Welcome! "What's Happenin'?" is a casual community diary (a daily series, 8:30 AM Eastern on weekdays, 10 AM on weekends and holidays) where we hang out and talk about the goings on here and everywhere.
We welcome links to your writings here on dkos or elsewhere, posts of pictures, music, news, etc.
Just about anything goes, but attacks and pie fights are not welcome here. This is a community diary and a friendly, peaceful, supportive place for people to interact.
Everyone who wants to join in peaceful interaction is very welcome here.
|
Good Morning!
Longwood Gardens. (Photo by joanneleon. October 5, 2012)
What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children--not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women--not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.
― JFK
News and Opinion
Obama, Romney clash angrily over Libya attack
Obama and Romney argued testily in front of a group of undecided voters over whether Obama had come out fast enough in describing the Libya attack as terrorism.
Obama pointed out that he had in fact called it terrorism. A transcript of his remarks in the White House Rose Garden the morning after the attack show Obama said: "...no acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this nation."
But despite that comment, some of Obama's top aides had initially attributed the Benghazi violence to protests over an anti-Islam film and said it was not premeditated, before finally
acknowledging much later that it was a terrorist attack.
Just as a lot of us in this community said last week, all of Biden's shouting about how we are leaving Afghanistan in 2014 was a lie. And now the State Department is admitting that.
State Department official: Negotiations to extend U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan starting soon Despite statements by Vice President Joe Biden, the State Department is about to begin formal negotiations over the extension of U.S. troops past 2014, a top State Department official said Tuesday.
[ ... ]
"We are leaving in 2014, period, and in the process, we're going to be saving over the next 10 years another $800 billion," Biden said. "We've been in this war for over a decade. The primary objective is almost completed. Now all we're doing is putting the Kabul government in a position to be able to maintain their own security. It's their responsibility, not America's."
[ ... ]
Marc Grossman, the State Department's special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, explained today that's not the whole story. Grossman said Tuesday that the point of the upcoming negotiations is to agree on an extension of the U.S. troop presence well past 2014, for the purposes of conducting counterterrorism operations and training and advising the Afghan security forces.
Green Party Presidential, Vice Presidential Candidates Arrested at Dem-Rep Debate Site
Dr. Stein and Ms. Honkala walked with supporters toward the Hofstra campus at 2:00pm EST today. There they were met by three ranks of police officers in uniform and plainclothes. At this point, the Green Party candidates held an impromptu press conference in which Dr. Stein called the CPD debate a "mockumentary," saying that, "We are here to bring the courage of those excluded from our politics to this mock debate, this mockery of democracy." Dr. Stein and Ms. Honkala then turned and began walking onto the debate grounds, at which point the rank of police officers physically stopped them and pushed them back. The two women sat down and the police arrested them, saying that Stein and Honkala would be charged with "obstructing traffic," a charge Jill Stein for President staffer and lawyer Alex Howard called "bogus" in that there was no through-traffic visible at any time during the incident.
Jill Stein, Green Party candidate for President gets taken
Leaked 2012 Presidential Debates Contract: Few Critical Points Worth Raising
A copy of the secret debate contract the campaigns for Barack Obama and Mitt Romney drew up for the 2012 presidential debates has leaked. TIME has posted it. The contract includes express limitations related to other candidates qualifying for debates, not publicly calling or participating in additional debates, not mentioning people in the audience beyond family members or not addressing questions to each or asking candidates to take pledges.
[ ... ]
If candidates outside of Obama or Romney are “invited to participate,” they must sign the secret contract and agree to these terms. Should they refuse, they cannot be part of the debate. Someone like Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson or Green Party candidate Jill Stein might get a bump and have enough support in a poll to be in a debate but, if they refuse to cooperate with a organization with such a shady history, they will not get to go before an audience and share their platform.
[...]
For the town hall debate, the contract instructs the moderator to go through a cumbersome process of approving audience questions prior to the debate for the benefit of the candidates, who would not want to be caught off guard by a question the carefully selected media personality had not finessed and sanitized for public consumption:
[...]
Gallup, the polling organization, will select the audience. These aren’t necessarily the people who showed up wanting to attend the debate but rather people Gallup approved for attendance through some secret “selection methodology,” which the campaigns approved.
[...]
The selection criteria is why Johnson took the step of filing an antitrust lawsuit against the CPD. According to the Los Angeles Times, the suit argues the Republican and Democratic national committees engaged in a conspiracy by meeting and creating rules for the debates in secret, which exclude third-party candidates. It also alleges they participated in a “restraint of trade” that violated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. (The challenge is different from a challenge brought by Ralph Nader that argued the CPD was violating the Federal Election Campaign Act by endorsing, supporting or opposing political candidates or political parties.)
Afghans say that another "surgical strike" was not so surgical and killed three kids. NATO says they yes, they killed them but it wasn't one of the surgical strikes.
Nato in Afghanistan expresses regret over civilian deaths
Nato forces in Afghanistan have expressed regret over the deaths of "three innocent Afghan civilians" during an operation against insurgents in the south of the country on Sunday.
Afghan officials said that two boys and a girl died in the most recent incident, which they say was caused by a Nato airstrike targeting Taliban insurgents planting mines on a road.
The statement by Nato's International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) did not explain how the civilian deaths occurred, but it did make clear that they were not killed by an airstrike.
"During an operation in Helmand Province Sunday against suspected insurgents laying IEDs, Isaf forces may have accidentally killed three innocent Afghan civilians," the statement said.
NATO Airstrike Kills Three Afghan Children A NATO airstrike killed three children in Afghanistan‘s Helmand province on Sunday, Afghan officials said Monday. “Two Taliban mine-planters were identified and targeted by ISAF from the air and killed,” district police chief Ahmad Shah Khan told AFP. ”Three children, two boys and a girl, who were nearby collecting firewood were also killed,” Khan added. ... The US-led coalition in Afghanistan confirmed the airstrike took place and said three insurgents were killed, but that it would investigate the claims that children were killed. ... The NATO response to killing innocents in airstrikes is typically to claim an investigation has started, or that they formally apologize. No accountability for the loss of life is forced on the military occupiers who are needlessly killing Afghans.
A must read article and I wish there was a way to join the public editor of the NYT and create a campaign demanding that the media do a better job on this topic, or rather DO their job on it.
THE PUBLIC EDITOR Questions on Drones, Unanswered Still
How many people have been killed by these unmanned aircraft in the Central Intelligence Agency’s strikes in Yemen and Pakistan? How many of the dead identified as “militants” are really civilians? How many are children?
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism in Britain has estimated that, in the first three years after President Obama took office, between 282 and 535 civilians were credibly reported killed by drone strikes — including more than 60 children. The United States government says the number of civilians killed has been far lower.
[...]
Americans, according to polls, have a positive view of drones, but critics say that’s because the news media have not informed them well. The use of drones is deepening the resentment of the United States in volatile parts of the world and potentially undermining fragile democracies, said Naureen Shah, who directs the Human Rights Clinic at Columbia University’s law school.
[...]
With its vast talent and resources, The Times has a responsibility to lead the way in covering this topic as aggressively and as forcefully as possible, and to keep pushing for transparency so that Americans can understand just what their government is doing.
New report from Columbia Law School:
Counting Deaths from Drone Strikes
Guard recruiter accused of leading homeless raids PHOENIX (AP) — A recruiter for the Arizona Army National Guard is accused of leading 30 to 35 nighttime raids through north Phoenix to harass homeless people.
The Arizona Republic reports that at least a dozen Guard members and recruits took part in the raids, while others looked away.
National Guard investigators found that non-commissioned officers engaged in hunting the homeless with paintball guns.
[...]
In one case, the private said, Amerson offered a homeless woman $10 to expose her breasts, refused to pay, then screeched away as the lady grabbed onto the recruiting vehicle’s passenger window. “The female was pulled along and then spun off the car, landing on the ground,” notes an investigative report. “She (the soldier) did not know if the female was hurt because they did not stop.”
Mission Creep in Libya: Drones in the Sky, Boots on the Ground During a nationally televised debate last week, Vice President Joe Biden responded to a question about the attack in Libya that led to the death of four Americans, including US Ambassador Chris Stevens, by saying "the men responsible" would face "justice" from the United States. "If you do harm to America," Biden threatened, "We will track you to the gates of hell if need be." Now, the Associated Press reports—based on administration officials speaking under cover of anonymity—that armed US drones are flying over Libya and that US intelligence agencies are on the prowl for targets to strike. According to AP:
If the administration does find a target, officials say it still has to weigh whether the short-term payoff of exacting retribution on al-Qaida is worth the risk that such strikes could elevate the group's profile in the region, alienate governments the U.S. needs to fight the group in the future and do little to slow the growing terror threat in North Africa.
Vikram Pandit has abruptly quit as chief executive of Citigroup The US investment bank said on Tuesday Pandit had stepped down as chief executive and left the company's board with "immediate effect". ... The bank's president and chief operating office John Havens also resigned from the company. The bank said Havens "had already been planning retirement from Citi at year-end but decided, in light of Mr Pandit's resignation, to leave the Company at this time." ... If no changes are made to Pandit's compensation package, Citigroup will have paid him about $261m in the five years since he became CEO, including $165m it paid to buying his Old Lane Partners LP hedge fund in 2007 in a deal that led to his becoming CEO, according to Bloomberg.
Citi's CEO Pandit exits abruptly after board clash
(Reuters) - Citigroup Inc's Vikram Pandit quit as chief executive on Tuesday after months of simmering tensions with the board - an abrupt change that surprised investors and employees of the third-largest U.S. bank. The bank's board of directors named Michael Corbat as Citigroup's new CEO. Pandit told Reuters the decision to leave was his own and that he had been contemplating the move for some time.
Multiple sources within and outside the bank said Pandit's departure followed months of tension with Chairman Michael O'Neill over a range of issues, including compensation and the role of Chief Operating Officer John Havens. On Tuesday, Havens also resigned.
Counterparties: Pandefenestration Just one day after his company reported third quarter earnings, Vikram Pandit is unexpectedly out as Citigroup’s CEO. Pandit and the board don’t agree on why. Pandit claims that resigning was his decision and that he “been thinking about this for a long time”. The board sees things differently. It reportedly ousted Pandit due to Citi’s subpar financial performance and his “poor execution”.
Home Loans May Get Shield Proposal Would Give Banks Protection in Cases Involving Top-Quality Mortgages
WASHINGTON—Federal regulators are considering giving mortgage lenders protection from certain lawsuits, according to people familiar with the matter, a move designed to encourage lending to well-qualified borrowers.
The potential move, which would be a partial victory for mortgage lenders, is part of a broader effort to write new rules for the U.S. housing market in the wake of the mortgage meltdown. The proposal for the first time would establish a basic national standard for loans, known as a "qualified mortgage."
As part of its deliberation, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is considering providing a full legal shield for high-quality loans ...
The Buyback Epidemic
Tom Keene had Fortuna Advisors' Greg Milano on Bloomberg Radio this morning to get some straight answers about the lack of business investment occurring against the backdrop of corporate balance sheets brimming with cash. "Why aren't the advisors to these companies telling them to reinvest all this cash?" Tom asked. Milano explains that you can "grow earnings per share" by simply having less shares to spread the profits among, so why not do that when there's so much uncertainty? No one will fault you.
Of course, this is perfectly true and a tragic squandering of resources and opportunity. Because in climates of certainty, buybacks are a terrible waste of shareholders' capital - in the feel-good atmosphere of certainty during 2007, US corporations spent half a trillion dollars buying their own shares back at all-time highs. We know how that looked a year later...
As to why the advisors are recommending buybacks over dividends, he explains that they get paid by their corporate clients to execute ongoing buybacks (presumably the shares are bought by the brokerage side of the advisor's firm - long live the bulge bracket). An increased dividend pays the advisor's firm zero dollars, hence the bias.
IMHO, they sound like low information voters, or rather, people who are highly influenced by propaganda via the media and people who don't look too deeply into issues. Also, the author admits that this comes from one poll, and the poll was not conducted for this purpose, so maybe this is not very reliable at all. But for what it's worth...
What's the foreign policy of independent voters?
I haven't come across a study on this topic specifically, but a national poll released by the Foreign Policy Initiative late last month offers some clues. Here's a quick look at the ways self-identified independents responded to the organization's questions:
Nearly 60 percent believe the United States is headed down the wrong track
49 percent say the economy is their top voting concern; only 5 percent say national security is
Roughly 18 percent identify terrorists as the biggest threat to American national security interests, making it the most popular choice among the group, and 43 percent think the threat of terrorism on American soil has increased since 9/11
48 percent cite Iran as the country that poses the most danger to American national security interests
Independents are pretty much evenly split on whether the United States should maintain its troop presence in Afghanistan to prevent the country from becoming a safe haven for terrorists or withdraw U.S. forces regardless of whether Afghan security forces are prepared to security the country; Republicans favor keeping troops in the country while Democrats favor withdrawal
Roughly 87 percent believe America is a force for good in the world and more than 90 percent say it is important for the United States to play a significant role in world affairs
Blog Posts and Tweets of Interest
CNN Exposes 'Villain' Chavez's Dastardly Plot to House the Poor
Obama's carrying out Dick Cheney's energy plan
Maltreatment of gender variant First Nations people
CIA Whistleblower John Kiriakou Inches From Jail So CIA Can Protect Torture Kingpin Thomas Fletcher
Commencement Address at American University, June 10, 1963
What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children--not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women--not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.
JFK on Seeking World Peace
Remember when progressive debate was about our values and not about a "progressive" candidate? Remember when progressive websites championed progressive values and didn't tell progressives to shut up about values so that "progressive" candidates can get elected?
Come to where the debate is not constrained by oaths of fealty to persons or parties.
Come to where the pie is served in a variety of flavors.
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." ~ Noam Chomsky
|