Search Results for: ’

WordPress ate my last post so here’s an abbreviated version before I head out: Even though House Republicans hate Obama, and might well not pass an authorization of force against Libya, he shouldn’t have taken military action there without one. The War Powers Act is more wide ranging than I’d like, but it still probably doesn’t allow this. Also, even if he could get authorization, I’m not sure he should have anyway. I do think the humanitarian mission has value, but I don’t know what the US and its allies have done to prevent a bloodbath by the rebels if they take Tripoli, and I can’t imagine a partition (especially one enforced by Western air power) working out well in the long term. That said, this conservative anti war case is embarrassingly stupid, even by Federal Way Conservative’s low, low standards.

Bush’s Unilateral Action Had More Partner’s Than Obama’s Multinational Effort

The Libya mission has the UN, and NATO, and sort of the Arab League? Well Iraq had the UK, Spain for a while, and Poland.

It’s all here, in black and white: When President Bush went to war against Iraq, he had 4 times as many nations supporting him than Obama doing his “Kinetic Military Action” in Libya.

This isn’t an apples to apples comparison. The link includes military action by every country that just supplied a few troops in Iraq at any time in the last decade. So most of them came on (and in small numbers) after the invasion. You can’t compare that to just an air offensive. Hell, the fact that Eritrea said they supported the invasion to try to gain favor with the Bush administration made them part of the Coalition of the Willing. We had to put those together because the Iraq war didn’t have the backing of NATO, the UN or other international organizations that might give it international legitimacy.

Of course, now that Obama’s little crusade against Libya is turning out far worse than Bush’s romp in Iraq, maybe even democrats will admit Bush was the greatest president ever.

Did a we lose several thousand troops and billions of dollars in Libya? Because if not, it’s not as bad.

Republicans are having a hard time getting the nerve up to challenge President Obama:

“Right now, just three Republicans (Cain, Pawlenty, and Roemer) have formed exploratory committees, and no one has yet to formally announce a presidential bid. By comparison, at this point in the 2008 cycle, at least 17 Democratic and Republican presidential candidates had already formed their exploratory committees or had officially declared they were running for president…

Bloody wafflers!

Okay, so maybe the problem isn’t spineless waffling. Perhaps they are suffering an epidemic of reality, with advisors pointing out the hurdles: huge fundraising requirements, tough odds against Obama, and a very red G.O.P. primary (as in, a bloodbath). The entire picture might be overwhelming.

Whatever the cause, the lack of action is starting to mess things up. The first Republican primary debate for the 2012 presidential election cycle was supposed to be held on May 2. It isn’t going to happen and is being moved to mid-September.

My sense is that the compressed schedule will not work in the Republican’s favor. First, it will provide an expanded platform for the political nutjobs to launch quixotic campaigns. We have a growing list of crazies hinting at a run—including Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Rand Paul…. And most recently, The Donald, has been working diligently to establish credentials as a bona fide birfer loon. The lack of a serious mainstream candidate can only embolden these people.

This cycle we will see the nutjobs soaking up a lot of press attention, later into the season, leaving a deficit of press attention for more mainstream candidates.

Another possible negative consequence is that whoever is eventually selected may not be fully vetted. Vetting takes time, and must encompass multiple dimensions—fundraising prowess, mistresses on the side, past indiscretions, pregnant unwed teenage daughters, gaffe proneness, lack of charisma, bouts of irrational decision making, lack of any coherent vision, etc.

In other words, the late start of the election season maximizes the opportunity for Republicans to end up with a flawed candidate. They did pretty well in that regard in 2008, even with a long, bruising election season. The first sign of McCain’s “gambling problem” became evident when he gave the G.O.P. establishment, including his former rivals, a great big “fuck you” and took a desperate gamble on an entirely un-vetted running-mate. The results weren’t pretty.

Man, what great material us bloggers got from it.

But more than I want good blogging material, I really do want a large field of serious, solid candidates from both sides, and plenty of time to evaluate them. I want this because, in principle, that is what is best for America.

In practice…I am not convinced that there is any Republican politician who is actually good for America.

Recently, my favorite sports writer, Joe Posnanski wrote a piece about the meanings of advanced baseball statistics. He started quoting this piece from Louis CK:

“And then I was looking at the little Chinese lady. There was a beauty to her — she was just a tiny little Chinese lady, I was staring at her because I was fascinated by her. I don’t know anybody like her, and I am SO not a little old Chinese lady.

“Then I look and I think, ‘What are her thoughts?’ That’s what I was burning inside with. ‘What is she thinking right now?’ I can never know. And my dumb brain is telling me she’s just thinking: ‘Ching chung cheeng, chung cheeng chaing.’ That’s how dumb I am, that I think Chinese jibberish* that I made up is in her actually Chinese mind.”

Posnanski then went on to explain that a lot of people who oppose the use of advanced statistics are arguing with the Chinese jibberish in their head.

Baseball people really don’t get at all what people like Bill James and Tom Tango and Pete Palmer and the like are doing at all. They might THINK they know. But in the end, they are just assuming that the Chinese jibberish that they make up is what is actually happening in the minds of the most brilliant sabermetric minds.

This is a long way of saying that whenever I mention car culture or Washington State imposing car culture on its city folk, that I feel like the arguments I get into are with people assuming the Chinese jibberish in their head is my argument. If this was confined to the Internet, I’d just chalk it up to trollery and use this post to write about something else (more metacommentary, probably), but I hear it in conversation elsewhere, so I thought I should clarify what I mean, and hopefully we can get away from that and onto an actual conversation.

To address the jibberish: Opposing car culture doesn’t mean that nobody will ever be allowed to drive anywhere. It doesn’t mean that we’ll turn all the roads into bike paths. It doesn’t mean that you won’t be able to drive. While I can’t speak to anyone else who uses the term, for me it certainly doesn’t mean I think you’re a bad person if you drive or if you enjoy driving. It doesn’t mean that you are a bad person for feeling unsafe on a bike, or thinking it’s important to have a car if you have children.

Car culture is the myriad ways we privilege driving over other ways to get around as a society. It’s the fact that you need a car for so many jobs, even jobs unrelated to driving. It’s the fact that our bicycle infrastructure even in Seattle is pretty inadequate, and worse further out. It’s the fact that so many parents have such a need for cars. It’s all the roads without a shoulder let alone a decent bike lane. It’s the sidewalks that neighborhoods have been promised for decades but that never quite seem to materialize. It’s the underfunded public transit. It’s the fact that when we discuss the viaduct replacement that many people are more concerned about how to move cars than how to move people. It’s our refusal to deal with the externalities of driving from pollution, to global warming gases, to the big holes in cities where we have to park, to the fact that streets aren’t safe for pedestrians in the way they were before cars.

And car culture is treating all these things as inevitable instead of the result of choices we make. When I say the legislature imposes car culture (especially, but not exclusively) on Seattle, I’m saying that consciously or not, the policies that the state pushes make those things in the above paragraph, and more, worse. So when, for example, a state legislator from Yakima tries to impose a maximum parking tax on Seattle that’s a choice for that legislator, and possibly the entire state. They’re saying we should have cheaper parking. Not we should figure out what’s reasonable given the budget deficit and the things that extra parking does to a city, but that they know best. When the legislature wants to build a replacement for the Viaduct, instead of looking at how to move people around, they’re looking at how to move cars. Until they recognize that cars are one way people and goods move around, but aren’t the only way, they’ll still push cars on us when there are better alternatives. Not just with the Viaduct replacement but with all sorts of policies.

[Read more…]

Another death in the hands of a domestic religious extremist:

A 28-year-old man has been charged with murder after telling police that he stoned a 70-year-old man to death for making homosexual advances toward him, authorities say. […]

Thomas reportedly told authorities that he read in the Old Testament that homosexuals should be stoned to death. When Seidman allegedly made homosexual advances toward him over a period of time, Thomas said he received a message in his prayers that he must end Seidman’s life, according to court documents.

Police say that Thomas struck Seidman in the head about 10 times with the sock of rocks. Thomas left Seidman dead in his apartment, and then threw his bloody clothing and the bloody sock in a dumpster, according to authorities.

…which leads me to ask, when, oh when, will Congress hold hearings on the radicalization of American Christians?

And when will our lawmakers take action against the gathering threat of honor killings via stoning (nip it in the bud, so to speak) by passing legislation forbidding the establishment of Mosaic law in Washington state?

(And rename Moses Lake to something less terroristic sounding, while they are at it?)

E.D. Kain is one of my favorite bloggers and someone who I respect for his ability to get beyond simple partisan talking points, but I think he’s in denial about this:

As far as I’m concerned there are no good arguments for intervention in Libya. Reports that we’ve saved 100,000 lives there strike me as no better than propaganda.

As soon as Libyans began gearing up for their February 17th protests (which were supposed to mimic the successful Egyptian protest movement), I began to follow the situation closely. It’s a country (and a regime) that I’ve been fascinated by since I became friends with a Libyan who was given asylum in the U.S. in the early 90s. To this day, I’ve never been able to get the whole story out of him on why he had to flee the country.

For a while, it did appear as if Libya would follow the script of both Egypt and Tunisia. Protesters took to the streets across the country and in many cities were able to raise the tri-colored flag of pre-Gaddafi Libya. At one point, only Tripoli, Sirte, and a few other tiny pockets of the country remained loyal to Gaddafi.

As in Egypt – and in Cairo in particular – this required that people “lose the fear”. In Benghazi, this happened, and while some troops stayed loyal to Gaddafi, many didn’t (they were found bound and burned alive). Fighter pilots that were sent to bomb the city flew to Malta and demanded asylum. Many other Libyan diplomats defected and joined the ranks of the protesters. Benghazi was able to overrun the few Gaddafi supporters left and raise the rebel flag. But in the capital, none of this happened.

When protests started to break out in Tripoli, Gaddafi had enough fighters (along with paid mercenaries from other countries) who began terrorizing the populace. They fired from tanks and aircraft into crowds of peaceful unarmed protesters. At this point, the internet was still available and people in Libya were posting pictures and videos of the truly gruesome carnage. And my friend (who was still in communication with his large family back in Tripoli) was still optimistic when I talked to him, but Gaddafi’s assaults on the populace brought the fear back in Tripoli and allowed for him to project to the world that he still had support in the capital.

It’s hard to really get into the mind of someone like Gaddafi, but it’s not hard to see that from his speeches that it matters to him deeply that he’s loved by his people. And here he was faced with his entire nation standing up and telling him to fuck off. It was very similar to Mubarak, but Gaddafi isn’t Mubarak. And the Libyan Army isn’t an institution capable of rejecting a diseased head of state bent on massacring his populace in order to project an image to the world that he’s beloved.

At this point, there was still hope that the protesters could arm themselves and take on Gaddafi’s loyalists and paid fighters, but that hope was dashed in a flurry of intense military retribution on the general public. Tens of thousands started to flee to the Tunisian border. Gaddafi then started consolidating his military assets to reclaim cities that had raised the rebel flag. He repeatedly attacked Zawia, just west of Tripoli, by shelling residential areas. After several days of fighting, Gaddafi achieved his objective, to be able to set a scene where western reporters could broadcast to the world a scene of pro-Gaddafi supporters waving green flags and holding up his picture. It’s nearly impossible to know how many people died in order to set up this photo op. As was the case throughout the battles in Libya, dead bodies were picked up from the streets and taken away by the military. Hospitals were attacked and ambulances were often hijacked.

In the east, Gaddafi forces were able to continue along the main highway between Tripoli and Benghazi. Having the ability to fire from the air made it impossible for the now-armed but largely untrained opposition to stop them, especially in sparsely populated areas where it’s tough to hide. There was nothing stopping the advance on Benghazi, the second largest city in the country – and the heart of the newly formed revolution government. It would’ve been enormously wishful thinking to say that we weren’t staring down the possibility of a massacre that could’ve taken 100,000 lives. The Obama Administration had the military means to prevent a significant loss of life. And if Obama had not acted to wipe out Gaddafi’s troops and they did in Benghazi what they did in Zawia, you can be sure as hell that everyone would lay the blame for that massacre at Obama’s feet.

I recognize that there are a number of good counter-points to our intervention in Libya, and I’m still worried as hell that this situation will continue to deteriorate, but any argument that tries to dismiss the idea that a huge massacre was about to occur in Benghazi is not dialed in to what was going on there. And ultimately why I fall into the camp of the interventionists here is along the same lines of why these uprisings have managed to be so successful to this point. The citizens of the world are far more aware of what happens outside of their communities than ever before. And while this phenomenon can lead to greater understanding of one’s own state of being oppressed (as we’re seeing throughout the Middle East), it can also lead to greater expectations for those world powers who have the means to intervene on behalf of those being most oppressed. Of course, it would be considerably better if the Obama Administration were a little more consistent on when we intervene (see: Ivory Coast). But I still believe standing alongside the Libyan people here was still the right move, even if the outcome isn’t as triumphant as we’d all hope for.

Under the guise of “budget crisis” measures, anti-worker legislation is popping up all over the country. But this mean-spirited move shows the arrogant contempt with which Republicans hold workers:

Gov. Paul LePage has ordered the removal of a 36-foot mural depicting Maine’s labor history from the lobby of the Department of Labor.
[…]

Acting labor chief Laura Boyett emailed staff Tuesday about the mural’s pending removal, as well as another administration directive to rename several department conference rooms that carry the names of pro-labor icons such as Cesar Chavez.

According to LePage spokesman Dan Demeritt, the administration felt the mural and the conference room monikers showed “one-sided decor” not in keeping with the department’s pro-business goals.

Umm… Removing a mural and renaming conference rooms is going to fix Maine’s budget problems?

Pure and simple…this is another salvo in the Republican War on Workers™.

The mural was erected in 2008 following a jury selection by the Maine Arts Commission and a $60,000 federal grant. Judy Taylor, the artist from Seal Cove, said Tuesday that her piece was never meant to be political, simply a depiction of Maine’s labor history.

Why are Republicans threatened by Maine’s history? Let’s examine the threat. From the web site of the artist, here is a selection of captions from the eleven mural panels:

1. The Apprentice: Here, a Cobbler trains his young Apprentice. In the background, are scenes from that era.

Oooooh…cobbler apprentice. Scary. (And, Donald Trump…this doesn’t look good for your presidential aspirations…)

2. Lost Childhood: Child labor was common in Maine. They frequently performed dangerous tasks for long hours.

That is offensive to LePage, who is trying to roll back child labor laws:

A bill sponsored by state Sen. Debra Plowman (R) and “backed by” LePage would roll back the state’s child labor laws…. Her original bill would have removed all protections on the number of hours 16 and 17 year olds could work during the school week, and allow them to work until 11 PM.
[…]

In response to opposition from labor and education groups, Plowman revised her bill to cap hours at 32 per week….

3. The Textile Workers: Young women were often sent to the mills by their families, who could not, or would not support them.

Clearly, this is offensive for the same reason as the previous panel. A young woman’s place is in the sweatshop.

4. The Secret Ballot: For the first time, workers were allowed to vote anonymously in 1891.

Yeah…Women’s suffrage still gets under their skin.

“Wait. What? Vote?!? We thought ‘suffrage’ meant something else.”

5. First Labor’s Day: In 1884, Maine celebrated it’s first “Labor’s Day”, a day for the workers to celebrate.

This factoid, no doubt, is a great stain on the psyche of Maine Republicans.

6. The Woods Workers: A member of the IWW or “Wobblies” tries to organize the Maine woodsmen.

History lesson be damned…I’m pretty sure Republicans consider the word “organize” a vulgar obscenity.

7. The 1937 Strike: Scenes from an unsuccessful strike attempt to create better conditions for women workers.

Ewwww…”strike”? “better conditions for women workers?” For the G.O.P., the vulgarity of it all must trump any potential historical interest.

8. Francis Perkins: FDR’s Labor Secretary, and untiring labor activist, a Maine Labor icon.

You can imagine how a mural of the first woman appointed to a Presidential Cabinet could induce in Republicans indigestion, foaming at the mouth, and the heartache of psoriasis.

9. Rosie the Riveter: Maine’s version of WWII women workers participated as ship-builders.

You see…in the eyes of the wingnuts, Rosie the Riveter is the kind of uncomfortable situation that leads to Rachael Maddow.

Hey…you know another leader who took down art that he found threatening?

Hitler.

Today is the one-year anniversary of the contentious health care reform law. How do American’s feel about it? The story you get depends on (1) your media source, and (2) how carefully you scrutinize the numbers.

David Weigel points out that the following two headlines are simultaneously true:

1. Most Favor Health Care Law or Wish It Was More Liberal
2. Time Doesn’t Change Views on Health Care Law

Headline 2 is from a CNN article about its new poll released today:

Thirty-seven percent of Americans support the measure, with 59 percent opposed. That’s basically unchanged from last March, when 39 percent supported the law and 59 percent opposed the measure.

But that is only half the story:

“In 2010, about a quarter of the health care bill’s opponents disliked the bill because it was not liberal enough – the same as today. That works out to 13 percent of all Americans who oppose the bill because it did not go far enough. Forty-three percent oppose it because it was too liberal.”

The final tally from the poll (pdf here) is that an estimated 50% of Americans want the law or a more comprehensive version of it, and 43% want the law gone. Seven percent have no opinion. The pattern is the same in three previous CNN polls taken over the last year—thirteen percent “disapprove” because the law doesn’t go far enough, and 37%-43% oppose the law as “too liberal”.

One must keep the “liberal 13%” in mind with looking at polls that do not distinguish between those who think the law doesn’t go far enough and those who think it goes too far. So when a Gallup poll with a somewhat different question reports that 46% find the law “a good thing” and 44% find it “a bad thing” (with 10% offering no opinion), I have to wonder what fraction of the 44% wanted universal health care, single payer, a public option, or just think the law is a big giveaway to the insurance companies.

Also, I have to wonder how much of the ~40% who oppose the law do so because they were sucked into the bullshit that it “includes death panels.”

Besides being the one year anniversary of the law, it is also the one year anniversary of the Republicans offering no alternatives. Even Juan Williams has a hard time not noticing:

…House Republicans have not passed a single alternative health care reform bill since they have been in charge but they have passed bills to repeal and defund the law. All of these bills, however, are dead on arrival in the Senate making the whole exercise futile and symbolic.

At a meeting of the nation’s governors last month, President Obama called the GOP’s bluff on health care. He challenged GOP governors […] to come up with their own health care plans that meet the goals of the Affordable Care Act.

He challenged the governors, saying, “I am not open to re-fighting the battles of the last two years, or undoing the progress that we’ve made. But I am willing to work with anyone — anybody in this room, Democrat or Republican, governors or member of Congress — to make this law even better; to make care even better; to make it more affordable and fix what needs fixing.”

That includes not driving up the deficit. So the president opened the door to the states, as what he called the laboratories of democracy, putting their own ideas on the table for reducing costs, increasing access and improving quality.

Since then, the silence has been deafening and the American people are beginning to see that the GOP really doesn’t have any alternative ideas on health care that fit the bill.

A shorter Juan Williams: Republicans…all Repeal an no Replace.

State Sen. Phil Rockefeller (D-23) makes the case for ending some of the 567 special tax preferences on the books in Washington:

Faced with a deep state deficit and deep cuts to vital services we should look first at ending unjustified tax breaks.

Many breaks on the books subsidize a privileged few at the expense of ordinary citizens. The notion of tax fairness, that everyone pays his or her fair share for core services that benefit everyone, has been trampled under the feet of special interest lobbyists.

These tax breaks are conveniently embedded in obscure tax law and routinely ignored, yet they divert billions of dollars into wealthy pockets. As a result, essential public services like education and health care are starved for funding.

Rockefeller admits that passage of I-1053 make the task more difficult. Given the widespread opinion that the 2/3 majority requirement of I-1053 would not pass Constitutional muster, if only we could get into the courts, why not use the budget crisis to force a showdown?

Here’s how it works. Declare that the projected revenue shortfall, following a biennium where spending has already been cut to the bone, makes it impossible for the legislature to pass a budget that lives up to the spirit of Article IX, Section 1 of the State Constitution:

It is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders, without distinction or preference on account of race, color, caste, or sex.

The constitutional requirement of “ample provision for education…” simply isn’t happening.

Article IX, Section 3 gives lawmakers broad authority to do what is needed to fund education. If we cannot provide “ample” funding for education via existing taxes, lawmakers should provide short-term revenue for education through the repeal of tax preferences, using a simple majority to pass the legislation.

The mandate and the authority to accomplish it as spelled out in the Constitution trumps a law enacted through the initiative process. If Republicans believe the law trumps…they can sue.

But would they sue? The reality is that I-1053 is most potent when it stays out of the courts. The threat to I-1053 is serious enough that, perhaps, a bill to repeal tax preferences might just get that 2/3 majority as a way to avoid Judicial scrutiny.

As a certain Mayor-elect puts it:

“You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste; it’s an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid.”

Remember when the nutcase Republicans were saying stupid shit about the IRS collecting personal health information in order to enforce Obamacare? Take, for instance, this doozy from Fox Nation:

IRS Hiring Thousands of Armed Tax Agents to Enforce Obamacare?

[…]
Under the new law, the IRS is required to fine taxpayers thousands of dollars if they do not purchase health insurance. In order for the government to enforce compliance, tax authorities will need information, for the first time, about people’s health care.

Wow…you can just envision an IRS agent pointing a gun at your head telling you to divulge intimate medical details about yourself. Gosh…that sounds scary.

(I’m only surprised they didn’t claim that Agents would be armed by mass confiscation of guns following passage of Obama’s next legislative assault on America: new gun control laws.)

At least there were no gun-wielding IRS agents in the congressional Republican’s take on it:

A new analysis by the Joint Economic Committee and the House Ways & Means Committee minority staff estimates up to 16,500 new IRS personnel will be needed to collect, examine and audit new tax information mandated on families and small businesses in the ‘reconciliation’ bill being taken up by the U.S. House of Representatives this weekend.

“When most people think of health care reform they think of more doctors exams, not more IRS exams,” says U.S. Congressman Kevin Brady, the top House Republican on the Joint Economic Committee. “Isn’t the federal government already intruding enough into our lives? We need thousands of new doctors and nurses in America, not thousands more IRS agents.”

Of course, the whole thing was a lie manufactured to capitalize on fear of the IRS in order to sway public opinion against health care reforms.

Or was it a lie? (Via MoJo):

Under a GOP-backed bill expected to sail through the House of Representatives, the Internal Revenue Service would be forced to police how Americans have paid for their abortions. To ensure that taxpayers complied with the law, IRS agents would have to investigate whether certain terminated pregnancies were the result of rape or incest. And one tax expert says that the measure could even lead to questions on tax forms: Have you had an abortion? Did you keep your receipt?

Wait…this is just hyperbole invented by MSNBC or spewed by a flawed analysis from a minority party House committee, right?

In testimony to a House taxation subcommittee on Wednesday, Thomas Barthold, the chief of staff of the nonpartisan Joint Tax Committee, confirmed that one consequence of the Republicans’ “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” would be to turn IRS agents into abortion cops—that is, during an audit, they’d have to detemine, from evidence provided by the taxpayer, whether any tax benefit had been inappropriately used to pay for an abortion.
[…]

“Were this to become law, people could end up in an audit, the subject of which could be abortion, rape, and incest,” says Christopher Bergin, the head of Tax Analysts, a nonpartisan, not-for-profit tax policy group. “If you pass the law like this, the IRS would be required to enforce it.”

Keep classy, G.O.P. congresscritters!

The expression may be hackneyed, but…this really is a classic case of Wingnut Projection.

Remember folks…when the Republicans accuse Democrats of something outrageously over-the-top, you can be pretty sure it’s because they are planning to do something similar. (Or are actually doing it already…You know, like Newt Gingrich going after Clinton for adultery.)

And that, oddly enough, leads to my financial tip of the day: If Republicans make gains in 2012 in the Senate or the Executive-branch, then before they are sworn in…take out a big fat live insurance policy on Granny.

No…this isn’t about Japan. It’s about SeaTac and American travelers:

The Transportation Security Administration is re-analyzing the radiation levels of X-ray body scanners installed in airports nationwide, after testing produced dramatically higher-than-expected results.

The TSA, which has deployed at least 500 body scanners to at least 78 airports, said Tuesday the machines meet all safety standards and would remain in operation despite a “calculation error” in safety studies. The flawed results showed radiation levels 10 times higher than expected.

You know who is going to be gloating over this, don’t you?

Goldy:

I, for one, will refuse to allow my daughter through one of those scanners, and will refuse to walk through one myself. […] I mean, honestly… would you trust TSA to bombard you or a loved one with ionizing radiation?

You know who is laughing over this, don’t you?

The “terrorists”. You know…the ones who “hate our freedoms.”

“They” have scared the living shit out of politicians, driving them to a state of frenzied security overreaction. It isn’t just the trillion dollar wars, the costly military build-up, the absurdly bloated domestic security infrastructure…those things that have drained our coffers with little substantive return on investment. It isn’t just the disgrace of our government getting caught committing torture in our names and starting wars under false pretenses that have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

For our dignity, it’s also a “death” by 1,000 cuts. We’ve succumbed to ludicrous restrictions and procedures for air travel and we’ve accepted those increasingly invasive inspections.

We’ve taken it to the extreme of “mainstreaming” the use of full body scanning using ionizing radiation administered by non-radiologists on equipment that, it turns out, was being inspected erroneously.

Ultimately we, the American electorate, by putting up with this shit, are self-terrorists.

I always opt out…and go for the free TSA massage.

Update:

Commenter Oxbrain takes me to task for fear-mongering. I’ll respond here, because I believe it will add some clarity to a post that was minimally about radiation and more about overreaction to terrorism.

“Your title is “Radiation “emissions are 10 times higher”” Taking the quote out of context as it is, this is a blatantly false statement that is obviously intended to strike at a fear of radiation.”

The title is not a statement. But I understand the point. The title is alarmist…I mean, given the context of concerns over the situation in Japan. But the purpose of the over-the-top title was to draw eyeballs. Incendiary titles are a tradition in blogging. I just wish they could all be as good as “Asshole inflamed over anuses”.

“I can’t imagine the mental disconnect required to try using an irrational fear of radiation as an argument against our irrational fear of terrorism.”

I appreciate your point, I really do. But what is rational about fear of radiation is that mistakes can, and will, happen. (Yes…even by a government agency.) That the particular mistake (one of several) highlighted in the article was not a radiation health threat, as the article made explicit, isn’t much comfort. It was still a mistake. The tests yielded numbers 10 times too high.

Apparently, someone at the TSA charged with reviewing the test results from the contractor, wasn’t surprised, or even curious about readings that were, apparently, ten-times too high. That’s not good.

And that wasn’t the only mistake. The TSA report cited other problems with the inspections:

• Lack of notation for the latest calibration date for the machine being tested or the most recent calibration date noted had expired on survey meters
• Information missing regarding warning labels and required labels
• Calculation errors not impacting safety
• Missing survey point readings
• Inconsistent responses to survey questions
• No reading of background radiation noted
• Missing other non-measurement related information

(For context, I’ll just note that a missing placard on an aircraft renders it legally unairworthy.)

These errors add poignancy to Goldy’s question: do you trust the TSA to expose you to ionizing radiation?

So…yeah, I think it works using the irrational fear of radiation as an argument against the irrational fear of terrorism. Clearly people’s irrational fear of terrorism is so…well, irrational, that people succumb to it over their irrational fear of radiation and their rational fear that mistakes can happen.

President Obama is selecting current Commerce Secretary and former Washington state Governor Gary Locke to be the next Ambassador to the People’s Republic of China:

The official says that “as a Pacific Rim governor and Commerce Secretary he helped lead an historic increase in trade with China. As Commerce Secretary, Locke has delivered on the president’s goal of doubling U.S. exports in the next five years (up 17 percent in 2010), led the push for patent and export control reforms and presided over a Census count that came in 25 percent under budget – returning more than $2 billion to the Treasury.”

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) is frustrated over the political standoff over his legislation to strip away collective bargaining from most public employees.

Walker’s frustration comes, in part, from recent polls showing the Wisconsin citizenry siding with public employees. The most recent poll comes from the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute:

Bargaining rights: […] Exactly half of the respondents (50 percent) say that public employees are willing to compromise on pensions and benefits but limiting bargaining rights does nothing to balance the state’s budget situation and is really just an attempt to get rid of public employee unions. Forty-three percent say the proposed changes are a necessary reform because they will give local governments greater flexibility to control their budgets over several years.
[…]

Walker: Slightly more than half (53 percent) of the respondents have a somewhat or strongly unfavorable opinion of Walker while 43 percent have a somewhat or strongly favorable opinion of him. In a November WPRI poll shortly after Walker was elected, a slightly higher percentage (45 percent) had a somewhat or strongly favorable opinion of him while 35 percent had a somewhat or strongly unfavorable opinion of him and 20 percent either didn’t know or had never heard of him.

Almost two-thirds of respondents (65 percent) say he should compromise with Democrats and public employee unions while one-third (33 percent) say he should stand strong no matter how long protests last.

Other bad news for Walker is the relatively pro-worker sentiment expressed by a majority of those polled:

Laying off State workers: Two thirds (66 percent) are somewhat or strongly opposed while 30 percent are somewhat or strongly in favor. […]

Public employee unions: In the most recent poll, almost six out of ten respondents (59 percent) had a somewhat or strongly favorable opinion of public employee unions. Thirty-four percent had a somewhat or strongly unfavorable opinion.

Little wonder that Walker is frustrated. He thought he could cram his extremist anti-worker legislation through the legislative process without anyone really noticing. Instead, his actions have placed him in the ideological spotlight. The recent polls tell us that Wisconsinites don’t like what they see.

Walker held a press conference today, and tried to take his frustration out on Mark Miller (D), the Senate Minority Leader and de facto leader of the self-exiled Senators:

[…] Walker wielded Sunday night’s report from the Wall Street Journal, which reported Miller as saying the Dems would come back — and which Miller and the Dems quickly distanced themselves from — as evidence that Miller had misled people.
[…]

On multiple occasions, Walker said that Miller was in effect following the word of labor union leaders — and he imagined that there might have been some sort of secret phone calls.

Later in the conference, Walker said that Miller “appears to be listening more to the labor union bosses in Washington than he does to members of his own caucus.” He again maintained that Miller had told the Wall Street Journal that he would come home, “and then after he got the phone call from labor unions in Washington or whatever it was,” had changed his tune.

Wait…he “imagines” a “secret phone call?” From out of state? Calling the shots?

That’s rich stuff, coming from a guy who actually took a phone call from out-of-state billionaire David Koch! At least, that’s who Walker thought he was talking to on the phone.

Yes…this is classic Wingnut projection: Whatever we actually do, we will accuse the Democrats of doing and hope nobody notices.

Walker also later said: “I’m not sure, I can only speculate. But I have to assume that some of those labor leaders who have invested millions and millions into this state got on the phone with Sen. Miller and told him, you cannot budge.”

See what I mean?

Cenk: Anti-gay pastor caught maturating near a playground.

Thom: The Good, the Bad, and the Very, Very Ugly.

Maddow: Anti-gay marriage language slipped into Ohio “budget” bill.

Pres. Obama toasts Gov. Gregoire and the whole pack of Gubernators:

Defense of Marriage Act: That’s gay.

Revolution in the MiddleEast:

• Ann Telnaes: Gaddafi says Libyans will die to protect him.
• Cenk and Anna: Sheen or Gaddafi
• AC: Gaddafi guns down unarmed protesters in the streets

Young Turks: Anti-Muslim bill in TN.

Drug Czar Kerlikowske on pot legalization and the Seattle Times (via Slog).

Jon: The Pardon of the Christ (via TalkingPointsMemo).

Thom: “How far will you birthers go to keep a black person from being president?”

FAUX News “facts”:

• Liberal Viewer: FAUX News wants examples of bias?!?
• Cenk: FAUX News lies.
• FAUX News survives a tour of duty in Wisconsin (via TalkingPointsMemo).
• Tina DupeyFAUX News bias on WI protests.
• Young Turks: Rep. Weiner pwns FAUX News actress Megyn Kelly.
• FAUX News’ 32 second segment on Republican voter fraud (via TalkingPointsMemo).
• Tweety: “You know who’s un-American! Huckabee & Newt & the rest of yhe (FAUX) goon squad.”

Young Turks: Huckabee’s anti-Obama quasi-Birfer comment.

Sam Seder: George Will takes the Crazy Train to Glenn Becksville.

Revolution in the Middle West:

• GritTV: Rep. Cory Mason: Beating Walker’s Budget.
• Thom: What Republicans have learned from Wisconsin.
• Prank call to Walker pisses off Hitler (via TalkingPointsMemo):
• Pap: Koch brothers’ fascism on the move.
• Sam Seder: The Koch brothers, Scott Walker and garlic covered freedom dildos.
• Thom: Latest from the trenches in Madison.
• Jon on The Crisis in Dairyland (via Slog).
• GritTV: Budgeting badly in Wisconsin.
• Young Turks: Bill-O, Beck, Rush love their union.
• Ed is fired up about Walker’s budget.
• Thom: Wisconsin Democrats are fighting back.
• Sam Seder: The plutocracy and what Scott Walker really wants from Wisconsin State workers
• Thom: New ad campaign for Wisconsin.
• Tina Dupey interviews Ian Murphy, AKA ‘David Koch’.
• Maddow: WI Representative Nick Milroy wrestled to ground by police trying to enter his office
• WI Dem: G.O.P. are creating a Police state in WI (via TalkingPointsMemo).
• Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH): “Hitler didn’t want unions! Stalin didn’t want unions!”
• Democracy Now: The Indiana 35.

Stephen: New Country for Old Men (via OneGoodMove).

Young Turks: Sen. Hatch and the “Federal Government Dumbass Program”.

Rep: Jay Inslee (D-WA-01) on Boeing tanker deal:

White House: Behind the Scenes at “The Motown Sound”.

Federal Budget Battle:

• Maddow: G.O.P. votes for $40B in tax breaks for Big Oil.
• Newsy: Lawmakers kick the can 2 weeks down the road.
• GritTV: Fighting over crumbs left from military spending.
• Maddow: G.O.P. votes to cut IRS Collections from Rich .
• Cenk with Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA-07) on G.O.P. cut, cut, cut agenda.

Lawrence O’Donnell: How Mike Huckabee smears Mitt Romney.

Mark Fiore: Little Suzie Newsykins with “Cut and Run”.

Maddow: Newt’s fundraising scam.

EMILY’s List Senators fighting the G.O.P. war on women.

Young Turks: New Polls show U.S. liberal on taxes, budget cuts, bargaining rights.

Lawrence O’Donnell dismisses Huckabee’s ‘Boy Scout’ talk as culturally detached ‘lying’.

Ann Telnaes: Republican Trojan horse.

Young Turks: Strictest abortion law in U.S. coming to South “Coat Hanger” Dakota.

White House: West Wing Week.

Haters Have Free Speech Too:

• BBC: Supreme Court rules in favor of Westboro Baptist “Church.”
• Newsy: Hate speech is still free speech.
• Young Turks: Westboro Baptist “Church” Supreme Court decision.

Young Turks: 9-week year old fetus to testify.

Thom: Is there a civil war coming in the GOP?

The story of Citizens United v. FEC:

Maddow: Obama to G.O.P. governors, “Put-up or shut-up!

Cenk fires back at Rush.

Newsy’s hat trick in crazy: Teabagger compares Boehner to Charlie Sheen.

Last week’s Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza can be found here.

Yesterday there was this NY Times poll, of 984 adults, taken 24 to 27 Feb (3% margin of error):

Americans oppose weakening the bargaining rights of public employee unions by a margin of nearly two to one: 60 percent to 33 percent. While a slim majority of Republicans favored taking away some bargaining rights, they were outnumbered by large majorities of Democrats and independents who said they opposed weakening them.
[…]

The poll found that an overwhelming 71 percent of Democrats opposed weakening collective bargaining rights. But there was also strong opposition from independents: 62 percent of them said they opposed taking bargaining rights away from public employee unions.
[…]

The one group that favors weakening those rights, by a slim majority, was Republicans.

And today, a similar poll from the Wall Street Journal and NBC is about to be released. This poll sampled 1,000 adults (3.1% margin of error). From the preliminary WSJ write-up:

Eliminating collective bargaining rights for public-sector workers over health care, pensions or other benefits would be either “mostly unacceptable” or “totally unacceptable,” 62% of those surveyed said. Only 33% support such limits.

The results don’t bode well for Wisconsin’s newly elected Republican governor, Scott Walker, who is locked in a standoff with statehouse Democrats and unionized state workers over these rights.
[…]

Similarly, 77%…think unionized state and municipal employees should have the same rights as those union members who work for private companies.

You know, I seriously doubt the same poll taken six months ago would have come out anywhere near this pro-Labor. Gov. Walker’s extreme, and ham-handed politics, with a helping hand from New Jersey, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, etc. has been a big awakening for America’s inner progressive.

The question is does Walker do more damage by compromise, or by standing firm on stripping public employees of their collective bargaining rights?

Either way…Walker’s and the right wing extremist’s War on Workers has sustained a huge blow.

Numbers 31:7-18
They attacked Midian as the Lord had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings—Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba—died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword.

Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho. Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the generals and captains[a] who had returned from the battle.

“Why have you let all the women live?” he demanded. “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the Lord at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the Lord’s people. So kill all the boys and all the women who have had intercourse with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

Discuss.