Last Call

Not sure how much to trust Saudi intel, but they say Al Qaeda is going after Europe and specifically France.

"Several days ago the Saudi services alerted their European counterparts that there was a terrorist threat on the continent, notably in France, coming from al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula," Hortefeux told RTL Radio. The message indicated the branch of al Qaeda was active or about to become active in Europe.

"The threat is real and our vigilance is intact," he said. France's terror alert level is at Reinforced Red, the second-highest level below Scarlette Red. "Vigilance is total," Hortefeux said.

At least two attacks were foiled in France in the past year, and 61 people are currently jailed for suspected involvement in terrorism, the interior minister said.

The new warning comes at a time of heightened security in Europe. Earlier this month, France warned its citizens about travel to the United Kingdom, saying British authorities believe a terrorist attack is "highly likely." Neither the U.K. nor France raised its threat level, but each issued warnings about travel elsewhere on the continent.

The United States also warned Americans to be careful about traveling in Europe because of the risk of terror attacks. Sweden and Japan also warned their citizens.

Europe remains on edge after the warnings, based at least partly on intelligence about a plot obtained from a German-Afghan in U.S. custody in Afghanistan.

I guess AQ has decided we're about to do ourselves in here on this side of the pond, so breaking ethnic tensions in countries like France and Germany wide open seems like a logical next step if your goal is to sew chaos and paranoia.  France says the UK is the target, the Saudis say France is the target, and the US says everyone's a target.

And the bastards don't actually have to do anything.  That's the best part.  We're terrorizing ourselves and now each other to boot.

A Cup Of Cold Comfort Tea

Via BooMan, Tim Rutten figures there are simply too many competing factions in the Tea Party right now to allow them to remain coherent should they ever gain significant political power, and the more power they should gain, the faster they will fly apart.

The problem, as political analyst and George Mason University professor Bill Schneider has pointed out, is that it's "not just that tea partyers are anti-government.... They are anti-politics. They believe that politics is essentially corrupt — that deal-making and compromise are an abandonment of principle. The tea party is a political fundamentalist movement. Like religious fundamentalists, its members do not tolerate waverers (like Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah). They drive out heretics (like Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida). They punish unbelievers (like Rep. Mike Castle of Delaware). And they believe in the total inerrancy of scripture — in this case, the U.S. Constitution as originally written in 1787."

President Franklin D. Roosevelt's epoch-changing New Deal coalition survived only so long as its constituent groups agreed not to discuss the one difference between them they could not reconcile — race. When the civil rights movement made that silent, and shabby, accommodation impossible, the coalition shattered.

The tea party's internal contradictions are so numerous, it's difficult to see its coalition of discontent surviving a single Congress.

That's a point I've made before, but the larger problem is that the amount of damage the Tea Party can do during that single Congress, and it's significant.  Best case scenario is that simply no real legislation is passed, and Democrats have to consistently fight off efforts to undo everything Obama has accomplished in the last two years.  Worst case scenario, well let's see, endless investigations, government shutdown, Obama actually signs into law crazy Tea Party legislation, you name it.

I'm hoping that the Republicans, should they gain power, completely overreach.  It's cold comfort, but let's be honest here:  the Republicans are going to gain at least some seats in the House and Senate.  And as Blue Texan reminds us, anyone who thinks a booming economy would placate the Tea Party has forgotten Clinton's second term completely, where a President who listened overwhelmingly to the Centrist Daleks (TRIANGULAAAATE!) and cut spending to not only balance the budget but give us a budget surplus, "reformed" welfare according to the wishes of the right and gave us such social conservatism gems like DADT was still impeached for the crime of being a Democrat.

What will Obama do?  There is literally nothing he can do that will stop the Republicans from trying to remove him from office, roll back the last two years, and attack him relentlessly.  Clinton was put on trial in the best economy we've had since WWII.  What hell will Obama face with Republicans in charge?

Let's remember why America threw these lunatics out in the first place.

Jacking Up Rand, Part 3

In a pretty huge blow to Rand Paul, the Lexington Herald-Leader has chosen to endorse Jack Conway for US Senate with some glowing praise.  The real story here is how the editorial board holds nothing back in reaming Paul a new one in a devastating column:

Since riding the Tea Party wave to victory in the Republican primary as a relatively unvetted candidate, Paul has spent the summer and early fall revealing himself to be quite the ideologue who's long on simplistic slogans but short on understanding the drastic consequences of adhering to those slogans.

What came across as refreshingly candid in the spring proved to be distressingly extremist when Paul was pressed on issues ranging from civil rights and the Americans with Disabilities Act to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

As a senator, his mission would be a chain-saw massacre of federal government that lays waste to farm subsidies, education spending, mine-safety regulations, federal aid in fighting the scourge of drugs and numerous other programs of significant benefit to Kentuckians.

Which brings us to another disappointing post-primary revelation about Paul. As far as Kentucky is concerned, he is a drive-by candidate — a transplant who, despite living here for the better part of two decades, never stopped to smell the bluegrass and learn about his adopted state's history, culture, problems or needs.

The sole focus of his campaign involves his antipathy for federal government. If he mentions Kentucky at all, it is almost as an afterthought.

Yeowch.  That's pretty ruthless.  Granted, Louisville is Conway's turf (and I'm unable to find out who the Courier-Journal has endorsed, but I would think it would be Conway as well), but that's still a pretty thorough thrashing of Paul by the Lexington paper, and one I think is spot-on correct.  Rand Paul really has defined himself by what he's against and not what he's for.   In a close race, an editorial like this may very well make a difference.

And Do You Get Chips For Being Straight?

Greggers actually asked a decent question of a Republican today on Meet The Press.  Republican Senate candidate for Colorado, Ken Buck, was asked about if he still believed being gay was a "choice".  He didn't just dig himself deeper into the hole, he dropped a couple tons of TNT in there, lit the fuse, and stood there covering his ears.

GREGORY: In a debate last month, you expressed your support for don’t ask, don’t tell, which we talked about with Mr. Gibbs. And you alluded to lifestyle choices. Do you believe being gay is a choice?

BUCK: I do.

GREGORY: Based on what?

BUCK: Based on what?

GREGORY: Ya, do you believe that?

BUCK: Well, I guess you can choose who your partner is.

GREGORY: You don’t think it’s something that’s determined at birth?

BUCK: I think that birth has an influence over it, like alcoholism and some other things, but I think that basically you have a choice. 

Now, correct me if I'm wrong here, but it seems like Ken Buck believes that homosexuality isn't just a lifestyle choice, but a disease with a genetic predisposition that has to be treated with a 12-step program.  The first is bad enough, but the second is truly horrible.

Being gay is something you have to battle all your life against like alcoholism or drug addiction?  That's idiotic on its face.  Ignorance like this not only begets bigotry but adds to the frightening tragedy that is the rising epidemic in suicides of young people who discovered they were gay.

Folks like Ken Buck are telling millions of Americans that "hey, you have an incurable genetic disease that you need to be treated for and if you give into it we'll treat you like a second-class citizen at best and there's a lot worse we can do to you."  It's incredible.  They're our friends, family, loved ones, co-workers, classmates, neighbors...and we should treat them like disease vectors?

That's incorrigible.  And this man thinks he deserves to be a US Senator equating millions of Americans to alcoholics?  Douchebag.

It's All Coming Back To You

Here's your stat of not just the day, but of the year:

Getting a degree used to be a stepping stone to limitless career opportunities. Now it's more of a hiatus from living under your parents' roof.

Stubbornly high unemployment -- nearly 15% for those ages 20-24 -- has made finding a job nearly impossible. And without a job, there's nowhere for these young adults to go but back to their old bedrooms, curfews and chore charts. Meet the boomerangers.

"This recession has hit young adults particularly hard," according to Rich Morin, senior editor at the Pew Research Center in DC.

So hard that a whopping 85% of college seniors planned to move back home with their parents after graduation last May, according to a poll by Twentysomething Inc., a marketing and research firm based in Philadelphia. That rate has steadily risen from 67% in 2006.

Eighty-five percent.  That's staggering.   The 15% unemployment for college grads is bad enough, but 85% of grads are planning to move back in to their old bedrooms?  Really?  It was bad enough in the mid 90's when I was in college.  Now it's not only expected, but almost guaranteed.

So what we have here are college grads with six-figure debt, struggling to find an entry level job anywhere, not just one they're depressingly overqualified for.  And that's if my generation, who has been in the workforce for 10-15 years now, hasn't taken that job first in order to get back on the horse.  And my generation is still knocking around the low end because of all the baby boomers still working in the middle and upper management ranks, because they've got no hope of retiring at 60.

So even if these kids do manage to find a decent job, they're still $120,000 in the hole from college.  That's the equivalent of a second mortgage these days.  No wonder they're camping in the basement until "something comes along."  And keep in mind, unemployment for college graduates is still far less than the average for the rest of America.  So yeah, at this point these kids can't settle for 35 grand to learn the ropes, because just about every penny of that is going to end up going to debt servicing.

Welcome to the new normal.  You're not working hard enough, citizen.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Segregate

Via the excellent Pam Spaulding we learn this morning what the Pentagon is planning for a post DADT military, and that apparently means more "separate but equal" nonsense as the NY Times editorial board chews out the President and the Pentagon, and rightfully so.

As justification, the administration made overheated claims that a precipitous change in wartime would have adverse effects on morale, good order, discipline and unit cohesion. Those are the same specious arguments used to justify the benighted policy in the first place. The administration wants to leave it in place while it finishes a study on how to carry out a repeal.

Clifford Stanley, the under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness, said in a court filing that ending the antigay policy would require training, and reworking regulations on issues like housing, benefits and standards of conduct. He said the Army had to consider the “rights and obligations of the chaplain corps.”

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said the military had to consider whether barracks should be segregated and whether partners of gay soldiers should have benefits. 

This sounds disturbingly like the creation of a “separate but equal” system. The armed forces do not need to be protected from their gay and lesbian personnel. The military has always had its own culture and rules of behavior, but it has not been living in a cave.

Judge Phillips has hit on a simpler, more equitable solution: just stop enforcing “don’t ask, don’t tell.” It has done more to harm military readiness than her injunction possibly could. 

Which is crap.  Look, every other federal employee in the US has to handle the concept of the LGBT workplace, as does a vast majority of the American private sector.  We don't have separate cubicles for gays, folks...and as far as the "unit cohesion and trust" argument goes, we have been repeatedly told that our volunteer military is the best trained, most honorable military in the world, that the men and women who serve in our Armed Forces are the best our country has to offer.  We ask them to put their lives on the line in order to defend America, but you're telling me they can't handle the end of DADT?

Ahh, but we're told "we can't make these kind of changes in wartime".  We've been fighting in Afghanistan for nine years almost.  We're always in wartime.  What the hell happened to "adapt, improvise, overcome"?  This policy was created in peacetime anyway.  Our military is better than that.

Look, just get over it, guys.  The rest of America operates on a pretty functional level most of the time.  Time for you guys to get with it...and hey, aren't my tax dollars paying your salary, etc?  Well alright then.  Let's not forget that LGBT Americans are part of the Americans you have sworn to defend, too.

And stay safe.

Battle Inside The Neutral Zone

Next time somebody tells you there's too much government oversight these days on the internet, recall this week's little spat between News Corp. and Cablevision.

News Corp. and Cablevision are currently stuck in a classic cable vs programming "we pay too much, you pay too little" fight. But this time around News Corp. is flexing more muscle by banning Cablevision Internet users from accessing Hulu too.


When the clock struck midnight on Saturday, Cablevision customers could no longer watch FOX on their TV. That's because News Corp. (which owns FOX) and Cablevision couldn't come to an agreement on the fees that Cablevision should pay News Corp. It's something that's happened before with other networks and other cable providers but the new twist is that News Corp. is using their stake in Hulu to ban Cablevision Internet users from accessing FOX content on Hulu as well.

Yeah, arbitrarily cutting off web sites to cable customers just because they have a dispute with the cable company.  That's a disturbing new trend there, but we're being told that if we put in any sort of rules that protect customer access to the net, content providers will go out of business and there will be no internet.  Does it look like content providers like News Corp. and FOX are worried about losing revenue here to you?  Or are they happily throwing around their muscle in order to win higher fees from cable companies who then pass those fees along to you anyway?

Sounds like there should be some basic consumer protections for the internet given its increasing importance in our lives. Sadly, Republicans and even a few Democrats are doing everything they can to see that nothing like this ever gets done.  Too much money in blackmailing customers, you know.

Last Call

There's pre-emptive Obama Derangement Syndrome pre-buttals, and then there's the class act that is Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito announcing a good  3-4 months in advance that he's skipping the State of the Union address because it's all kabuki.

Alito, answering questions following a speech Wednesday at the conservative Manhattan Institute in New York, also said, "Presidents will fake you out." The institute provided an online video link to Alito's talk and question-and-answer session.

The president will begin a sentence with an invocation of the country's greatness, Alito said. If justices don't jump up and applaud, "you look very unpatriotic," he said.

But, Alito continued, then the president may finish the thought by adding "because we're conducting a surge in Iraq or because we're enacting health care reform." Justices aren't supposed to react to statements about policy or politics.

The better course, Alito said, is to follow the example of more experienced justices like Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and the recently retired John Paul Stevens. None has attended in several years.

"So I doubt that I will be there in January," Alito said.

To recap, Alito, a SCOTUS justice, will not be attending the State of the Union address because it's too political for him and he has trouble maintaining his impartiality at a speech.

Being one of the final arbiters of the constitutionality of United States law, setting precedents that may stand for decades?  Easy.  Knowing when to stand at a speech?  Being able to tell the difference between patriotic cheerleading and policy fluffing?  Man, call off the dogs!

Keen mind, that Sammy.

Dear America:

Dear America:

"You ivory tower egghead libs with your math and your objectivity will never understand.  You can have all the education in the world and your vote still counts the same as everyone else's, and that's why you'll lose in the end.  What's more American than that, stupid nerds?  SAN DIMAS HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL RULES!"

-- Peter Berkowitz, Wall Street Journal

Bonus Verbatim Stupid:

"Those who doubt that the failings of higher education in America have political consequences need only reflect on the quality of progressive commentary on the tea party movement. Our universities have produced two generations of highly educated people who seem unable to recognize the spirited defense of fundamental American principles, even when it takes place for more than a year and a half right in front of their noses."

You know, spirited defenders like Michele Bachmann.  Facts?  Logic?  Debate?  Discourse?  Critical Thinking?  These are meaningless when you can just ring Pavlov's bell and take the power you want through fear, anger, resentment, and scapegoating.

On the contrary, progressives understand the Tea Party only too well, as America's history has seen those forces employed time and time again in the name of political expediency.  Of course, that would require looking back at America's darker past and studying it in order not to repeat it.

Why bother when repeating it works so well...and is so much easier to do?

Too Cleaver By Half

As the hate rhetoric on the right keeps growing, so do the threats to Democrats in office.

It turns out that the right-wing crazy who was threatening Patty Murray supporters with a cleaver in Spokane on Thursday is a man with a history of mental illness:

Friends and family of Sieler told KREM 2 News he is psychotic and needs help.
"He has no control of what he's doing," Sieler's ex girlfriend Theresa Stapleton said. "He's made death threats on people."

Stapleton is the mother of Sieler's child, and says she speaks to him regularly. Stapleton says Sieler has been off his medication and has dangerous psychotic episodes.

Recently, Stapleton says he's been obsessed with politicians who he thinks they are out to get him.

Interestingly, this incident is only the latest in a string of violent threats at Democrats -- and particularly President Obama -- cropping up very recently, and in all of them mental illness appears to be playing a significant role.

And it's not just this one time.  Several incidents just in the last six weeks indicate that the vitriol that the right tosses off as "just playing to win" is in fact increasingly dangerous.  You have to wonder just what is driving people to literally come after Democrats with cleavers.

However, you have to wonder what will happen if they wake up on the morning after Election Day and discover that their planned takeover of Congress has failed. Because then, it won't just be the diagnostically insane who will be acting out.

No, it won't.  But of course the loudmouths on the right will never take responsibility for any of this.

He's An Aqua Buddha Man, Part 2

Jack Conway's latest attack ad against Rand Paul here in Kentucky is...umm...interesting.



It tries to intimate a little too hard that Paul's anti-Christian, and that's a fairly big whopper. On the other hand, Rand Paul did say and do these things, and that's a viable political attack card to play in Kentucky, that Paul is only paying lip service to religious conservative Republicans and independents.

Given Paul's record of doing that, this ad is pretty relevant.

Piling On The First Lady

With news that Michelle Obama is still popular with a majority of Americans came out this month, the Wingnut right had to do everything they could to reverse it, from Glenn Beck...

On the October 14 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Show, Beck invoked the horror film The Omen while attacking Michelle Obama for her comments. Beck said, "I've never heard that. I've never heard that from a Christian -- I'm not questioning her Christianity, here." Later, executive producer Steve "Stu" Burguiere said, "Thank you, Michelle Obama. Creating jobs." Beck replied, "Jobs? Spooky phrases."

...to Michelle Malkin...

"Keeping the spirits clean around us?" Huh? She sounds like the liberal caricature of Christine O'Donnell. Bubble, bubble, toil, and trouble.

As for the "prayer circles" and "Everybody I know in our communities is praying for us" and "we're all proud of Barack and his accomplishments" jabber, have the Obamas learned nothing about the price of arrogance and the value of humility over the last two years.

Question: Does Michelle O ever pray for anyone other than Barack?

...to El Rushbo...

"I've never heard of prayer circles and keeping the spirits clean around us. I mean, I've been praying for things like my family and friends' health, the country, things of this nature, and now I learn that we're supposed to be praying for the hygiene of the spirits?"

 ...to Moose Lady...

Former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin seemed to have the 2008 election – and, specifically, first lady Michelle Obama – on her mind during a speech at a conservative forum Thursday night.


"You know, when I hear people say, or had said during the campaign that they've never been proud of America, haven't they met anybody in uniform yet?" Palin opined during her remarks at a Liberty and Freedom Foundation forum in San Jose, California. 

...to Matt Drudge.

Did Michelle Obama violate Illinois election law?

The question arose after the first lady, who voted early at her Chicago precinct Thursday, responded to voters who voiced support for her husband. It’s unlawful in the state to have a “political discussion” or engage in “electioneering” within 100 feet of a polling place.

A pool report by Chicago Sun-Times reporter Abdon Pallasch said Obama had a photo taken with electrician Dennis Campbell, 56 years old. It quoted Campbell as saying, “She was telling me how important it was to vote to keep her husband’s agenda going.”

Boy, do you remember all the nasty, vicious, mean-spirited attacks Democrats made on Laura Bush?

Me either.  They didn't happen.  But if you're a Democrat in the White House, your spouse is fair game.  As I've said a few times before, not all Obama Derangement Syndrome is directed at Barack.  You'd think Wingers would have something better to do, but alas, they have no human souls.

Eric Holder's Smoking Something

The Attorney General is indeed partaking of some sort of mind-altering substance if he thinks threatening Californians is going to scare them off of voting for Prop 19 to legalize marijuana.

The U.S. government will "vigorously enforce" federal laws against marijuana even if voters next month make California the first state to legalize pot, Attorney General Eric Holder says.

Holder's warning, contained in a letter to ex-federal drug enforcement chiefs, was his most direct statement yet against Proposition 19, and it sets up another showdown with California over marijuana if the measure passes.

With Prop 19 leading in the polls, the letter also raised questions about the extent to which federal drug agents would go into communities across the state to catch small-time users and dealers, or whether they even had the resources to do it.

If the ballot measure passes, the state would regulate recreational pot use. Adults could possess up to one ounce of the drug and grow small gardens on private property. Local governments would decide whether to allow and tax sales of the drug.

But Holder stressed that the Justice Department remains committed to enforcing the Controlled Substances Act in all states.

"We will vigorously enforce the CSA against those individuals and organizations that possess, manufacture or distribute marijuana for recreational use, even if such activities are permitted under state law," he wrote.

Unless you plan on making every weed possession case a federal one and rounding up thousands of Californians (if not millions) if Prop 19 passes, then you've not got a leg to stand on, man.  The Feds don't have the manpower nor the facilities to handle pot charges on 1/7th of the entire US population.  No way.  He bluffing.

I don't use the stuff myself, my choice...but isn't that the point of Prop 19?

Turn On The Lights, Watch The Roaches Scatter, Part 23

A prime example of what I was talking about last night on Last Call -- the fact that the financial happy-face press is trying to treat Foreclosuregate as a paperwork snafu that doesn't change anything rather than years of institutionalized industry fraud -- is on full display with CNBC's John Carney (again with this guy.)

So here’s what I expect will happen. The lame duck session of Congress will pass a bill that essentially papers over the misdeeds of the banks that originated mortgage securities. Every member of Congress and every Senator who has been voted out of office will cast a vote for the bill. And the President will sign it.

Will the public be outraged? Probably. Financial bloggers will scream from the high heavens against another bailout of the banksters. Congress may try to create some cost for banks in exchange for the forgiveness, perhaps requiring more mortgage modifications. 

But the much feared put-back apocalypse will be laid to rest. 

If you’re skeptical about the possibility that this will happen, you have greater faith than I do in the ability of the political system to resist doing favors for bankers. 

Carney is clearly underestimating someone here.  Oh, not Republicans in Congress.  He's right that this is exactly what they will try to do.  I think he's underestimating the President and Democrats somewhat, but not by much.

But Carney is completely underestimating the American people.  The second this happens, you will have an event which will put the Teabaggers, the Centrist Daleks, and the Dirty F'ckin Hippies on the same side, and it will be a dangerously beautiful thing.  It would be a visceral reaction out there:  Congress just passed a law allowing the banks to get away with stealing people's homes.

Madness.  You thought people hated TARP?  This would be riot-inducing, not to mention morally and legally wrong as hell.  It would be over for this administration, not to mention Congress.

I just don't see how this happens.  It can't.

StupidiNews, Weekend Edition!

• At least 20 are dead in a coal mine explosion in China, leaving 17 more miners trapped.
• The US Army will try the first of five soldiers accused of killing Afghan civilians for sport.
• UNC football coach Butch Davis has told his players to deactivate their Twitter accounts as the team is investigated by the NCAA.
• Ex-Countrywide Mortgage CEO Angelo Mozilo will settle his fraud charges from the SEC for a hefty $67.5 million.
• Only Canada has more expensive cell phone plans per minute than the US.