Overreaction Attraction Action

Here's what opponents of DADT repeal say will happen as a result of today's vote.  Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association predicts the end of America:

Character-driven officers and chaplains will eventually be forced out of the military en masse, potential recruits will stay away in droves, and re-enlistments will eventually drop like a rock.

The draft will return with a vengeance and out of necessity. What young man wants to voluntarily join an outfit that will force him to shower naked with males who have a sexual interest in him and just might molest him while he sleeps in his bunk?

This isn’t a game, and the military should never be used, as is now being done, for massive social re-engineering. The new Marine motto: “The Few, the Proud, the Sexually Twisted.” Good luck selling that to strong young males who would otherwise love to defend their country. What virile young man wants to serve in a military like that?

If the president and the Democrats wanted to purposely weaken and eventually destroy the United States of America, they could not have picked a more efficient strategy to make it happen.

Rarely can you point to a moment in time when a nation consigned itself to the scrap heap of history. Today, when the Senate normalized sexual perversion in the military, was that moment for the United States. If historians want a fixed marker pointing to the instant the United States sealed its own demise, they just found it.

Quite interesting.  Well, by that "logic" anyone who doesn't immediately signal their intent to quit the military must be a closet case lurking with the intent to destroy America with gay sex.  I wonder how long it will take before the Right Wing declares war on the Pentagon?  Will they defund the Defense Department to stop men showing either other their rifles?  Will the Republicans introduce legislation to stop women hiding in the bush?  Will our now eternally tainted military become Pubic Enemy #1.

How long before Republicans sing the praises of conscientious objectors who are bravely refusing to serve in war because of gay cooties?  Surely if the draft is inevitable, these manly patriots will join the military in order to save the civilian population, right?

I mean it's not like these guys are a bunch of chickenhawks who are trying to score lame political points by demonizing our LGBT loved ones, yes?

Perish the thought.

Bull Market, Bear Market, Carbon Market

Once again California leads the way with the first statewide carbon emissions cap-and-trade market.

The rules adopted by the Air Resources Board, the state's climate change regulator, limit emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases and let power plants, factories and eventually refiners and others to trade permits to pollute in a program generally known as cap-and-trade.

California will become the second-largest carbon market in the world, following a European system. Point Carbon, a Thomson Reuters company, forecasts the market will grow from $1.7 billion in 2012 to nearby $10 billion in 2016, with prices rising from $10 a metric ton in 2012 to $18 per ton in 2016.

Environmentally, California's move could rank with U.S. efforts decades ago to clean up air and water, said Gary Gero, President of the Climate Action Reserve. "We will say this was when the United States started seriously building a program for climate change," he said.

Calls to force companies to buy permits at auctions have largely been rebuffed due to the weak economy. Most permits will be given away, especially in the first three-year period.

Factories and power producers will be able to bear some of the burden for cutting emissions with credits for projects that soak up carbon, known as offsets. There is already a market in such offsets, and prices have jumped in the last several weeks to about $8 a ton, traders said.

So as the carbon market generates billions in needed income and reduces emissions, how long will it take before the other 6/7ths of America follows suit?  This should go a long way towards getting both sides of the aisle in gear, and the EPA should take a long hard look at California's requirements here.

A Bank With "Principles"

Just so you know how scared of the WikiLeaks threat the financial sector is right now, Bank of America will no longer process donations for Julian Assange's group of agitators.

Bank of America Corp. has joined several other financial institutions in refusing to handle payments for WikiLeaks.

With its announcement, the Charlotte-based bank joins a fray that has ratcheted financial pressure on the website that released thousands of secret U.S. diplomatic cables, but has also prompted cyber attacks on businesses that cut ties with the activist site. The move comes as WikiLeaks says it's preparing a release of information on banks, which could include documents it says it has on Bank of America.

The Charlotte-based bank released a statement Saturday saying it will no longer process any transactions that it believes are intended for the site.

"This decision is based upon our reasonable belief that WikiLeaks may be engaged in activities that are, among other things, inconsistent with our internal policies for processing payments," the bank said.

Translation:  "We control the money, Julian.  And we're shutting you down.  Try getting help when we lock out your accounts and refuse to process your payments.  Leaking information takes money, and we're going to starve you to death."

This war is well and truly joined.  No matter how you feel about WikiLeaks, the fact that major world banks are uniting to wipe it off the planet should terrify any citizen with a bank account or credit card.

They see WikiLeaks as such as existential threat they are scrambling to cut it off all income and donations and starve it out.  That speaks volumes...the same banks that continue engaging in possibly trillions in mortgage fraud have declared war on WikiLeaks.

Be afraid.

[UPDATE] WikiLeaks is fighting back.

In classic form, WikiLeaks has sent out a message on Twitter related to Bank of America.

Does your business do business with Bank of America? Our advise is to place your funds somewhere safer.

Touche', gentlemen.

Half A Loaf Is Better Than None

Republicans killed the DREAM Act 45-55...

A procedural vote in the Senate for the DREAM Act has failed. 55 Senators voted for the measure, with 41 voting against, falling short of the necessary votes to overcome a filibuster.

...but for once a handful of them decided that with three-quarters of the coutry wanting it repealed, DADT will get a final up or down vote.

In a landmark vote for gay rights, the Senate on Saturday voted to advance legislation that would overturn the military ban on openly gay troops known as "don't ask, don't tell."


The 63-33 test vote all but guarantees the legislation will pass the Senate, possibly by day's end, and reach the president's desk before the new year.

The House had passed an identical version of the bill, 250-174, earlier this week.

Repeal would mean that, for the first time in American history, gays would be openly accepted by the military and could acknowledge their sexual orientation without fear of being kicked out.

We'll see.  This is a huge victory here, but not for everyone.  Republicans still showed they care more about demonizing Latinos than they do giving people a path to earn their citizenship by serving our country in the military.  And no, the DREAM Act was far from perfect.  It wouldn't have helped a lot of people get citizenship, only a small section would have been eligible for it:  High school graduates heading to college who were brought here as children, or graduates heading to the military for two years.  The number of possible candidates for that numbered in the thousands, not millions.  It wasn't "back-door amnesty".

But that was of course too much for the Republicans.  Even one immigrant who could have become a US citizen due to this and possibly been grateful to a Democratic administration was too much to countenance.

But the vote to allow DADT repeal to go forward is a good, good thing.  Straight ally, and all that...and just in the name of basic civil rights, this is something I'm glad to see happened.

One out of two isn't bad, but it's a harsh reminder that the largest blockade to getting things done in the last two years has been the filibuster.

Oh, and according to my calculations, the only Republican who voted yes on both DREAM and DADT repeal?

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski.  Thanks, Joe Miller and Sarah Palin!  The final DADT repeal vote will be this afternoon, and it should pass easily.

Should.  Here's hoping.

[UPDATE]  The Senate indeed repealed DADT 65-31.  Several Republicans decided they didn't want to be on the "wrong side of history" here only at the last moment.

No Juice In The Moose

Three out of five Americans say "thanks but no thanks" to Sarah Palin as President.

The 2012 presidential election is still a long way away, and Sarah Palin hasn't even decided if she will make a run for the White House, but a second straight poll brings troubling results for the former Alaska governor if she does launch a bid.

An ABC News/Washington Post poll indicates that nearly six in ten Americans say they wouldn't even consider voting for Palin if she runs. Eight percent of the people questioned in the survey, which was released Friday, say they would definitely back Palin in 2012 if she runs and 31 percent say they would consider supporting her.

The 59 percent who flatly rule out Palin is 16 points higher than the 43 percent in the survey who say they wouldn't consider voting to re-elect President Barack Obama in 2012. It's also 17 points higher than the 42 percent of the public who said they wouldn't vote for then Sen. Hillary Clinton in the last presidential election.

The poll also indicates that 27 percent of people voted for the John McCain-Palin ticket in the 2008 election, as well as nearly three in ten Republicans and four in ten conservatives, and four in ten evangelical white Protestants say they wouldn't consider Palin for president.

And that's pretty much the kiss of death right there for a Palin 2012 campaign.  Thirty percent of Republicans and 40% of Conservatives/white evangelicals wouldn't even consider Palin in the White House?

Sorry folks, she's got no chance in 2012.  None.  This is a pretty solid measure of the people who would outright never vote for her.

I of course want her to run even more now and split and damage the Republicans in 2012.  I think her own narcissism will demand it.  The 25% or so of Republicans that are hard core Palin fans certainly will demand it.  And the more the "lamestream media" tries to warn her off, the more chance of her running.  She has to at this point, because if she doesn't, the most rabid Republicans will sit out in 2012 in protest.

Of course, there's a very good chance that those same Republicans will sit out in protest when she loses the nomination.

She's the gift that keeps on giving...to Barack Obama.

StupidiNews, Weekend Edition!

• The Senate has passed a three-day temporary continuing resolution to keep the government running until Tuesday.
• Hustler Magazine publisher Larry Flynt is giving $50,000 to WikiLeaks.
• The Obama administration has finally released guidelines designed to take politics out of scientific research.
• Bad weather may delay South Korea's artillery drills this weekend as the US seeks talks between both Koreas.
• Google's Ngram Viewer shows people how and when words are used and how they evolve over the years.

Last Call

And here's President Obama's reward for working with the Republicans on that tax cut deal.

The $858 billion tax deal approved by Congress Thursday is "all candy and no spinach," but at least it shows that President Barack Obama and Republicans can cooperate on fiscal issues.

But their new detente will be tested early next year when the budget deficit looms larger on the political landscape.

Analysts are skeptical this week's pact can be leveraged into a broad deficit-cutting program, and fear the deficit issue could be kicked forward to the 2012 election.

The tax deal makes the deficit bigger — just the opposite of what bond markets want — and it threatens to move taxes off the bargaining table in next year's struggles over federal spending and raising the government debt ceiling.

At the same time, it was expected to give the economy a boost, and if that gets more Americans working, meaningful deficit reduction could be a little easier.

A presidential commission's aggressive plan to slash the $1.3 trillion deficit earlier this month won more bipartisan support than expected.

"It's very likely that parts of the commission's plan end up in the president's budget... Otherwise, he sends some very disturbing signals," said Maya MacGuineas, fiscal policy director at the New America Foundation think tank.

For the record, now Obama has to go along with massive spending cuts as outlined by the Catfood Commission, or he's not a serious President.  The ink isn't even dry on the tax cut deal.  And now he's already taking the blame for not cutting the deficit.

Not even a "thank you" from the rich.  Nope, it's right into "we expect to see the Catfood Commission's economic plans in the President's budget or else."  Not even 24 hours before we're back to HE MUST CUT SPENDING NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW.

Good work on that, big guy.

Unintended Consequences Of Complete Collapse

So the first casualty of the Dems folding on the omnibus spending bill?  Food safety legislation.

Earlier this month, Congress managed to pass the bill with strong bipartisan support—and over the objections of both tea partiers afraid the bill would send the government after their seeds and leftie foodie types who feared the bill would squash small farms and artisanal cheese makers. The bill was a decade in the making, despite record numbers of food borne illness outbreaks, from E. coli in spinach to salmonella in peanut butter that killed nine people. A day after the bill passed, however, news broke that language in the bill had been screwed up, rendering it unconstitutional.

Supporters had hoped that a repaired bill would still land on the president's desk this year if it could pass along with a big omnibus spending bill slated for a vote this week. But after Republicans defected in the face of pressure from tea party activists opposed to $8 billion in earmarks buried in the bill, Democrats were forced to withdraw the spending measure, taking the food safety bill along with it. Democrats also tried attaching the food safety bill to a continuing resolution that would have funded the federal government until September. But Republicans have also opposed that measure, leaving Democrats with a scaled-down resolution that would merely keep the government open until February, when the new Congress can deal with the rest of the issues.

So right now the landmark legislation to modernize the FDA for the first time in several decades is dead, because Republicans are a bunch of lying assholes who will stab anyone and everyone in the back in order to "win".

Remember that next time you read about the next time millions of pounds of meat or produce are recalled or a bacteria outbreak in our food supply is killing people.  Remember that the Republicans scrapped this because they aim to make sure government can never do anything good.

Funny how that works, huh.

Derailing That Train Of Thoughtlessness, Part 2

Add Florida's Rick Scott to the growing list of GOP Governors looking to kill thousands of rail jobs in a state suffering from high unemployment.

Florida's $2.6 billion high-speed project would be paid for almost entirely by the feds. Washington has agreed to send Florida all but $280 million of its cost. And some companies vying to run the trains indicate they'd cover the state's share. They're willing to do that because they believe running the Orlando-Tampa route would give them a leg up on operating a second high-speed rail line from Orlando to Miami — and other fast trains outside Florida.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said he feared his state would have to pay for costly rail-project overruns. But meetings last month between Florida transportation officials and companies wanting to operate the trains reportedly revealed the companies' willingness to cover any construction overages.

Wisconsin Gov.-elect Scott Walker said his state would have had to pay too much to operate and maintain its rail line. But the company that runs high-speed trains in Florida would have to operate and maintain them for 30 years. The state, Florida DOT's Kevin Thibault told us, wouldn't have to pick up the cost.

Florida would need 23,000 people to build the rail line, and to find as many as 1,000 workers to operate it. The train would stimulate businesses along the line and help turn Orlando and Tampa into a single market that attracts entrepreneurs eager to reap the benefits of the nation's most advanced transit system.

And it would offer commuters and tourists an alternative to an increasingly gridlocked I-4. It also would prove cheaper than the alternative: Building another lane of Interstate 4 — just from Tampa to Lakeland — would cost $3 billion.

Why would Rick Scott oppose such a system? Because President Obama's stimulus program, which he savages, underwrites so much of it? Because it has become a badge of honor among conservative governors to reject federally funded rail projects? Because, even though it would better connect Floridians and deliver all those jobs, Mr. Scott thinks opposition would somehow help him among his conservative constituency?

Because it's all about making sure that a Democrat in the White House can never get credit for doing anything good.  After all, if this was a Bush initiative, battleground state Republican governors in places like Ohio and Florida would be lining up for "job creating business expanding technology of the future".  Instead it's turn the projects down and blame Obama for not creating jobs.

Turn On The Lights, Watch The Roaches Scatter, Part 50

A dubious milestone as the Roaches series on Foreclosuregate hits the big five oh.  Today's news: the SEC is officially issuing subpoenas to the big banks to see if they tried to have their cake and eat it too on mortgage notes.  Reuters:

The Securities and Exchange Commission launched the new phase of its investigation by sending out a fresh round of subpoenas last week to big banks like Bank of America Corp, Citigroup Inc, JPMorgan Chase & Co, Goldman Sachs Group Inc and Wells Fargo & Co, the sources said.

The subpoenas focus on the earliest stage of the mortgage securitization process, said the sources, who requested anonymity because the probe is not public.

The sources said the SEC is asking for information about the role of so-called "master servicers" -- specialized firms that oversee the selection and maintenance of the large pool of home loans that go into every mortgage-backed bond.

In many cases, Wall Street banks that underwrite mortgage-backed securities either own their own master servicing firms or are closely aligned with one.

In the fall, the SEC began looking into the banks' foreclosure practices following allegations that mortgage servicers like Bank of America were using shoddy paperwork to evict delinquent borrowers from their homes.

The Justice Department, banking regulators and the attorneys general in all 50 U.S. states are also probing potential wrongdoing.

One of the sources said the SEC is seeking information about the role banks had in mortgage securitization. The regulator is also looking at the role trustees for the trusts that issued the mortgage-backed securities had in monitoring the performance of the underlying loans.

The SEC is looking at whether loans were properly transferred to the trusts that issued the securities, the source said.

It's that last sentence that should be giving the banksters serious agita.  There's plenty of evidence that the banks have not done this, possibly for thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of mortgages.  When they turned these mortgages into securities products, they were supposed to sign the notes over to these trust companies.  It's looking like the banks never actually did this.

They kept the note and turned around and foreclosed on the owners even though they don't technically own the property anymore.  The problem is because all these notes supposedly got bundled up into securities and sold to investors, nobody knows who actually owns the notes.  If the banks don't own them, they can't count them as assets on the books.

And from there, it goes straight into another financial crisis as the Mother Of All Bank Runs shapes up.

If the SEC is now looking into the issuing trusts, the banks are in deep, deep doodoo (and they know it).  How long do you suppose it will take for the new Congress in January to come up with legislation that absolves the banks of this, get it through the Senate, and onto the President's desk?

There's several trillion reasons why I think that will happen, and soon.  The jig is almost up.

Tax Break Raiders Of The Lost Ark, Part 3

If you're near Grant County, Kentucky and want a job, the Yabba Dabba D'oh is looking for you...

...if you're a Christian, that is.  Others need not apply.  PZ Myers:

There is some faint concern from the Kentucky governor that the Ark theme park will discriminate in hiring — I doubt that it will become a major sticking point. But still, it's true, they will be selective in their hiring based on religious belief. They say that isn't true, but one thing we know about creationists is that they lie.

"There will be positions that will require Bible knowledge because...we have certain things in there that are requiring biblical knowledge," he explains. "That doesn't mean, though, if you don't have that you can't work over in the restaurant or some other part of the facility."

Oh. Since atheists tend to know more about religion and the Bible than Christians, can we expect a larger proportion of them to show up in those jobs requiring biblical knowledge? No. Because they have a requirement that people sign a testimonial of their faith, which means they're actually going to discriminate on the basis of whether you agree with them or not.

Liars. Like I said.

OK, so you can apply to flip burgers, but you have to sign a document saying you're a believer.  And my tax money is going for this.

We deserve being a national joke, frankly.

AIDS Breakthrough Gives Hope

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – German researchers who used a bone marrow transplant to treat a cancer patient with the AIDS virus, have declared him cured of the virus -- a stunning claim in a field where the word "cure" is barely whispered.


A bone marrow transplant in a patient who had both AIDS and leukemia has resulted in a four year relief from the AIDS virus.  It does not appear to be hiding in his body, and there have been no signs of relapse.  However, doctors caution that this is not the mainstream cure that the population needs.  This marrow came from a donor who had a genetic disposition that gives resistance or immunity to the virus.  This is not the endgame, it is merely a first step in a new direction.


Marrow transplants are a last attempt at saving a patient, and the process itself is both destructive and potentially fatal.  But this does give researchers insight into AIDS resistance and immunity, and that is the first step towards a true cure for all, administered in a way that is safer and more effective that current drug therapy that only suppresses the symptoms.  It has been noted that certain populations are more immune to infection, but only now are we able to find a way to share that with the infected or the likely to be infected.  The chance is slim that this discovery will lead to a vaccine, but may pave the way to effective treatment.

Commerce Clause For Alarm, Part 3

Adam Serwer takes a crack at the Commerce Clause argument for the HCRA mandate.

The conservative argument against the individual mandate, a tax levied on people who avoid buying health insurance, is as powerful as it is simplistic: If the federal government can force you to buy health insurance, then it can make you do anything. It's a critique liberals need to answer more forcefully. The problem is that policy argument for the individual mandate -- that the only way a universal health insurance scheme works is with an federal mandate -- is closely related to the constitutional argument.

"The idea behind limited and enumerated powers is that the federal government can act when there's a genuinely federal problem," explains Yale Law Professor Jack Balkin. On the policy side, "what we're asking is whether [health care insurance] is a genuinely federal problem. And the constitutional question is whether it's a genuinely federal problem." 

Does health care of Americans fall into the "general welfare" of the people, in other words.  If it does, then health care is a federal issue, and so is mandating and regulating health insurance as a product.  So what about the argument that the "government can force you to buy anything now?"  Serwer addresses that as well.

That's not a trivial question. But recognizing that the Commerce Clause gives the federal government authority to regulate health insurance doesn't mean that Steve Jobs is the only thing standing between America and the great Microsoft Zune Mandate of 2015. Health insurance is a specific type of product. Without some kind of federal mechanism, you can't preserve the private insurance market and ensure affordable universal coverage. States that impose mandates will bear the costs of providing insurance for those that don't. This is why Hudson's argument that the Commerce Clause doesn't give the government the authority to regulate economic "inactivity" in this context rings hollow -- you can't actually choose not to participate in the health insurance market, because deciding not to buy health insurance drastically affects everyone else.

While the Framers may not have predicted the rise of a complex interstate health insurance market, that's no more an argument against the individual mandate than the failure to include thermal imaging devices in the 4th Amendment. "The Founders' logic was that the enumerated powers are to map on to areas where you need a federal solution," says Balkin. "You couldn't do this with cars, you couldn't do this with cell phones, you couldn't do this with Cuisinarts. [Health] insurance is special." Conservatives worried about a "food mandate" might remember that unlike health insurance, the price of food doesn't go up dramatically when someone waits until they're starving to eat. 

There are a number of factors that make mandating buying health insurance a unique situation that doesn't apply to computers or rutabagas or plastic flamingos.  Not buying health insurance affects the people who do.  The unique situation of health insurance itself makes the sufficiently narrow argument to pass the Commerce Clause.

Taking Stock

Bob Cesca puts into words how I feel this month.

You've probably noticed a lull in the volume of blog entries here. If so, you're not imagining things. I've been busy with work and travel, but also, I've been feeling especially disillusioned with progressives these days -- more so than usual -- as evidenced by the content of my Huffington Post column this week.

That said, I thought the blowback from the column would be significantly more vocal and angry. As it turns out, the level of support and kudos have far outweighed the negative mail. And of the dissenters, not one has been able to show me a quote from the president supporting this notion that the president thinks tax cuts create jobs. On the other side of the coin, it's clear that I'm not the only one who's disillusioned by all of the whining and non-reality-based petulance.

Like I said a couple weeks back, I've found myself looking for my firebagger card on more than a couple of occasions here in December.   Probably the usual holiday blahs I get, so it's good that news will most likely be light over the next 2-3 weeks.  I don't think I can take too much more in the Wacky Democratic Fun department.

I know the Dems can fight.  I've seen them do it.  The problem is I've seen them fold a lot more, and even I'm getting sick of trying to find the silver lining in this F4 tornado.

Rainbow Disconnection

America, your long national nightmare is over.  The wingers are coming to take the rainbow back from THE GAY.

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse is the founder and president of the Ruth Institute, which describes itself as "a project of the National Organization for Marriage." On its site, the group describes its mission statement as "to promote life-long married love to college students by creating an intellectual and social climate favorable to marriage."

Becky Yeh of right-wing American Family News Network's OneNewsNow, a product of the American Family Association, writes that Morse says "the rainbow is a sign of God's covenant with man." Morse told ONN: "Proposition 8 was passed by a great grassroots coalition that included people from all across the religious traditions, and also people of every race and color. We are the real rainbow coalition. The gay lobby does not own the rainbow."

Morse continued: "We can't simply let that go by. Families put rainbows in their children's nurseries. Little Christian preschools will have rainbows...Noah's Ark and all the animals.... Those are great Christian symbols, great Jewish symbols." She also described how she wore a rainbow scarf to the Prop 8 hearings to show that anti-gay marriage activists still own the symbol. 

I understand that very soon these lovely people are going to try to take the phrase "human being" away from the LGBT community as well, citing the fact that most anti-gay crusaders can generally be described as such (most of the time, and in a strictly genetic sense) and that this really pisses them off having to share a genus and species with homosexuals.

This will be followed up by the Campaign To Stop Those Who Must Not Be Named From Breathing Our Air.

It's all about the right to obliterate people you don't agree with from existing because they offend you, you see.