Meanwhile

At Davos, everyone's hurting Jamie Dimon's fee-fees.

The militarization of St Paul

The raids on DFHs from Food Not Bombs and the like was followed on Monday with tear gas and pepper spray, heavily armed cops marching in formation and herding what looks like anyone out-of-doors into impossible corners, arrests of journalists including Amy Goodman and at least one AP photographer, buzzing helicopters and big black humvees- a rather impressive show of force to bring out for a constitutionally protected display of assembly and speech. Greenwald has a ton of key links in his post: video and audio, local and web-wide coverage, so best to visit him for the particulars.

I've been at major marches, and I cannot imagine how I's have avoided trouble if police were lobbing tear gas and herding us into corners for arrest. But then, the police don't seem to have been there to keep people out of trouble. They seem to have been there to fight a preemptive war, on crazy dirty fucking hippies and the journalists who cover their presence.

While there is no accounting for crazy, and sure it's possible that a few people may have been drawn to St Paul to create some havoc, it is simply not believable that the city was under the kind of serious threat this kind of presence would warrant. I don't know much about St Paul's mayor or its police force, but I do know that the FBI was there, and so it seems obvious that the heightened state of alert was their doing. Perhaps the St Paul police were really convinced that there were large-scale plans for violence and anarchy. Perhaps the FBI is, once again, the president's private police force.

Is it me, or do the FBI's weekend raids remind anyone of Tom Delay calling out Homeland Security to track Texas legislators?

What is the advantage to the GOP from this kind of abuse of power? It's highly unlikely that any march would garner much national coverage, the media has been focused on hurricanes and Sarah Palin, why worry about a bunch of DFHs in the streets?

I think the lunatics at the head of the republican party, lacking any issue positions that would go over with the majority of Americans right now, are pushing more fear of change. They aren't getting enough traction with "Obama's black, and maybe his church is scary". So they're hoping for a scene that will recall the late '60s, and put the fear of hippie radicals in every middle-aged mind. That's why they keep dragging up Ayer's name, even though there is no there there. That's why surrogates were openly speculating about floor fights at the democratic convention, and whether the scene would be another Chicago '68 melee.

As it turns out, we on the dem/liberal side do conduct ourselves fairly well, and last week's convention was a hue success. But if they can still scare people with images of war in St Paul, well, why not give it a try?

I really hope that the sheer number and randomness of the gassing and arrests backfires. And I hope that if the '60s spring to the American voters minds, the images remembered will be of police dogs and water hoses, and bullets flying into crowds in Ohio.

Different universe

Via TPM, via Politico:

The McCains increased their budget for household employees from $184,000 in 2006 to $273,000 in 2007, according to John McCain's tax returns.

My domestic "staff" is paid approximately 1 big bag of Iams per month.



Krugman fleshes out the differences.

Hot (predictable, unsurprising) sex

I was just over at Huffington Post, where the have a JOHN EDWARDS BIG NEWS PAGE! Interested? Sure- the guy had sex. I mean, he's no David Vitter or Mark Foley or Larry Craig, but WHO KNEW HE HAD A PENIS? Let me save you some time. Here's the BIG NEWS, in summary.

John Edwards had an affair. The woman's name is Rielle Hunter. She made web vids for the Edwards campaign, which is over, and which did not focus on marital fidelity and phony family values. She has a child, who may or may not be the product of said affair. John's (amazing) wife, Elizabeth, has been aware of the affair, and wishes, of course, that it had remained a private thing, between John and Rielle and his family.

Got it? That's what you need to know.

Over on Open Salon, Leigh wrote:

Now we have a bunch of fools who would argue that if a man cheats on his wife it reflects on his character and the public needs to know. But that's hypocritical bull shit which only came into fashion when the Republican Party planted the seeds of real honest to God fundamentalist Christianity and watered them and gave them plenty of fertilizer.
I have spent more than fifty years in Washington. I have hardly met a member of Congress who wasn't shtupping some woman in his office. And of course they lie. Who wouldn't? The one thing the media is ridiculing John Edwards for today is his 99% honest statement. I doubt that's true but if you can really find a member of Congress who is 99% honest you have found the Hope diamond. In all my years in Washington I only met two members of Congress who I found to be completely trustworthy and honorable; and even they cheated on their wives occasionally. I'll tell you who they were another day.

Over at Aristocrats, Paul wrote:

Reporters seem obliged to ask the question, "Why did you do it?" Inevitably, this leads to a complicated self-examination ("I was depressed at the time..." or something) and introspective condemnation ("I knew it was wrong but...")
[snip]
Someday, the Lord Of The Rednecks (whoever that might be) will get caught and, lacking the verbal tools of pop psychology, he'll wrinkle his brow when the question is asked, think back to when it happened, and answer, "Well, she was there and I got a boner - or I got a boner and she was there - I forget which. She seemed willing and, sure enough, she was. Next thing you know..."

I will vote for that man, even if he's a Republican. It's really not complicated at all, in fact it's kinda natural. Anyone who knows that is fit to lead. Important decisions, like trivial ones, are best made on the facts at hand and not behind a cloud of some mystical idealogical bullshit. Oh, to hear "the lord" or one of his lesser lieutenants just come out and say it, "Yeah, I fucked her."

Ok. Now that we've finished with THE BIG NEWS ON JOHN EDWARDS' PENIS, could we talk about Russia? China? Did the president instruct the CIA to forge "evidence" against Saddam Hussein? I mean, Suskind's book never, to my knowledge, mentions whether the president's penis had anything to do with it, but still.

How about discussing the actual, current presidential candidates actual, documented, positions on key issues and policy ideas, rather than whether they appeal to Hot Chicks (spoiler: the old guy, according to his campaign, does not).

Last word: Someone (Josh Marshall? Who was it?) wrote this week that arguably the worst outcome of the Edwards story is the silencing of Elizabeth, a smart and savvy woman of class and ideas, who, should she face the cameras again and approach issues of poverty or health care policy, will be met with, "But how did it feel when you found out?"

Things are getting exciting around here...

So Mittens came to Thousand Oaks yesterday, to raise money for Tony Strickland's campaign.

I may have mentioned that I'm not a Strickland fan.

Because he wasn't getting enough attention from the Green Wave Energy BS, I suppose, he decided to accept a bunch of money from big tobacco, further exciting the passions of local liberals, democrats, and at least one republican, according to the local paper.

But tobacco money isn't nearly enough to buy yourself a seat so you can peddle your influence and reap in cash, so Romney came to town to tell the folks that Tony has the solutions to California's budget crisis, among other things.

A couple of years ago, I doubt this would have brought more than a few people out of doors, but yesterday, apparently Audra's chief of staff and some suited young republicans clashed with protesters in front of the Hyatt on Westlake Blvd.

The Star's story is here. Ok story, amusing comments thread. (Note to commenter Dmeeks: When you wrote: "The Strickland supporters had been at their location with no problems and it was the protesters and anti-Strickland crowd who caused the "tussle". How sad." the words "how sad" out you. You're a concern troll, and probably lying.)

Better coverage is at Brian Dennert's blog, here. Great photos, some video, first person witnesses, etc. The police may or may not bring charges against Audra's chief of staff for assault.

I continue to question Tony's conflicts of interest (Green Wave and tobacco money being the most obvious), and I also question whether Audra's staff, paid by our taxes, is properly employed as an anti-first amendment campaign thug. As a commenter there said:

Joel Angeles was stupid for getting caught strongarming people and holding a sign. He's a chief of staff for crying out loud and certainly knows better. His office works for all of Audra's constituents - not just the Republican ones that vote for her or her husband. He should resign before anymore political damage is inflicted.

Another interesting note: the comments thread is great, lots of first person accounting, etc. But note the commenters who write that "Union thugs" were harrassing Strickland supporters. Really? Because I have never once encountered a "Union thug" at any political event in Thousand Oaks.

Kind of like the "How sad" commenting. If you think thugs and paid protesters were there to stir up shit with Strickland supporters, you have taken the jump into dark fantasyland.