Last Call

WikiLeaks has put up tens of thousands of leaked, raw DoD reports on Afghanistan.  Julian Assange wanted to call attention to the "squalor" of  our endless little war.

The first-hand accounts are the military's own raw data on the war, including numbers killed, casualties, threat reports and the like, according to Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks.org, which published the material Sunday.

"It is the total history of the Afghan war from 2004 to 2010, with some important exceptions -- U.S. Special Forces, CIA activity and most of the activity of other non-U.S. groups," Assange said.

CNN has not independently confirmed the authenticity of the documents. The Department of Defense will not comment on them until the Pentagon has had a chance to look at them, a Defense official told CNN.

Assange declined to tell CNN where he got the documents. He claims the documents reveal the "squalor" of war, uncovering how many relatively small incidents have added up to huge numbers of dead civilians.

It's smart of him to do this.  With these raw document available to everyone, there's well more of a chance of finding a real story here than our media would bother to report.  Then again, which single news organization has the resources to crunch through 90,000 documents in a 24-hour news cycle world?

There really are two stories here, however.  How did Julian Assange get his hands on this much unfiltered Pentagon data is one story, and what the data shows about out failure in prosecuting this war is the other.  Both have tremendous consequences to the way wars are run in the 21st century, and the way America is run in the internet age.

What will all this data reveal?  Whoever crunches these docs will be able to make their own conclusions.  I'm very interested to hear much more from the people who cover the crossroads of war and new media technology and what they have to say:  Spencer Ackerman, Bill Roggio, and Jeff Huber for starters.

It All Comes Back To The Filibuster

Sam Stein reports on House Dems being less than pleased with their Senate counterparts leaving literally hundreds of passed House bills untouched or rejected.

Appearing at a panel discussion at Netroots Nation , the lawmakers argued that the public was not discriminating in its anger with Congress' legislative inertia. And while a fair chunk of the Senate was immune from direct, electoral blowback, every member of the House would have to deal with the taint.

"They say the senate has a luxury of time, six-year cycles for elections," said Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), co-chair of the House Progressive Caucus. "But these last 18 months have, in memory, have not only been the most frustrating but the inertia created in the Senate is what is jeopardizing Democrats and progressives' opportunities in the midterms. It is not our lack of action. It has been their lack of action."

"I think [we] feel a frustration because my constituents don't necessarily distinguish between the House and the Senate," said Rep. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). "And so when they see something not getting done they are not really tolerant of my argument which is, 'Well it passed the House.' That doesn't really wash. They hold us all accountable for the failure of these issues moving forward. I personally think the 60-vote requirement in the United States Senate is a bastardization of the United States constitution."

"It sucks," said Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Va.), "and I mean it literally. It sucks the energy out of the room and it sucks the urgency out of what we do... The lack of urgency from the Senate on these jobs bill is soul-crushing." 

And it's House Democrats whose heads are on the chopping block here the most.  It really does all come back to the filibuster on a great many of these bills that would have easily passed with 51 but had to get over the 60 hurdle thanks to the Republicans filibustering everything.

Of course, the Senate has no intention of doing that.  It might mean those proles in the House might be able to, you know, direct the country through a simply majority vote of the people.

And the Senate can't have that.  They run this country, you know?  Where every member is President, it seems.

Sunday Funnies: Timmy Explains It All Edition

All Geithner, all day, all Bobblespeak Translations.

Tapper: what can you do to grow this economy?

Geithner: convince businesses to rehire people

Tapper: how so

Geithner: with my awesome charisma

Tapper: um do you have a backup plan?

Geithner: ha

Tapper: isn’t it terribly important to pay for unemployment benefits unlike everything else or future generations will be mad at us?

Geithner: no that’s idiotic

Tapper: shouldn’t we have less financial regulation since lack of regulation failed us before?

Geithner: no because the new law will allow the government write a strongly worded letter to businesses before they destroy America

Tapper: Liz Warren hates you but consumer groups love her

Geithner: she’s a sharp cookie I’ll give her that

Tapper: giant businesses on welfare are giving their employees free Lamborghinis

Geithner: that’s crazy we told them to buy American and get Cadillacs

Tapper: Auto companies had to take haircuts but bankers did not

Geithner: no the executives had to do that too

Tapper: Tim those were actual haircuts!

 I still say Culture of Truth makes the Sunday shows make more sense than the normally do.

Political Jujitsu

I don't think enough attention has been paid to Illinois Dem Jan Schakowsky and her simple and elegant plan to expose Austerity Hysteria for what it truly is:  gutting social programs for the poor and elderly while adding to the deficit through tax cuts for the wealthy.  You'd think then that Schakowsky's public option plan, which would in fact lower the deficit, would be widely embraced by those using the country's national debt as an excuse for wealth transfer.

Of course, you'd be wrong.

Unveiled last Thursday by Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), Schakowsky, and more than 120 co-sponsors, the measure would give consumers a choice between private and public health insurance plans in the new law's exchanges. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that it would cut the deficit by $68 billion between 2014 an 2020.

How would it save that much money? "It would compete with insurance companies, who frankly would have to lower their rates," Schakowsky said, promising that it would force private insurers to "be more efficient."

Progressives were disheartened with -- but still largely supported -- the resulting health care law enacted in March, which didn't offer public insurance programs to consumers ineligible for Medicare or Medicaid. Even a public option was viewed as a raw deal by liberals, who wanted a single payer system, as exists in Canada and Britain.

"This is kind of a compromise from that, saying, at least make [government-run insurance] one of the choices," explained the Democratic Congresswoman. "The American people, she added, "overwhelmingly" support it.

Republicans and conservative Democrats derided the public option as just another government program, invoking widespread distrust for government as a reason for their opposition. Their other opposing arguments, given consistent CBO projections that it would save money, were mostly without empirical backing.

But of course the deficit and the national debt was never really the argument, wasn't it?  It's all about finishing the Bush era wealth transfer to the top.  Same as it ever was.

The plan itself has no chance whatsoever of course.  But exposing Congress and where its interests really lay is the key.

It Only Took Five Years...

But our crack Village media has finally figured out that Bush's largest victory in his two terms was the appointments of Sam Alito and John Roberts to the Supreme Court.

In its first five years, the Roberts court issued conservative decisions 58 percent of the time. And in the term ending a year ago, the rate rose to 65 percent, the highest number in any year since at least 1953.

The courts led by Chief Justices Warren E. Burger, from 1969 to 1986, and William H. Rehnquist, from 1986 to 2005, issued conservative decisions at an almost indistinguishable rate — 55 percent of the time.

That was a sharp break from the court led by Chief Justice Earl Warren, from 1953 to 1969, in what liberals consider the Supreme Court’s golden age and conservatives portray as the height of inappropriate judicial meddling. That court issued conservative decisions 34 percent of the time.

Four of the six most conservative justices of the 44 who have sat on the court since 1937 are serving now: Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Antonin Scalia and, most conservative of all, Clarence Thomas. (The other two were Chief Justices Burger and Rehnquist.) Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the swing justice on the current court, is in the top 10.

The Roberts court is finding laws unconstitutional and reversing precedent — two measures of activism — no more often than earlier courts. But the ideological direction of the court’s activism has undergone a marked change toward conservative results.

Until she retired in 2006, Justice O’Connor was very often the court’s swing vote, and in her later years she had drifted to the center-left. These days, Justice Kennedy has assumed that crucial role at the court’s center, moving the court to the right. 

Alito's replacement of O'Connor was the big flip, and Democrats played right along.  Now the Roberts Court is reversing some eighty years of precedent and conservatives know they can break the dam with but one more to add permanently to the Alito-Scalia-Roberts-Thomas bloc instead of Kennedy's terribly mysterious dilettantism act.

When Kennedy does play ball, we get stuff like Citizens United.  A more reliable conservative would pull the plug on a lot of things we take for granted right now.  As it is, there's a better than even chance that Kennedy will side with the right anyway.

Boy it's a good thing Alito and Roberts aren't activist judges, huh?  Great call on keeping your powder dry and only mustering 25 on that filibuster on Alito especially there Dems.

Last Call

Hey wingers?

When Confederate Yankee is your lone voice of reason that actually bothers to fact check something as crazy as the claim that Mexican drug cartels have invaded Texas, you have lost the game.

A Film You Have To See

I caught Inception today and I have to say, it's a rather amazing piece of cinema as well as being a wonderful story.  I agree with Roger Ebert's 4-star rating.  It's the best film I've seen in quite a long time and the one movie you'll be talking about with your friends for weeks.



No spoilers here, but I will say this is a movie you want to see in the theater.  The sad part is like last year's District 9, Inception is that rarity in Hollywood these days:  an original work, not a sequel, not a remake of a film from decades past, not a retread of a Boomer pop culture icon or SNL skit, not an 80's TV show or a live action cartoon, not a reboot of a franchise and not the American version of a foreign smash either.

Most of all it accomplishes what a truly great summer flick should do: it's a hell of a ride AND it makes you think.  See it with people whose opinions you respect, which is as far as I'm concerned, the highest accolade you can give a movie.

[UPDATE]  If you have seen the film, check out GigaOm's "7 Reasons Why Techies Love Inception".

Iran The Long Game

One of Daniel Larison's readers flags down how we've taken yet another step towards open war with Iran.

One of my commenters alerted me to House Res. 1553, which states:

Expressing support for the State of Israel’s right to defend Israeli sovereignty, to protect the lives and safety of the Israeli people, and to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the use of military force if no other peaceful solution can be found within reasonable time to protect against such an immediate and existential threat to the State of Israel.

Naturally, Rep. Jason Chaffetz is among the resolution’s 46 co-sponsors. The National Iranian American Council has called on Minority Leader Boehner to reject the measure, but why would he bother? Two of his leadership colleagues, Mike Pence and Thaddeus McCotter, co-sponsored the resolution, and it has the support of other high-profile Republican members, including Paul Ryan and Dan Burton. That tells me that this is not just a product of hard-liners such as Michelle Bachmann and Peter King, but that it expresses the views of a fairly broad-cross section of the Republican members in the House. I guess I can’t stop “nitpicking,” but this seems like an awfully strange resolution for an “antiwar” Republican to co-sponsor. It is also thoroughly depressing that Paul Ryan, one of the few credible figures in the conference when it comes to fiscal responsibility, is among the supporters of such a ludicrous measure.

I respect Larison's logic, but I'm shaking my head that he's actually slightly surprised that an attack on Iran is something that a "fairly broad cross section" of Republicans want.  No offense Dan, but have you been paying attention to the GOP over the last 50 years?  They're not Eisenhower conservatives anymore.  Not to say that the Democrats have been much better on the subject of blowing things up, but the Republicans have certainly perfected the practice here in the last decade or so.

Yes, a large percentage of the United States Congress is willing to go to war for Israel.  There's something disturbingly, if not deadly wrong with that.

It's not just Congress, either.  But hey, the worse the economy gets, the more and more smacking around Iran looks like a better reflationary option, eh?

When You're Surrounded On Eight Sides, Where Do You Go?

GOP Rep. Zach Wamp is running for Governor of Tennessee, and if you don't like his stance on Tenth Amendment rights trumping that there federal law, well, if elected there Zach might have to do something about it.

"I hope that the American people will go to the ballot box in 2010 and 2012 so that states are not forced to consider separation from this government," said Wamp during an interview with Hotline OnCall.

He lauded Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX), who first floated the idea of secession in April '09, for leading the push-back against health care reform, adding that he hopes the American people "will send people to Washington that will, in 2010 and 2012, strictly adhere" to the constitution's defined role for the federal government.

"Patriots like Rick Perry have talked about these issues because the federal government is putting us in an untenable position at the state level," said Wamp, who is competing with Knoxville Mayor Bill Haslam (R) and LG Ron Ramsey (R) for the GOP nod in the race to replace TN Gov. Phil Bredesen (D).

Really?  Separation from the government?  Didn't the last time that happened A) not work out real well for the country and B) specifically not work out for states like Tennessee?

Also, last time I checked the Volunteer State got $1.27 for every dollar in federal taxes paid.  Texas at least comes out slightly behind at 96 cents for a dollar.  Blue states like California and New York have been losing money on federal taxes for years, while red states like Tennessee have been coming out ahead.

You know what?  On second thought, maybe Wamp should take his parasite state with him when he separates from the government.  I'm sure New York and California would appreciate it.  Hell, I'm sure his fellow GOP governor Chris Christie of New Jersey would appreciate it...out of all 50 states, it's New Jersey that gets shafted the most on federal taxes.  They get a measly 61 cents back for every federal tax dollar they pay in.

I'm sure Christie would be thrilled to up that ratio some to give his state more revenue.

Orange Julius Cuts The Mustard

Even John "Orange Julius" Boehner admits that there is a dangerous, violent element in the Tea Party.

"I’ve been to my share of tea party events. … Let me tell you about these events. Yeah, there’s some disaffected Republicans there. There are always some Democrats there.  Always a couple of anarchists who want to kill all of us in public office.  But I'll tell you this. 75 percent of these people who show up at these events are the most average everyday Americans you have ever met. None of whom have ever been involved in the political process. And I would guess, half of whom have probably have never voted."

In the end, Boehner concludes:

"We should listen to them. We should work with them. We should walk amongst them."

Despite the dangerous element, the GOP of course wants to embrace these guys, some of which Boehner admits are people who want to do violence...kill, even....politicians like himself.  Last time I checked the threat of violence used in order to affect political policy was the textbook Bush-era definition of terrorism.

Now all this brings us to William "Colonel Mustard" Jacobson of Legal Insurrection.  Now that the wingers have discovered the concept of "context" it seems ol' Mustard here wants the left to apologize for what he sees as breaches of context, including folks like yours truly.  He has taken umbrage with the fact that eleven months ago I made the argument that there's a violent fringe of the Tea Party that admits to wanting to use violence in order to affect political policy.

Now, where have we heard that argument before?  Oh yes, Orange Julius just admitted to that this week in the above exchange.

Maybe you should try getting an apology out of Orange Julius there first, Bill.  Me?  I stand by my analysis.  There is a part of the Tea Party that is dangerous, violent, and yes, even racist.  Boehner wants the GOP to embrace them anyway.

Anything for political power, I suppose...even anarchy and terror.  Time for a new tag:  Orange Julius.

StupidiNews, Weekend Edition!

• Tropical Depression Bonnie has moved back into the waters of the Gulf and is heading towards the oil spill site this weekend.
• North Korea is threatening a nuclear response to joint U.S.-South Korea military exercises.
• Researchers in Florida have now proven that the underwater oil plumes in the Gulf are a product of the Deepwater Horizon disaster.
• Disney looks to be the latest company looking to get into the Facebook game market.
• The Pentagon is taking the lead in testing and using mobile speech translation devices for US troops in Afghanistan.

Last Call

We passed the 100 mark in failed banks in 2010.

Community Security Bank of New Prague, Minn., was the 101st in a string of small, regional banks to fail this year. While conditions have improved for many of the nation's largest banks, the lingering effects of the financial crisis continue to take a toll on local lenders across the country.

The FDIC expects the wave of bank failures that started in 2008 to peak sometime this year. Lending activity has picked up in some areas and many troubled firms have found new sources of capital.

FDIC spokesman Andrew Gray said the agency expects the number of failed banks to exceed last year's total of 140, though he added that failures this year will not approach the historic levels seen during the savings and loan crisis. In 1989, a record 534 banks were closed by regulators.

Still, banks have been failing at a rapid pace this year. At this time in 2009, regulators had closed a total of 57 banks.

Won't exceed that level this year, no.

Your New Normal Kinda Sucks

White House projections are 9% plus unemployment for, oh, the next couple years.

The White House said Friday it expects that unemployment will stay at or above 9% until 2012, but at the same time forecast that the economy will grow by at least 4% in 2011 and 2012.

It also revised its long-term deficit estimate under President Obama's proposed 2011 budget: The administration now believes the 10-year deficit will be $58 billion less than projected in February when the budget blueprint was first released. 

Really?  Four percent growth and still 9% unemployment?  How does that work?  Oh yes, that 4% growth I guess goes to the top 1% again.  Rest of us?  Well, not so much.

And this is the optimistic projection.  Reality is more like 11 or 12% unemployment and the next leg of the depression.

Another Milepost On The Road To Oblivion

The ethics violations facing Charlie Rangel must be pretty gruesome indeed if he's already apologizing to Luke Russert for snapping at him yesterday.

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) has apologized to NBC reporter Luke Russert over berating him for asking whether ethics charges will force Rangel out of his job.

After the charges dropped Thursday, Rangel became angry when Russert asked the question in the Capitol. The veteran congressman called it a “dumb question” and asked if Russert was “trying to make copy.”

“It doesn’t really sound like NBC asking these dumb questions, but it just shows what has really happened to a channel that did have some respect,” Rangel said. 

At a news conference on Monday, Rangel said he called the reporter to apologize.

“I had a very good conversation with Luke Russert [this morning] and apologized for the way I treated him on television,” he said. 

Translation:  Charlie is in real, real trouble here and he's been in the game long enough to know he who controls the news cycle, controls the universe.  Next week should be really interesting if he's already sucking up to NBC's Junior Villager In Training.

And So It Begins

The D-D-D-Dee Word is here.  No, not Depression.  That's next after the current one:  Deflation.

During the height of the U.S. recession, grocery stores embarked on a price war to keep consumers. Now as the economy improves slightly but unemployment remains high, food manufacturers are backing aggressive price cuts to woo back shoppers they lost to lower-priced store labels.

Safeway executives said the strength of that push on pricing caught them by surprise.

"Deflation continues in price per item and is not expected to significantly improve until the fourth quarter," said Chief Executive Steve Burd, who oversees supermarkets including Safeway, Vons and Dominick's.

Burd acknowledged that retail deflation was much greater than expected in the second quarter and drove a decline in identical-store sales.

Remember, there is no deflation.  We must cut trillions in government spending and tighten our belts.  Homeowners must be made to pay back their underwater mortgages in full.  We must deregulate everything to allow the innovation of Big Casino.  We must cut taxes to create jobs because supply creates demand. And why hasn't Obama fixed the economy yet?