Hullabaloo

Sunday, October 18, 2015

 
Another mass shooting but whatevs

by digby

As far as I can tell, this story barely made the week-end cable news:

Bedlam, death rock Florida ZombiCon fest

That's how inured we are to gun violence. Since only 1 person died and five were wounded it's no big deal I guess:

A manhunt was underway Sunday after a shooting rampage at a zombie-themed festival left one person dead, five wounded and pandemonium on downtown streets.

The wounded victims at ZombiCon on Saturday night were hospitalized with non-life threatening injuries, according to police Lt. Victor Medico.

The shooting was the second instance of gunfire downtown within a week.

ZombiCon, an annual event in its ninth year, was expected to draw more than 20,000 people.

There were "a lot of witnesses down here, there were a lot of people taking pictures, videos with their cellphone," Medico said. "Anything that could help with this investigation would be greatly appreciated."

The shots began at 11:45 p.m., he said. Chaos reigned as crowds from ZombiCon raced through De Leon Plaza.

Jill Stancel, who works at a downtown barbershop, was selling water to Zombicon attendees when she heard the shots and saw people running.

"I was right here," she said. "A mass of people ran screaming and trying to get in the shop."

Stancel said she and others pulled her husband and another relative into the store, ran to the back of the shop and locked the door. They let eight to 10 people in. "They were standing in the back shaking and crying."

Whatever. I guess everyone should have been packing heat under the zombie costumes so they could return fire. But it sounds as though they couldn't really tell what was going on in the crowd. Frankly, I'm quite sure it would have been even worse if some yahoo had pulled out his gun and started firing.

This is so crazy. You should be able to go to public events, or school or church without worrying that somebody's going to shoot you. Seriously, that's not too much to ask.


digby 10/18/2015 06:00:00 PM

 
Cruz's argument in a nutshell: "I'm a lunatic who can get things done"

by digby

Seriously, I think that's what he's saying:

Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said Sunday that he thought GOP rival Donald Trump's campaign had actually benefitted his own.

"I think Donald's campaign has been immensely beneficial for our campaign," Cruz said. "And, and the reason is he's framed the central issue of this Republican primary as who will stand up to Washington? Well, the natural follow up if that's the question is who actually has stood up to Washington? Who has stood up to both Democrats and to leaders in their own party?"

Cruz was asked by NBC "Meet the Press" host Chuck Todd if that was what separated him from Trump and Republican presidential candidate and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson.

"And from everyone else on that stage," Cruz responded. "I think my record is markedly different in terms of actually standing up and taking on the Washington cartel."

He and his Texas billionaire backers are just biding their time until Trump and Carson flame out at which point he'll be the logical anti-establishment candidate to take on Rubio/Bush/Kasich/whatevuh.

I don't know if it will work, but it's a real strategy.

.
digby 10/18/2015 04:00:00 PM

 
The delusion runs deep

by digby

The Republicans assumed that Romney couldn't lose. They believed that the vast majority of the country agreed with them that Barack Obama was a terrible failure as president and could not wait to toss him out of office. They believed the whole country is just like them. And they learned nothing.

Here's Ben Carson:

"I personally don't think any of them will be very tough because it's going to be such a clear-cut election," Carson said. "We will be voting about whether we want a nation where the government is in control or a nation where the people are in control. I think it's going to be crystal clear and the people will make a — a clear decision."

That may be true, but I suspect it's unlikely to be the decision Carson and his followers blithely assume it will be --- it must be.

This is delusional thinking on such a deep level that it's hard to know what to say. I'm sure there are some people in Carson's following who think it's enough to simply say the choice is between a "government in control" vs "the people in control." They'll believe anything. Are there enough Republicans who are in the throes of such a mass delusion to actually nominate Carson or Trump?

I think there might be. And I don't know what they're capable of when once again, it doesn't work out for them.


Update: Oh dear God. John Amato has more:

But what really befuddled George most was his insistence that if George Bush, instead of attacking Afghanistan, told the middle east that America would become energy independent unless they handed over Bin Laden - that they would have immediately turned him over to us.

CARSON: Declare that within five to 10 years, we will become petroleum independent. The moderate Arab states would have been so concerned about that, they would have turned over Osama bin Laden and anybody else you wanted on a silver platter within two weeks.


STEPHANOPOULOS: That's what you said he should have done.

But how would that have worked?

How would you have gotten the moderate Arab governments to turn over Osama bin Laden in two weeks?

He'd already been expelled by Saudi Arabia. He was already an enemy of those moderate governments.

CARSON: Well, I think they would have been extremely concerned if we had declared -- and we were serious about it -- that we were going to become petroleum independent, because it would have had a major impact on their finances.

And I think that probably would have trumped any loyalty that they had to -- to people like Osama bin Laden.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But they didn't have any loyalty to Osama bin Laden. The Saudis kicked him out. He was their enemy.

CARSON: Well, you may not think that they had any loyalty to him, but I believe otherwise.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you believe that had President Bush simply declared energy independence, they would have turned over Osama bin Laden.

How would they have gotten him out of the tribal areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan?

CARSON: I think they would have known where he was. You know, there were indications, for instance, during the Clinton administration that -- that they knew exactly where he was but didn't necessarily pull the trigger.

If -- if we could tell where he was, I'm certain that they knew where he was.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But at that point, we had some idea, but we didn't know for sure. I simply don't understand how you think this would have worked.

CARSON: Well -- well, here's the point -- here -- here's my point. My point is, we have -- we had other ways that we could have done things. I personally don't believe that invading Iraq was an existential threat to us. I don't think Saddam Hussein was an existential threat to us.
It's a very different situation right now.

Now, we have global jihadists who want to destroy us and our way of life.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But sir, I wasn't...

CARSON: And that is a completely different situation.

STEPHANOPOULOS: I wasn't asking about invading Iraq, I was asking about invading Afghanistan, which had been harboring Osama bin Laden.

CARSON: Well, I was primarily talking about Iraq. You know, I wasn't particularly interested in going into Afghanistan but I do think that we should have taken aggressive action. And I think, you know, creating a base that did not require tens of thousands of our troops, that required a -- a group.

And I think we probably have that number pretty close to right now, about 10,000 or so, and being able to use our drones and being able to use our intelligence and things of that nature, I think that's probably all that was necessary in Afghanistan.

Is he on drugs? A serious question.


.
digby 10/18/2015 02:00:00 PM

 
Sunday funnies

by digby

You don't want to miss this one ...

And this:

I'm hearing a lot of chatter that a big Biden announcement is coming on Monday.  FWIW, which is nothing ...

.
digby 10/18/2015 12:30:00 PM

 
Prosecutor Gowdy faking the evidence? Why yes he is!

by digby

Take a look at this:

Dear Mr. Chairman:

On October 7, 2015, you sent me a 13-page letter making a grave new accusation against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Specifically, you accused her of compromising national security and endangering lives.

The problem with your accusation—as with so many others during this investigation—is that you failed to check your facts before you made it, and the CIA has now informed the Select Committee that you were wrong. I believe your accusations were irresponsible, and I believe you owe the Secretary an immediate apology.

It appears that your letter was rushed out to the press to counter the public firestorm caused by Republican Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s stark admission that Republicans are using millions of taxpayer dollars to damage Secretary Clinton’s bid for president. However, your letter only provided further evidence of this fact.

In your letter on October 7, 2015, you stated that Secretary Clinton received an email from Sidney Blumenthal on March 18, 2011, that included the name of someone who purportedly provided information to the CIA. You asserted that this information was classified, arguing that Secretary Clinton “received classified information from Blumenthal—information she should have known was classified at the time she received it.” You then alleged:

Armed with that information, Secretary Clinton forwarded that email to a colleague—debunking her claim that she never sent any classified information from her private email address.

In your letter, you went to great lengths to highlight the gravity of your accusation, stating:

This information, the name of a human source, is some of the most protected information in our intelligence community, the release of which could jeopardize not only national security but human lives.

To further inflate your claim, you placed your own redactions over the name of the individual with the words, “redacted due to sources and methods.” To be clear, these redactions were not made, and these words were not added, by any agency of the federal government responsible for enforcing classification guidelines.

Predictably, commentators began repeating your accusations in even more extreme terms, suggesting in headlines for example that “Clinton Burns CIA Libya Contact.”

Contrary to your claims, the CIA yesterday informed both the Republican and Democratic staffs of the Select Committee that they do not consider the information you highlighted in your letter to be classified. Specifically, the CIA confirmed that “the State Department consulted with the CIA on this production, the CIA reviewed these documents, and the CIA made no redactions to protect classified information.”

Unfortunately, you sent your letter on October 7 without checking first with the CIA. Now that we have done so, we have learned that your accusations were incorrect.

As a result of your actions, the State Department yesterday asked the Select Committee not to reveal the individual’s name publicly, not for classification reasons, but to protect the individual’s privacy and avoid bringing additional undue attention to this person.

Unfortunately, the standard operating procedure of this Select Committee has become to put out information publicly that is inaccurate and out of context in order to attack Secretary Clinton for political reasons. These repeated actions bring discredit on this investigation and undermine the integrity of the Select Committee and the House of Representatives.

Sincerely,


Elijah E. Cummings
Ranking Member

I'm sure the NY Times and others will continue to eagerly swallow every little dribble Trey Gowdy gives them, but nobody should believe them.

.

digby 10/18/2015 10:30:00 AM

 
QOTD: Jeb Bush on presidential leadership during a crisis

by digby

On CNN this morning:

"It's what you do after that matters."

This is useful information. Evidently, it's just fine to sit on your ass waving away all warnings. This explains the entire Bush presidency. Even Poppy's, who was asked what his agenda was and replied, "I'll handle whatever comes up."

And if it's all about how you respond, then starting a war with a country that had nothing to do with it might be a bit questionable as well. Stellar leadership there, And then, there was the awesome response to a crisis by letting an entire city drown while you sing happy birthday on an airplane tarmac.

This is not an area Jeb should want explored. Whether it was ignoring the warnings on 9/11 or starting a war with an uninvolved country or failing to see the financial crisis or failing to respond to a natural disaster.

If he feels compelled to defend that record I feel sorry for him.

.
digby 10/18/2015 09:30:00 AM

 

Final Jeopardy clue: ON 9/11 THIS MAN WAS PRESIDENT

by Tom Sullivan

I'm sorry, 'He kept us safe' is incorrect and was not in the form of a question. The correct response: Who is George W. Bush?

It is the Final Jeopardy clue that stumps Republicans every time. Even brother Jeb! has trouble with it.

Surprisingly, Donald Trump does not:

The controversy began Friday morning when Trump implied that the former president could share some blame for the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 Americans, as he was in office at the time.

"When you talk about George Bush, I mean, say what you want, the World Trade Center came down during his time," Trump said on Bloomberg TV.

Bloomberg anchor Stephanie Ruhle interjected, "Hold on, you can't blame George Bush for that," before Trump stood by his comments.

"He was president, OK? ... Blame him, or don't blame him, but he was president. The World Trade Center came down during his reign," Trump said.

In what by now sounds like a Pavlovian response, brother Jeb! responded:

How pathetic for @realdonaldtrump to criticize the president for 9/11. We were attacked & my brother kept us safe.

— Jeb Bush (@JebBush) October 16, 2015

"Prominent Republicans" are of course outraged by Trump's statement, plus some not-so prominent conservatives:

This is absolutely the most ridiculous thing Donald Trump has ever said. I mean, I just can’t get over how imbecilic it is, and it’s not the conspiracy theory that we’ve been hearing for years. It’s Trump, in an attempt to build himself up, blaming George W. Bush for the twin towers falling simply because he was president at the time ...

The gall of a Republican taking a government official to task for a deadly attack simply because it occurred on her/his watch!

Still, Judd Legum did a quickie, tongue-in-cheek investigation for Think Progress and determined, "Taking into account all the evidence, it seems more likely than not that George W. Bush was president on September 11, 2001."

As Digby pointed out yesterday, the evidence supporting "He kept us safe" is a mite thin, what with over a dozen attacks on embassies and consulates during Bush's tenure. And the anthrax attacks that killed five people and infected 17 others. And the domestic terrorism that has killed dozens in the decade since 9/11.

"We recognize that, over the past few years, more people have died in this country in attacks by domestic extremists than in attacks associated with international terrorist groups," Assistant Attorney General John P. Carlin said in a speech last week.

All of which are buried like a stinker in the litter box by "He kept us safe."

But perhaps the most stunning "response" to Trump was the question that led to Trump's remark in the first place. Bloomberg's Stephanie Rhule said, "Help us understand who Donald Trump is as a man. I need to know that you will make us feel safe and you will make us feel proud."

You have a party filled with politicians who instill fear in voters as a means of staying in power, in fear of a T-party that now bites that hand that once fed it, and an audience in chronic fear of the threats the party relies on to remain in power.

Talk about co-dependency.

Undercover Blue 10/18/2015 06:00:00 AM

Saturday, October 17, 2015

 

Saturday Night at the Movies


There once was a note: Lambert & Stamp ***  

By Dennis Hartley

The Kinks came up with one of my favorite album titles, Everybody’s in Show Biz. True dat. Everyone wants to be a star; movie star, rock star, top dog, grand vizier, whatever. Of course the reality is that everyone can’t be. And those that do make it to the toppermost of the poppermost rarely get there on raw talent alone. One of the secrets? Good management; particularly evident when one considers the pantheon of rock ‘n’ roll. While The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, and Led Zeppelin were certainly destined to make great music, it’s fun to speculate how differently their careers might have played out had they never hooked up with Brian Epstein, Andrew Loog Oldham and Peter Grant (respectively) at the right place and the right time (Tonite: Puppet show and Spinal Tap!).

Which brings us to another iconic rock act, The Who, four gifted but somewhat (initially) rudderless blokes who arguably had the most to gain from bumping into the right handlers at the right time. Kit Lambert and Chris Stamp may not be household names like Pete Townshend, Roger Daltrey, Keith Moon and John Entwistle, but for all intents and purposes, they were (for a crucial formative period) the 5th and 6th members of the Who. In his cheeky and absorbing documentary, Lambert and Stamp (which slipped in and out of theaters this past summer and is now available on home video) director James Cooper draws from a trove of archival footage, adding latter-day interviews to recount this unique creative partnership (which on paper, shouldn’t have worked out as well as it did).

The two men could not have been any different in social background and personality makeup. Lambert was gay, cultured, privileged; the son of a famous composer-conductor, he spoke with what the British refer to as a “posh” accent. Stamp, on the other hand, was straight, working class, the son of a tugboat operator, an East Ender replete with Cockney h-dropping. Together, they created a formidable entity; like the Who themselves, the whole was greater than the sum of the parts. Cooper gets much mileage from that disparate personality quotient; drawing parallels between Lambert and Stamp’s dynamic with that famously volatile “push me-pull you” tension that made The Who…The Who.

A lot of the story is one happy accident after the other, so I won’t spoil it here. It wasn’t all sunshine and lollipops; Cooper gives us the ups and the downs. Stamp was still alive when Cooper began working on his film (he died in 2012), so we get the benefit of his latter-day perspective. Stamp’s famous acting sibling Terrence (“Kneel before Zod!”) is also on hand to add a few observations.  Unfortunately, Lambert died in 1981, so he is relegated to archival snippets. This (obviously) robs him of the luxury to share benefit of hindsight, and entrusts his legacy to the comments of associates like Townshend and Daltrey, who help fill in some of those cracks. While not the best place to start for neophytes, hardcore Who fans will appreciate Cooper’s fresh angle on familiar material.

So Lambert & Stamp may not be for everyone; here are 3 Who flicks no one should miss:

The Kids Are Alright- Director (and super fan) Jeff Stein’s 1979 labor of love is not only the ultimate Who film, but one of the best rockumentaries I have ever seen. It’s a truly amazing compendium, utilizing nearly every worthwhile archival performance clip extant, from the band’s earliest TV appearances on U.K. pop shows, to performances on The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour and The Rolling Stones’ Rock and Roll Circus, to Woodstock and beyond. Stein also folds in a generous helping of archival interview snippets. There’s no traditional narration; Stein cleverly edits the footage together in such a way that the Who are essentially telling their own story. His only acquiescence to the tradition of adding “present day” perspective is a welcome one; a mini-concert staged for the film in 1977, beautifully shot in 35mm (the band tears it up with electrifying renditions of “Baba O’Reilly” and “Won’t Get Fooled Again”). Sadly, this turned out to be the final filmed performance of the original lineup, as Keith Moon died the following year (that entire concert is available on DVD and Blu-ray as The Who At Kilburn: 1977 ).

Quadrophenia- The Who’s eponymous 1973 double-LP rock opera, Pete Towshend’s musical love letter to the band’s first g-g-generation of most rabid British fans (aka the “Mods”) inspired this memorable 1979 film from director Franc Roddam. With the 1964 “youth riots” that took place at the seaside resort town of Brighton as his catalyst, Roddam fires up a visceral character study in the tradition of the British “kitchen sink” dramas that flourished in the early 1960s.Phil Daniels gives a James Dean-worthy performance as teenage “Mod” Jimmy. Bedecked in their trademark designer suits and Parka jackets, Jimmy and his Who-loving compatriots cruise around London on their Vespa and Lambretta scooters, looking for pills to pop, parties to crash and “Rockers” to rumble with. The Rockers are identifiable by their greased-back hair, leathers, motorbikes, and their musical preference for likes of Elvis and Gene Vincent. Look for a very young Ray Winstone (as a Rocker) and Sting (as a Mod bell-boy, no less). Wonderfully acted by a spirited cast, it’s a heady mix of youthful angst and raging hormones, super-charged by the power chord-infused grandeur of the Who’s music.

Tommy - There was a time (a long, long, time ago) when some of my friends insisted that the best way to appreciate The Who’s legendary rock opera was to turn off the lamps, light a candle, drop a tab of acid and listen to all four sides with a good pair of cans. I never got around to making those precise, um, arrangements, but it’s a pretty good bet that watching director Ken Russell’s insane screen adaptation is a close approximation. If you’re not familiar with his work, hang on to your hat (I’ll put it this way-Russell is not known for being subtle). Luckily, the Who’s music is powerful enough to cut through all the visual clutter, and carries the day. Two members of the band have roles-Roger Daltrey is charismatic as the deaf dumb and blind Tommy, and Keith Moon has a cameo as wicked Uncle Ernie (Pete Townshend and John Entwistle only appear in music performance). The cast is an interesting cross section of film veterans (Oliver Reed, Ann-Margret, Jack Nicholson) and well-known musicians (Elton John, Eric Clapton, Tina Turner). Musical highlights include “Pinball Wizard”, “Eyesight to the Blind” “The Acid Queen” and “I’m Free”. And you haven’t lived until you’ve seen Ann-Margret, covered in baked beans and writhing in ecstasy! Raucous, garish and gross…but never boring.

And we have just enough time left for a quick one:

New! More reviews at Den of Cinema

--Dennis Hartley
digby 10/17/2015 05:00:00 PM

 
Scalps

by digby

Andrew O'Hehir has a nice piece today at Salon about Rathergate and the new movie about it. His thesis is that it introduced a new era in wingnut conspiracy mongering and I think he might be right:

Whether Rathergate actually won that election for Bush is debatable; in the great Democratic middle-road milquetoast tradition of Al Gore and Michael Dukakis, the dithery, soporific Kerry campaign did everything it could to ensure defeat. But that whole episode clearly boosted Republican morale and made Rove and his minions feel that they were in control of the narrative and had the power to transform any possible negative into a positive. Rathergate was certainly not the first counterfactual counterattack strategy in American political history, and was not quite the birth of the right-wing blogosphere (which had surfaced, in embryonic form, during the Clinton years), but it marked a crucial evolution on both fronts. From 2004 flowed many blessings, at least for those who sought to control political discourse and popular perception and in so doing alter the nature of reality.

Suddenly all things were possible, and America became an endless episode of “The X-Files,” brought to you by faceless men in nice suits who are eager to warn you about the ravages of government and the duplicity of the “liberal media.” Every delirious resistance hypothesis previously promulgated by retired pharmacists who hand out mimeographed screeds in the mall now became a conduit for sowing widespread bewilderment and disempowerment. Climate-change denialism and birth-certificate trutherism. Death panels. Benghazi and Planned Parenthood. Every single aspect of what was once Tea Party ideology and has now become Republican orthodoxy, especially the upside-down economics in which high taxes (which are at historic lows) and social spending (which has been slashed) are reducing Americans to poverty and misery, rather than, let’s just say, a pointless $4 trillion war or the intensifying concentration of wealth at the very top of the pyramid.

I cannot help but contrast that with this story:

There was very little about Dylan Davies’ eyewitness account of the 2012 Benghazi attacks that seemed plausible. Sure, he had the proper credentials – he was a security contractor responsible for training the guard force at the diplomatic compound, and was in Benghazi the night of the attacks – but his story was outlandish and conspicuously difficult to corroborate.

According to Davies, after the attacks began he and a Libyan associate drove into Benghazi and sneaked into the Benghazi Medical Center, where he was the first person to identify the body of Ambassador Chris Stevens. Consumed by rage and a determination to save anyone who might still be alive, Davies set off on foot through the city, scaled the walls of the compound, and sneaked past dozens of militiamen until he was standing just feet from the burning villa where Stevens had lost his life. There, confronted by an armed guard, he bashed the terrorist’s face in with his rifle butt.

After sneaking back out of the compound, Davies decamped for his home in Wales where a detachment of FBI agents and State Department officials came to interview him and, according to Davies, were moved to tears by his heroism.

Every word of Davies’ account was a fabrication, contradicted by the official record and by Davies’ own after-action report. It was so far beyond the realm of plausibility that anyone but the most credulous sap would have regarded it with extreme skepticism. CBS News’ Lara Logan made it the centerpiece of her now-discredited bombshell “60 Minutes” Benghazi investigation last October.

In a just and equitable world, a journalist’s complicity in such gross and opportunistic fraud would be met with consequences. CBS News apparently has other ideas. Lara Logan, after a six-month leave of absence, is coming back to “60 Minutes.”

No harm no foul. Why is that?

.
digby 10/17/2015 03:30:00 PM

 
Extolling the overlords

by digby

The word obviously went forth over at Fox last week that it was time to pay obeisance to the overlords. It started with Megyn Kelly's obsequious interview with Charles Koch and then followed from there on every program.



Here's just one example of the brown-nosing sycophancy that came after:

STEVE DOOCY: Charles Koch sat down for a very rare interview with Megyn Kelly. And why exactly does he seem to support Republicans more than Democrats and what is his theory on Hillary? Here it is in 44 seconds.

(CLIP) CHARLES KOCH: The reason we tend to support Republicans is they're taking this toward the cliff at only 70 miles an hour and the Democrats are taking us 100 miles an hour. Putting aside all the things that are said about Hillary today, my main difference with her is on the vision of what kind of society will make people's lives better. So this is a vision of society in which people are too evil or stupid to run their own lives but those in power are perfectly capable of running everybody else's lives because they're so much smarter. It's what Hayek called the fatal conceit, or William Easterly called the tyranny of experts. Because that's what it is. It's tyranny.

ELISABETH HASSELBECK: An excellent look at really the divide there. I thought that was so -- and he's approximately going to donate $300 million dollars in the presidential race and other campaigns during this election cycle. You get insight into his mind and heart. It's incredible.

KILMEADE: It's hard to vilify when he comes off like that. I saw the at length interview and I also saw it on another channel. Very impressive, very down to earth. He's hardly the villain he's been characterized as.

DOOCY: And see, that's just key because by the political left he and his brother have been portrayed as these awful guys who are just out to help the Republicans. That simply is not true. You heard him say the Republicans are driving the car off the cliff 70 miles an hour, and he prefers that over the 100 mile an hour version of the Democrats. Just one other thing about him. You know, while he is incredibly rich, he was trained as an engineer. He's from Kansas, he and his brother are from Kansas, go Sunflower State. And he was trained at M.I.T. So, not only is he a generous man but he's a real smart guy, too.

KILMEADE: Megyn did a great job.

I've heard he's a great kisser too.

This is the hard-hitting "fair and balanced" journalism of Fox News.

Update: They also like Trumpie.

JUDITH MILLER: Well, I'm not necessarily convinced that more time leads to a more scintillating or enlightening debate. I mean, you can get past two hours and not only are the candidates really tired standing up, but so is the audience. On the other hand, of course CNBC wanted a three hour debate if they could sell advertising at $150,000 for a 30-second clip, that's the Wall Street Journal estimate.

But now we see what Donald Trump would be like in negotiation with Vladimir Putin. And I can just tell you that it appears that CNBC needed Trump more than he needed them and that gives you leverage and perhaps it shouldn't be that way but this is the marketplace and the marketplace has spoken and Trump has won. [Fox News, Happening Now, 10/16/15]

Yes, that's the Judith Miller. And she wasn't alone in extolling Trump's "negotiating skills" in this silly episode.

Trump complained after the last one. It was just too looooong. And it was clear it was because he was terribly uncomfortable standing up all that time. He was hanging on to that podium for dear life:

digby 10/17/2015 02:00:00 PM

 
Winger mailbag

by digby

Yet another email from some corner of the wingnut welfare system.  This one's kind of funny:

Each week, we ask our newsletter readers what they think about the issues facing our nation. Readers have been able to see the results of the previous week's polls with each new edition of the newsletter. But we thought you might like to see the bigger picture.

What are people thinking? What are the trends?

So we decided to bring all that information together for you right here, in one place.

I won't bore you with all of them. These are the highlights:

(Sure they have ...)

In case you haven't noticed, the Republicans are really eager to get their war on. It's really what they love.


.
digby 10/17/2015 12:30:00 PM

 
Oh this makes me so sad

by digby

ON top of all the other sadness of senseless mass shootings and toddlers accidentally shooting people and getting shot themselves and the sadness of parents accidentally shooting their kids and all the fucking rest of the horrors caused by a certain portion of America's insane love affair with guns, there's this:

A retired military K9 who became his veteran handler’s service dog when they returned from Iraq together was shot and killed in front of his Wyoming home last week.

Retired Army Ranger Matthew Bessler said a bicyclist killed his beloved Belgian Malinois, Mike, on Oct. 18. The biker told cops he felt threated by the 9-year-old pooch.

“I just lost my family member,” Bessler told the Billings Gazette. “He was very laid back ... He was happy. He was a happy-go-lucky dog.”

Mike — who earned the rank of Major while serving two tours of duty in Iraq alongside his Sergeant 1st Class handler — became the Bessler’s service dog when they returned to the U.S. together, both suffering from post traumatic stress disorder.

“I raised him and trained him as a puppy, and the ability he has to sense some of the issues that I have with seizures, with my PTSD, my TBI (traumatic brain injury) and severe anxiety disorders,” Bessler said. “He can … help me calm down or relax me.”

Family friends set up a fundraising page to help pay for a military funeral and burial for Major Mike.

The 59-year-old cycling shooter has not been charged with any crime since he felt threated and was acting in self-defense, the Park County Sheriff’s Office told the Powell Tribune.

I guess he couldn't have just cycled away. Because then he would be a wuss, right?

By the way, between cops shooting any dog they feel like shooting and nobody blinking an eye and all these yahoos carrying guns while they ride their bikes, I'd highly recommend that you never, ever let your dog out of your sight and always have him on a leash even if you live in Montana. That won't stop them. People are shooting dogs on leashes and tied up in the yard too. But maybe it will help.

Shooting other people's dogs is now a legitimate American hunting sport.


.
digby 10/17/2015 11:00:00 AM

 
So, Bush kept us safe?

by digby

Right.

Exhibit A:

Exhibit B:

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice has made a big point of the fact that Tenet briefed the president nearly every day. Yet at the peak moment of threat, the two didn't talk at all. At a time when action was needed, and orders for action had to come from the top, the man at the top was resting undisturbed. 

Throughout that summer, we now well know, Tenet, Richard Clarke, and several other officials were running around with their "hair on fire," warning that al-Qaida was about to unleash a monumental attack. On Aug. 6, Bush was given the now-famousPresident's Daily Brief (by one of Tenet's underlings), warning that this attack might take place "inside the United States." For the previous few years—as Philip Zelikow, the commission's staff director, revealed this morning—the CIA had issued several warnings that terrorists might fly commercial airplanes into buildings or cities. 

And now, we learn today, at this peak moment, Tenet hears about Moussaoui. Someone might have added 2 + 2 + 2 and possibly busted up the conspiracy. But the president was down on the ranch, taking it easy. Tenet wasn't with him. Tenet never talked with him. Rice—as she has testified—wasn't with Bush, either. He was on his own and, willfully, out of touch. 

A USA Today story, written right before Bush took off, reported that the vacation—scheduled to last from Aug. 3 to Sept. 3—would tie one of Richard Nixon's as the longest that any president had ever taken. A week before he left, Bush made a videotaped message for the Boy Scouts of America. On the tape, he said, "I'll be going to my ranch in Crawford, where I'll work and take a little time off. I think it is so important for the president to spend some time away from Washington, in the heartland of America." 

Exhibit C:

Also too, any idea how many embassy attacks there were during the Bush administration?

As the U.S. House of Representatives was readying a new special committee to investigate the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, many Democrats were arguing that continuing to probe the Sept. 11, 2012, attack -- which killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens -- amounted to a political witch hunt.

On May 5, 2014, Rep. John Garamendi, D-Calif., told MSNBC host Ed Schultz that there has already been exhaustive testimony and investigation of the incident.

"This thing is just going on and on to boredom actually," Garamendi said. "The Armed Services Committee actually did a hearing and the result was there’s nothing here. That’s obviously a great tragedy, but Ed, during the George W. Bush period, there were 13 attacks on various embassies and consulates around the world. Sixty people died. In Karachi, there was a death of one of our diplomats, and those were not investigated during that period of time because it was a tragedy."

Readers asked us whether it’s true that under Bush, "there were 13 attacks on various embassies and consulates around the world, (and) 60 people died." ...

Garamendi said that "during the George W. Bush period, there were 13 attacks on various embassies and consulates around the world. Sixty people died." There are actually different ways to count the number of attacks, especially when considering attacks on ambassadors and embassy personnel who were traveling to or from embassy property. Overall, we found Garamendi slightly understated the number of deadly attacks and total fatalities, even using a strict definition. Garamendi’s claim is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True.

I hope the Republicans keep screaming "four Americans died on Hillary Clinton's watch!" because it will give all of us on the other side of the dial a chance to remind everyone what happened on the last GOP president's watch. For contrast.

.
digby 10/17/2015 09:30:00 AM

 

It's human nature

by Tom Sullivan

Writing at Wonkblog, Max Ehrenfreund examined the psychology of Trump supporters (and the rest of us) the other day. It's nothing shocking, yet we seem to have to be reminded of it regularly:

From a psychological perspective, though, the people backing Trump are perfectly normal. Interviews with psychologists and other experts suggest one explanation for the candidate's success -- and for the collective failure to anticipate it: The political elite hasn't confronted a few fundamental, universal and uncomfortable facts about the human mind.

We like people who talk big.

We like people who tell us that our problems are simple and easy to solve, even when they aren't.

And we don't like people who don't look like us.

I might add a few others, but that's a good start.

"Really, we're not giving people enough credit," argues John Hibbing, a psychologist at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln. "We have to take this seriously. You can look down your nose if you want to, but these people aren't going away."

Looking down your nose at people. That's another one: We don't like people who don't like us.

The second one recalls the famous H.L. Mencken quote: "There is always an easy solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong." Mencken must have met plenty of people like Trump. There are plenty out there. Still ...

"People like the idea that deep down, the world is simple; that they can grasp it and that politicians can't," Hibbing said. "That's certainly a message that I think Trump is radiating."

"Radiating" is a good descriptor. The left puts too much faith in rationality and language, when that's not how most people operate. They read a lot from nonverbal cues. As I wrote a last year:

One of my favorite southernisms is, "I wouldn't trust anyone my dog doesn't like." That, I caution canvassers, is how most Americans really vote, like it or not. And if you don't purge the thought, those "low information" voters? They will know you think they're stupid before you do. Right before you ask for their votes.

Campaign schools drill two things during their trainings. First, we are not normal people. Normal people don't spend a weekend learning to run political campaigns. Lefty wonks should not try to talk to normal people the way we talk to each other. Second, your job when knocking doors is not to persuade people or to engage them in debate. Your job is to knock, smile, be polite, drop the literature, and, most of all, leave a good impression. If the voters like you, they will vote for your candidate. In many cases it really is that simple. It doesn't satisfy our need to win some philosophical victory or to browbeat people into submission with the power of our superior arguments, but that's how things really work in spite of how we think they should.

There is more at the link about tribalism, zero-sum thinking, and "our species's unconscious and its unchanging predispositions." Fascinating stuff.

Undercover Blue 10/17/2015 06:00:00 AM

Friday, October 16, 2015

 
Because you need this

by digby

It's a beautiful story of humans and their animal friends by Glenn Greenwald called

HOW DOGS FORGE A BOND WITH RIO’S HOMELESS THAT IS LIFE-SAVING FOR BOTH


Karollyne from Field Of Vision on Vimeo.


AS IS TRUE OF SO MANY CITIES in the Western world, there are thousands of homeless people living on the streets of Rio de Janeiro, the second-largest city in Brazil. They include families, children, solitary men and women, the old and the young. Many have been homeless for years with little prospect of an exit, especially now that the country faces worsening economic distress, met with often-cruel austerity measures. Homeless people are abundant in most neighborhoods, including the upscale ones most frequented by tourists.

Homelessness in Rio is, in many ways, virtually identical to how it manifests in other large cities: It entails unimaginable material and emotional deprivation, hopelessness, societal invisibility, and utter isolation. But one aspect of Rio’s homeless population stands out: A huge number of them have dogs that were previously living as desperate, unwanted strays on the street.

Many have lived on the street with their dogs for years. They care for them as well as, and in many cases better than, the average middle-class family with a pet. The profound bond that forms between them is like nothing else one will find, and is thus deeply revealing. 

Read on ...

To immerse oneself in this phenomenon is to learn about the human capacity for empathy and self-sacrifice even in the most severe states of distress ...

.


digby 10/16/2015 06:00:00 PM

 
Whither Carly?

by digby

Everyone's asking what happened to Fiorina's poll numbers. She has tumbled precipitously since her post-debate bump.

The rapid rise and equally rapid fall of Carly Fiorina deserves our attention. Before the most recent debate, she was languishing in the polls with only 4 percent of the vote (CBS, Sept. 9-13). After a smashing performance in the second debate, she soared into second place with 15 percent (CNN, Sept. 17-19). Now the most recent polls have her falling back into the pack with only 6 percent support (CBS, Oct. 4-8).

It's not a mystery --- she's been exposed as a very big liar. Over and over again. This is usually not something that right wingers care about, but in her case it's so obvious and so embarrassing even they can't justify it. The Planned Parenthood lie is the most egregious but she made stuff up about everything, including nonsense talking points about the 6th fleet and missile defense and the extent of her relationship with her "good friend Bibi Netanyahu."

Some on the right argue that it's because her failed record at HP has come to light. But that's also part of the liar image --- she claims her tenure was terrific but the facts are in and she was an epic failure. So, it's really just another part of the same blatant lying phenomenon. Others claim she was felled by bloggers who exposed her as a California Rhino. But that doesn't explain why the equally Rhinoish Trump continues to dominate.

If I had to guess, the fact that she's a lying woman does make a difference. These are right wingers, after all. They may be willing to put up with a woman running, maybe even winning. But not if it puts them on the spot. Plenty of men in the race to replace her. And sadly, if the comment sections of right wing blogs are an example of the right's thinking on the issues, it has a lot to do with her looks. Which is just so ... typical. Of course most of those who say that are Trump voters. Because he's such a looker apparently. Just ask him. 

Host Chuck Todd continued to press Trump: “You have a tenancy of disparaging woman on looks. I found 10 instances, sometimes in your books, your Twitter feeds when you went after people like Bette Midler and others. This is what some people find offensive, Mr. Trump, you go to looks. It’s a disparaging thing. It’s something out of ‘Mad Men,’ sir.”

Trump replied, “I will say this. I was attacked by the people that you talk about. I was attacked viciously by those people. I don’t mean a little bit, I mean viciously. When I’m attacked, I fight back, but I was attacked viciously by those women. Of course it’s very hard for them to attack me on looks, because I’m so good looking.

.
digby 10/16/2015 04:00:00 PM

 
QOTD: Karl Rove

by digby

This line seems to be a popular one on the right. Talking about Bernie Sanders answer to the question of what he considers the greatest national security threat to the US, Rove inanely answers:

He named climate change. One can imagine President Sanders ordering special forces to the headquarters of Exxon, Shell and Chevron to haul off oilmen to re-education camps cooled and heated by renewable energy.

Very smug, very glib. However, it's also very revealing that the term national security automatically evokes images of "ordering special forces" somewhere. It is evidently unthinkable that the nation's security could be threatened by something that cannot be met with military action or force of some kind. What small, cramped thinking. How dangerously shortsighted.

.


digby 10/16/2015 02:00:00 PM

 
GOP candidates failing an important test of leadership

by digby

Via TPM:

Fiorina, to her credit, responded differently than Donald Trump who said that he would be "looking into all of that" when a similar comment was made at one of his rallies.

"People are so frustrated and angry with the immigration situation. Let me say that one of the most important things about this nation is that we judge people as individuals," Fiorina said in response.

On the other hand, how hard would it have been for her to defend American Muslims and say they are just as American as anyone else? What does being a Muslim have to do with immigration? Is Keith Ellison an immigrant? Mohammed Ali? And anyway, immigrants who happen to be Muslim don't deserve to be talked about in such demeaning terms either.

It's incumbent on presidential candidates to educate their followers that this bigoted nonsense is unacceptable in America. I had many problems with George W. Bush but to his credit he went out of his way to tamp down this kind of nonsense. On September 17, 2001 he went to the Islamic Center in Washington and gave this speech:

Thank you all very much for your hospitality. We've just had a -- wide-ranging discussions on the matter at hand. Like the good folks standing with me, the American people were appalled and outraged at last Tuesday's attacks. And so were Muslims all across the world. Both Americans and Muslim friends and citizens, tax-paying citizens, and Muslims in nations were just appalled and could not believe what we saw on our TV screens.

These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith. And it's important for my fellow Americans to understand that.

The English translation is not as eloquent as the original Arabic, but let me quote from the Koran, itself: In the long run, evil in the extreme will be the end of those who do evil. For that they rejected the signs of Allah and held them up to ridicule.

The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don't represent peace. They represent evil and war.

When we think of Islam we think of a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. Billions of people find comfort and solace and peace. And that's made brothers and sisters out of every race -- out of every race.

America counts millions of Muslims amongst our citizens, and Muslims make an incredibly valuable contribution to our country. Muslims are doctors, lawyers, law professors, members of the military, entrepreneurs, shopkeepers, moms and dads. And they need to be treated with respect. In our anger and emotion, our fellow Americans must treat each other with respect.

Women who cover their heads in this country must feel comfortable going outside their homes. Moms who wear cover must be not intimidated in America. That's not the America I know. That's not the America I value.

I've been told that some fear to leave; some don't want to go shopping for their families; some don't want to go about their ordinary daily routines because, by wearing cover, they're afraid they'll be intimidated. That should not and that will not stand in America.

Those who feel like they can intimidate our fellow citizens to take out their anger don't represent the best of America, they represent the worst of humankind, and they should be ashamed of that kind of behavior.

This is a great country. It's a great country because we share the same values of respect and dignity and human worth. And it is my honor to be meeting with leaders who feel just the same way I do. They're outraged, they're sad. They love America just as much as I do.

I want to thank you all for giving me a chance to come by. And may God bless us all.

If President Bush could do this in the wake of 9/11 you'd think that Republican presidential candidates could rise to the occasion a decade and a half later.



digby 10/16/2015 12:00:00 PM

 
Droning on to little avail

by digby

If you have not had time to read the Intercept's blockbuster report on the Drone war, I hope you will bookmark it for when you have some time over the week-end. It's important.

In the meantime, read this summary from Micah Zenko at Foreign Policy which hits the important highlights and calls for a congressional inquiry --- which, depressingly, he highly doubts we'll see. And I agree.

Here's an excerpt:

This series calls into question many U.S. government claims about lethal counterterrorism strikes, which should compel long-overdue, rigorous oversight hearings by the relevant congressional committees and a full and complete public investigation of U.S. targeted killing policies — similar to the Senate Select Intelligence Committee (SSCI) report of the CIA’s rendition and interrogation program.

Unfortunately, in recent conversations with policymakers surrounding these programs, I have again learned that there is not just weariness about discussing them, but also a collective shoulder-shrug about the possibility of any serious investigations or reforms. In April, when Obama announced the deaths of three U.S. citizens and one Italian citizen in drone strikes, the chair and co-chair of the SSCI, Sens. Richard Burr and Dianne Feinstein respectively, declared that U.S. targeted killing policies should be reviewed. That never happened. And, of course, those close to the White House still claim U.S. counterterrorism operations were “reformed” in May 2013. They were not.

Judging by the presidential debates in both parties (so far) there's no interest in taking this on. The Pentagon isn't all that thrilled with this program (perhaps because it isn't theirs) which just proves that the CIA is driving the bus. But then, this is an assassination program which has always been one of their bailiwicks. Basically a secret, unaccountable agency is running the global military of the most powerful nation on earth. A nation that prides itself on it's open, democratic system of government. Odd ...

.




digby 10/16/2015 10:30:00 AM

 
Inciting the fringe

by digby

Over at Salon this morningI wrote about the DOJ's recent concern about domestic terrorism. (Domestic terrorism you say? How can that be?)

A startling quote from a Justice Department official this week, which went largely unnoticed should have added some perspective to a number of current political debates. It came from Assistant Attorney General John Carlin, who heads up the DOJ’s National Security Division.

Carlin said:

“We recognize that, over the past few years, more people have died in this country in attacks by domestic extremists than in attacks associated with international terrorist groups.”

If the American people knew this, wouldn’t they be justified in asking what in the world is going on here? After all, we spend massive amounts of money on anti-terrorism security, both here and around the world, and yet we shrug our shoulders at the body count from domestic terrorism?

The president just this week announced that our longest war, the war in Afghanistan, would have to be continued with all the costs and sacrifices that entails, and the political establishment nodded sagely and agreed that there was little choice if we wanted to keep Americans safe. We are very committed to fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them here. But somehow our own homegrown terrorists don’t seem to have created quite the same level of concern.

Of course, there are reasons for that.

Recall that when the Obama administration first took office, the right staged a full blown hissy fit over a Homeland Security report which noted the potential for violence among right-wing extremists in the wake of the election of the first black president, owing also to a hostility to immigration and the potential for military veterans to be radicalized in a bad economy.

“The department is engaging in political and ideological profiling of people who fought to keep our country safe from terrorism, uphold our nation’s immigration laws, and protect our constitutional right to keep and bear arms,” said Republican Rep. Gus Bilirakis.

The reaction was so hysterical that the DHS ended up retracting the report and drastically reducing the number of analysts studying the issue. In 2011 the Washington Post reported:

The decision to reduce the department’s role was provoked by conservative criticism of an intelligence report on “Rightwing Extremism” issued four months into the Obama administration, the officials said. The report warned that the poor economy and Obama’s election could stir “violent radicalization,” but it was pilloried as an attack on conservative ideologies, including opponents of abortion and immigration.

In the two years since, the officials said, the analytical unit that produced that report has been effectively eviscerated. Much of its work — including a digest of domestic terror incidents and the distribution of definitions for terms such as “white supremacist” and “Christian Identity” — has been blocked.

Multiple current and former law enforcement officials who have regularly viewed DHS analyses said the department had not reported in depth on any domestic extremist groups since 2009.

The river of blood from mass shootings and various extremist threats seem to have convinced them that this is not something they can ignore any longer, regardless of the political pressure. 

[...]

Here’s Ted Cruz talking to an Iowa audience about the Democratic debate:

“It was more socialism, more pacifism, more weakness and less Constitution,” he told about 100 people crammed into a motel lobby in Kalona, a small town in southeastern Iowa. “It was a recipe to destroy a country.”

Speaking after the campaign event with reporters outside the Dutch Country Inn, Cruz acknowledged that he hadn’t actually watched the debate. During much of it, he was stumping at a Pizza Hut a half-hour away.

But he had firm views on what viewers saw.

“We’re seeing our freedoms taken away every day and last night was an audition for who would wear the jackboot most vigorously. Last night was an audition for who would embrace government power for who would strip your and my individual liberties,” he said.

“Auditioning for the jackboot”? You have to give him credit for a colorful turn of phrase. But as Ed Kilgore pointed out, this isn’t just benign hyperbole:

Cruz is one of those presidential candidates (along with Ben Carson and Mike Huckabee for sure; the exact position of several others is unclear) who claim the Second Amendment gives Americans the right to revolutionary violence against their own government if it engages in “tyranny” or doesn’t respect our rights…isn’t it possible, perhaps even likely, that at least a few of his supporters might think he’s signaling that the time is near to get out the shooting irons and start executing the Tyrant’s agents?

Nobody can or should curtail free speech, whether it’s on the internet or on the campaign trail. Law enforcement has to respect the civil liberties of everyone, even anti-government crazies. But Ted Cruz is running for president of the United States, the very government he is railing against. And it’s irresponsible, not to mention incoherent, for him to encourage this level of paranoia. If he’s doing it solely for political purposes it’s feckless and ill-considered.  If he means it, it’s worse.

There is probably no way to know exactly how much influence these insurrectionist conservative leaders have on the extreme fringe.  But at the very least this foul rhetoric does little to discourage the violent impulses of a group of people who are already unaccountably angry and are armed to the teeth.

Federal law enforcement will not look at these political leaders as the inspiration for anti-government terrorism and it shouldn’t. They’ll be looking at much more prosaic forms of influence. But the rest of us shouldn’t let them off the hook. There’s a violent impulse in our culture that’s expressing itself in all sort of ways these days. It’s hard to imagine anything more dangerous than political leaders encouraging it.

digby 10/16/2015 09:00:00 AM