Unreported

Charles Blow beat out a bevy of other hapless NYT columnists this week to win the Most Inane Column award by implementing a tried and true maneuver: point out ancient ritual and pretend it’s a new trend you, Wise Person, just discovered.

The near-apoplectic level of agita within the liberal screeching class over President Obama’s tax-cut compromise has exposed a seismic crack in the Democratic monolith — outspoken liberal Democrats on one side and barely audible moderate Democrats on the other.

Wow! What a keen observation, Charlie! Except, this isn’t a new phenomenon. The “seismic crack” has existed pretty much from the beginning of  Obama’s presidency. That’s what that whole fight over the public option was about. It didn’t just start with tax cuts, but rather has existed for nearly a year - beginning when Progressives regained consciousness long enough to realize they’d elected a moderate Clinton 2.0, having erroneously believed him to be the Liberal Second Coming.

Blow then executes some impressive logic jiu-jitsu within the span of a relatively short column. He claims: A) Progressives are ruining the Democratic Party, but also B) Progressives are egotistical asshats because they think they’re Obama’s “base” even though they’re a statistically negligible percentage of the Democratic Party. You see, Progressives are the worst thing since cancer, but also, they don’t matter at all. Got it?

The lopsided optics raise the question: Is there a future for moderation, and especially conservatism, in the Democratic Party or is the party experiencing the beginnings of a purging akin to that seen on the right?

…

I attribute much of this to the across-the-board, over-the-top scoffing by the ultraliberal, self-professed brains of the party. According to them, Obama must pay for abandoning his “progressive base.” That’s funny because progressives, many of whom really wanted John Edwards to be the nominee in 2008, only constitute 20 percent of Democrats.

Now, it’s possible the “purpling” Blow is talking about is the increase in individuals who call themselves liberals. (The whole distinction between a “Progressive” and a “Liberal” is pretty hazy to begin with, and most people polled in these things probably can’t tell you what the distinction in the labels is anyway, but I’ll give Blow the benefit of the doubt and assume 100 percent of the polls he cites are accurate.) The conflation of liberals and Progressives in Blow’s column leads me to believe that he accurately (though belatedly) observed unrest in the left-wing, and is now desperately trying to affix the cause of the chaos on someone – certainly not the president or Congress – but on Progressives, a small faction – that as Blow himself attests – comprises only 20 percent of the party.

Another problem for far-left liberals is that they demonstrate an insatiable appetite for eating their own. Another Gallup poll, also released on Thursday, found a worrisome trend: President Obama’s approval rating among liberal Democrats, while still high, has slipped 10 percent since Nov. 1; but, among moderate Democrats, it has held steady.

Okay, so we’re back to hating liberals because they’re so irrational. Hell, they even eat their own! Except, what Blow fails to explore here is that the reason liberals have voiced their disappointment with Obama is because he’s not acting Progressive enough. Obama isn’t “one of their own.” Rather, many liberals are awaking to the fact that they’ve elected a moderate Democrat – practically a Republican in many regards – a man who escalates wars, continues many Bush-era policies, bails out enormous corporations, gives tax cuts to the rich, and hands out multi-billion dollar giveaways to the private healthcare industry. Blow would be more accurate to say far-left liberals have an insatiable appetite for eating their enemies.

But that kind of nuanced thinking doesn’t lend itself to the simplistic narrative that Progressives = Baddies. This is the same stupid concept behind the pundit class blaming bloggers every time Democrats fail as opposed to, ya’ know, holding elected leaders accountable for their own corrupt actions. After all, it’s easier to rip on Jane Hamsher on the interweb than it is to lobby for meaningful election reform or progressive policy.

Blow then closes his column with a quote from Bill Maher who says far- left liberal pinkos fight the friend who disappoints them rather than focus on the enemy who wants to destroy them. But if we’re busy trading quotes, Maher also called Obama “wimpy” and “wussy” on Fareed Zakaria’s GPS, which will no doubt land him in Blow’s dreaded “Lefties I Hate” journal once he eventually discovers the interview one year from now and writes about it as a New Trend.

Hear the new Citizen Radio and subscribe to the free podcast.

Allison talks about Bernie Sander’s audit of the Federal Reserve, which is beginning to help us understand where our tax dollars went during the bailouts.

According to recent polls, the Afghanistan war is now as unpopular as the Iraq War was during the Bush years, and people are actually more concerned about ending the war than they are about fixing the deficit. Not that you’d know any of this from watching the news, of course.

It’s the triumphant return of “What The Fuck Did They Just Do?” This week’s topics: Mortgages, credit scores, and the NRA.

Jamie has some choice words for the ex-vegans out there, and Pandagon’s Amanda Marcotte stops by to talk abot sexism, blogging, feminism, and atheism. Be sure to read all of Amanda’s writing at Pandagon.net, and check out her book, “It’s a Jungle Out There: The Feminist Survival Guide to Politically Inhospitable Environments.”

It’s time for the premier of Fridays With Bill, a weekly segment in which Bill Ayers gives his thoughts about a timely topic. This week, Bill talks about the London student tuition protests, and the supposed lack of passion from U.S. students.

This, and all CR podcasts, are brought to you by the good folk at Vegan Essentials (http://veganessentials.com/). Buy cruelty-free products there and tell ‘em Citizen Radio sent you!

President Obama says the new trade deal with South Korea is totally awesome, will boost annual exports, secure jobs, and result in everyone getting a pony. He called this arrangement “a free and fair trade agreement” and said that it was already “proving its worth.”

Actually, sorry. That was Hillary Clinton speaking on NAFTA. In 1996.

President Obama says this trade agreement with South Korea “recognizes the reality of today’s economy – globalization and technology. Our future is not in competing at the low-level wage job; it is in creating high-wage, new technology jobs based on our skills and our productivity.”

Erm, apologies. That was John Kerry. About NAFTA.

We’ve been down this road before, and unfortunately, the South Korean FTA prospects don’t look any rosier. But developing a consistant, coherent international trade policy, and learning from the past mistakes of NAFTA, aren’t really necessary if you can figure out how to get the left to cannibalize itself.

Sander Levin, Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, has been on the phone trying to whip support for the bill. Heavy pressure is being brought to bear on United Steelworker President Leo Gerard, in an attempt to keep the AFL-CIO on the sidelines. Getting a rather cheap “give” from the Koreans to the auto industry to buy off the UAW was actually quite clever — because the Steelworkers are also being told that with all the cars that will be sold to Korea, there will be US steel used to make them.

Of course, that’s a crock.  Korea would still face a lower tariff — 2% —  in the US than the US will face in Korea — 4%.

The deal will devastate the building trade unions, also part of the AFL-CIO, who have been the hardest hit by NAFTA-style trade agreements. Much of their work has been building factories in the midwest, and as those factories get shipped overseas, their jobs have disappeared. In splitting the member unions, the administration hopes to sideline the powerful resources of the AFL-CIO which would otherwise organize to protect the building trades.

And here’s Obama on the South Korea FTA (for real this time. I promise)

“We are strengthening our ability to create and defend manufacturing jobs in the United States, increasing exports of agricultural products for American farmers and ranchers and opening Korea’s services market to American companies.”

If you think this sounds identical to the pro-NAFTA propaganda of the past, you’re right.

It’s really been cracking me up to witness the extent denialists are willing to go to blame the House Democrats’ defeats on liberal bloggers – as if bloggers possess enough political authority to sway millions of voters to exile Blue Dog Democrats. (See: Glenzilla’s take down of what he calls “pundit sloth.” For another embarrassing example of blaming the left for Obama’s failures, read this Daily Kos entry.)

Because we all know it was liberal bloggers who voted to extend and excel two deeply unpopular wars, supported the use of private, unaccountable armies, and then authorized the use of drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen. I remember when the Firedoglake crew implemented its weak stimulus strategy, and made worker and environmental protection optional. Not to mention history’s greatest monster, Atrios, who oversaw a nine percent unemployment rate, while simultaneously announcing that — in the midst of deficit– he plans to extend tax cuts for the rich. And who can forget when Markos Moulitsas nixed the extremely popular public option and allowed pharmaceutical companies to pen their own version of healthcare reform? God! What’s wrong with these fucking Mac huggers?

Ahem. Of course, that was all the work of President Obama – not that you would know that from the way pundits and moderate Democrats are lashing out at the left.

The truth is endless capitulations and “pragmatism” (the new “triangulation”) have brought us here. Liberals voted out Blue Dogs because Blue Dogs sold them out, and they, along with President Obama, have largely abandoned the liberal platform.

Read the rest of this entry »

Surely, the BP disaster deserves the obsessive coverage it has received (thus far). But at the risk of missing some other important stories, I want to briefly address two somewhat overlooked catastrophes – one that has already taken place, and one that possesses the potential to be horrific, but we still have time to stop.

Many Americans would be surprised to hear there’s another domestic oil spill – in Salt Late City. (via)

Chevron says a hole the size of a quarter caused their pipeline to rupture around 33,000 gallons of oil into the creek.

The manager of Chevron’s refinery in the Salt Lake City area said Monday that the company believes the rupture in the 10-inch pipeline was caused by an electrical arc that traveled through a metal fence post. Mark Sullivan says the arc acted like an electrical torch, causing the hole.

Sullivan couldn’t say how long the pipeline was leaking before Chevron was notified of the problem Saturday morning. But Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker says residents could smell the odor of petroleum overnight Friday.

The spill has coated about 300 birds at area creeks and ponds, and the oil is possibly threatening an endangered fish.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iRUwVMK11Q]

Chairman of the Salt Lake City Council,  J.T. Martin, calls the event a horrible tragedy.

Read the rest of this entry »

Image by Getty Images North America via @daylife

John Cole expresses the view of, I think, many liberals on his blog today when he asked: what exactly is the Obama administration supposed to about the oil spill?

He asks this after acknowledging all the terrible things BP and the government have done (missed deadlines, hidden the size of the spill, issued more permits to drill,) while failing to address some other points (BP buying off spill victims, using toxic dispersants, which have been banned in the UK, against the orders of the EPA, racing up to Canada to try to get their country to deregulate, too, etc.)

Cole isn’t an apologist for private business run amok. He just sincerely wants to know: what the hell is Obama supposed to do about this?

But he’s already answered the question with his last peeve point — a realization Cole appears to have at the very end of the post. The Obama administration is still issuing permits. Despite the catastrophe of the Gulf oil geyser, Obama wants to expand offshore drilling. The rationale for this is articulated by Interior Secretary Ken Salazaar.

Read the rest of this entry »

Image by AFP/Getty Images via Daylife

Oh dear. There’s some drama in the liberal-Progressive world.

Matt Taibbi went and dared to point out the glaringly obvious– President Obama has “packed his economic team with Wall Street insiders intent on turning the bailout into an all-out giveaway” – and now some fellow journalists and bloggers are mad at him. (Others, like Digby and Felix Salmon, came to Taibbi’s defense.)

The pissed-at-the-obvious Progressives appear to be experiencing steps in the “stages of grief.” The Kübler-Ross model used to describe the emotions experienced by mourners includes five discrete stages:

1. Denial

2. Anger

3. Bargaining

4. Depression

5. Acceptance

Read the rest of this entry »

For months, the White House assiduously courted industry trade groups, attempting to neutralize historically powerful opponents of change. But the talking points for the August recess have moved to a sharper critique of business interests.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and top lieutenants have warned that they are not bound by deals the White House struck with drugmakers and insurers.

“The glory days are coming to an end for the health insurance industry,” she said Friday.

The shift may be more than rhetorical.

via White House Altering Health Pitch in Bid to Reinvigorate Obama’s Signature Issue – washingtonpost.com.

That’s the Washington Post basing the opinion that the health insurance industry glory days are over on absolutely nothing except a flippant remark made by Speaker Pelosi. The article quickly moves away from that bold declaration and transitions into a comment from White House health czar Nancy-Ann DeParle in which DeParle declares she would be able to secure 100 votes in the Senate due to President Obama’s bipartisan willingness to completely water down regulation of the private healthcare industry. Shocking. “I could get 100 votes” on the insurance changes being touted by Obama, said DeParle. I’m sure she could.

DeParle could easily secure those votes for the same reason the Post hurries away from its Big Health Armageddon comment like a nervous party guest, who just made an inappropriate comment after one too many white wine spritzers. Obama’s public-private option (with mandates) is a boon for the private healthcare industry because it will essentially require citizens to purchase coverage. The LA Times reported back in June that the healthcare industry was lobbying hard for individual mandates, which would amount to “a huge booster shot for health insurers, serving up millions of new customers almost overnight.”

Trudy Lieberman, who has been reporting on healthcare and consumer issues for over thirty years, explained on Bill Moyer’s Journal: 

I feel the American people need to know what is in that bill. And what’s in the bill is an individual mandate that is going to require all Americans with a few exceptions, to carry health insurance. And that means if you do not get insurance from Medicare or Medicaid or your employer, you’re going to have to go out and buy health insurance. And that is a lot of money for most people because most of them would buy it now if they could afford it. About 85 percent of the uninsured require subsidies, because they can’t afford it. And I think this is going to come up as a big surprise to people to realize they’re going to have to buy insurance from private insurance companies or face a tax penalty.

Moyers’ other guest, Dr. Marcia Angell, concurs.  Angell became the first woman to serve as editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, the premier journal of medical science in the United States. “We’re going to deliver the private insurance companies a captive market. And [insurance companies] love that,” says Angell. “And so, this will increase costs…If you leave this profit-oriented system in place, you can’t both control costs and increase coverage. You inevitably, if you try to increase coverage, increase costs. The only answer…is a single payer system.”

Even Obama’s public-private lukewarm concession made to placate pissed-off progressives may result in a hierarchical healthcare system, says Lieberman. “[The public plan] might be this tiering arrangement that has a bronze, silver, and gold kind of arrangement. And you can pay more if you have more. Which still perpetuates the problem that we have.” 

By leaving in place any for-profit system, and then requiring mandates, President Obama is guaranteeing a new glory period for the private healthcare industry. That’s the opposite of what the Post claims in today’s paper. No matter what Speaker Pelosi says about the glory days being over for the healthcare industry, the Post‘s reporters and editors need only glance at Obama’s healthcare bill to understand that mandates are a giveaway to the private insurance giants.

At a recent town hall meeting, a man stood up and told Representative Bob Inglis to “keep your government hands off my Medicare.” The congressman, a Republican from South Carolina, tried to explain that Medicare is already a government program — but the voter, Mr. Inglis said, “wasn’t having any of it.”It’s a funny story — but it illustrates the extent to which health reform must climb a wall of misinformation. It’s not just that many Americans don’t understand what President Obama is proposing; many people don’t understand the way American health care works right now.

via Op-Ed Columnist – Health Care Realities – NYTimes.com.

President Obama speaks at a March health care forum at the White House (Pete Souza/White House)

The American people are clueless again, and Obama is the only person to blame for their collective confusion. His name is stamped across the new healthcare “plan,” whatever it entails (no one seems to know for sure,) so he is by default The Plan’s keeper, primary advocate, and also the nation’s teacher. If Obama can’t explain The Plan, then the people can’t become advocates for reform, and can’t give Obama his undeniable mandate to push Change — whatever it is– through Congress.

Without overwhelming public support, President Obama found himself alone with an army of healthcare lobbyists and Blue Dog private healthcare sentinels. To absolutely no one’s surprise, the healthcare industry (which spends over $1 million a day on lobbying,) and the Blue Dogs (who have raised $1 million since June from Big Healthcare) picked apart Obama’s plan. Universal healthcare was laughed out of the room, and the Blue Dogs worked so zealously to water down the public option that not even the mighty power of the Wax Man could save it.

Throughout all of this triangulation and compromise, no one could really explain what kind of plan was taking shape. There was no public-friendly lesson resonating from Democrats or the media. Why would President Obama repeat the Clinton mistakes of the 90s? Why was he putting forth yet another complicated, secretive, dense plan that no one could understand?

Obama may be sidestepping his duty as teacher because he knows his pupils won’t appreciate his healthcare lesson. In a recent New York Times/CBS poll, 85 percent of respondents said the healthcare system needs to be fundamentally changed or completely rebuilt, and 72 percent supported a government-administered insurance plan (see: public option). The classroom just may turn mutinous when Teacher Obama explains not only is a universal system out of the question, but the public option is now looking pretty haggard as it limps through Congress.

With 48 million uninsured pupils (the equivalent of the Canadian population,) and the number of uninsured and underinsured Americans equalling the entire population of the United Kingdom, Teacher Obama needs to explain a lesson that will work for his classroom. Unfortunately, that lesson doesn’t exist. Universal healthcare was never a serious option (even within the Obama Oval Office,) and the public option is now on life support. Rather than teach that sour lesson in pragmatism, Teacher Obama is remaining silent and hoping Change and Hope will somehow survive without his help.

Citizen Radio interviews Tariq Ali, celebrated intellectual and the man who famously debated Henry Kissinger. A world-renowned activist, who the Rolling Stones named the song “Street Fighting Man” after, Tariq Ali spends the hour talking with Citizen Radio.

Tariq Ali talks with Citizen Radio about a range of subjects from the true definition of Socialism to his discussions with Malcolm X, and how he thinks atheists and religious people can work together to make the world a better place.

Listen here. Transcript is posted below. Please feel free to repost both the interview and transcript, but please credit Citizen Radio.

Tariq Ali is the author of the new book, The Duel: Pakistan on the Flight Path of American Power.

Citizen Radio airs every Wednesday on BTR. Episodes available 24/7 in our archives.

Jamie Kilstein: Recently, on FOX News – and actually all news stations – we’ve kind of been hearing Obama denounced as a Socialist. They’ll be like, “No one wants socialized healthcare,” or “socialized banks,” and I think, for the first time, there are some people who are like, “Yeah, we do. We kind of do. That sounds really nice.” But Obama didn’t have anyone who represents single-payer healthcare at his health conference, and the banks are getting our money, and we’re not getting anything in return. So first, I wanted you to give the actual definition of Socialism because I think it’s mischaracterized a lot here, and second, why you think decrying Socialism has been such a successful scare tactic in a country where rich-poor divide is so large.

Tariq Ali: There are many definitions of Socialism. The simplest way to define it, I guess, would be: the ownership of public utilities and things important to the economy and the land by the state in the interests of the common people. I would go beyond that and say where public utilities are owned by the state, my definition of Socialism would also include the people, who work in these utilities, playing a part in determining how they are run, and not allowing the state to nominate bureaucrats to them. That has never really happened anywhere, but given the crisis into which Socialism fell in the ‘90s, I think you need more and more democracy at every level of functioning.

Read the rest of the interview behind the cut.

Read the rest of this entry »