Tag: ek Politics

I find it hard to express my contempt for the Sunday morning gas bags and that’s saying a lot because I have an on-line thesaurus and know how to use it.

One of the things I’m trying to do with our sites, DocuDharma and The Stars Hollow Gazette, is find some alternative programming for our readers so that they’re not tempted to gouge out their eyes like Gloucester (Act III, Scene 7).

This piece comes to us courtesy of The Real News and their YouTube Channel and features Bill Black, Associate Professor of Economics and Law at the University of Missouri Kansas City

Part 1

Part 2

The Great Betrayal – and the Cynicism of calling it a Grand Bargain

William K. Black, The Real News

Tuesday, 30 October 2012 14:10

Wall Street’s greatest desire is privatizing Social Security. Wall Street stands to make scores of billions of dollars annually in additional fees should it ever buy enough politicians to privatize Social Security. The Republican Party’s greatest goal is unraveling the safety net. They always wish to attack the most successful and popular programs introduced by the Democratic Party. Their problem is that they know it is toxic for Republican candidates to try to destroy the safety net. Only Democrats, through a “Great Betrayal” can give Republicans the political cover they need to unravel the safety net.

…

Because unraveling the safety net is unnecessary, harmful, and politically insane for a Democrat and politically suicidal for Republicans, the proponents of these terrible policies have long failed in their efforts. Republicans, however, have now found a fifth column within the Democratic Party who they hope will open the door to attacking the safety net. This would provide the political cover that Republicans could use to unravel fully the safety net.

The Republican Party’s approach to convincing Obama to commit the Great Betrayal cleverly exploits three human weaknesses. First, Obama wants to be considered a “centrist.” Second, Obama yearns to be considered “bipartisan.” These first two weaknesses are forms of vanity. The siren song is “do this and you will become known as the President who acted as a statesman to cut across Party and ideological divides and make the hard choices essential to allowing America to continue to be a great nation – while ‘saving’ the safety net.”

The third weakness that the Republicans seek to exploit is fear – and the death of alternatives. The mantra of European austerity proponents is “there is no alternative.” The only choice is between austerity and collapse, and that means there is no real choice. The Republican strategy is to create a series of “moral panics.” As the name implies, this involves the creation of a special form of panic falsely premised on immorality. (Think: “Reefer Madness” or Professor Hill causing River City, Iowans to believe that the arrival of pool hall demonstrated the imminent moral collapse of their children.) The Great Betrayal can only occur if Obama succumbs to mindless (and innumerate) panic.

The Democratic wing of the Democratic Party has to lead the effort to save America from the Great Betrayal. It is essential to focus on the self-destructive nature of austerity.

…

(T)he Rubin-wing of the Democratic Party that has been seeking to create the moral panic, but even he admits that “austerity now” “will slow the economy, cut jobs, and increase deficits.” The Great Betrayal of the safety net will begin if Obama is able to deliver the “grand bargain” imposing austerity that would “slow the economy, cut jobs, and increase deficits” and unravel the safety nets – the four horsemen of the economic apocalypse.

Obama is telling the media that the Great Betrayal is his first, and overarching, priority should he be re-elected. We are forewarned and we must act now to make clear that we will block the Great Betrayal and crush at the polls any member of Congress who supports it.

Do not concede the phrase “grand bargain” to the proponents of the betrayal. We should heed Camus’ warning that it is essential to call a plague by its real name if one is to resist it – and it is essential to resist the pestilence. “[W]hen you see the suffering and pain that it brings, you have to be mad, blind or a coward to resign yourself to the plague.” We must refuse to resign ourselves to being betrayed by Democratic leaders. Our actions must make it clear that we are not mad, blind, or cowards. We refuse to fall for their faux moral panics. It is our leaders who are all too often mad, blind, and cowards.

Liberals fear grand bargain betrayal if President Obama wins

By CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN, Politico

11/2/12 4:26 AM EDT

He wants a large-scale deficit deal. But it would inevitably mean making concessions to Republicans that infuriate the Democratic base that spent the past two years and tens of millions of dollars trying to return him to the White House. Progressives worry about which Obama will show up after Election Day: the pragmatist who offered benefit cuts to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) in the 2011 debt ceiling talks or the partisan chastened by a failed deal to slice into prized Democratic programs.

“The base is not going to be happy with ham and egg justice” that requires disproportionate sacrifice from all but the wealthy, said Van Jones, Obama’s former green jobs czar and founder of Rebuild the Dream, a progressive advocacy group. “It is a fiscal showdown. We’re not going to blink. There is no reason in the world why the pillars of middle-class security, the earned benefits that our parents fought for, should be on the chopping block.”

…

Obama, if he wins, will assert that voters had a choice – and his vision on taxes, entitlements and the deficit prevailed.

“If I’ve won, then I believe that’s a mandate for doing it in a balanced way,” Obama said this week in an interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “We’ve already made a trillion dollars worth of cuts. We can do some more cuts. We can look at how we deal with the health care costs in particular under Medicare and Medicaid in a serious way. But we are also going to need some revenue.”

…

Obama signaled last week that he could revive the offer he made to Boehner, which was a mix of new revenues, reduced federal spending and entitlement benefit cuts such as raising the Medicare eligibility age and lowering the cost-of-living increases for Social Security recipients

…

Administration officials say the range of options that Obama has considered in the past are well known, so it shouldn’t be a surprise if they are resurrected.

But progressive leaders don’t want Obama to go back there. Privately, they use words like “debacle” and “betrayal” to describe the backlash that would ensue. They are far more measured in their public statements ahead of the election.

The unions and advocacy groups have invested time and money in the battleground states pushing the message that Obama is better than Republican Mitt Romney on creating jobs, protecting the middle class and preserving Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

And if Obama wins, they say they plan to remind him who is responsible for delivering him a second term – and it won’t be a coalition of Republicans, deficit hawks or even independents, but rather a Democratic base that expects him to stand firm on key priorities.

…

“MoveOn’s 7 million members have made clear that ending the Bush tax cuts for folks earning over $250,000 and preventing any benefit cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are top priorities – that’s a key reason why MoveOn members are working so hard to reelect President Obama and elect progressive champions to Congress,” said Ilya Sheyman, campaign director for MoveOn.org Political Action. “After Election Day, our members will expect Congress and the president to focus on passing a real jobs program, instead of making job-killing cuts, even if it requires working into January or beyond.”

The AFL-CIO and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees will keep their organizers in the field well after Tuesday to pressure lawmakers as their attention turns from electoral politics to deficit deal making.

The network will hold what they’re calling a national day of action Nov. 8 and follow up later in the month with lobbying events. They’ll also release results of an election night survey by Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg on why voters went to the polls.

“It is safe to say many groups are very concerned that a grand bargain will be foisted on the Congress that goes against what Democratic candidates promised on the campaign trail,” said Roger Hickey, co-director of the Campaign for America’s Future. “And it is clear the president is considering making the grand bargain that he offered to Boehner previously.”

Yup, Van Jones and MoveOn getting all outraged and stuff November 8th AFTER he no longer needs a single vote again, ever.

That will hold his feet to the fire.

(h/t Naked Capitalism)

From Naked Capitalism.

The other day, bored with co-opting members of the Finance Committee, tired of issuing zero-collateral credit default swaps, I needed to amuse myself, so I ordered Ezra Klein and Andrew Ross Sorkin to dress up in sheep costumes.

This was hilarious for a few seconds.

Then, bored with Ezra and Andy as sheep I ordered them to get down on their hands and knees and say “bah bah bah”.

That was funny for two minutes, then it got boring again. So I ordered them (still on their hands and knees saying “bah bah bah”) to polish my gold Milton Friedman statue with a buffing wheel. This was hilarious for maybe five minutes, however it took them twelve hours to finish the job.

And while those two, the crème de la crème of US journalism (ha ha) were hard at work, me half watching them, half day-dreaming about student suckers going into debt to pay back bond-funded projects for me and my people, the following thoughts occurred to me:

Now that the State has been thoroughly co-opted, meaning now that my crew (the 0.01 percent) has sold out America’s future for a quick buck, what’s next?

People ask why Congress repealed Glass-Steagall, why put the country at risk of another 30s style Depression? The answer is simple: bucket loads of cash made them do it.

Did anyone believe deregulation would lead to increased wealth for the nation or the people?

Deregulation was designed to increase wealth for the chosen and talented people – If I were in charge of schools Atlas Shrugged would be required reading – oh wait, I own an 80% stake in the Ed Reform outfits run by Gates, Murdoch and Bertelsmann!. (LCB gets on the phone and speed dials Arne Duncan to dictate the first item on his Monday To Do List.)

So how *did* we get Goldman guys to control the Fed, Treasury and top positions in the Administration?

It was simple. Bucket loads of cash – the trick that never fails!

I’m thinking of attending the Goldman Halloween Party dressed as Ted Bundy this year. I’m thinking trillions of dollars in unregulated CMOs, I’ll provide margin collateral for long positions in Shanghai copper futures by writing credit default swaps on CDOs constructed from sub-prime mortgages backed by houses in Newark, New Jersey. And maybe the toxic bonds we unloaded on a few municipalites last week – hmm, let’s see – last week we did . . . Detroit, Atlanta, New York City, Laredo, Sacramento – and at least 7 more.

I’m thinking hypothecated derivatives, the total destruction of the world (except the top 0.01), rifle shots, the assassination of Brooksley Born, gambling muppet assets on a single structured finance product that bets on a steepening of the euro yield curve, issued by US investment banks by utilizing sovereign bonds from Greece and interest rate swaps with a Japanese trading house.

I love deregulation because it’s Heads I Win Tails You Lose. Every Time.

And what about the regulators you say? Remember the ones who tried to warn Congress about the dangers of deregulation, dark pools and derivatives…

Oh right, them. Brooksley Born is still living but she’s not talking. The others were lost in the Disposition Matrix. Yes, they were “disappeared”. Abducted and tortured, then dropped at night over the Atlantic ocean – either Jamie or Mike lent us one of his personal flying machines for that special op…

Shark bait, that’s what became of them.

There’s still some money in Social Security, Medicare 401(k)s and pensions. We’ll take that as well. Make up some story, something about a deficit or a Fiscal Cliff….oh wait, it’s already been done.

If all else fails, we still have access to the Fed’s Discount Window.

Now Ezra, now Andy, looks like you’ve got old Milton shining all purdy-like, so enough with the “bah bah bah”, shut the f**k up, get out of those stupid sheep costumes, go home and do whatever it is that you do.

Write a pro-Goldman column, attack Greg Smith, compare Gupta’s two year prison sentence to the Nazi invasion of Poland, whatever, just stay the hell out of my sight until my secretary calls you….

Lloyd C. speaks for me.

F. W. Murnau– Faust (1926) (1:56)

Advantages of a $1000 Pair of Shoes

MCanavan6, Styleforum.net.

8/20/12 at 3:41pm

After getting bitten by the bug I have decided to began upgrading my wardrobe and one of my biggest problems is dress shoes. After deciding I would rather pay a bit more to upgrade from AE to Aldens, Churchs, Crockett & Jones, etc (~$500-$600) I have been wondering if it would be worth it to go all the way and purchase EG, JL, or Vass for my first couple pairs. Right now I am looking for a pair of black captoes and probably brown captoes with quarter broguing. What are the additional benefits of paying over $1000 a pair for EG, JL, or Vass (hopefully I can get some sort of deal) over a $500-$600 pair like Aldens, Churchs, or C&J? Obviously the leather is better quality and stitching/construction is better but in the end will I notice that large of a difference or should I save that $1000 ($500/pair) and spend it on something else? Any advice is appreciated.

post #3 of 415

by Gdot – 8/20/12 at 4:14pm

You will not know for yourself until you can handle the shoes in person. There is a difference. Although once you get past the Northampton benchgrade shoes C&J, Churches, etc. etc. you will find the differences become increasingly subtle and increasling more about design, leather quality and refinement than about the durability/substance of construction.

If you do decide to start at the top and work your way down look for one pair of super classic plain captoes in one of the upper end brands EG,G&G, JL. Then you will have a pair of something super swell for important events.

Then buy a second pair in something more upper/mid price range such as Vass, or AS exclusive. (Nobody beats Vass at this price point in terms of quality from what I understand.)

Then buy a third pair from C&J or Carmina.

This will take you through all the major categories/prices from about $500 up to $1200 or so.

Of course you could also start at the bottom and work up.

Citi Chairman Is Said to Have Planned Chief’s Exit Over Months

By JESSICA SILVER-GREENBERG and SUSANNE CRAIG, The New York Times

Published: October 25, 2012

Mr. Pandit, the chief executive of Citigroup, was told three news releases were ready. One stated that Mr. Pandit had resigned, effective immediately. Another that he would resign, effective at the end of the year. The third release stated Mr. Pandit had been fired without cause. The choice was his.

The abrupt encounter, described by three people briefed on the conversation, included a terse comment by the chairman, Michael E. O’Neill: “The board has lost confidence in you.”

…

As Mr. Pandit was reeling from his encounter, three board members confronted John Havens, the bank’s chief operating officer and a longtime lieutenant.

“Vikram has offered his resignation, and we would like to give you the opportunity to offer yours,” a board member said, following a script prepared by the board’s lawyers, according to several people with knowledge of the meeting.

…

This week, senior executives at the investment bank convened a group of employees to try to stem any exodus, according to several people briefed on the meeting. Among the employees’ questions: why remain at a bank that treated its top executive so harshly?

Messy Breakup Ends Citi’s Rocky Relationship With Vikram Pandit

By Matt Egan, FOXBusiness

Published October 16, 2012

“I’m surprised he lasted as long as he did,” said Charles Geisst, a professor at Manhattan College.

Shareholders clearly were not happy with Citi’s financial performance as its shares had plunged almost 90% since Pandit became CEO in December 2007. By comparison, shares of J.P. Morgan Chase (JPM) and the Dow Jones Industrial Average are down own 8% and less than 1% respectively over that span.

There’s a long list of setbacks on Pandit’s watch, including most recently a $4.7 billion charge tied to an overvaluation of Citi’s stake in the Smith Barney joint venture, which it is selling off in pieces to Morgan Stanley (MS). Citi had pegged the JV’s price tag at $22 billion, well north of an eventual settlement at $13.5 billion.

Also, Pandit and Citigroup were embarrassed in March after the Federal Reserve gave the bank’s plan to return capital to shareholders a red light, leading some to say it had failed the government’s stress tests.

“The corporate governance, whether it’s been in the last few years or the last few hours, has been awful,” said (Citigroup analyst at Credit Agricole) Mayo.

Citigroup Pays Fine and Fires Star Technology Analyst

By BEN PROTESS, The New York Times

October 26, 2012, 11:41 am

Citigroup paid a $2 million fine and fired a prominent technology analyst after authorities accused the bank of improperly leaking to the media unpublished information about YouTube and confidential research on Facebook’s initial public offering.

…

In May, the junior Citigroup analyst e-mailed two TechCrunch employees to say “I am ramping up coverage of FB and thought you guys might like to see how the street is thinking about it (and our estimates).” He attached a “Facebook one pager,” that featured an array of confidential information, including Mr. Mahaney’s private revenue estimates meant as an internal guide for the bank’s analysts.

Under securities rules and a nondisclosure agreement with Facebook, Citigroup analysts were banned from “disseminating written research” about the social networking giant until 40 days after the I.P.O. The restriction, which applied to all banks that helped take Facebook public in May, was created to prevent research analysts from improperly promoting companies in a bid to drum up business for bankers.

The rules were reinforced in a landmark 2003 settlement with several banks, including Citigroup. The case, led by a former New York attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, built a Chinese wall between Wall Street research analysts and investment bankers.

Don’t steal any paperclips Vikram.

A classic.  And still there!  Bully.  Originally posted here July 26, 2011.

Sarah Silverman and me: fact-checking US politics – the fun way

Lizz Winstead, The Guardian

Monday 22 October 2012 19.29 EDT

When I hear the apathy, and worse the snark, it always makes me feel a little sick inside. Maybe because I am one of those people who has spent the last 20 years of my life using comedy to shine a light on creeps with power.

…

But now the assaults on sanity have started to feel like relentless cluster bomb attacks: seems like half of my day is spent slack-jawed staring at the news, gobsmacked as unqualified kook after unqualified kook keeps getting elected spouting things like women no longer die during childbirth, or that the chunks of toxic bilge that spew from antiquated factories have nothing to do with our melting earth, or maybe the weirdest of all, that more than a few folks, some of whom sit on the US supreme court, believe a bunch of cells in a woman’s body and Walmart are people.

But when I talked to people about what affected them the most, it was not about a specific issue, rather the epidemic of how a lie gets repeated over and over again – and how the media seemed pretty lax at calling out the bull, and thus these lies were starting to become truths. Someone needed to correct the record. And who better to do that than comedians?

Thank goodness for Baseball.

Because they tape early Jon (D.L. Hughley) and Stephen (Donald Sadoway) will be mercifully free from actual debate coverage.  If even that is a mite too much there is always…

The Hypnotoad

"Television is a vast wasteland"

• ABC Family– Practical Magic
• AMC– Halloween, Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers
• Bravo– Real Housewives (premier)
• Discovery– American Chopper, Fast ‘n Loud (premiers)
• ESPN– Monday Night Football, Lions @ Bears
• FX– Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, Easy A
• History– American Pickers, Pawn Stars
• Lifetime– The Preacher’s Daughter, Walking the Halls
• Vs.– XXX Olympics (Women’s & Men’s Diving)
• Spike– Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace (x 2)
• Style– Spanglish
• Sci Fi– From Dusk Till Dawn 2: Texas Blood Money
• TBS– Family Guy
• Turner Classic– Woman of the Year, Without Love
• TLC– Breaking Amish (2 x premiers)
• TNT– The Mentalist (x 2)
• Travel– Anthony Bourdain: No Reservations (premier)
• USA– Monday Night RAW

Or you can watch a different kind of professional wrestling where the results are fixed.

This debate is back to the 10 minute segment, 2 for each candidate, 6 minutes of freestyle all the Very Serious Progressives agreed that Jim Lehrer did a bad job at because Obama lost.  My attitude is that if principles and fairness don’t matter more that personality worship and the jingoistic triumph of the tribe you can hardly claim to be very ‘progressive’ at all, let alone serious.

Most likely it will be a contest to see who can pander the most to Benjamin Netanyahu who is not to be confused with the State of Israel or the Jewish people.  Part of that is practicing anti-Muslim bigotry which is why Muslims like us so much.

Well, that and the fact that we keep stealing from them and killing their families and friends which are always sympathetic qualities calculated to influence hearts and minds.

As I said in Kill List it’s not really a question about them.  Just as with W you may be excused for not understanding initially who you were voting for and what their policies actually are.

After 4 years you have no excuse.

The question you have to answer for yourself is this one-

What will it take?  How many innocents will have to die before you can no longer ignore the corpses?

Are you a ‘Good German’ or not?

There are vast differences, vast I tell you!  At least the trains run on time!

Do they?

The group that consistently cares more about the deficit are, simply put, rich people. They don’t want their hard-earned massive tax cuts to get clawed back because the deficit gets so high that they can no longer use the “job creator” charade to shield themselves. So they obsess about the deficit, as a means to cut anything but their tax cuts. That’s the game. And the rich spend tens of millions to make that a reality, shaping opinions in Washington. The Democrats have sought to become the party of austerity in many ways to curry favor to a political class that demands so-called “fiscal responsibility.” But in reality, without our large deficit, we would not even have the recovery we have, a recovery that has outpaced the rest of the world, particularly in Europe, where they are mired in far more damaging austerity.

I confess that I find myself far more interested and invested in Sports Futures than I am in anything that’s likely to be said or done in Florida tonight.

This is an Open Thread.

A sequel of sorts to What Will It Take?

Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will

By JO BECKER and SCOTT SHANE, The New York Times

Published: May 29, 2012

WASHINGTON – This was the enemy, served up in the latest chart from the intelligence agencies: 15 Qaeda suspects in Yemen with Western ties. The mug shots and brief biographies resembled a high school yearbook layout. Several were Americans. Two were teenagers, including a girl who looked even younger than her 17 years.

…

“How old are these people?” he asked, according to two officials present. “If they are starting to use children,” he said of Al Qaeda, “we are moving into a whole different phase.”

…

Mr. Obama is the liberal law professor who campaigned against the Iraq war and torture, and then insisted on approving every new name on an expanding “kill list,” poring over terrorist suspects’ biographies on what one official calls the macabre “baseball cards” of an unconventional war.

…

It is the strangest of bureaucratic rituals: Every week or so, more than 100 members of the government’s sprawling national security apparatus gather, by secure video teleconference, to pore over terrorist suspects’ biographies and recommend to the president who should be the next to die.

This secret “nominations” process is an invention of the Obama administration, a grim debating society that vets the PowerPoint slides bearing the names, aliases and life stories of suspected members of Al Qaeda’s branch in Yemen or its allies in Somalia’s Shabab militia.

…

One early test involved Baitullah Mehsud, the leader of the Pakistani Taliban. The case was problematic on two fronts, according to interviews with both administration and Pakistani sources.

The C.I.A. worried that Mr. Mehsud, whose group then mainly targeted the Pakistan government, did not meet the Obama administration’s criteria for targeted killing: he was not an imminent threat to the United States. But Pakistani officials wanted him dead, and the American drone program rested on their tacit approval. The issue was resolved after the president and his advisers found that he represented a threat, if not to the homeland, to American personnel in Pakistan.

Then, in August 2009, the C.I.A. director, Leon E. Panetta, told Mr. Brennan that the agency had Mr. Mehsud in its sights. But taking out the Pakistani Taliban leader, Mr. Panetta warned, did not meet Mr. Obama’s standard of “near certainty” of no innocents being killed. In fact, a strike would certainly result in such deaths: he was with his wife at his in-laws’ home.

…

The very first strike under his watch in Yemen, on Dec. 17, 2009, offered a stark example of the difficulties of operating in what General Jones described as an “embryonic theater that we weren’t really familiar with.”

It killed not only its intended target, but also two neighboring families, and left behind a trail of cluster bombs that subsequently killed more innocents. It was hardly the kind of precise operation that Mr. Obama favored. Videos of children’s bodies and angry tribesmen holding up American missile parts flooded You Tube, fueling a ferocious backlash that Yemeni officials said bolstered Al Qaeda.

…

In Pakistan, Mr. Obama had approved not only “personality” strikes aimed at named, high-value terrorists, but “signature” strikes that targeted training camps and suspicious compounds in areas controlled by militants.

…

Mr. Hayden, the former C.I.A. director and now an adviser to Mr. Obama’s Republican challenger, Mr. Romney, commended the president’s aggressive counterterrorism record, which he said had a “Nixon to China” quality. But, he said, “secrecy has its costs” and Mr. Obama should open the strike strategy up to public scrutiny.

“This program rests on the personal legitimacy of the president, and that’s not sustainable,” Mr. Hayden said. “I have lived the life of someone taking action on the basis of secret O.L.C. memos, and it ain’t a good life. Democracies do not make war on the basis of legal memos locked in a D.O.J. safe.”

The remarkable, unfathomable ignorance of Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Glenn Greenwald, The Guardian

Friday 19 October 2012 20.38 EDT

On 29 May 2012, the New York Times published a remarkable 6,000-word story on its front page about what it termed President Obama’s “kill list”. It detailed the president’s personal role in deciding which individuals will end up being targeted for assassination by the CIA based on Obama’s secret, unchecked decree that they are “terrorists” and deserve to die.

Based on interviews with “three dozen of his current and former advisers”, the Times’ Jo Becker and Scott Shane provided extraordinary detail about Obama’s actions, including how he “por[es] over terrorist suspects’ biographies on what one official calls the macabre ‘baseball cards'” and how he “insist[s] on approving every new name on an expanding ‘kill list'”. At a weekly White House meeting dubbed “Terror Tuesdays”, Obama then decides who will die without a whiff of due process, transparency or oversight. It was this process that resulted in the death of US citizen Anwar Awlaki in Yemen, and then two weeks later, the killing of his 16-year-old American son, Abdulrahman, by drone.

The Times “kill list” story made a huge impact and was widely discussed and condemned by media figures, politicians, analysts, and commentators. Among other outlets, the New York Times itself harshly editorialized against Obama’s program in an editorial entitled “Too Much Power For a President”, denouncing the revelations as “very troubling” and argued: “No one in that position should be able to unilaterally order the killing of American citizens or foreigners located far from a battlefield – depriving Americans of their due-process rights – without the consent of someone outside his political inner circle.”

That Obama has a “kill list” has been known since January, 2010, and has been widely reported and discussed in every major American newspaper since April 2010. A major controversy over chronic White House leaks often featured complaints about this article (New York Times, 5 June 2012: “Senators to Open Inquiry Into ‘Kill List’ and Iran Security Leaks”). The Attorney General, Eric Holder, gave a major speech defending it.

But Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Democratic Congresswoman from Florida and the Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, does not know about any of this. She has never heard of any of it. She has managed to remain completely ignorant about the fact that President Obama has asserted and exercised the power to secretly place human beings, including US citizens, on his “kill list” and then order the CIA to extinguish their lives.

…

One expects corrupt partisan loyalty from people like Wasserman Schultz, eager to excuse anything and everything a Democratic president does. That’s a total abdication of her duty as a member of Congress, but that’s par for the course. But one does not expect this level of ignorance, the ability to stay entirely unaware of one of the most extremist powers a president has claimed in US history, trumpeted on the front-page of the New York Times and virtually everywhere else.

digby says–

Somebody needs to get Debbie a subscription to the New York Times.

…

She appears to think that story isn’t public for some reason. Or is pretending that it isn’t public. And  her annoyance at the ill-mannered hippie asking her “inappropriate” questions outside the approved 2012 campaign topics is palpable. She looks completely ridiculous.

Via Greenwald who is, unsurprisingly, appalled. He thinks she really has never heard of the kill list.  I suppose that’s possible. Which is even more appalling.

Ignorant or lying?

Stupid or evil?

Who cares about Debbie Wasserman Schultz digby?  The question is to you.

What will it take?  How many innocents will have to die before you and the rest of the ‘Good Germans’ can no longer ignore the corpses?

Just days after taking office, the president got word that the first strike under his administration had killed a number of innocent Pakistanis. “The president was very sharp on the thing, and said, ‘I want to know how this happened,’ ” a top White House adviser recounted.

In response to his concern, the C.I.A. downsized its munitions for more pinpoint strikes. In addition, the president tightened standards, aides say: If the agency did not have a “near certainty” that a strike would result in zero civilian deaths, Mr. Obama wanted to decide personally whether to go ahead.

The president’s directive reinforced the need for caution, counterterrorism officials said, but did not significantly change the program. In part, that is because “the protection of innocent life was always a critical consideration,” said Michael V. Hayden, the last C.I.A. director under President George W. Bush.

It is also because Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.

Counterterrorism officials insist this approach is one of simple logic: people in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up to no good. “Al Qaeda is an insular, paranoid organization – innocent neighbors don’t hitchhike rides in the back of trucks headed for the border with guns and bombs,” said one official, who requested anonymity to speak about what is still a classified program.

This counting method may partly explain the official claims of extraordinarily low collateral deaths. In a speech last year Mr. Brennan, Mr. Obama’s trusted adviser, said that not a single noncombatant had been killed in a year of strikes. And in a recent interview, a senior administration official said that the number of civilians killed in drone strikes in Pakistan under Mr. Obama was in the “single digits” – and that independent counts of scores or hundreds of civilian deaths unwittingly draw on false propaganda claims by militants.

But in interviews, three former senior intelligence officials expressed disbelief that the number could be so low. The C.I.A. accounting has so troubled some administration officials outside the agency that they have brought their concerns to the White House. One called it “guilt by association” that has led to “deceptive” estimates of civilian casualties.

“It bothers me when they say there were seven guys, so they must all be militants,” the official said. “They count the corpses and they’re not really sure who they are.”

Binders

Atrios, Eschaton

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Jokes aside, the binders of women comment was basically the core of all of the mostly mythical affirmative action in this country. It’s about recognizing that if you’re a product of a good old white boy network, it’s a good idea to make the effort to read those binders, to make the extra effort to look at qualified women and minorities.

This isn’t a comment on what actually happened when Mitt was in office, just pointing out that if you embrace that story you embrace affirmative action, because aside from a teeny bit of minority business contracting and civil service hiring provisions, that’s what affirmative action actually means in this country.

Yeah, I know not everyone is as big a fan as I am but she’s also considerably left of ‘Pragmatic’ Villager opinion.

Part 1

Part 2

Not One Debate Question Last Night Touched on the Deficit

By: David Dayen, Firedog Lake

Wednesday October 17, 2012 11:34 am

The deficit was arguably the primary point of discussion in the Jim Lehrer debate, and Martha Raddatz featured it prominently as well. Voters don’t seem to care. They’re far more interested in things directly affecting their lives, like jobs, women’s rights, immigration, gun violence, gas prices, all topics that didn’t come up previously. Heck, even foreign policy, or at least the foreign policy situation of the moment in Libya, rated more pressing a concern than actuarial projections of the federal budget 20 or 30 years down the road.

I’m not always partial to the idea of the wisdom of crowds, but in this case, the political class would do well to follow the public. Polling consistently shows that voters don’t care about the deficit, and last night’s breadth of topics showed the same.

The group that consistently cares more about the deficit are, simply put, rich people. They don’t want their hard-earned massive tax cuts to get clawed back because the deficit gets so high that they can no longer use the “job creator” charade to shield themselves. So they obsess about the deficit, as a means to cut anything but their tax cuts. That’s the game. And the rich spend tens of millions to make that a reality, shaping opinions in Washington. The Democrats have sought to become the party of austerity in many ways to curry favor to a political class that demands so-called “fiscal responsibility.” But in reality, without our large deficit, we would not even have the recovery we have, a recovery that has outpaced the rest of the world, particularly in Europe, where they are mired in far more damaging austerity.

The more politicians realize that the public does not share the concern of the Beltway establishment on the deficit, the better off they – and the rest of us – will be.