Skip to main content

Paul Krugman at The New York Times ponders in The Big Green Test—Conservatives and Climate Change whether Republicans who concede that climate change is happening from human-made causes are willing to support solutions if the Democrats propose them:

On Sunday Henry Paulson, the former Treasury secretary and a lifelong Republican, had an Op-Ed article about climate policy in The New York Times. In the article, he declared that man-made climate change is “the challenge of our time,” and called for a national tax on carbon emissions to encourage conservation and the adoption of green technologies. Considering the prevalence of climate denial within today’s G.O.P., and the absolute opposition to any kind of tax increase, this was a brave stand to take.

But not nearly brave enough. Emissions taxes are the Economics 101 solution to pollution problems; every economist I know would start cheering wildly if Congress voted in a clean, across-the-board carbon tax. But that isn’t going to happen in the foreseeable future. A carbon tax may be the best thing we could do, but we won’t actually do it.

Yet there are a number of second-best things (in the technical sense, as I’ll explain shortly) that we’re either doing already or might do soon. And the question for Mr. Paulson and other conservatives who consider themselves environmentalists is whether they’re willing to accept second-best answers, and in particular whether they’re willing to accept second-best answers implemented by the other party. If they aren’t, their supposed environmentalism is an empty gesture.

Rachel Maddow at The Washington Post writes Congress should make itself heard about U.S. troops in Iraq:
There is a school of thought that if only America’s war in Vietnam had been longer, bigger and bloodier, it might have ended differently. But what happened after we left makes that hard to believe. We held things together as long as we could, but unless we were going to become a permanent occupying force, and maybe even then, we were only delaying the inevitable. [...]

Two and a half years after U.S. troops left Iraq, as we have watched Fallujah, Mosul and a swath of additional territory fall to Sunni militants, we are in need of such a debate. That is why it has been maddening to the point of distraction to see the media seek out supposedly expert analysis from people who made bad predictions and false declarations about the Iraq invasion in 2003. Whether they are humbled by their own mistakes or not, it is our civic responsibility to ensure that a history of misstatements and misjudgments has consequences for a person’s credibility in our national discourse.

On Capitol Hill, it’s even worse. After meeting with President Obama last week, congressional leaders emerged in rare bipartisan agreement: All said the president would need no further authorization from Congress for new U.S. military intervention in Iraq. They may agree on that, but they’re wrong: Neither the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force nor the 2002 Iraq war authorization obviously apply in this instance.

You can find more pundit excerpts below the fold.

E.J. Dionne Jr. at The Washington Post writes A year of living negatively:

Is it any wonder that the GOP’s governing game plan for the rest of the year is to do as little as possible? Since the party can’t agree to anything that would pass muster with President Obama and the Democratic Senate, it will bet that Obama’s low poll ratings will be enough for Republicans to make gains in House races and, potentially, give them control of the Senate.

All of this is why 2014 will be the year of living negatively.

The prospect of months of attacks and more attacks reflects the depth of disillusionment with Washington. This is the best thing Republicans have going for them, but it might also provide Democrats with their clearest path to holding the Senate.

Peter Dreier at the Los Angeles Times writes How Obama can help rebuild the middle class:
In a December speech, the president recognized that workers need more than a minimum-wage hike to join the middle class; they also need unions. He observed that "laws establishing collective bargaining" had "contributed to rising standards of living for massive numbers of Americans."

The president should heed his own words and require companies with federal contracts to bargain with employees over fair wages and working conditions in return for a commitment not to strike. The executive order should state emphatically that taxpayers should not subsidize corporations that mistreat their workers. It should give preference in federal contracting to companies with track records of good labor relations.

Too many companies with federal contracts routinely violate labor laws, firing or demoting workers who try to unionize. These firms do so without suffering any consequences, such as withdrawal of their contracts or fines sufficiently large to deter such illegal activities.

David Sirota at In These Times writes Internet Privacy Concerns May Be Dividing the U.S. Government:
[I]t seems more than a bit hilarious that the U.S. government has just posted its latest annual announcement about “funding for programs that support Internet freedom.” In that dispatch, the U.S. State Department says it is looking to support “technologies that enhance the privacy and security of digital communications” and that are “less susceptible to intrusion or infection.”

Yes, you read that right: The same U.S. government that has been one of the most powerful forces undermining Internet security is now touting itself as a proponent of Internet privacy and security.

Of course, when you are done laughing about this, remember that there may also be other, less funny subtexts to this story.

You could, for instance, believe this is just the State Department attempting to conduct diplomatic damage control in the wake of the NSA-related revelations. That’s not a crazy theory—after all, in the last year, those revelations have strained U.S. relations with countries like Brazil, China and Germany.

Then again, it is quite possible this is not only about optics, but is also a glimpse of a genuine and long-simmering conflict inside the government—a conflict between the security apparatus and the diplomatic corps.

The Editors at The Nation are unequivocably Against Intervention in Iraq:
For thirty-four years—through the Iran-Iraq War (1980–88), the Gulf War (1990–91), the brutal US-led sanctions against Iraq (1990–2003) and the devastation that followed the US invasion in 2003—Iraq’s people have suffered unspeakably. Now the ISIS-led offensive is adding to that suffering. In seizing Falluja, Mosul and a string of other cities, ISIS has left devastation and mass executions in its wake, and it is aggressively provoking a revival of the Sunni-versus-Shiite civil war that left thousands dead between 2005 and 2008.

But American military involvement in the latest eruption in Iraq, reportedly under consideration by President Obama, would be the wrong response to that suffering, morally and strategically. Even if limited to airstrikes, whether from F-16s, cruise missiles or drones, military action by Washington would almost certainly kill civilians, especially since ISIS is concentrated in heavily populated cities. Worse, such action would inflame, not ease, Iraq’s sectarian divisions, allying Washington more closely with Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s monumentally corrupt and sectarian regime and against a seething Sunni population, and would send recruits streaming into ISIS’s camp.

Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers at Alternet write Ending Empire and the War Culture that Supports It are as Important as Confronting Wall Street:
The American public is sick and tired of war. It is a mistake for President Obama to decide that he can take military action in Iraq without congressional or UN approval.  He likely made this decision because he knows that if Congress were allowed to consider the issue, there would be a tidal wave of opposition from constituents in an election year. If Congress really functioned as a check and balance, it would be warning President Obama that a military attack without congressional approval is an impeachable offense; that the Constitution is clear – only Congress has the power to declare war and a military attack is an act of war. The silence of Congress will mean complicity in another illegal military action and will again reveal the bi-partisan nature of the war machine.

If unchecked, it seems the most likely scenario is that the President will build intelligence to justify further intervention and will then use drones to bomb Iraq. The President, with the support of groups like Human Rights Watch, acts as if unmanned bombing is a legal military attack even though his drone policy is being questioned by the UN, the legal community and the public. This will ultimately lead to another US war in Iraq. [...]

If we re-occupy Iraq, we can expect a long-term presence. The (currently) most likely next president, Hillary Clinton, has a track record as a hawk. She has already signaled to the military-industrial complex that she is open to more war. Clinton recently said she was even open to staying in Afghanistan beyond President Obama’s already-too-slow exit from that country.

Anna March at The Weeklings writes Pope Francis’ new clothes: Why his progressive image is white smoke and mirrors:
The image of Pope Francis is that he is a breath of fresh air, more progressive on social issues than his predecessor and a kinder, gentler pope.  But when the facts are examined, you see that he is none of these things. There is an enormous disconnect between who the pope really is in terms of his policies and his public relations image, as crafted by the Vatican’s PR man, previously with Fox News. [...]

While the pope transmits a populist vibe—particularly about the economy— he is an old-school conservative who, despite his great PR, maintains nearly all of the social policies of his predecessors and keeps up a hardline Vatican “cabinet.” He has done virtually nothing to change the policies of the church to match his more compassionate rhetoric.  People excuse the pope, claiming that he doesn’t have much power to make changes, but this simply isn’t true. Further, it is ludicrous to suggest that a man who denies comprehensive reproductive health care (including all forms of birth control including condoms and abortion) and comprehensive family planning is a man who cares about the poor of this world. The bigotry of homophobia and sexism cloaked in religion are still bigotry and sexism.

Heidi Moore at The Guardian writes Wall Street and Washington want you to believe the stock market isn't rigged. Guess what? It still is:
No wonder "investor confidence"—the mass delusion that the stock market is trustworthy—has been in short supply this year. Nothing has done more to decimate it than Michael Lewis's new book, Flash Boys, which focuses on the predatory behavior of high-frequency trading. Nobody—including Congress—cared much about the "high-tech predator stalking the equity markets" before Flash Boys hit the bestseller list, reaching beyond the walled garden of the financial industry into American dining rooms and Washington hearing chambers. It didn't leave all spring.

So last week, Washington featured a lot of handwringing, in two separate Congressional panels, about how to convince Average Joe investors that the stock market is their friend—even when it obviously isn't. And it's great that elected officials and Wall Street millionaires are talking about investor confidence. But they're not talking about what really matters: investor protection. Guaranteeing that everyone gets a fair shake. Un-rigging the stock market.

Yet in Congress, the worry is all about appearances.

The Editors at the Billings Gazette write Move forward on Billings non-discrimination law:
Twenty-one states ban discrimination based on sexual orientation. Sadly, Montana isn’t one of them. Our City Council has authority to right that omission within our city limits. With more than 105,000 residents, Billings is becoming a big city that will need to welcome diversity if it is to grow into a better city.

We again call on our 11 council members to make the right decision, and support a nondiscrimination ordinance that protects the rights of all, inclusive of lesbian, gay, transgender and bisexual persons.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The courage to acknowledge anthropogenic global (20+ / 0-)

    warming and try to do something about it is about equal to the amount of courage it took to acknowledge the polio epidemic of the late forties and early fifties and try to do something about it....which is to say, not much. What is required is not courage but rather less self interest and more concern for the children of the earth, and those yet unborn, by politicians and corporations.  

    •  It's hardly courageous. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tb mare, singe, Justanothernyer

      Paulson isn't running for any office and I'm sure is old enough not to care what misguided science deniers think of him.

      You will not be punished for your anger. You will be punished by your anger.

      by mstep on Mon Jun 23, 2014 at 05:32:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  How about courage to admit that Iran (6+ / 0-)

      took control of the Iraqi government last Friday ???

      General Qassim Suleimani did not replace Nuri al-Maliki. What he did was to confront al-Maliki in presence of staff and other Iraqi officials and lay down new patterns for governance. Specific actions were required. Authority for military affairs was changed. Civilian offices are effectively under martial law.

      Suleimani is the Major General in charge of Qods Force, Iran's directorate for foreign operations. He came in with a couple thousand QF troops and set up recruitment operations for a national Shi'ia militia (a Hizb Allah) and to reach the experienced veterans from the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s.

      Going forward, Iran's stock might go up a tick. They will be taking Iraq off our hands. Then an end to the war in Syria.

      The Salafi Caliphate ??? That's also soon to depart despite years of public support from the Republican Party.

      Saudis ??? S.A.B.? That one produced a big olde brick. Bibi and Likud? He birthed a 23-pound black cat with yellow eyes. Cat's doing nicely. Bibi not so much.

      Be careful what you bribe people for.

      Iran's General Suleimani Takes Charge in Baghdad

      "Stealing kids' lunch money makes them strong and independent." -- after Paul "False Prophet" Ryan

      by waterstreet2013 on Mon Jun 23, 2014 at 05:46:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Iran going to re-fight the Iran-Iraq war? (0+ / 0-)

        1980-88 with an inconclusive ending prompted in part by gas warfare. This could easily get out of hand.

        Saddam sent a warning to Khomeini in mid-1988, threatening to launch a full-scale invasion and attack Iranian cities with weapons of mass destruction. Shortly afterwards, Iraqi aircraft bombed the Iranian town of Oshnavieh with poison gas, immediately killing and wounding over 2,000 civilians. The fear of an all out chemical attack against Iran's largely unprotected civilian population weighed heavily on the Iranian leadership, and they realized that the international community had no intention of restraining Iraq.

        The lives of the civilian population of Iran were becoming very disrupted, with a third of the urban population evacuating major cities in fear of the seemingly imminent chemical war. Meanwhile, Iraqi conventional bombs and missiles continued to strike continuously, as the death toll among the population increased. Iran did reply with missile and air attacks as well, but not enough to deter the Iraqis from attacking.

        Under the threat of invasion, Commander-in-Chief Akbar Rafsanjani ordered the Iranians to retreat from Haj Omran, Kurdistan on 14 July.

        The Iranians did not publicly describe this as a retreat, instead called it a "temporary withdrawal".

        By July, Iran's army inside Iraq (except Kurdistan) had largely disintegrated.

        Iraq put up a massive display of captured Iranian weapons in Baghdad, claiming they "captured" 1,298 tanks, 5,550 recoil-less rifles, and thousands of other weapons.

        However, Iraq had taken heavy losses as well, and the battles were very costly.

        On July 1988, Iraqi airplanes dropped cyanide bombs on the Iranian Kurdish village of Zardan (as they had done four months earlier on their own Kurdish village of Halabja). Dozens of villages, and some larger towns, such as Marivan, were attacked with poison gas, resulting in even heavier civilian casualties.

        Source wiki

        Every human being has paid the earth to grow up. Most people don’t grow up. And you find out what it costs us to love and to lose, to dare and to fail. And maybe even more, to succeed. What it costs, in truth.—Maya Angelou

        by TerryDarc on Mon Jun 23, 2014 at 11:35:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Blowback against the tea insanity? (9+ / 0-)

    Henry Paulson speaking truth to one of the issues that any member of the Republican cult is not permitted believe in; human influenced climate change? One of the key members of the corporate wing of the party talking with sanity? Perhaps a real sign that they've realized that it's time to take back the asylum from the inmates.

    "Inequality is the root of social evil." ― Pope Francis

    by GoodGod on Mon Jun 23, 2014 at 05:07:56 AM PDT

  •  The Republican's soul... (11+ / 0-)

    This paragraph from Dionne's piece caught my eye:

    The Republican congressional leadership thus continues to be caught between an aspiration to appeal to middle-ground voters and a fear, reinforced by Eric Cantor’s recent loss, that efforts to do so will be punished by the party’s right, which plays an outsize role in low-turnout primaries. On policy — notably on immigration — this often means that the tea party’s view takes precedence over majority opinion among Republicans.
    so they're feeling the squeeze, eh?  No sympathy here.

    The final paragraph is priceless:

    So the next stop in the battle for the Republican soul could see either a victory that emboldens the tea party — or a defeat that will be blamed on Democrats and infuriate the movement.

    As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them. John F. Kennedy

    by JaxDem on Mon Jun 23, 2014 at 05:08:15 AM PDT

  •  Re:Iraq (6+ / 0-)

    Jim Muir, the BBC correspondent in Irbil, reports:

    The question is no longer whether Iraq is splitting up - it is. The question is whether that process can somehow be reversed. The odds are not good.

    "The opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.”" -- Paul Dirac

    by Rikon Snow on Mon Jun 23, 2014 at 05:11:47 AM PDT

    •  More of the Big Stupid. (7+ / 0-)

      By early fall General Suleimani will have together a usable force with 500,000+ militiamen organized as a Hizb Allah, 200,000+ Shi'ia from the Iraqi army, and 50m000 Qods Force regulars.

      750,000 men. And tanks.

      The bandits running around killing Shi'ia and Christians and Ba'hai number 8,000 to 15,000.

      That makes it 750,000 to 15,000. 60:1. And tanks.

      The NeoCon / AEI / WSJ Republican prescription is this shxt:

      "A plan to save Iraq from ISIS and Iran" from Jack Keane and Danielle Pletka (an Australian) writing for American Enterprise Institute in The Wall Street Journal on June 17, 2014:
      ...only the United States can provide the necessary military assistance for Baghdad to beat back our shared enemy.

      Setting aside for the moment the question of whether this administration has the will to intervene again in Iraq, here are the components of a reasonable military package that can make a difference:

      • Intelligence architecture. Iraq's intel screens went blank after the U.S. military pulled out in 2011. Washington needs to restore Baghdad's ability to access national, regional and local intelligence sources, enabling the Iraqi military to gain vital situational awareness.

      • Planners and advisers. The Iraqi military needs planners to assist with the defense of Baghdad and the eventual counter-offensive to regain lost territory, as well as advisers down to division level where units are still viable.

      • Counterterrorism. Special operations forces should be employed clandestinely to attack high value ISIS targets and leaders in Iraq and Syria.

      • Air power. Air power alone cannot win a war, but it can significantly diminish enemy forces and, when used in coordination with ground forces, can exponentially increase the odds of success.

      More of the Big Stupid. None of that gets by the bxllshxt meter. Not one part of it.

      They borrowed from the prep work leading in to Operation Iraqi Freedom. And none of it applies here.

      Come fall General Suleimani is going to exterminate the SOBs. Possibly every single one of them.

      "Stealing kids' lunch money makes them strong and independent." -- after Paul "False Prophet" Ryan

      by waterstreet2013 on Mon Jun 23, 2014 at 05:59:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  So NOW Maddow is a believer in the War Powers Act? (2+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    on the cusp, Justanothernyer
    Hidden by:
    Beyond the 60-day window afforded by the War Powers Act, Obama will need overt congressional authorization for additional troops to protect the U.S. Embassy and U.S. personnel, for the several hundred military “advisers” he has just announced, for air strikes by manned or unmanned planes or for any further military intervention.
    During Obama's Libyan war she breezily dismissed any concern over Obama's flagrant violation of the War Powers Act's 60-day window.   Has she repented her error?  I hope so. Her shilling for the Libyan war was utterly disgraceful.
  •  Yo, Krugman (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    singe, JaxDem, skillet, I love OCD, gffish, SoCalSal

    So what if Paulson's analogy isn't quite correct, he's a Republican admitting we have a climate problem. Baby steps.

  •  Pope Francis is no Saint? (13+ / 0-)

    Anna March's article is overly harsh. Would anyone really expect a full transformation of the Catholic church in one year? And has his influence been just baby steps; not at all. His populous message is exactly what the world needs at this moment in time and could be an important factor in slowing (even reversing) the trend towards an Oligarchy in America.

    I currently use a quote from Pope Francis here on DK, even though I'm an atheist. I look to the positives this man may bring to the table, and will overlook the warts for now. Anecdotally, I have many Republican friends (Catholic and non-Catholic) that I'm truly happy to hear are embracing the progressive portion of his message, rather than devolving further in response to the siren call of the Ayn Rand conservatives.

    "Inequality is the root of social evil." ― Pope Francis

    by GoodGod on Mon Jun 23, 2014 at 05:42:08 AM PDT

    •  Yeah, I have to agree. (10+ / 0-)

      There is justifiable anger towards the Catholic Church for what's happened and I wouldn't suggest ignoring those things -- but we also ought not make an enemy of someone who could be a friend. You work with people where you can on the things that matter where they are.

    •  I agree. It came across as purity trolling. (5+ / 0-)

      The Pope oversees a sprawling and ancient bureaucracy that ministers to over a billion people in hundreds of nations. The idea that any kind of change would come this quickly is simply childish.

      Please do not be alarmed. We are about to engage... the nozzle.

      by Terrapin on Mon Jun 23, 2014 at 06:41:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Anna March's article was excellent (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BPARTR, Fishtroller01, rsmpdx

      well researched and accurate.

      From extensive research on this matter, I can tell you that she has captured exactly the duplicity that is being foisted on the world by the vatican in terms of a vigorous public relations campaign

      I thank MB for bringing this excellent article to our attention; I appreciate it very much.

      It is a huge mistake to assume that Francis' words mean the same as your words do; in EVERY instance when one of the 'liberal' statements was made, the Vatican issued a statement that no dogma or tradition or practice was going to be changed.

      He is not a friend, he is a master of disguises.  You need to read his history and focus on WHAT HE HAS DONE AND IS DOING, rather than what is being presented to the world press by professionals whose business it is to push propaganda.

      The meme that "change comes slowly" in the rcxch is one of its best propaganda pieces to date.  The papacy is the oldest fuctional absolute monarchy in the world and there is a lot that the pope can do by fiat, and for the rest, he can call a council to get the rest done.  Just as John 23 did.

      Please stop being suckered in by this propaganda and read the facts.  Not the warm fuzzy words that amount to absolutely nothing.

      Addressed to Pope Francis: "Don't tell me what you me what you DO ........and I will tell you what you believe." (~Meteor Blades)

      by SeaTurtle on Mon Jun 23, 2014 at 07:05:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It is amazing that people who call themselves (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        democrats/progressives,( you know, the protectors of women's rights, gay rights and against corruption and lies,) can stand in the light of fact and evidence about the RCC, the Vatican and this Pope and keep their eyes wide shut!

    •  An atheist with the name "GoodGod"? (0+ / 0-)

      And who supports the Pope?  Hmmmm...

  •  There is a very old saying: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gffish, Fishtroller01

    "The more things change, the more they remain the same"

    Christians read Christ saying:  "MY KINGDOM IS NOT OF THIS WORLD."

    The Roman Religion states, as part of its "infallible dogma":
    The Papacy is a State, entitled to the total ownership of all property on earth, and the subservience of all mankind.  In this State, it is the full right of the Roman Religion to offer human sacrifice - i.e., an Auto da Fe - by burning people at the stake who disagree with ANY ONE SINGLE WORD SPOKEN BY THE POPE, ON ANY SUBJECT HE, HIMSELF, DECLARES TO BE "MATTER OF FAITH AND MORALS".

    Additionally, the Roman Religion claims to have the right to appoint ANY AND ALL other governments, Emperors, Kings,; and dissolve governments and depose appointees at will.

    Vide:  Unam Sanctam, the DOGMATIC STATEMENT relating to the necessity for all human beings to be "subject to the Roman Pontiff".  
    Vide:  Pope Masta-Ferrai (alias Pius IX, the Pope who had himself- and all others in that Office before and after - declared "infallible" in the first place) and his Syllabus of Errors, written in the 19th Century, as the Roman Religion tried to destroy America by siding with the treasonous Confederacy during the Civil War; and worked in every way possible to prevent the Unification of Italy, the dissolution of the Papal States, and the spread of secular government in Europe.  
    Vide:  John Cornwell, Hitler's Pope, in which you will read just how Pope Eugenio Pacelli (alias Pius XII) is responsible for the slaughter of 6 Million Jews, and another 6 Million "undesirables", as defined by Pacelli, by personally selecting Adolph Hitler to be German Chancellor before World War 2.

    Now, anyone's right to BELIEVE that the current Pope, Jorge Bergoglio (alias Francis I), intends to, or is going to, actually "change" any of this, is, of course, guaranteed that right to BELIEF by the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.  And such BELIEF is not at issue here.  After all, superstitious ignorance, and arrogantly stubborn stupidity, is a basic and essential part of ALL the Western religions that stem from Romanism.

    But, BELIEF in PR, spin doctoring, and such like never arrives at UNDERSTANDING of the simple realities behind the smoke and mirrors.

  •  Here's John Oliver's segment... (0+ / 0-)

    from last night's show about the lack of regulation of dietary supplements, and why that is.

    Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) does not come off looking good here.

  •  Empire/War Culture provides the destruction... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slangist, Eric Nelson make a great deal of upward distribution of income possible. So yeah: cannot battle either in isolation.

    Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle. --Martin Luther King Jr.

    by Egalitare on Mon Jun 23, 2014 at 08:44:49 AM PDT

  •  old news (0+ / 0-)

    this here stock market racket been going on a long time.

    “The vast majority of stock operations are pure gambling transactions. One man agrees to deliver, at some future time, property which he has not got, to another man who does not care to own it.” — Charles Francis Adams, Jr., ‘A Chapter of Erie’ (1869)

    "Scientists have proven that food stamp cuts starve and kill people while tax increases on the wealthy do not." - VerySeriousPeople™ @TheXclass

    by slangist on Mon Jun 23, 2014 at 09:13:29 AM PDT

  •  Yes, Rachel Maddow has exposed the GOP.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    .. for first complaining that the President isn't "taking action", yet republicans, who last month were accusing of "executive overreach" are now to chickenshit to take responsiblitiy for any concrete decisions on Iraq, insisting that the President has all the authority needed to make whatever decision.
    So the two faced warmongers can yell and scream from the sidelines (John McCain/Graham et al.) while pretending their hands are tied.

    "The power to use force lies very specifically in the hands of congress" - Rachel Maddow
    Congress should make itself heard about U.S. troops in Iraq
    Congress knew that it was in its power to say no, and it said no. There would be no second coming of America’s war in Vietnam.
    ..republicans are pulling this crap now.    (short ad - sorry)
    Link to Rachel Maddow:
    After meeting with President Obama last week, congressional leaders emerged in rare bipartisan agreement: All said the president would need no further authorization from Congress for new U.S. military intervention in Iraq. They may agree on that, but they’re wrong: Neither the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force nor the 2002 Iraq war authorization obviously apply in this instance.
    Whether we believe the Founding Fathers were right or not to give the responsibility for war and peace to the clamorous Congress, they did. It is an irresponsible constitutional cop-out to pretend they didn’t.
    So when it comes right down to it, the republicans are blowhards pandering Bill Kristol war talk but are too scared to take the reins in a very real and complex situation requiring study, information, and making difficult decisions in a war(s) that that they themselves are most largely responsible for starting with exactly the same kind of dishonest dealings that continue to this day - only maybe with even worse "ideas" - that they refuse to take responsibility for either way.

    'republican neo-cons = Chicken hawk cowards' would have us back at war yet won't even sign their names authorizing it.

     Dems could use this: 'republicans = chickenhawk cop-outs';  all hat no cattle etc.

    Thx MB

    (not that I'm advocating war, just the exposure of the GOP neo-con hypocrisy)

    •  "Share this quote" - Okay I will :) (0+ / 0-)

      How Obama can help rebuild the middle class - By Peter Dreier  

      “The president should give workers for Federal contracts a seat at the table so they can collectively bargain to raise their living standard

      Today, America faces another crisis — the widening gap between the rich and everyone else — that threatens our way of life. The richest 1% of Americans have a net worth 288 times greater than the median household, a record. Growing inequality is shrinking the middle class and limiting upward mobility.
      - Do it
      Is it any wonder that the GOP’s governing game plan for the rest of the year is to do as little as possible? - E.J. Dionne
      E.J. Dionne is correct; republicans are scared ofdoing anything forfear of being primaried, and futher angering the RWNJ teabags,
      The Republican congressional leadership thus continues to be caught between an aspiration to appeal to middle-ground voters and a fear, reinforced by Eric Cantor’s recent loss, that efforts to do so will be punished by the party’s right, which plays an outsize role in low-turnout primaries. On policy — notably on immigration — this often means that the tea party’s view takes precedence over majority opinion among Republicans.
      ..but I have to push back a tiny bit.
      The republicans also are afraid to do anything because if they tout and work on their true agenda, it's not only the teabags they turn off (as not being fringe enough), their policies alienate a strong majority of all most all working people in most age groups and demographically appeals to only a tiny minority of 1%ers - iow's their rich corporate/Wall street donor types

      Thx MB

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site