Regarding Rep Steve King’s pointless comments that Obama would be a victory for terrorists. David Kurtz thinks that

It doesn’t matter whether you support Obama or Hillary, it’s got to give you pause that the leading Democrat in the race (at least in terms of delegates) can’t handle these predictable attacks more effectively.

I am not convinced that there is any good way to address this nonsense, because its so off the deep end. Its not the same as the swift boat attacks which made specific claims (John Kerry was not a war hero) that had to be addressed by the campaign. Rather, these types of comments are intended to create sort of feeling out there that Obama = terrorist coddler. This can only in my opinion be counter by ignoring the claim and staying on message about terrorism, defense etc. Create a positive message. If Obama goes on TV and specifically addresses this attack it will make it bigger, you don’t want to be caught on TV saying “my middle name, Hussein, will not cause terrorists to dance in the streets when I win”.

This is a classic tactic, make a spurious claim hoping to get the candidate on TV denying it: “I do not eat babies. I have never eaten babies”.

PS: Elliot, we hardly knew ye. Word to the wise: don’t sleep with prostitutes.

The senate is currently considering a bill changing provisions of the FISA act. Initially it was a blank check to the administration to keep spying with impunity, but it looks like the few democrats in the senate with principles managed to get rid of the most odious provisions.

There is one exception: the bill provides immunity for companies that helped the administration with illegal wiretaps. Of course this is absurd, no company should think that they will get a pass on breaking the law if they did so on government request. Senator Dodd has placed a “hold” on the bill, which is a great move and goes a long way towards stopping it.

Interestingly, the leadership is trying to stop Dodd from blocking this bill. If you find this odd or confusing, realize that the telecom industry has of late given millions to the new majority party. They are for sale, and they are doing what they were paid for.

Complete withdrawal is the only Iraq plan we can accept from a Democratic candidate. Luckily it looks like Obama is on the right side of this.

You read.

Yeah seriously, the fact that anyone thinks nuclear weapons are a good idea in any circumstance is disturbing.

Bush now claims that “the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege”.

Are you FUCKING KIDDING ME? This is an actual assertion that the white house is above the law. Not that they have privilege, but that they are actually, literally above the law. Maybe I am tired, but this is freaking me out, I mean, what is the remedy at this point? If the justice department refuses to enforce the law, how exactly can the White House be made accountable?

In my life since college I have learned several things, but the one bugging me right now is this: if you want to live in a really cool city you basically have to kill someone to find an apartment. Right now we live in the foggy hinterlands of san francisco, just ten blocks from the pacific ocean. It looks like we are going to have to move out of our house (that we moved into just back in october) because the landlord wants to sell. So now I am back on the apartment hunt, and my god there is basically nothing out there, unless we didn’t have cats. But we do have cats, and there you are. What is frustrating about the whole process is that there is no solution to the apartment problem other than live in the burbs. For various reasons public policy is designed around encouraging home ownership rather than renting. So if you are a renter (and if you live in SF and don’t make $500k+, you are) there are no tax breaks, no grants, no encouragement for developers. Basically there is no reason to create additional rental units, and nobody has. There are several new projects in the works, which may help eventually, but right now the law of supply and demand means I need to run out the door with a check in hand, drive around the city and throw down $6000 when I see a place we like. And that is the gripe of the day.

Harriet blew off another supoena. As atrios notes, privilege doesn’t mean you don’t have to show up, even if she actually has any privilege in this matter. Of course, contempt of congress means nothing because I doubt that the DoJ would bother to enforce the law.

Only a tiny minority of the super-rich dare to speak out against the ideology of the free market, as in this NYT article: The Richest of the Rich, Proud of a New Gilded Age. But even those super-rich espouse an anti-democratic, elistist view of politics in their views of how their money should be redistributed - through philanthropies that they control - rather than through taxes (or direct seizure of their property).

The new tycoons oppose raising taxes on their fortunes. Unlike Mr. Crandall, neither Mr. Weill nor Mr. Griffin nor most of the dozen others who were interviewed favor tax rates higher than they are today, although a few would go along with a return to the levels of the Clinton administration. The marginal tax on income then was 39.6 percent, and on capital gains, 20 percent. That was still far below the 70 percent and 39 percent in the late 1970s. Those top rates, in the Bush years, are now 35 percent and 15 percent, respectively.

Read the rest of this entry »

I know people that know Senator Vitter personally. He is by all accounts a friendly and kind man. I have always had trouble reconciling personal stories of the man with his very distasteful public statements. It reminds me of the times I have spoken with republicans (not the christian right kind) who generally seem like thoughtful and reasonable people that I disagree with, but they aren’t evil. People are going to disagree, that is what makes a democracy work. What is sad is that people like Senator Vitter seem to feel obligated to spew hate in order to get elected. I suspect the senator could care less about the sexual habits of other Americans. Lord knows he would rather we not get involved in his.

What has happened in this country that politics has lost all connection to policy? It seems that both sides are reduced to arguing things they don’t believe and introducing bills that will never pass in order to get their pander on. Then they pass laws to give back to the wealthy donors that bought the TV ads that got them elected. In the end we get nothing. Its a bit like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, normal people get into office and realpolitik sucks out their souls. We have democrats blaming the Iraqi government for not cleaning up the mess we made because they think they can’t say the real problem. And we have Republicans like Vitter privately indulging their sexual tastes while condeming those of others, not because they care but because they think they have to.