Mobil Relief Act." For example, it bans the federal government from ever imposing regulations on fracking.

He also includes a Congressional edict to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, plus a requirement that any new EPA regulations must get a vote of approval from Congress, as well as a nifty plan to alleviate Native American poverty by opening up their tribal lands to oil drilling.

But let's cruise past that and go off-road on this obscure money trail. It leads to an expansive new opening in our election laws that Cruz hopes to carve out, making it simpler for plutocratic billionaires to outright purchase lawmakers – like, for instance, him. Ted's bill would "allow unlimited direct contributions by citizens… to candidates in Federal elections."

Good grief, this is the "Koch Brothers' Wet Dream Act," for it legalizes quid pro quo corruption – they could openly write huge checks to politicians in exchange for the politicians promising to do political favors.

Favors like what, you ask? Just take a hard right turn from Ted's Bribe-a-Lawmaker scheme, and you'll come upon a bright flashing light representing an idea for a huge corporate favor that popped out of his head in July. He proposes to force the government to begin selling off our national parks, forests, wildlife areas, and other treasured natural resources, turning over these prized public lands to mining, drilling, and logging conglomerates – such as Koch Industries!

You never know what's in Ted's head, until you go cruising through it.

"6 Ways Ted Cruz Wants To Increase Carbon Pollution All In One Bill," www.thinkprogress.org, February 10, 2014.

"Ted Cruz Introduces Bill That Would Eliminate All Limits On Campaign Donations," www.thinkprogress.org, June 3, 2014.

"Ted Cruz Launches Senate Fight to Auction Off America's Public Lands," www.thinkprogress.org, July 10, 2014.

Saturday, September 20, 2014

Dozens of Turkish Hostages Held by ISIS Freed

By Allen McDuffee

Image REUTERS/Stringer
Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu (R) kisses Turkish Consul General of Mosul Ozturk Yilmaz on the forehead during a welcoming ceremony at Esenboga airport in Ankara September 20, 2014.  (REUTERS/STRINGER)


After more than three months in captivity, Turkish intelligence agents brought dozens of hostages abducted by ISIS militants in northern Iraq back to Turkey, in what President Tayyip Erdogan described as a covert rescue operation.

Security sources told Reuters the hostages were released overnight in the town of Tel Abyad on the Syrian side of the border with Turkey after being transferred from the ISIS stronghold in Raqqa.
Turkey did not release details about the rescue operation or clarify in what ways the hostages were released or rescued, but noted that through a source, the intelligence agency was able to track the hostages as they were moved from city to city, eventually putting them near the Turkish border which made the rescue possible.

"I thank the prime minister and his colleagues for the pre-planned, carefully calculated and secretly-conducted operation throughout the night," Erdogan said in a statement.

"MIT (the Turkish intelligence agency) has followed the situation very sensitively and patiently since the beginning and, as a result, conducted a successful rescue operation" he said.

The 46 Turkish hostages, including diplomats, soldiers and children, were seized from Turkey's consulate in Mosul on June 11, along with three Iraqis, who were also released.

According to Turkey's NTV channel, government sources say that no ransom was paid to ISIS and no country mediated the release. 

Thursday, September 18, 2014

Democrats turn on Debbie Wasserman-Schultz

By Edward-Isaac Dovere

Debbie Wasserman Schultz is pictured. | AP Photo
The party has lost confidence in her as a unifying leader and a party spokesperson. | AP Photo

Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz is in a behind-the-scenes struggle with the White House, congressional Democrats and Washington insiders who have lost confidence in her as both a unifying leader and reliable party spokesperson at a time when they need her most.

Long-simmering doubts about her have reached a peak after two recent public flubs: criticizing the White House’s handling of the border crisis and comparing the tea party to wife beaters.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/democrats-debbie-wasserman-schultz-111077.html#ixzz3Dezd67t4

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Hillary in 2016?

On Tuesday’s Podcast Ed is joined by Ruth Conniff, Editor of the Progressive Magazine, to discuss Who should run in 2016 and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker supporting a policy that would require those on Food Stamps and receiving unemployment to submit to drug screening.

We will also be joined by Emily’s List Spokeswoman Marcy Stech to discuss the Filibuster of an Equal pay Bill by Republicans in the Senate.

Saturday, September 13, 2014

Cornel West: “He posed as a progressive and turned out to be counterfeit. We ended up with a Wall Street presidency, a drone presidency”

By Thomas Frank

Cornel West: "He posed as a progressive and turned out to be counterfeit. We ended up with a Wall Street presidency, a drone presidency"Cornel West (Credit: Albert H. Teich via Shutterstock)

Cornel West is a professor at Union Theological Seminary and one of my favorite public intellectuals, a man who deals in penetrating analyses of current events, expressed in a pithy and highly quotable way.

I first met him nearly six years ago, while the financial crisis and the presidential election were both under way, and I was much impressed by what he had to say. I got back in touch with him last week, to see how he assesses the nation’s progress since then.

The conversation ranged from Washington, D.C., to Ferguson, Missouri, and although the picture of the nation was sometimes bleak, our talk ended on a surprising note.

Last time we talked it was almost six years ago. It was a panel discussion The New Yorker magazine had set up, it was in the fall of 2008, so it was while the financial crisis was happening, while it was actually in progress. The economy was crumbling and everybody was panicking. I remember you  speaking about the financial crisis in a way that I thought made sense. There was a lot of confusion at the time. People didn’t know where to turn or what was going on. 

I also remember, and this is just me I’m talking about, being impressed by Barack Obama who was running for president at the time. I don’t know if you and I talked about him on that occasion. But at the time, I sometimes thought that he looked like he had what this country needed.

So that’s my first question, it’s a lot of ground to cover but how do you feel things have worked out since then, both with the economy and with this president? That was a huge turning point, that moment in 2008, and my own feeling is that we didn’t turn.

No, the thing is he posed as a progressive and turned out to be counterfeit. We ended up with a Wall Street presidency, a drone presidency, a national security presidency. The torturers go free. The Wall Street executives go free. The war crimes in the Middle East, especially now in Gaza, the war criminals go free. And yet, you know, he acted as if he was both a progressive and as if he was concerned about the issues of serious injustice and inequality and it turned out that he’s just another neo-liberal centrist with a smile and with a nice rhetorical flair. And that’s a very sad moment in the history of the nation because we are—we’re an empire in decline. Our culture is in increasing decay. Our school systems are in deep trouble. Our political system is dysfunctional. Our leaders are more and more bought off with legalized bribery and normalized corruption in Congress and too much of our civil life. You would think that we needed somebody—a Lincoln-like figure who could revive some democratic spirit and democratic possibility.


That’s exactly what everyone was saying at the time.

That’s right. That’s true. It was like, “We finally got somebody who can help us turn the corner.” And he posed as if he was a kind of Lincoln.

Yeah. That’s what everyone was saying.

And we ended up with a brown-faced Clinton. Another opportunist. Another neo-liberal opportunist. It’s like, “Oh, no, don’t tell me that!” I tell you this, because I got hit hard years ago, but everywhere I go now, it’s “Brother West, I see what you were saying. Brother West, you were right. Your language was harsh and it was difficult to take, but you turned out to be absolutely right.” And, of course with Ferguson, you get it reconfirmed even among the people within his own circle now, you see. It’s a sad thing. It’s like you’re looking for John Coltrane and you get Kenny G in brown skin.

When you say you got hit hard, are you talking about the personal confrontation you had with him?

I’m just thinking about the vicious attacks of the Obama cheerleaders.

The personal confrontation you had with him is kind of famous. He got angry at you because you were saying he wasn’t progressive enough.

I just looked at him like “C’mon, man. Let the facts speak for themselves. I’m not into this rhetorical exchange.”

Is there anybody who thinks he’s progressive enough today?

Nobody I know. Not even among the progressive liberals. Nobody I know. Part of this, as you can imagine, is that early on there was a strong private-public distinction. People would come to me and say privately, “We see what you’re saying. We think you’re too harsh in how you say it but we agree very much with what you’re saying in private.” In public, no comment. Now, more and more of it spills over in public.

There’s a lot of disillusionment now. My liberal friends included. The phrase that I have heard from more than one person in the last year is they feel like they got played.

That’s true. That’s exactly right. What I hear is that, “He pimped us.” I heard that a zillion times. “He pimped us, brother West.” That’s another way of saying “we got played.”

You remember that enthusiasm in 2008. I’m from Kansas City. He came and spoke in Kansas City and 75,000 people came to see him.

Oh yeah. Well we know there were moments in Portland, Oregon, there were moments in Seattle. He had the country in the palm of his hand in terms of progressive possibilities.

What on earth ails the man? Why can’t he fight the Republicans? Why does he need to seek a grand bargain?

I think Obama, his modus operandi going all the way back to when he was head of the [Harvard] Law Review, first editor of the Law Review and didn’t have a piece in the Law Review. He was chosen because he always occupied the middle ground. He doesn’t realize that a great leader, a statesperson, doesn’t just occupy middle ground. They occupy higher ground or the moral ground or even sometimes the holy ground. But the middle ground is not the place to go if you’re going to show courage and vision. And I think that’s his modus operandi. He always moves to the middle ground. It turned out that historically, this was not a moment for a middle-ground politician. We needed a high-ground statesperson and it’s clear now he’s not the one.

And so what did he do? Every time you’re headed toward middle ground what do you do? You go straight to the establishment and reassure them that you’re not too radical, and try to convince them that you are very much one of them so you end up with a John Brennan, architect of torture [as CIA Director]. Torturers go free but they’re real patriots so we can let them go free. The rule of law doesn’t mean anything.

The rule of law, oh my God. There’s one law for us and another law if you work on Wall Street.

That’s exactly right. Even with [Attorney General] Eric Holder. Eric Holder won’t touch the Wall Street executives; they’re his friends. He might charge them some money. They want to celebrate. This money is just a tax write-off for these people. There’s no accountability. No answerability. No responsibility that these people have to take at all. The same is true with the Robert Rubin crowd.

Obama comes in, he’s got all this populist rhetoric which is wonderful, progressive populist rhetoric which we needed badly. What does he do, goes straight to the Robert Rubin crowd and here comes Larry Summers, here comes Tim Geithner, we can go on and on and on, and he allows them to run things. You see it in the Suskind book, The Confidence Men. These guys are running things, and these are neo-liberal, deregulating free marketeers—and poverty is not even an afterthought for them.

They’re the same ones who screwed it up before.

Absolutely.

That was the worst moment [when he brought in the Rubin protégés].

We tried to point that out as soon as he became part of the Rubin stable, part of the Rubin group, and people didn’t want to hear it for the most part. They didn’t want to hear it.

Now it’s six years later and the search for the Grand Bargain has been fruitless. Why does he persist? I shouldn’t be asking you to psychologize him…

I think part of it is just temperament. That his success has been predicated on finding that middle ground. “We’re not black. We’re not white. We’re not rich. We’re not poor. There’s no classes in America. We are all Americans. We’re the American family.” He invoked the American family last week. It’s a lie, brother. You’ve got to be able to tell the truth to the American people. We’re not a family. We’re a people. We’re a nation. And a nation always has divisions. You have to be able to speak to those divisions in such a way that, like FDR, like Lincoln, you’re able to somehow pull out the best of who we are, given the divisions. You don’t try to act as if we have no divisions and we’re just an American family, with the poor getting treated in disgraceful ways and the rich walking off sipping tea, with no accountability at all, and your foreign policy is running amok with Israelis committing war crimes against precious Palestinians and you won’t say a mumbling word about the Palestinian children. What is history going to say about you? Counterfeit! That’s what they’ll say, counterfeit. Not the real thing.

Let’s talk about Ferguson. All I know about it is what I’ve been reading in the newspapers; I haven’t been out there. But I feel like there’s a lot more going on there than this one tragic killing.

Oh, absolutely. I mean, one, we know that this is a systemic thing. This thing has been going on—we can hardly get a word out of the administration in terms of the arbitrary police power. I’ll give you a good example: Carl Dix and I, three years ago, we went to jail over stop and frisk. We had a week-long trial and we were convicted, we were guilty. While the trial was going on, President Obama came into New York and said two things: He said that Michael Bloomberg was a terrific mayor even though he had stopped and frisked over four and a half million since 2002. Then he went on to say that Ed Koch was one of the greatest mayors in the last 50 years.

This is right at a time when we’re dealing with stop and frisk, arbitrary police power, and Bloomberg is extending stop and frisk and proud of it. At least Bloomberg is honest about it. Bill De Blasio is just trying to walk a tightrope in this regard. At least Bloomberg was honest about it. He was glad that stop and frisk was in place. When we went to jail he said, “Y’all are wrong. If stop and frisk is stopped, then crime is going to go up…”

I just give you that as an example in terms of arbitrary police power because in Ferguson we’re talking about arbitrary police power, and this particular instance of it has been going on for a long time. The Obama administration has been silent. Completely silent. All of a sudden now, you get this uprising and what is the response? Well, as we know, you send out a statement on the death of brother Robin Williams before you sent out a statement on brother Michael Brown. The family asked for an autopsy at the Federal level, they hold back, so they [the family] have to go and get their own autopsy, and then the federal government finally responds. [Obama] sends Eric, Eric’s on the way out. Eric Holder’s going to be gone by December.

Oh, is he?

Yeah, he’s already said, this is it. He’s concerned about his legacy as if he’s somehow been swinging for black folk ever since he’s been in there. That’s a lie. He’s been silent, too. He’s been relatively silent. He’s made a couple of gestures in regards to the New Jim Crow and the prison-industrial complex, but that’s just lately, on his way out. He was there for six years and didn’t do nothing. See what I mean?

I see exactly what you mean, but I look at the pictures at Ferguson and it looks like it could be anywhere in America, you know.

Absolutely. It looks like it could be New York, Chicago, Atlanta, L.A. It’s like they’re lucky that it hasn’t hit New York, Chicago, L.A. yet, you know.

When they rolled out the militarized police, it frightened people. Something is going on here. It’s not breaking down the way it usually does. People are reacting to this in a different way.

That’s true. It’s a great moment, but let me tell you this though. Because what happens is you got Eric Holder going in trying to create the calm. But you also got Al Sharpton. And when you say the name Al Sharpton, the word integrity does not come to mind. So you got low-quality black leadership. Al Sharpton is who? He’s a cheerleader for Obama.

I haven’t followed him for years; I didn’t know that.

He meets with the president regularly.

I did not know that.

On his show on MSNBC…

I knew he had a show, I just…I guess I don’t watch it enough.

You gotta check that out, brother.

That’s the problem with me, I don’t watch enough TV.

It’s probably good for your soul but you still have to be informed about how decadent things are out here. But, no: MSNBC, state press, it’s all Obama propaganda, and Sharpton is the worst. Sharpton said explicitly, I will never say a critical word about the president under any condition. That’s why he can’t stand what I’m saying. He can’t stand what I do because, for him, it’s an act of racial traitorship to be critical of the president. There’s no prophetic integrity in his leadership.

I understand that. I think a lot of people feel that way. Not just in a racial sense but because Obama’s a Democrat. People feel that way in a partisan sense.

I think that’s true too. You have had some Democrats who’ve had some criticisms of the president. You’ve got some senator that has been critical about his violation of civil liberties and so forth, and rightly so. But Sharpton, and I mention Sharpton because Sharpton is the major black leader who is called on to deal with arbitrary police power. So, Trayvon Martin, what did he do? You got all this black rage down there calling for justice. Has there been justice for Trayvon Martin? Has the Department of Justice done anything for the Trayvon Martin case? None whatsoever. The same is true now with Ferguson. They call Sharpton down. He poses, he postures like he’s so radical. But he is a cheerleader for the Obama administration which means, he’s going to do what he can to filter that rage in neo-liberal forms, rather than for truth and justice.

One last thing, where are we going from here? What comes next?

I think a post-Obama America is an America in post-traumatic depression. Because the levels of disillusionment are so deep. Thank God for the new wave of young and prophetic leadership, as with Rev. William Barber, Philip Agnew, and others. But look who’s around the presidential corner. Oh my God, here comes another neo-liberal opportunist par excellence. Hillary herself is coming around the corner. It’s much worse. And you say, “My God, we are an empire in decline.” A culture in decay with a political system that’s dysfunctional, youth who are yearning for something better but our system doesn’t provide them democratic venues, and so all we have are just voices in the wilderness and certain truth-tellers just trying to keep alive some memories of when we had some serious, serious movements and leaders.

One last thought, I was talking to a friend recently and we were saying, if things go the way they look like they’re going to go and Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee and then wins a second term, the next time there’ll be a chance for a liberal, progressive president is 2024.

It’d be about over then, brother. I think at that point—Hillary Clinton is an extension of Obama’s Wall Street presidency, drone presidency, national surveillance, national security presidency. She’d be more hawkish than he is, and yet she’s got that strange smile that somehow titillates liberals and neo-liberals and scares Republicans. But at that point it’s even too hard to contemplate.

I know, I always like to leave things on a pessimistic note. I’m sorry. It’s just my nature.

It’s not pessimistic, brother, because this is the blues. We are blues people. The blues aren’t pessimistic. We’re prisoners of hope but we tell the truth and the truth is dark. That’s different.
Thomas Frank Thomas Frank is a Salon politics and culture columnist. His many books include "What's The Matter With Kansas," "Pity the Billionaire" and "One Market Under God." He is the founding editor of The Baffler magazine.

Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck in a Bizarre Ayn Rand Fever Dream

By Steve Almond

"Who Is John Galt?" is a lurid pageant of right-wing propaganda—and proof of Rand's weirdly enduring influence.

 
Here’s what I think happened. I think Rush Limbaugh had a lousy day at the office and drowned his sorrows in bad Mexican food — something along the lines of three El Charrito’s Enchilada Grande packs — and then I think Rush fell asleep on his sofa and had a beautiful dream.

In this dream, all the most powerful and talented Americans finally get fed up with big government and its bureaucratic parasites and follow a hunky guy named John Galt to a gorgeous valley in Colorado, where together they declare themselves on strike against the government. This means they get to live in harmony and throw awesome Caucasian dinner parties and invent miraculous technological devices and pay for everything with shiny gold coins.

And because this is all happening inside Rush Limbaugh’s mind — with its misty yearnings for underage third-world prostitutes and endless Oxycontin — the production values of this particular dream have the quality of an off-brand soap opera.

It’s all pretty awesome. Weaselly government leaders meet in back rooms filled with cigar smoke to plot new ways to steal money from rich people and nationalize industry and force scientists to invent torture devices so as to control the population. Then they swish brandy around in snifters and blow smoke rings.

Meanwhile, back in paradise, this hot babe named Dagny, who runs American’s only remaining train company, crashes her plane and John Galt finds her and carries her back to his pad where he doesn’t have sex with her — not just yet. First, he’s got to introduce her to all his bad ass friends, like the doctor who examines her with his killer new medical gizmo and says, “It’s amazing what can be accomplished without red tape!” Or the mom who explains that she’s home-schooling her kids because “I wouldn’t put them in an educational system that doesn’t teach them to think.” That’s maybe the coolest thing about this particular utopia: Everyone speaks in Republican National Committee talking points.

Unfortunately, Dagny has to leave paradise before she even gets to have sex with John Galt, because the government has nationalized her train company and is running it into the ground. Bummer. In fact, the entire country is falling to pieces without men like Galt, who is both a brilliant engineer and a professional hair model. But that serves America right because, as Galt explains, “the powerful try to make us feel guilty for our success.” And that is so totally not cool.
 
Alas, Dagny leaves the valley and heads back to grubby old America and it’s just as poorly lit and effed-up as you’d expect, though she does get to have sex with John Galt (who comes to rescue her), an act of coitus that is performed on her desk. This sort of eases the comedown of living in a reeking dystopia.

Then John Galt gives a big speech on TV during which he asks some tough questions of the American people, who are mostly huddled outside pawn shops staring at televisions through the security bars. “Have you noticed that as everything in your world seems to decline, one thing still grows?” he asks. Everyone kind of nods. “It is the power of your rulers. None of their plans and directives have solved your problems or made your life better. The only result has been the increased control over you at the cost of your freedom.” He goes on to explain how business leaders got tired of being called “greedy exploiters” and decided to follow him. Why? Because they finally “recognized the honor they deserved and rebelled against the guilt you wanted them to feel.”

It’s not exactly “The Gettysburg Address,” but the media response is off the charts. Sean Hannity appears on-screen, looking engorged with gravitas. He loves the speech. Glenn Beck salutes Galt’s moxy. Ron Paul arises from his Cycronic crypt to predict the End Times, which is sort of a reflex at this point. The crowds outside the pawn shops start chanting John Galt’s name. It’s a movement.

Naturally, government thugs capture Galt and drag him to a secret lab where they strip off his shirt and punish him using their special new Torture Machine, which involves a lot of sparks. Galt looks a lot like Jesus Christ, if you can imagine Christ with stubble and chinos. But then Dagny and her pals rescue Galt and all the ubermenschen fly off together to their mountain hideaway where, Rush is pretty sure, they eventually build a PGA-quality golf course and hire Playboy Bunnies to wax your balls.

Except — spoiler alert! — Rush wakes up before this last part can happen. Worse yet, he has diarrhea. The beautiful thing is that even in the midst of his diarrhea, Rush is able to get online and right there in his email in-box is an invitation to the premiere of the new film, “Atlas Shrugged III.”

And now El Rushbo realizes why his dream felt so gosh darned familiar: because it’s the plot of the third and final part of Ayn Rand’s 1957 potboiler, which will debut tomorrow, Sept. 12, mostly in those precincts of the country where citizens still call the Civil War the War of Northern Aggression.

If this were an actual movie review I would, at this point, pretend to give a shit about the film’s quality. But as anyone who sits through “Atlas Shrugged III” will tell you, the filmmakers themselves don’t give a shit about the film’s quality.

Back in 2011, when the first installment came out, most reviewers agreed to regard it as a “major motion picture,” though it was funded not by a studio but by an exercise machine mogul named John Aglialoro. As a piece of art, and a form of entertainment, “Atlas Shrugged I” flopped hard.

But if there’s one thing the conservative movement of this country has proved, it’s that it can move even the most imaginatively inert product. With the ardent promotional support of Fox News and the Tea Party’s corporate arm, the film managed to earn out in video. And thus we got a second “Atlas,” with an all-new cast and even lower production values. This final chapter has an exhausted, obligatory air. It’s like watching the final phases of a botched plastic surgery.

The director — and co-writer — is a man named James Manera, whose previous work includes a documentary about music and an episode of the television show “Nash Bridges,” which he directed in 1996. I think I’ve said enough about the movie.

The larger curiosity here is Ayn Rand herself. It would be easy to write her off as a demented Cold War hack no longer relevant to our cultural and political discourse. But that would be a huge mistake.

 Because Rand’s slobbering conception of laissez-faire capitalism is not only alive and well, it remains a galvanizing ideological force.

Consider the young darling of conservative circles, former vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan. Ryan worships Rand. He once gave a speech confessing that he went into public service because of her. He also asked his staffers to read her novels, so they could learn about the free market. During the 2012 campaign, Ryan did a good job of playing down his devotion, because Rand was an atheist.

But her fingerprints are all over his famous Budget Plan. To the “takers” in our society — the aged and the sick — Ryan would provide rationed healthcare. Federal budgets for education, transportation, energy and veteran services would be slashed. The rich, meanwhile, would be handed billions in tax cuts.

The whole idea is to do like John Galt says: obliterate any restraints on personal greed. The Ryan Plan is a document so enthusiastic in its fraudulence, so casual in its cruelty, and so certain of its own virtue that it could only have been dreamed up by a man born into money, educated by Ayn Rand, and given finishing lessons in Congress.

For all the low-budget absurdity of this new movie, the famous speech Rand penned for John Galt back in 1957 still stands as the Rosetta Stone of modern conservatism. This country wasn’t built by men who sought handouts! Sweep aside those parasites of subsidized classrooms! On and on Galt yammers, forever propelled by grievance and self-pity.

His vision of capitalism is a cartoon that plays over and over again on Fox News: no poverty or environmental ruin or lack of equal opportunity. Mercy is a mug’s game in this world, a false impulse. The pursuit of wealth, by contrast, is a form of heroic purity. If only bureaucrats would get out of the way, our intrepid industrialists would beat a path to paradise and leave the moochers to rot. Rand’s mission — now taken up by Ryan and company — is to present capitalism not as an economic philosophy, but an impeccable moral system.

The writer and critic Gore Vidal characterized the philosophy of Ayn Rand as “nearly perfect in its immorality” and a number of critics described “Atlas Shrugged” (the novel) as a narrative driven by hate.

But my take on the book, as well as the movies it spawned, is just the opposite. For all the contempt that Rand (and Galt and Ryan) aim at the government, the predominant emotion they express is one of unbridled self-love. Rand herself was a kind of golem of narcissistic excess, a woman with delusions of grandeur. And she tapped into the crushing insecurity of the wealthy, the manner in which they must constantly remind themselves how much they deserve their privilege.

What animates these people and drives their chintzy propaganda isn’t rage at all, but a kind of annihilating self-hatred.

Rush is going to love “Atlas Shrugged III.”

It’s not just a movie to him. It’s a dream come true.

Friday, September 12, 2014

Panicked Georgia Republicans look for an edge: Suppressing black votes

The GOP secretary of state warned supporters “minority voters” are key to a Dem win. Now he’s charging voter fraud




Panicked Georgia Republicans look for an edge: Suppressing black votes  
Fran Millar, Brian Kemp (Credit: AP/Ric Feld/David Goldman/photo montage by Salon)

Georgia Republicans are anxious. The bright red state stays that way because African-Americans and Latinos are less likely to vote than white people. Democrats are trying to change that this year – Michelle Nunn has a decent chance of picking up a Republican-held Senate seat, while Jason Carter threatens Gov. Nathan Deal — and the GOP is fighting back.

State GOP leaders are ever more openly admitting that they’re threatened by black voter participation. And now the state’s top election official, caught on tape warning that turning out “minority voters” is the key to a Democratic victory, is accused of harassing a key voter registration project run by the pastor of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s Ebenezer Baptist Church and an African-American state legislator.

Earlier this week state Sen. Fran Millar got national attention when he railed against a decision by Atlanta’s DeKalb County to expand Sunday voting and open a new polling place at a shopping mall near black churches. “How ironic! Michele [sic] Obama comes to town and Chicago politics comes to DeKalb,” Millar railed in response, calling the move “blatantly partisan.”

Of course Sunday voting is a national phenomenon, available to citizens of all races – although it must be said that once black churches began to organize “Souls to the Polls” events after church, it suddenly became controversial on the right, and states like Wisconsin have limited it sharply. The spectacle of pro-Christian Republicans trying to keep other Christians from voting has always been vexing, and it’s hard to conclude it has to do with anything but race.

Criticized for his reply, Millar didn’t back down, posting on Facebook: “I would prefer more educated voters than a greater increase in the number of voters.” Yes, that does imply he thinks black voters are less educated. He added: “If you don’t believe this is an effort to maximize Democratic voters, than you are not a realist. This is a partisan stunt and I hope it can be stopped.”

But Democrats see a partisan stunt in a move by GOP Secretary of State Brian Kemp to subpoena the records of the New Georgia Project, the state’s largest voter registration effort, alleging the group has committed voter fraud.  And by records, Kemp means every imaginable record – you can see the subpoena here. It could tie up the group indefinitely.


New Georgia Project co-director Stacey Abrams, the House minority leader, says that out of 85,000 registrations, the group was aware of roughly 25 complaints about incomplete forms. “The complaints we were aware of, we’ve worked very closely with the secretary of state’s office to resolve,” Abrams told the Atlanta Journal Constitution. “In fact, the first time there was a complaint, I personally called [Kemp] and told him about our project, because I wanted to make sure we were working with the secretary of state’s office to get this work done, given how massive a project this would be.”

“We’re just not going to put up with fraud,” Kemp told a local television station. “I mean, we have zero tolerance for that in Georgia, so we’ve opened an investigation and served some subpoenas.”

Better Georgia has come up with audio of a July speech by Kemp to GOP supporters, in which he raised the specter of the defunct community-organizing group ACORN and warned that Democrats were pinning their hopes on “minority voters”:
Everybody remembers ACORN right? Well when ACORN was out registering people to vote, they were filling out applications, they were sending stuff in, you don’t know who these people are, where they’re from, the people that are registered, and the people that are filling those out.
Ironically, Kemp seems to be reassuring the group that voting restrictions passed in the wake of ACORN, including voter ID, prevent the sort of voter fraud he believes ACORN was promoting. And he closes his remarks with a warning:
You know the Democrats are working hard, and all these stories about them, you know, registering all these minority voters that are out there and others that are sitting on the sidelines, if they can do that, they can win these elections in November.  But we’ve got to do the exact same thing.
There’s nothing wrong with Kemp noting the Democrats’ plans to register “minority voters,” of course. Those plans are public. But when he’s obstructing an African-American-run voter registration project less than two months before the midterms, it’s hard not to wonder which hat he’s wearing: responsible election official, or desperate GOP partisan?

“GOP candidates in Georgia know they cannot win if the electorate reflects the increasing diversity of our state, so Sec. Kemp is using the power of his office to restrict minority voting access,” Better Georgia’s Bryan Long charged in a statement. He’s asking for a Justice Department investigation.

Stay tuned.
Joan Walsh Joan Walsh is Salon's editor at large and the author of "What's the Matter With White People: Finding Our Way in the Next America."

John McCain's quick attack

Sen. John McCain took to the airwaves beating the war drum, while also criticizing President Obama's foreign policy. Ed Schultz and Bob Shrum discuss.

Thursday, September 11, 2014

Ted Cruz Booed Off The Stage At Middle East Christian Fundraiser

By karoli

Out of touch much, Senator? 

Evidently Middle East Christians have not learned the ways of Dominionist Christians. Senator Ted Cruz was invited to speak at their fundraiser Wednesday and unexpectedly found himself booed off the stage.



This one time I'm going to quote the Daily Caller, since they have the video and it really is remarkable:
“Christians have no greater ally than Israel,” [Cruz] said, at which point members of the crowd began to yell “stop it” and booed him.
EWTN News Nightly’s Jason Calvi caught the moment on video.
“Those who hate Israel hate America,” he continued, as the boos and calls for him to leave the stage got louder. “Those who hate Jews hate Christians. If those in this room will not recognize that, then my heart weeps. If you hate the Jewish people you are not reflecting the teachings of Christ. And the very same people who persecute and murder Christians right now, who crucify Christians, who behead children, are the very same people who target Jews for their faith, for the same reason.”
The cries of “stop it, stop it, enough,” and booing continued. “Out, out, leave the stage!”
At this point IDC’s president, Toufic Baaklini, came out to the stage to ask for the crowd to listen to Cruz, but Cruz had already had enough.
In an interview with Breitbart News, Cruz explained that he chose to leave because if they could not stand with Israel, he could not stand with them.

What you have here is a deep chasm between Dominionists like Cruz who believe Israel must thrive in order for Christians to have dominion over all the earth and other Christian sects, who believe that ancient covenants with Israel are obsolete, and God's kingdom on earth will come via believers in Christ.

I don't know what the specifics of the attendees at that dinner believe with regard to Israel, but odds are there were some Palestinian Christians in that crowd who were not going to stand tall for Israel, nor should they be expected to.

Cruz' arrogance and insensitivity was on parade for all to behold at that dinner. If he thinks he has a snowball's chance in hell of winning the Republican nomination for the Presidency, he's more deluded than he knows.

Update: Here's a little more, from Twitter:

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

Philadelphia rewrites law on pot

Philadelphia Councilman Jim Kenney tells Lawrence O’Donnell about new legislation to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of Marijuana.

Sunday, September 7, 2014

GOP running out of arguments against the ACA

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver and MSNBC’s Melissa Harris Perry join Rev. Al Sharpton to talk about a new report that’s poking holes in GOP arguments against the Affordable Care Act.

Crowd laughs at Toronto Mayor Rob Ford during debate

TORONTO - Toronto Mayor Rob Ford called a business crowd "elitist" after the crowd laughed repeatedly at him during a debate ahead of next month's election.

The scandal-plagued mayor became an international celebrity last year after he acknowledged using crack in a "drunken stupor" after months of denials. Ford returned to work June 30 after a two-month rehab stint for drug and alcohol abuse. His behavior embarrassed many residents of Canada's largest city.

Ford took part in a debate at the Toronto Region Board of Trade on Thursday. When John Tory, a candidate running to replace Ford in the Oct. 27 election, poked holes into some of Ford's arguments the crowd laughed mockingly at Ford.

Ford later said "they can laugh all they want. I have a proven track record of success."

Wednesday, September 3, 2014

Fast Food Workers Will Serve Up Massive Minimum Wage Protests This Thursday

By

The next round of protests from fast food workers will take place on Thursday, when people in more than 100 cities will stage sit-ins or walk off the job as they seek a $15 minimum wage. “On Thursday, we are prepared to take arrests to show our commitment to the growing fight for $15,” Terrence Wise, a Burger King employee  and a member of the fast-food workers’ national organizing committee, told The New York Times.

The strike is the latest in the Service Employees International Union's two-year effort to pressure lawmakers and employers to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, up from $7.25. During a nationwide protest held May 15, workers in several countries across the world protested in solidarity. And unlike past protests, unions are also encouraging the nation's 2 million home-care workers to participate in the day's protests to put more pressure on cities.

On Labor Day, President Obama renewed his support for a raise in the minimum wage — to $10.10 an hour. At an event hosted by the A.F.L.-C.I.O. Obama said that American workers deserve a raise and, if he was a fast food worker and “wanted an honest day’s pay for an honest day’s work, I’d join a union.”

Wolf Maintains Huge Lead in Pennsylvania

By Taegan Goddard

A new Robert Morris University Polling Institute poll in Pennsylvania finds Tom Wolf (D) leads Gov. Tom Corbett (R) by a wide margin, 56% to 25%, among likely voters.

America Is So Over Home Ownership: Why The Shift To A Renting Economy Might Actually Be Good

By Henry Grabar

Between 1970 and 1990, the population of Philadelphia shrank by a quarter, dropping from 1.95 to 1.59 million. Like many American cities, it seemed caught in a downward spiral.

Photo Credit: Chungking/Shutterstock.com
Since then – like many American cities – Philadelphia has stabilized. The population now appears to have bottomed out at the millennium, and has been regaining residents over the past decade. But as it rebounds, Philly is becoming a different kind of city.

In the two most recent decades, which comprise the bounce of the city’s population curve, owner-occupied housing dropped even more steeply than in the ’70s and ’80s. Between 2000 and 2012, the percentage of Philly houses and apartments inhabited by owners dropped from 59 to 52, the second-sharpest decline among big U.S. cities during that time.

Meanwhile, renter-occupied housing exploded. More units are rented today in Philadelphia than in 1970, despite 400,000 fewer residents. According to a report from Pew Charitable Trusts, the size of the Philadelphia rental stock has grown by 37,000 since the millennium — a gain of more than 10 percent.

Philadelphia is a concentrated case of a larger trend in American housing: We are increasingly renting instead of buying our homes. Rental household growth is rising at double the rate it has in previous decades. Developers are building more multi-family units than they have in years. Last month, the home ownership rate fell to a 19-year low, down to 64.7 percent from a peak of 69.2 percent in 2004.
 
This is bad news, insofar as it demonstrates that Americans are struggling to buy homes. It’s bad news for the housing industry, whose greenfield development machine has less fuel. But as a long-term development, it signifies an emerging model of American life released from the cult of home ownership. It would make Americans more mobile (as we once were), and more able to adapt to economic changes. Jordan Rappaport, a senior economist at the Kansas City Fed, elucidates some benefits of the shift from single-family to multi-family housing (which is closely related to the owner-renter shift):
It will shift consumer demand away from goods and services that complement large indoor space and a backyard toward goods and services more oriented toward living in an apartment. Similarly, the possible shift toward city living may dampen demand for automobiles, highways and gasoline but increase demand for restaurants, city parks and high-quality public transit.
For the moment, though, Americans are renting across the spectrum of the built environment, in cities (long skewed toward renters), suburbs (shifting in that direction) and exurbs. Wall Street has taken notice: The Blackstone Group, a private equity shop, now owns and rents some 45,000 homes. At one point, the firm’s housing division was spending $150 million a week buying houses to rent.

But academics, politicians and homeowners have long been suspicious of tenants. Increasing the home ownership rate has been a foundational goal of American politics at the federal level for most of the past century. In fact, it’s older than that: Most states had property restrictions on voting well into the 19th century.

“For a man who owns his home acquires with it a new dignity,” Sen. Charles Percy said in 1966. “He begins to take pride in what is his own, and pride in conserving and improving it for his children. He becomes a more steadfast and concerned citizen of his community. He becomes more self-confident and self-reliant. The mere act of becoming a homeowner transforms him. It gives him roots, a sense of belonging, a true stake in his community and well being.” The tax code is engineered to support that viewpoint, however off-key it may sound to the millions of Americans mired in foreclosure proceedings.

“Home ownership and Neighborhood Stability,” a 1996 paper by planning professor William M. Rohe from which the Percy quote comes, offers what might now be seen as the established academic perspective on renters. Rohe and co-author Leslie Stewart found that the home ownership rate does indeed have a positive correlation with various social and economic attributes of a “good” neighborhood. It wasn’t just that homeowners kept the paint fresh and the lawn mowed. Their status led “to greater social interaction within, and psychological identification with, the neighborhood.”

But a significant amount of doubt remains about cause and effect. The increase in “neighborhood stability” (which, per the authors, includes resident tenure, property values, and physical and social conditions) “may be the result of the types of households drawn to home ownership” rather than the experience itself. And since home ownership is closely tied to income, family size, marital status and age, it can be hard to separate those variables. Self-selection, the authors write, is “a confounding factor.”

How might things be changing today, with homeowners under duress and a whole new class of former and future owners thrust into the rental market?

Back in Philly, a recent survey of renters conducted by the city found unexpected levels of social engagement. Planners were surprised by how many renters knew their neighbors, participated in neighborhood events and helped maintain the physical environment through volunteer work.

Philadelphia, however, despite the recent shift toward a renter city, is still more than half homeowners. Of the country’s 10 largest cities, most (running across typical urban typologies) have higher percentages of renters: Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, San Diego and Dallas all have lower home ownership rates than Philly. Nearly seven in 10 New York City units are rented. How does NYC maintain any semblance of community with such a large population of “transient” neighbors? Rent control and stabilization, which cover 1 million New York City apartments.

Most economists don’t like rent-control programs, arguing that they harm the housing stock and drive up prices for newcomers. But a city with rents rising just as rapidly as the renter population risks becoming a kind of deck of cards, shuffled every 12 months when leases expire and landlords target a new stratum of the population. Unfortunately, that’s now a description that could apply to a number of American cities – not just San Francisco and Boston. Even in Houston, famous for its low cost of housing, rent is rising at a record rate. Evictions are up 43 percent in Milwaukee since 2010.

Cities like Philadelphia have already cut property taxes to help longtime homeowners (who, by the way, stand to make a windfall off gentrification) stay put in their neighborhoods. But help for renters remains politically charged, in part because renting is still seen as a transitory stage — a life-step to be tolerated but not encouraged.

But this is not a universal perspective. In Germany, for example, renting is the norm — and people are quite happy with the situation. France, Switzerland, Denmark, Austria and the Netherlands have similar renter-owner breakdowns.

Is America moving in that direction? If so, it’s worth asking ourselves why we’d rather not have renters for neighbors — and in the cases where there’s some truth to the stereotype, what we can do about it.