Epiphany

So perhaps the secret to keeping down the blood pressure is simply this: get all news in written form. News outlets, blogs, doesn't matter. Also NPR, NPR is fine. The only thing that matters is that one avoids, at all costs, television news.

Because as soon as you turn on the cable, you will see and hear the incestuous paid anchors and analysts and assorted denizens of the echo chamber that is "I get paid to talk about this" TV news, and they will always- always- offer some tidbit, some SURPRISING observation, which will drive up the damn blood pressure once again.

So yesterday, after I had blogged about not having the capacity for shock, outrage, or snark these days, I turned on MSNBC for a bit and got to hear Pat Buchanan (and who isn't surprised that he's on TV at all?) say that we are in a "near 1930 situation in the financial sector, and hoping it doesn't spill over to the larger economy".

What fucking planet does he live on? Why is he ever on my teevee?

So that was, perhaps, my first surprise! for the new year. And the accompanying epiphany: If I need something to get angry about (because anger is often a prime inspiration for action), all I need to do is spend a bit of time with cable news.

Last word (for today)

Scott's comments are really very good. So here they are:

The day after Prop 8 passed, Vicki asked me some pointed questions about the nature of possible challenges and the validity of her brother's marriage about three months ago. My bottom line reply was that she was asking for $5 Million of legal analysis in 15 minutes, and that as good as I am I don't bill at $20 Million an hour.

Fortunately, the ACLU, LAMBDA, among others have all opened fire with direct review to the California Supreme Court. Along with several highly respected appellate firms, the plaintiffs challenging Prop 8 have the best representation possible.

Interesting issues include the procedural validity of Prop 8's purported amendment to the state constitution, retroactivity (the AG's statement is not precedent, although I agree with his analysis), and one meaty issue I noticed November 5 (apparently validated by ACLU), that Prop 8 speaks only to the validity of same sex marriages, but does NOT address the Equal Protection Clause of the state constitution. Prop 8 could have avoided this thorny issue by adding the words "Notwithstanding the Equal Protection Clause of this Constitution . . ." So there is a patent contradiction between the purported amendment and the Equal Protection Clause.

Prop 22, by contrast (which amended the California Family Code, not the state constitution) was struck down by the California Supreme Court as violating the state Equal Protection Clause. The constitutional right of course trumped the statutory restriction.

The absence of the prefatory language in Prop 8 was doubtless intentional, as the Mormon Church also has very good attorneys.

In the end this is purely political, even though the legal issues are fascinating. By not including that prefatory language, the drafters of Prop 8 simply created one more issue to litigate, thereby ensuring the “issue” remain active that much longer.

Not surprisingly, the backers of Prop 8 are in business, and business has been very, very good for them. Unfortunately the product they sell is hate and fear.

The longer they can keep the manufactured "issue" of gay marriage alive (cf. the politically conceived term "partial birth abortion"), the longer they can continue to sell their product: "we hate fags." We shouldn’t be overconfident, however, since in 2004 Karl Rove proved this to be a very, very successful product.

But take heart that the righteous fight for a properly expansive interpretation of equal protection under the law and for marriage equality is being fought by the best available. Until then, let’s raise our voices in righteous indignation.

Playing devil’s advocate is essential to being an effective attorney. I, however, am simply confounded by the opposition, meaning either that I’m lacking professional chops, or that the proponents of Prop 8 and its ilk totally lack logic and merit. I doubt very seriously that the problem is any lack of skill on my part.

ed note: Vicki is a friend of ours. Her brother was married this summer to the love of his life. The family rejoiced that, for the first time since he hit adolescence and knew who he was, he was a full member of society, with all of the rights and responsibilities and sheer joy that accompanies that.

"Breathtakingly Hairbrained"

Yglesias:

There are very few members of congress with whom I’ve ever had the opportunity to discuss a substantive matter of public policy. But as it happens, one of them — the one with whom I’ve had the second-longest exchange — is Mike Pence (R-IN) who I’ve seen on television today repeatedly discussing the Republican Study Group’s “plan” for the financial crisis. And I can tell you this about Mike Pence: he has no idea what he’s talking about. The man is a fool, who deserves to be laughed at. He’s almost stupid enough to work in cable television.

Ah, but not only is not working for cable, he's proposing "crisis" legislation. Let's see what Wonk Room has to say:

The phrase “breathtakingly hairbrained” comes to mind when considering the apparent tax cut proposal. We know that for the group authoring this proposal, tax cuts for the rich and corporations are the answer to every problem. But even the administration, which has relentlessly imposed that agenda for eight years, has recognized that the well was dry on that front for this crisis. But it gets worse. Not only is this another tax cut for the rich, it appears to be one that is dead-aimed at doing much more harm than good — abolishing the tax on capital gains.
[snip]
The idea of insuring mortgage backed securities almost seems like a cynical ploy to pretend to be doing something when actually doing nothing. The idea is that the government would sell holders of mortgage backed securities insurance against losses—and that it would charge such premiums that the government wouldn’t lose money on the deal. That’s akin to selling homeowners insurance in New Orleans after the dikes broke.
[snip]
What they propose on deregulation isn’t clear, but the fact that they’re even still talking about “deregulation” when it was slipshod regulatory oversight that got us into this mess shows a profound misunderstanding of what’s going on. One rumored target is the Sarbanes-Oxley regulations which, in fact, impose accountability on Wall Street — not something we want to do away with right now.

The whole thing is well worth a read.

I can't decide what the stupid to evil ratio is here. I suppose it depends on the member. Boehner, for instance, is 99% evil, with a touch of stupid to get him through the door.

Who's more scary: the racist "base" or the guys at the top?

The other night at a barbecue, a man asked me, regarding Obama:

Do you really think he'll live through his first term?

I answered first, I certainly hope so. Second, and more importantly, I don't think fear is a rational basis for making such a decision, so I don't contemplate that question very much.

It is very likely true, as Dave Neiwert posits, that when Obama takes the office, there will be a far-right backlash, sort of the '90s on steroids. It is also possible that we will avoid another Oklahoma City, and that presidential security is strong enough to thwart assassination. After all: meth-heads plotting assassination last week were arrested before they could leave their hotel room.

But Neiwert has a frightening post today on those meth-heads: why, when the FBI wanted them charged with conspiracy to assassinate Senator Obama, the Rove appointed US attorney declined.

Amy Goodman was charged this week with Conspiracy to Commit Riot for the crime of stepping off the convention floor and into the street.

These men had a plan and the equipment to carry it out, the fed has weapons and testimony to convict with, and the US Attorney declined?

Another funny thing: When a black man in prison sent a threatening letter containing baby powder to John McCain, Troy Eid brought down the full force of the law, complete with press conferences and public declarations that "We won't stand for threats of this kind in Colorado."
But when it’s a claque of white men with rifles, disguises, and all the accoutrement of a conspiracy – as well as open admissions to it – Troy Eid isn’t worried. After all, they just a bunch of harmless, tweakers, right? … Just like little Timmy McVeigh.
But then, when you’re a Karl Rove operative promoted to deliver justice the Republican way, as Troy Eid is, that’s the way the scales fall. As Marcy reported at the time, Eid in fact nearly didn't get the Colorado job because of concerns about "improper lobbying."
His failure to take this matter seriously is itself a serious matter. When law-enforcement officials let this stuff slip by, they send a dangerous message to other would-be plotters out there. And next time, they may in fact be more competent.

I really don't know what else to say.

A Moment of Silence for the GOP

The party is over.

The party of Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, even Ronald Reagan, but most especially George Dubya Bush, is dead.

Let us bow our heads in a moment of silence.

Okay, moment's up.

Remember when we were afraid of them? Remember when Karl Rove was the most brilliant man ever conceived? Remember when Democrats voted for war, condemned Moveon.org, and made Harry Reid Senate Majority Leader for fear the almighty Karl Rove would smite them with his evil genius?

Remember the permanent Republican majority?

Well, that's all over now.

The GOP has been in critical condition for some time. Republican Congressman Tom Davis admitted as much, way back in May, when the traditional media was still distracting itself with concern that Democratic Party might disolve into an all-out Civil War because we had two extraordinary presidential candidates and a bit of option anxiety.

Said Davis:

The Republican brand is in the trash can...if we were dog food, they would take us off the shelf.

No doubt today's Republican Party looks back fondly on those days, when the GOP brand was merely in the trash can instead of the coffin.

Last week, we witnessed the rebirth of the Democratic Party. It was a week of all-stars laying out a bright, bold vision for America's future.

Michelle Obama gave us the picture of the all-American family of the 21st century.

Hillary Clinton gave us a history lesson of women's suffrage and the Democratic Party, culminating in that moment when we could all celebrate 18 million cracks in a glass ceiling that surely will be shattered in my lifetime.

Bill Clinton reminded us of all that is possible when a Democrat who believes in science and education and civil rights and equal rights sits in the Oval Office.

And Barack Obama gave us a reason to be proud again, to hold our heads up high and say, "You're damn right I'm a Democrat."

And then, the next day, John McCain gave us Sarah Palin.

The jokes write themselves. In fact, it must be difficult to be a writer at The Onion or The Daily Show or The Colbert Report. What could you possibly say that's any funnier than the headlines?

The Republican Party is so desperate this week that President Bush would rather pay attention to a natural disaster than play politics at the Republican National Convention.

That's pretty damn desperate.

In one weekend, 100 issues surrounding Governor Palin emerged. Read Bobo2020's comprehensive list.

And that was just the weekend.

The Republicans have become so desperate they are now accusing the Democratic Party of sexism.

Carly Fiorina, the disgraced former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, had this to say:

[I am] appalled by the Obama campaign's attempts to belittle Governor Sarah Palin's experience. The facts are that Sarah Palin has made more executive decisions as a Mayor and Governor than Barack Obama has made in his life. Because of Hillary Clinton's historic run for the Presidency and the treatment she received, American women are more highly tuned than ever to recognize and decry sexism in all its forms. They will not tolerate sexist treatment of Governor Palin.

She further condemned Obama for daring to compare his responsibilities as the head of a national presidential campaign with Palin's staff of 50 when she was the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska.

In other words, the Democratic Party is sexist for telling the truth. The party that supports equal pay and reproductive freedom is sexist because it dared to suggest that Palin's "executive experience" as the mayor of a town of 8,000 -- a town that apparently she left in worse shape than she found it -- does not compare with the national and international experience of the Democratic ticket.

That's pretty desperate.

And, as noted by ksh01:

CNN is reporting that John McCain has canceled today's scheduled interview on Larry King due to Campbell Brown's interview with Tucker Bounds yesterday! Holy Shit. This is imploding.

Remember when John McCain called the media his "base"?

This is the end. This where the Republican Party dies. All that is left now is the small group who believes the earth is flat, global warming is a hoax, oil drilling will save our economy, and, oh yes, abstinence-only education works.

Or not.

There will be no permanent Republican majority. There will be no continuation of Reagan's legacy.

Even if Governor Palin removes her name from nomination to spend more time with her -lawyers- family, is there any Republican in the country who would volunteer to be the sacrifical lamb who was second choice to Governor Palin?

I think not.

Goodbye, Republican Party.

Rest in peace.

Cross-posted at DailyKos

Calling all PUMAS: you're embarrassing me

The McCain camp's big strategy for this week is to use the simple little women it can get near to sow discontent in the Democratic party and peel away feminist support for Barack Obama. And the disgusting thing is that there seem to be quite a few simple little women lining up to help them do it.

Witness the ad they released: a Washington nurse and Hillary delegate, telling you "It's okay" to vote for a man who voted against the Lebetter legislation on equal pay this year.

Witness the pandering "Happy Hour for Hillary" party they're throwing in Denver.

Are you all so stupid that you don't understand you're being used? Are you all so self-involved that you don't notice when you're being lied to?

Got a problem with Obama referring to someone as "sweetie"? What about McCain referring to his wife as a cunt?

You wanna buy the idea that he will support Roe v. Wade? Did you watch the Saddleback forum? Have you listened to anything he has said on the subject during his entire public life- other than one comment in 1999? How about checking something easy- like his campaign website?

"Country before party"? So you think that the economy is swell, war is good, and if we deregulate everything except equal pay we'll be better off after 4 years of McCain? And that's why you were supporting Hllary Clinton?

I understand that there is an argument for acknowledging your disappointment. I know that you aren't fond of Obama, for whatever reason. But if your answer to all of this is to let the Republicans use you, you're an embarrassment.

I want my habeas back

The AG thinks the FBI needs broader surveillance powers, and he's fixin' to do something about it. From NYT:

WASHINGTON — A Justice Department plan would loosen restrictions on the Federal Bureau of Investigation to allow agents to open a national security or criminal investigation against someone without any clear basis for suspicion, Democratic lawmakers briefed on the details said Wednesday.

The plan, which could be made public next month, has already generated intense interest and speculation. Little is known about its precise language, but civil liberties advocates say they fear it could give the government even broader license to open terrorism investigations.

On Tuesday, I listened to a really great Fresh Air with Terry Gross segment with Michael Beschoss, on his book Taking Charge: The Johnson White House Tapes, 1963-1964.

A couple of bits of the original tapes from October 1964 are fascinating and have topical relevance. LBJ is on the eve of a reelection campaign, and his private conversations with a couple of key figures kept me in my car. Listen to his conversation with Billy Graham (about 9 minutes in at the link above) if you think that using evangelical leaders to cover one's political ass was invented in 1980.

The segment that I'm thinking about this morning, though, was a conversation toward the end of October with J. Edgar Hoover.

LBJ is worried, because there are rumors of a pending "October Surprise" planned by the Goldwater camp. Specifically, he's worried that Goldwater's team may have found and will name secret homosexuals within the administration, or photos of Johnson himself with a woman of ill repute. A Republican operator has scored a point earlier in the month, discovering that close Johnson aide Walter Jenkins was arrested at a DC YMCA having sex with a man. The press was tipped off, and Johnson suddenly feels vulnerable on the "morality" issue.

On the one hand, this tape has a comic edge: Johnson is aware of the rumors about Hoover's sexuality, so he is probably taking some real pleasure in pressing him about how one might know that someone was "queer". It's amusing if disgusting as they discuss the ways men part their hair, "walking funny", mannerisms, and the like.

But this conversation is only one part of a broader narrative. Johnson was on the phone with The director of the FBI a lot during these weeks, for one reason and one reason only: to put a stop to any opposition research hitting the press in the run up to the election.

Beschloss makes the point that this was in no way atypical presidential behavior. That the FBI should be used to silence potential scandal doesn't appear to have been questioned. We talk about the "hands off" approach that the press took with FDR's disabilities or JFK's private life, but I wonder how much of that had to do with the presidential ability to call out the goons when needed to squelch gossip or unflattering information.

The Nixon administration's grasping paranoia brought an end, for a time, to the use of the FBI as a private security force and the DOJ as a political shield. But since 9/11/01, new fears and paranoia have given strength to the expansion of executive power and the lessening of restrictions or oversight with regard to the practices of the military, the FBI, the NSA, and the DOJ. The agencies and institutions which could wreak the most damage to a constitutional republic have been steadily freed from restrictions designed to protect the country and its citizens from constitutional abuse, while the institutions whose role it is to provide oversight and correction have seen their influence steadily usurped (congress) or undermined through political maneuvering and deck-stacking (the courts, the free press). All under the undying zombie meme that they need all these "tools" to prevent another major terrorist attack.

But. It has been extensively documented that the failures of the FBI and intelligence agencies prior to 9/11/01 were due not to a lack of information, but a lack of action. The FBI had plenty of dots to connect, plenty of actionable intelligence. The lack was in leadership. Anti-terrorist investigation was not given priority, and key information was not shared up the chain of command.

The idea that 9/11/01 would have been prevented if only the agencies had better tools is false. But it's prevalent, and it has lead to the destruction of law and order, and of constitutional protections. While I'm sure that Bush and Mukasey really just want to keep everybody safe, they are creating tools which can -and will, given our history- be used as political bludgeons, and undermine the integrity of our criminal justice system.

Quite a legacy.

Mukasey, for his part, says that the new guidelines are intended merely to assist poor, confused agents, who cannot seem to figure out the rules as they are (this is the same reason Mukasey gives for the politicization of Justice under AG Gonzalez). He has agreed not to sign the new guidelines until after a congressional hearing on 9/17.

Let's hope the congress shows some spine. That would be a nice change.

Dear Senator Lieberman:

Fuck You.

"Between one candidate, John McCain, who has always put the country first, worked across party lines to get things done, and one candidate who has not."

When was Senator McCain MORE selfless?

Was it when Barack Obama was working as a community organizer, and Senator McCain was one of the Keating 5?

Was it when Senator Obama was paying off his college loans, and Senator McCain was buying $500 fucking Italian shoes?

Was it earlier this week, when St McCain decided that Ralph Reed, the man whose undoing was largely due to Senator McCain's own committee investigation, was a worthy surrogate and fundraiser?

Is that when it was? When he decided to put friendship with a money-laundering phony over an honest campaign?

You know, I really do hate all of politics-of-the-personal garbage, and that includes the bit about Senator McCain's shoes. But as his campaign knows that he has no hope of winning if he's honest about his policies and ideas, they've decided to go Rove. And Senator Joe Lieberman is the biggest loudest lyingest fucking asshole they've got.

More on happy, happy Pakistan

NY Times:

After the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush committed the nation to a “war on terrorism” and made the destruction of Mr. bin Laden’s network the top priority of his presidency. But it is increasingly clear that the Bush administration will leave office with Al Qaeda having successfully relocated its base from Afghanistan to Pakistan’s tribal areas, where it has rebuilt much of its ability to attack from the region and broadcast its messages to militants across the world.

But The Surge rocks!

David Brooks: Bush Sucks (And We Should Love Him For It)

It must be hard to be a conservative columnist in the waning days of the Bush empire.

It must be hard to be a conservative columnist in the months leading up to what will most likely be a crushing defeat of John McCain.

And it must be very hard to be David Brooks, conservative columnist for the New York Times, trying to salvage your credibility as report after report after report proves that you have spent the better part of the past eight years on the wrong side.

In his column The Bush Paradox in today's New York Times, Brooks struggles once again to vindicate not just the disastrous policies of George W. Bush, but the personality flaws of the man himself.

Brooks takes us back to the winter of 2006-2007 when, in Brooks's own words:

Iraq was in free fall, with horrific massacres and ethnic cleansing that sent a steady stream of bad news across the world media. The American public delivered a stunning electoral judgment against the Iraq war, the Republican Party and President Bush.

But Bush paid no attention to the "stunning electoral judgment" of his war policies. He wanted to send another 20,000 troops to Iraq, and nothing would stand in his way.

He paid no attention to the conclusions of the Baker-Hamilton report, "which called for handing more of the problems off to the Iraqi military and wooing Iran and Syria."

He paid no attention to the Democratic leadership or the op-ed pages across the country that called for Bush to start withdrawing troops from Iraq.

He paid no attention to his own generals -- the "generals on the ground" Bush often invokes as a reason to ignore the call of the "stunning electoral judgment."

When President Bush consulted his own generals, the story was much the same. Almost every top general, including Abizaid, Schoomaker and Casey, were against the surge. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was against it, according to recent reports. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki called for a smaller U.S. presence, not a bigger one.

But according to Brooks, Bush's refusal to listen to anyone -- American citizens, the commission tasked with offering solutions to the quagmire, or even his own advisers -- is exactly why Bush is, apparently, a visionary.

The secret to Bush's success, Brooks argues, is those very traits the rest of us decry.

Bush is a stubborn man. Well, without that stubbornness, that unwillingness to accept defeat on his watch, he never would have bucked the opposition to the surge.

Bush is an outrageously self-confident man. Well, without that self-confidence he never would have overruled his generals.

...

Bush is also a secretive man who listens too much to Dick Cheney. Well, the uncomfortable fact is that Cheney played an essential role in promoting the surge. Many of the people who are dubbed bad guys actually got this one right.

See? He's stubborn, arrogant, and secretive -- and, oh yes, he listens to Dick Cheney, the man who claimed the Iraqi insurgency was "in the last throes" three years ago.

But these are all good qualities because look how Bush has been proven right, while everyone else has been proven wrong.

And now the cocksure surge opponents, drunk on their own vindication, will get to enjoy their season of humility.

We should not be criticizing. We should not be investigating. We should not be questioning. We certainly should not be withdrawing.

No, we should be enjoying our "season of humility."

And then:

...the more honest among the surge opponents will concede that Bush, that supposed dolt, actually got one right. Some brave souls might even concede that if the U.S. had withdrawn in the depths of the chaos, the world would be in worse shape today.

So we must humble ourselves before the great and brilliant President Bush, and then we must concede that he "actually got one right."

Why does this matter? Bush will be leaving the White House in another six months, and if the current polls are right, he will be taking his failed policies with him as the Democrats sweep the White House, the House, and the Senate, ushering in a new era of politics and policies that are actually based on something slightly more substantive than stubbornness, arrogance, secrecy, and listening to Dick Cheney.

But this is why it matters.

Because David Brooks is still at the New York Times. And as of this year, William Krystol is too.

And countless other talking heads who were wrong -- absolutely, unequivocally wrong -- are still writing and talking, and we are still listening.

And despite Brooks's rather hypocritical call for the "cocksure surge opponents" to humbly admit how wrong they were, we have yet to see such humility from the chattering class that helped to get us into this mess in the first place.

Yes, some newspapers and magazines have attempted to analyze their own failings in covering the build up to the war.

In May of 2004, the editors of the New York Times published FROM THE EDITORS; The Times and Iraq, in which they concluded, after "reviewing hundreds of articles written during the prelude to war and into the early stages of the occupation", that:

But we have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been. In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged -- or failed to emerge.

Too bad about all the dead people. Wish we'd been more rigorous. Wish we'd been more aggressive. (No mention of the reporter, Judith Miller, who wrote the bulk of these stories. No mention of her complicity in allowing members of the Bush Administration to cite her stories, the stories that were fed to her by the Bush Administration, as evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.)

Later in 2004, executive editor of The Washington Post, Leonard Downie Jr. acknowledged that Post's coverage was, well, flawed.

"We were so focused on trying to figure out what the administration was doing that we were not giving the same play to people who said it wouldn't be a good idea to go to war and were questioning the administration's rationale," Mr. Downie said in a front-page article that assessed the newspaper's prewar coverage. "Not enough of those stories were put on the front page. That was a mistake on my part."

It was a mistake. See? Mistakes happen. Oh well. Thousands of dead American troops, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, but, you know, that was a mistake.

Whoops.

But has the media really learned its lesson? Have we?

Has the coverage of Iran's nuclear program been any different than the coverage of Iraq six years ago?

Just last month, the New York Times published this story:

Atomic Monitor Signals Concern Over Iran’s Work

The International Atomic Energy Agency, in an unusually blunt and detailed report, said Monday that Iran’s suspected research into the development of nuclear weapons remained “a matter of serious concern” and that Iran continued to owe the agency “substantial explanations.”

The nine-page report accused the Iranians of a willful lack of cooperation, particularly in answering allegations that its nuclear program may be intended more for military use than for energy generation.

A few days later, the Times ran an editorial titled "Iran and the Inspectors," in which it warned:

This latest report is alarming, but it must not be used as an excuse by Washington hard-liners to launch another war. There are no good military options.

That seems like an improvement, doesn't it?

But we shall see. If, for some reason, the Democrats fail to capture the White House, we will likely see an increase in stories about the supposed threat Iran poses to American security. We already know John McCain's foreign policy regarding Iran:

"You know that old Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran?" the Republican presidential candidate said. Then, he sang. "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran."

So while Bush may be on his way out, we do not yet know what we will get in his place. And we do not know how the major media will cooperate as it did in 2002 and 2003.

But David Brooks is right about one thing:

Life is complicated. The reason we have democracy is that no one side is right all the time. The only people who are dangerous are those who can’t admit, even to themselves, that obvious fact.

[Cross-posted at DailyKos]

And everyone will greet us as liberators...

John "the meanest mustache in the world" Bolton, this morning:

I don’t think you’d hear the Arab states say this publicly, but they would be delighted if the United States or Israel destroyed the Iranian nuclear weapons capability.

What a fucking asshole.

Deja vu

via Atrios:

Late payments and defaults in every other major category of consumer debt also rose in the first quarter, the American Bankers Association reported. Auto loans issued through car dealers have a delinquency rate of 3.13 percent, the highest since at least 1990, according the ABA.

"The rise in consumer credit delinquencies is consistent with a rapidly slowing economy," said James Chessen, the ABA's chief economist. "Stress in the housing market still dominates the story, but it's a broader tale of an overall weak economy."

Emphasis mine. Original here.

Hm. 1990. What was happening then?

Oh, yeah. We'd recently completed 8 years of spending a bunch of money the government didn't have, because the Reaganites sincerly believed that money would appear out of thin air if we just lowered taxes on the wealthy, deregulated everything, busted unions, and prayed.

Note

About the posts below:

No, I don't want to spend the next few months looking backward. Yes, I am thrilled at the feeling of opportunity and transformation that the presidential race is inspiring.

I'm all about celebrating, this week.

But unpunished crimes of this magnitude upset me. And being lied to by a guy whose salary I pay and who obviously holds our concrens, our fears, our morals, our opinions in total comtempt really pisses me off.

Fraud

Although phase 2 of the Senate Intel committee's report on the handling of pre-war intel is 5 years late, it is finally done. TPM provides links to download the entire report here.

A quick and not at all thorough glance tells me that (like Scott McMoonface's confession) there isn't much new stuff there. The fact that the Bush administration committed fraud on this country is easily documented by available public record statements and documents, and has been for years.

What is significant is that it came out of the senate, and that Olympia Snowe and Chuck Hagel approved it. Just as Scottie's book is significant because he's the first of the Texas loyalists to confirm pretty much everything every former administration member has said over the last 7 years.

I really think the only way to drive home the point that fucking Bush and Rummy and Cheney and Wolfie have killed tens of thousands of people because they WANTED TO, and not due to any actual threat against this country, would be full-on impeachment hearings for Bush and Cheney, and fraud prosecutions for the others.

Not going to happen though.

From around the intertubes:

Balloon Juice:

“Shorter Phase II Intelligence Report- the dirty fucking hippies were right about everything.”

Think Progress notes that Bush's claim of credibility on this issue is somewhat undermined by the report:

Q: Can you explain why you believe you’re still a credible messenger on the war?

BUSH: I’m credible because I read the intelligence, David.

To which Atrios responds:

Also undermines claim that he's not a sociopath who lied to bring the country into a war which has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

Just sayin'.

More memories

Lots of Katrina talk this week, including John McCain completely lying about supporting any review of what went wrong and why.
Over at Salon , more on what was going on in the White House while New Orleans drowned.

On Monday, August 29, 2005, at about 6:00 a.m., Hurricane Katrina slammed into the coasts of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. A category 5 hurricane until just before landfall, it was one of the worst storms ever to hit the Gulf Coast. Kathleen Blanco, the governor of Louisiana, had been briefed extensively about what to expect when the storm hit, which was why, on the Friday night before the storm reached the coast, she signed papers declaring Louisiana to be in a state of emergency.

Returning that week from camping in a ditch in Crawford, Texas, I watched the tragedy unfold on TV and wrote:

Let’s just take a moment to reflect: Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi were being slammed by a category five storm, with much loss of life anticipated. A couple hundred people were camped in ditches next to war memorials, begging for recognition of their pain.

The president was going golfing in AZ, and then on to San Diego to stay at Hotel del Coronado. Unlike, say, the Teri Schiavo craziness, which saw him zooming back from Crawford and signing “emergency” legislation in his pajamas, he was flying as far away from death and reminders of death as he could. And while the papers would cover his irrelevant speeches on Medicare or whatever, Camp Casey was mobilizing to address grief and pain once again.

I remember Buddy saying, when he first told us the news on Katrina, “People are going to die.” Maybe lawyers have better forecasting skills than fake cowboys? Is that why Bush didn’t seem to get it?

Remember

In the comments, darth someone asks if I remember 9/11/01.

Yes, Mr. Vader, I do.

And that day struck me so deeply that I began to research and gather information from all available sources, and so I am quite confident in my assessment that the Bush admin are a bunch of war criminals and that William Kristol is an asshole.

That is all.

Tidbit- extra icky update

Update: Sadly, No! points us to Zirkle's campaign blog.
No, I know: it's not that I'm worried about him being elected. It's that sometimes, words are so weird you can't let them go.

Like "Derringers for Dildos", for instance. I kid you not.

More from Orcinus here.


This was one of the ickier stories from the week. When I start to feel like maybe So Cal isn't really such a bubble, that things can't be that different here, I see a story like this and thank the universe that I live here.

Yes, dismiss him as a fringe freak- by all means. But he was an Indiana State's attorney. He had a job- a respected title. He was... respectable.

Just ick.

Friday morning

From the comments:

The only person I dislike more than the Stricklands is Gallegly. I have seriously thought about standing on a corner during the next election with a sign that says, "Anybody but Elton."

I'd put Elton's stupid/evil rating at 60/40, and his static/signal at 50/50.

I'd give Tony strickland a higher evil rate, and a higher static rate.

Gallegly is, in my mind, a remnant from Pete Wilson's California, when state GOP strength was built almost entirely on scapegoating and resentment. If you visit his website and check his "issues" page, you'll see three items: illegal immigration, terrorism, and crime. Nothing about health care, education, economy, etc. I think he's probably pretty honestly presenting the items that matter to him. That still has resonance with a sadly sizable chunk of Californians, but I'm not sure Gallegly weilds much power. He's another vote for Bush in the house, but he's not a big effective battering ram.

Strickland is building a network of influence in the state. He and Audra and their supporters have taken over the local GOP, disaffecting moderate republicans and building the strenght of the crazies. They actively support the taking over of school boards and the county board of education by religious anti-teacher wingnuts. They shift power structures. I don't know that Elton Gallegly has been doing much of that.

So the Stricklands freak me out, and they always have.

The F word

Feminist

Aside from the fact that I consider people of my gender to be...people, there are still palenty of social/legal reasons to continue loudly proclaiming myself a feminist. St. McCain provides us a primer:

NEW ORLEANS — Republican Sen. John McCain, campaigning through poverty-stricken cities and towns, said Wednesday he opposes a Senate bill that seeks equal pay for women because it would lead to more lawsuits.

FIRST OF ALL: the legislation in question does not "seek equal pay for women". The legislation in question seeks to clarify filing rules so that women who have been discriminated against can seek legal recourse according to existing law.

Lilly Ledbetter was almost 60 years old and on the verge of retiring when she first caught on that she was being shortchanged at work by what her lawyer called a "good old boys" network.

An anonymous letter turned up out of the blue and revealed to Ledbetter she was making substantially less money than male co-workers at the Goodyear tire plant where she worked.

A federal jury would later find she was owed almost $225,000 in back-pay over her 19-year career.

The Supremes decided last year- breaking with what has been a standard application of the law- that Lilly Ledbetter had waited too long to file a complaint against her employer.

Ledbetter filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission less than a month after receiving the letter, but it was already too late. Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights imposes a six-month limitations period on discriminatory acts, preventing her from even bringing the claim to court.

So, unless your employer tells you up front that he pays you less because you're a woman, what are the odds you'll be able to seek recourse within the 6 month limitations period? And note: the 6 months starts the day that the discriminatory practice is engaged in- in Ledbetter's case, that would be back in 1979.

If you're a staffer, how does your employer feel about you sharing salary info with your colleagues? I'd bet there are rules against that sort of behavior, no? Companies I've worked for have all had such rules.

So the Ledbetter legislation attempts to fix the limitation period. That's all.

St McCain thinks women just need more training. That's what he said today.

Clearly, if we all inherited beer fortunes so that we could support the careers of our illogical husbands, this legislation wouldn't matter so much. But we don't. We have to work. And we have to work trusting that we're being paid equitably with our male colleagues.

Word of the day is...

Schadenfreude.

I'm sort of waiting for congressional repubs to send staffers to riot in Washington State. Until then, let us appreciate GOP Chair Luke Esser, who isn't all that big on counting votes, but apparently he does like pigs. Or he did, until HorsesAss updated their blog to remove pig-love references.


And The General has helpfully offered a redesign of the Washington State GOP's website.


If only the Washington GOP had managed to pass really great voter ID laws, I'm sure there wouldn't have been a problem.