Author: chasdarwin

Active in Americans United, Center For Inquiry, and ACLU

8 things to know about the Iraq crisis

chasdarwinLeave a comment

Source: moveon.org

Author: Anna Galland

Emphasis Mine

(N.B.: The current crisis in Iraq is a not too gentle reminder of the importance of separating church and state – The aim of ISIS is to create an Islamic state across Sunni areas of Iraq and in Syria – http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/12/world/meast/who-is-the-isis/)

U.S. bombing strikes are now well under way in Iraq in a military mission that President Obama said could go on for months.1 U.S. military planes have also been delivering vital humanitarian assistance to civilians fleeing the violence, including Yazidis who were forced onto Iraq’s Mount Sinjar by ISIS militants laying siege on the mountain.2

MoveOn members across the country have weighed in with thoughts on what’s happening in Iraq. There are varying opinions on different aspects of this crisis, but there are some common threads. Our hearts break for the people of Iraq who are living through this conflict. We know there are no simple solutions. And we’re united in our opposition to America sliding down the slippery slope to another war in Iraq.

As we all try to make sense of the events that are unfolding, here are eight things that you should know about the Iraq crisis.

Please read on and then share the list on Facebook, Twitter, or by emailing your friends. It’s vital that we engage the country in a conversation about the U.S. role in Iraq.

8 Things to Know about the Iraq Crisis

1. Right-wing war hawks are pushing for another full-blown war in Iraq.

Senator John McCain, Senator Lindsey Graham, other Republicans in Congress, and right-wing figures—who blindly led America into invading and occupying Iraq—are now demanding more military action that could drag us back into full-scale war in the region.3,4,5

2. The slippery slope is real.

Mission creep can too easily occur—along with unintended consequences and new problems created by the use of U.S. military force.6,7 History shows us that many big wars start out looking small, including the Korean War and the Vietnam War.8 And we are now dealing with a prime example of unintended consequences: Bush’s war of choice and military occupation of Iraq set the stage for Iraq’s troubles today, including the rise of ISIS.9,10,11,12

3. Voters elected President Obama to end the Iraq war that George W. Bush recklessly started.

President Obama’s opposition to the Iraq war before it began and his pledge to end it—as part of the contrast between him and those who pushed for war—were key to his success in both the Democratic primary election and the general election in 2008.13 He continues to pledge that he “will not allow the United States to be dragged into fighting another war in Iraq.”14,15

4. Ultimately, Iraq’s problems can be solved only by an Iraqi-led political solution.

President Obama has said that there is no military solution to the crisis in Iraq and that there can only be “an Iraqi solution.”16 As this explainer lays out:

“ISIS isn’t just a terrorist group rampaging through Iraq (though they definitely are that). It’s in many ways an expression of the Sunni Muslim minority’s anger at the Shia-dominated government. . . Some Sunni grievances get to more fundamental issues within the Iraqi state itself, beyond what even a better government could easily fix.”17

These are not problems that more U.S. bombings can solve. That’s why experts are saying that “any lasting solution has to be regional in nature and must address the political interests of all the major factions in an equitable and inclusive manner.”18

5. Members of Congress, including Democratic lawmakers, are insisting that the president come to Congress for authorization.

MoveOn members have long opposed endless war in Iraq. Earlier this summer, before the current bombing strikes began, MoveOn members made more than 15,000 calls to lawmakers, urging them to oppose U.S. military intervention in Iraq. In July, the House of Representatives listened to them and the rest of the American people to require, by a bipartisan vote of 370-40, the president to seek congressional authorization before deploying or maintaining a sustained combat role in Iraq.19 Congress should continue to assert its authority under the Constitution to authorize and oversee U.S. commitments to open-ended war overseas.

6. The Middle East is a complicated place where U.S. military intervention has a troubling track record.

The Middle East has many armed actors whose motivations often compete with each other and conflict with American values, and U.S. military intervention there has a track record of often making things worse.20,21 One tragic absurdity of this moment is that the U.S. military is now using U.S. equipment to bomb U.S. weapons wielded by enemies the U.S. didn’t intend to arm against the U.S. and U.S. allies.22 That’s a good reason to be concerned about the U.S. arming rebels in nearby Syria, which experts say wouldn’t have stopped the rise of ISIS anyway.23 Experts further warn that U.S. military force in the region only tends to create more problems, including the risk of terrorist retaliation.24

7. Military action could lead to even more innocent civilians getting caught in the crossfire and suffering.

The Iraq war that Bush started didn’t just cost America the lives of nearly 4,500 service members, plus $2 trillion according to modest estimates.25,26,27 Approximately 500,000 Iraqi civilians also died in the armed conflict—possibly more.28 In the current conflict, ISIS militants are persecuting various minority populations of Iraq, such as the Yazidis who had fled to Mount Sinjar.29 Escalating military action, including drone strikes, risks catching more civilians in the crossfire.30

8. Opposing endless war isn’t the same as being an isolationist. The Iraq crisis, including the humanitarian disaster, demands an international, diplomatic response.

We have options to support the people of Iraq, as well as tackle this crisis in a way that reflects America’s best interests and 21st century realities. For one, the U.S. can work through the United Nations and other multilateral organizations to support a major global diplomatic initiative.31 In the face of the current crisis, the Friends Committee on National Legislation also recommends a number of steps instead of U.S. bombings, such as working with other nations through the United Nations to organize humanitarian evacuations of stranded and trapped civilians, pressing for and upholding an arms embargo in Iraq and Syria, engaging with the UN to reinvigorate efforts for a lasting political solution for Iraq and Syria, and increasing humanitarian aid.32,33

It’s critically important that we engage the nation in conversation and debate to avoid endless war in Iraq. Can you share this “8 Things to Know about the Iraq Crisis” list with your family and friends? Use the links at the top and bottom of this page. Sources:1. “Iraq Airstrikes May Continue for Months, Obama Says,” The New York Times, August 9, 2014

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/world/middleeast/iraq.html

2. “Despite U.S. Claims, Yazidis Say Crisis Is Not Over,” The New York Times, August 14, 2014

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/15/world/middleeast/iraq-yazidis-obama-sinjar-crisis.html

3. “Republicans Want More US Military Action in Iraq,” Military.com, August 8, 2014

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/08/08/republicans-want-more-us-military-action-in-iraq.html

4. “Neocons to Obama: No half-measures,” Politico, August 8, 2014

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/conservatives-obama-iraq-airstrikes-109861.html

5. “Where Are The Media’s Iraq War Boosters 10 Years Later?,” Media Matters, March 19, 2013

http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/03/19/where-are-the-medias-iraq-war-boosters-10-years/193117

6. “Intentions and Opposite Results in Iraq,” The New York Times, December 4, 2008

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/05/books/05book.html

7. “The Slippery Slope of U.S. Intervention,” Foreign Policy, August 11, 2014

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/08/11/the_slippery_slope_of_us_intervention_iraq_islamic_state_humanitarian_intervention

8. “Can Obama avoid mission creep in Iraq?,” CNN, June 19, 2014

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/19/opinion/zelizer-mission-creep/

9. “U.S. Actions in Iraq Fueled Rise of a Rebel,” The New York Times, August 10, 2014

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/11/world/middleeast/us-actions-in-iraq-fueled-rise-of-a-rebel.html

10. “Fareed Zakaria: Who lost Iraq? The Iraqis did, with an assist from George W. Bush,” Washington Post, June 12, 2014

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-who-lost-iraq-the-iraqis-did-with-an-assist-from-george-w-bush/2014/06/12/35c5a418-f25c-11e3-914c-1fbd0614e2d4_story.html

11. “Iraq’s crisis: Don’t forget the 2003 U.S. invasion,” Washington Post, June 16, 2014

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/06/16/iraqs-crisis-dont-forget-the-2003-u-s-invasion/

12. “ISIS Atrocities in Iraq Represent the Catastrophic Failure of Bush Doctrine and Neoconservative Foreign Policy,” Huffington Post, August 8, 2014

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/isis-atrocities-in-iraq-r_b_5661346.html

13. “Five Reasons Why Obama Won the ’08 Election,” About News, accessed August 13, 2014

http://usliberals.about.com/od/obamavsmccainin08/a/ObamaWin_4.htm

14. “Obama: US won’t get dragged into war,” The Hill, June 13, 2014

http://thehill.com/policy/international/209305-obama-insists-us-wont-get-dragged-back-into-iraq

15. “Obama, With Reluctance, Returns to Action in Iraq,” The New York Times, August 7, 2014

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/08/world/middleeast/a-return-to-action.html

16. “Obama: ‘There Is No American Military Solution To The Larger Crisis In Iraq’,” Huffington Post, August 11, 2014

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/11/obama-iraq_n_5669474.html

17. “The chaos in Baghdad explains why Obama isn’t trying to destroy ISIS,” Vox, August 10, 2014

http://www.vox.com/2014/8/9/5983249/iraq-obama-isis-strategy

18. “Diplomacy Not More Arms Needed in Iraq and Syria,” Win Without War, June 19, 2014

http://winwithoutwar.org/cortright-iraq/

19. “House Votes For Checks On Obama’s Iraq War Powers,” Huffington Post, July 25, 2014

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/25/house-iraq-resolution_n_5621060.html

20. “The Middle East Friendship Chart,” Slate, July 17, 2014

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2014/07/17/the_middle_east_friendship_chart.html

21. “Failed Interventions and What They Teach,” Speech by Former Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr., USFS (Ret.), October 21, 2010

http://chasfreeman.net/failed-interventions-and-what-they-teach/

22. “The US bombing its own guns perfectly sums up America’s total failure in Iraq,” Vox, August 8, 2014

http://www.vox.com/2014/8/8/5982501/the-us-is-now-bombing-its-own-military-equipment-in-iraq

23. “Why arming Syria’s rebels wouldn’t have stopped ISIS,” Vox, August 13, 2014

http://www.vox.com/2014/8/13/5995793/arming-rebels-isis-political-science

24. “Experts Warn of Terrorism Blowback From Iraq Air Strikes,” Time Magazine, August 10, 2014

http://time.com/3096348/isis-iraq-barack-obama-blowback/

25. “Casualties in Iraq,” Antiwar.com, accessed August 13, 2014

http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/

26. “Iraq war costs U.S. more than $2 trillion: study,” Reuters, March 14, 2013

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/14/us-iraq-war-anniversary-idUSBRE92D0PG20130314

27. “The Iraq War Could Cost More Than $6 Trillion,” Business Insider, March 14, 2013

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-the-iraq-war-cost-2-trillion-2013-3

28. “Iraq Death Toll Reaches 500,000 Since Start Of U.S.-Led Invasion, New Study Says,” Huffington Post, October 15, 2013

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/15/iraq-death-toll_n_4102855.html

29. “Islamic State Killed 500 Yazidis, Buried Some Victims Alive,” Huffington Post, August 10, 2014

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/10/yazidis-islamic-state-massacre_n_5665655.html

30. “The Case Against Drone Strikes on People Who Only ‘Act’ Like Terrorists,” The Atlantic, August 19, 2013

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/08/the-case-against-drone-strikes-on-people-who-only-act-like-terrorists/278744/

31. “Diplomacy Not More Arms Needed in Iraq and Syria,” Win Without War, June 19, 2014

http://winwithoutwar.org/cortright-iraq/

32. “Five Ways the U.S. Can Help Stop the Killing in Iraq,” Friends Committee on National Legislation, accessed August 13, 2014

http://fcnl.org/issues/iraq/crisis_in_iraq/

33. “Responding to the Crisis in Iraq — Without Bombs,” Friends Committee on National Legislation, August 13, 2014

http://fcnl.org/issues/iraq/responding_to_the_crisis_in_iraq_without_bombs/

Ohio Strippers Take Topless Protest to Church That Harassed Them as ‘Whores, Tramps’ for Nine Years

A group of topless dancers have turned the tables on a fundamentalist church that has picketed their club for years.

chasdarwinLeave a comment

strippersSource: Raw Story via AlterNet

Author: David Edwards

 A group of topless dancers in Ohio on Sunday turned the tables on a fundamentalist church that has picketed their club for almost nine years.

According to the  Coshocton Tribune, at least six bare-breasted women, employees and friends of the Foxhole North club marched outside the New Beginnings Ministries church in Warsaw.

Club owner Thomas George said that church members have come to his club every weekend for nine years to harass employees and patrons.

“This is what’s going on in the name of Jesus,” one of the women at the demonstrations points out. “Is anybody else disgusted by this?“They surround people who are trying to come into my club, and try to shame them into not coming,” George explains in a video posted on the  Foxhole’s Facebook page. “They call the girls whores, tramps.”

The topless protesters have vowed to return every weekend until the church finds a new target.

The Tribune reported that Pastor Bill Dunfee hired an off-duty deputy to guard the church.

Even though the demonstration turned out to be peaceful, Dunfee said he would hire a deputy next weekend if the protesters return.

“I hope [George] will realize that the Foxhole has no business in this community,”  Dunfee told WBNS. “”I take very seriously the responsibility as a pastor to see to it that the gospel of Christ is lifted up, that Christ himself is lifted up, and that evil is confronted.”

Emphasis Mine

See:http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/ohio-strippers-take-topless-protest-church?akid=12118.123424.kjiWIF&rd=1&src=newsletter1015210&t=13ft

Fitzgerald releases program

chasdarwinLeave a comment

From  Rick Nagin

Last night before a packed house at the monthly delegates’ meeting of the North Shore AFL-CIO Federation of Labor, Ed Fitzgerald, Democratic candidate for Ohio Governor calmly, simply and eloquently presented his five point working class program for our state.  Despite the vicious, massively funded campaign  of the Republicans and the scandal-mongering of some of the corporate media, Fitzgerald stood tall and steadfast as he showed what is really at stake in this election and the stark difference between his program and the the anti-labor, anti-civil rights, anti-woman, anti-local government, anti-public education policies of incumbent Gov. John Kasich.  He also showed that even after two weeks of scandal-mongering, the latest polls show the race continues to be close with Fitzgerald trailing by only six points.  The grassroots efforts of Labor 2014 and the Democratic Party have only just begun.  There are one million more registered Democrats than Republicans in Ohio.  This means that if we reach voters with Fitzgerald’s program and explain the difference between him and Kasich, Fitzgerald will win. We must do everything possible to make this happen and reject the shameful readiness of some to surrender and throw in the towel  even before the fight has begun.  Defeating Kasich will be a huge blow to right wing extremism in Ohio and nationally.  Below is Ed Fitzgerald’s program.  Please make sure  this gets into the hands of everyone you can reach.
In Solidarity,
Rick Nagin
Five major differences between Ed Fitzgerald and John Kasich
1.  Ed is for public education.  That includes restoring funding, respecting teachers, reducing standardized testing and supporting early and higher education.
     – Kasich slashed the public education budget and promotes poor-performing, scandal-ridden, for-profit charter schools.
2.  Ed is for workers’ rights, including the right to bargain and a higher minimum wage.
     – Kasich pushed for passage of SB 5 and, make no mistake, will push for passage of right-to-work legislation.
3.  Ed is for civil rights, including women’s rights, marriage equality and voting rights.
     – Kasich restricted women’s rights, opposes marriage equality and suppressed voting rights.
4.  Ed supports local communities including local government funding, public safety – and safe drinking water.
     – Kasich slashed local government funding, cut public safety, cut heroin treatment and sold out to the industry on water safety.
5.  Ed wants an economy that works for all of us, especially the middle class which is suffering under Kasich.
      – Kasich consistently supports policies that benefit the wealthy while stealing money from the middle class to pay for tax giveaways to the rich. 

Conservatives Confuse Science For Religion, And Vice Versa

chasdarwinLeave a comment

Source: National Memo

Author: Gene Lyons

Recently a friend posted a video on Facebook that he asserted would demolish the Godless theory of evolution. On it, a fellow sitting in a pickup and wearing a backward baseball cap smugly explained that Darwinian evolution contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics, a fundamental principle of physics.

This hoary chestnut has long been a favorite of creationist apologetics — appearing to use scientific evidence to support a theological conclusion. Never mind that the fellow’s science was as backward as his baseball cap. The Second Law states almost the opposite of his description. Indeed, if it said what creationists claim, not only evolution but life itself would be impossible.

But what struck me as equally significant was the implied attitude toward scientists. Because if what the fellow claimed was even halfway right, it could only mean that every physics professor in every university in the world was part of a vast conspiracy of silence against God.

And why would they do that? I suppose for the same reason that climate scientists worldwide all but unanimously warn that increased levels of carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere are contributing to a potentially catastrophic warming of the planet.

No less an authority than Sarah Palin once characterized them as employing “doomsday scare tactics pushed by an environmental priesthood that capitalizes on the public’s worry and makes them feel that owning an SUV is a ‘sin’ against the planet.”

The ex-governor’s use of religious metaphor is no accident. To millions of Americans calling themselves “conservatives,” at least for partisan purposes, science is religion, and religion science. Hardly anybody acts on this stuff in real life. People don’t quiz their veterinarian about Darwin.

However, when it comes to climate science, people who wouldn’t dream of diagnosing the family cat feel comfortable hearing the entire worldwide scientific community described as engaged in a gigantic hoax. Supposedly for the sake of one-world government or some similar absurdity.

Clearly, such people simply don’t know what scientific inquiry consists of, how hypotheses are tested, theories arrived at, and consensus achieved — all the things about science that make large scale conspiracies impossible.

Individual scientists are certainly as prone to temptation as anybody else. However, a single instance of serious fraud — misrepresenting experiments, faking data — is fatal to a career. The higher the profile, the more dramatic the fall.

So what happens when ideologically motivated pundits single out scientists for abuse? We may be about to learn from the lawsuit filed by renowned climatologist Michael Mann against the National Review. Do defamation laws protect even famous scientists from politically motivated smears against their professional integrity and private character?

Is calling an internationally known scientist “intellectually bogus,” a “fraud” and “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science,” as National Review blogger Mark Steyn did, a First Amendment-protected opinion? Or is it libelous, a provably false allegation published with reckless disregard for the truth and the malicious purpose of harming Mann’s reputation?

“[I]nstead of molesting children,” Steyn’s post explained, Mann “has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science.” Does it need to be added that National Review provided no evidence of same? Mann asked for a retraction and apology. Receiving none, he sued.

The director of Penn State’s climatology program — hence the Sandusky reference — Mann drew the ire of climate change deniers as the inventor of the “hockey stick graph.” First published in Nature, it combined so-called “proxy records” — tree ring studies, ice core and corals — of temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere over the past 1,000 years with contemporary thermometer records.

It showed the climate trending irregularly cooler until the Industrial Revolution, when temperatures trended sharply upward — the blade of the metaphorical hockey stick. Since then, numerous studies based on different data have drawn the same conclusion: Earth’s climate is warming rapidly, with potentially catastrophic consequences.

Mann’s misfortune, however, was getting caught up in the largely phony “Climategate” controversy. Admiring emails referencing “Mike’s trick” of sophisticated statistical analysis were made to appear sinister. Eight investigations by everybody from Penn State’s science faculty to the British parliament have vindicated Mann’s work in every respect.

However, Mann’s not a shy fellow. His book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, constitutes not only a lucid explanation of his own work, but a vigorous defense of climate science against industry-funded denialists. In a recent pleading filed in the D.C. Court of Appeals, National Review argues that this makes him a public figure and fair game for abuse.

In a separate article editor Rich Lowry alibied that the offending post was merely “a loose and colorful expression of opinion that did not allege any specific act of fraud in the literal sense.”

In short, accusing a respected scientist of faking data and comparing him to a child molester was just a colorful way of saying they disagree with his conclusions.

Welcome to Washington, professor.

Emphasis Mine

See: http://www.nationalmemo.com/conservatives-confuse-science-religion-vice-versa/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=NM_Master_List&utm_campaign=Daily%20Newsletter%20-%20August%2014%202014

The Hobby Lobby Errors, Part 4, An Exception Becomes Constitutional Religious Doctrine

chasdarwinLeave a comment

Source: The Pen

Where we last left our wayward Supreme Court opinion writer, Alito
was using the Dictionary Act (a law) to justify a de facto
constitutional amendment (declaring all corporations to have the
rights of real people).

In response we heard from a number of right wing operatives,
protesting, “No, no, no, this is just about interpreting one law (the
so-called Religious Freedom Protection Act or RFPA), not about laying
down a broader constitutional doctrine.”

Horseradish . . . or maybe it’s bull radish.

On page 18 of the decision, Alito clearly embraces with both arms the
principle of “protecting the free-exercise (of religion) rights of
corporations.” Whoa, horsey. Stop it right there.

Corporations have NO such rights. What Alito has done here is argue
his case using his preordained conclusion as the sole evidence.
Anyone who thinks that Alito will not cite HIMSELF in his next
opinion, saying “In Hobby Lobby we found the corporations have this
constitutional right, and to be consistent with that we must now also
. . . ,” is a fool. We already told you the current rogue 5 member
majority is contriving a multi-decision chain of precedents here.

What the RFPA in fact does is create an exemption for an “eligible
organization” DEFINED as one that “holds itself out as a religious
organization,” which is to say one with that primary objective. Did
everyone just catch that fact that the RFPA goes out of its way to
articulate a much more LIMITED definition of “organization” than all
business entities of any kind?

As we pointed out last time, Alito’s bogus Dictionary Act argument
was that anytime “person” is used it must also include all manner of
corporations, even to the point of how to read the Constitution. His
argument is that all business entities are constitutionally equivalent

not only with each other, but with real people as well.

So what Alito has done here is blatantly disregard the limited
definition Congress intended, for dedicated religious organizations,
which Hobby Lobby clearly is not, and rule that the exemption must
also now extend more broadly to other business organizations not so
narrowly defined, if only their owners claim to have their own
personal religious beliefs. In short, either you’re a church or else
you are not.

To put it another way, even if you assume that Alito’s definitional
argument had any constitutional validity at all, the definition of
“eligible organization” in the Religious Freedom Protection Act
SUPERSEDES the broader definition in the Dictionary Act. He has
converted an expressly limited exemption into a wholly unintended
constitutional upheaval. Again, Alito cannot even properly read a law
as it defines itself, let alone be trusted to unilaterally amend the
constitution by judicial fiat.

Emphasis Mine

House Intel Committee Finds No Benghazi Scandal; Will Boehner Ignore Its Findings?

House Speaker John Boehner faces a choice: Either he can accept the findings of a responsible, Republican committee chair, or cynically allow a kangaroo court to proceed.

chasdarwin1 Comment

Source: American Prospect

Author:Ari Rabin-Havt

According to Representative Mike Thompson, Democrat of California, a report from the Republican led House Intelligence Committee on the September 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya, “confirms that no one was deliberately misled, no military assets were withheld and no stand-down order (to U.S. forces) was given.”

Late last week, before Congress headed out of Washington for August recess, the body voted to declassify the document.

After nearly two years of investigations, millions of dollars spent, tens of thousands of pages of documents handed over by the administration, a Republican-led committee is about to release a report stating that there is no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the Obama White House. In fact, nearly all of the accusations levied against the White House over the past year by conservatives in Congress, and amplified by the media, have now been determined to be false—by a Republican jury.

House Speaker John Boehner is now left with a choice. Will he allow Rep. Trey Gowdy’s kangaroo court, formulated in the guise of a select committee, proceed with its Benghazi investigation, covering ground already delved into not only by the House Intelligence Committee, but by the House Armed Services Committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee, the Accountability Review Board and numerous other investigatory panels?

Doing so would now be nothing short of an explicit vote of no confidence in House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, the Michigan Republican. What will Gowdy, Republican of South Carolina, discover that two years of investigations by his GOP colleagues could not? If the House leadership views the Intelligence Committee as that incompetent, shouldn’t its chairman be replaced?

As The Daily Beast’s Eli Lake reported in May,

“There is deep unease within the Republican leadership that the select committee, which has yet to announce a schedule of hearings, could backfire, and badly. Investigate and find nothing new, and the committee looks like a bunch of tin-hatted obsessives. Investigate and uncover previously-hidden secrets, and it makes all of the other Republican led panels that dug into Benghazi seem like Keystone Kops.”

But what is even more clear now than it was a few weeks ago is that, for Boehner, the appointment of the Benghazi Select Committee has nothing to do with finding the truth about the attack that took the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens, along with those of Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods. It was theater—and bad theater at that.

Attempting to placate the ideological fringes of the Republican conference by using a taxpayer-funded investigation is at best the most cynical form of politics. To continue the charade after a Republican chairman releases findings that undermine the very core of your investigation is outright fraud.

But the Benghazi Select Committee will keep on moving forward. And it will not end after the 2014 elections. If Hillary Clinton chooses to run, the committee will become a principal tool in the conservative movement’s campaign apparatus against her, holding hearings designed to obscure the truth and smear Clinton during the least opportune moments of the electoral cycle.

And if Clinton is elected in 2016, there is little doubt the work of the committee will continue as long as Republicans continue to control the House of Representatives. Why surrender a taxpayer-funded campaign attack dog, especially one endowed by Congress with subpoena power?

Emphasis Mine

See: http://prospect.org/article/house-intel-committee-finds-no-benghazi-scandal-will-boehner-ignore-its-findings

Will Electioneering From the Pulpit Be the Next Big Battle Over ‘Religious Liberty’?

Most at stake isn’t the freedom to worship or speak out, but eligibility for tax subsidies that are estimated to cost the government over $80 billion in revenues every year.

chasdarwinLeave a comment

Source: American Prospect

Author: Joshua Holland

On July 17, the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) settled a longstanding suit against the IRS for failing to enforce restrictions on political activities by tax-exempt churches and religious organizations.

Since 1954, tax-exempt religious organizations have been barred from endorsing parties or candidates. FFRF filed its 2012 complaint in response to conservative preachers openly defying those restrictions. Since 2008, a growing number of clerics have participated in “Pulpit Freedom Sunday,” offering partisan endorsements during services. As ABC News reported in 2010, “The growing trend is a challenge to the IRS from the churches, and may jeopardize their all-important tax-exempt status. But some pastors and church leaders said they are willing to defy the law to defend their right to freedom of speech.”

Most at stake isn’t the freedom to worship or speak out, but eligibility for tax subsidies that are estimated to cost the government over $80 billion in revenues every year. As Dylan Matthews explained in The Washington Post, “Churches don’t pay property taxes on their land or buildings. When they buy stuff, they don’t pay sales taxes. When they sell stuff at a profit, they don’t pay capital gains tax. If they spend less than they take in, they don’t pay corporate income taxes. Priests, ministers, rabbis and the like get ‘parsonage exemptions’ that let them deduct mortgage payments, rent and other living expenses when they’re doing their income taxes. They also are the only group allowed to opt out of Social Security taxes (and benefits).”

According to the FFRF, the IRS “admittedly was not enforcing the restrictions against churches. A prior lawsuit in 2009 required the IRS to designate an appropriate high-ranking official to initiate church tax examinations, but it had apparently failed to do so.” The settlement reached earlier this month is, at least for now, only a symbolic victory for the organization. The IRS has enacted a moratorium on examining tax exempt organizations’ political activities in the wake of the controversy over the agency’s applying extra scrutiny to conservative and liberal “social welfare” organizations.

Nonetheless, as a result of the settlement, the IRS is instituting new protocols “for reviewing, evaluating and determining whether to initiate church investigations.”

Intervening in the case on behalf of Patrick Malone, a priest and vicar of Holy Cross Anglican Church in Wisconsin, was the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. The Becket Fund has gained prominence for its work challenging the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate on behalf of Hobby Lobby, and its involvement pushing “religious liberty” exemptions to anti-discrimination laws.

Emphasis Mine

See: http://prospect.org/article/will-electioneering-pulpit-be-next-big-battle-over-%E2%80%98religious-liberty%E2%80%99

Paul Ryan’s Budget

Otherwise, Congress would not ignore the consensus of scientists and economists.

chasdarwinLeave a comment

Source: AlterNet

Author: Janet Allon

Paul Krugman was in feisty form in his Friday column for the New York Times. He opened by repeating a joke from  Ezra Klein, who now is editor in chief of Vox.com. Klein once described Dick Armey, the former House majority leader, as “a stupid person’s idea of what a thoughtful person sounds like.” The same could be said, Krugman says, of Paul Ryan, chair of the House Budget Committee.

You can’t blame Krugman for being a tad bitter. He explains:

I’ve been looking  at surveys from the Initiative on Global Markets, based at the University of Chicago. For two years, the initiative has been regularly polling a panel of leading economists, representing a wide spectrum of schools and political leanings, on questions that range from the economics of college athletes to the effectiveness of trade sanctions. It usually turns out that there is much less professional controversy about an issue than the cacophony in the news media might have led you to expect.

This was certainly true of the most recent

poll, which asked whether the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act — the Obama “stimulus” — reduced unemployment. All but one of those who responded said that it did, a vote of 36 to 1. A follow-up question on whether the stimulus was worth it produced a slightly weaker but still overwhelming 25 to 2 consensus.

Leave aside for a moment the question of whether the panel is right in this case (although it is). Let me ask, instead, whether you knew that the pro-stimulus consensus among experts was this strong, or whether you even knew that such a consensus existed.

The answer is most likely, no, unless you are someone who goes very far out of your way to get honest information like that. Krugman reports that on CNBC, the host was “so astonished to hear yours truly arguing for higher spending to boost the economy that  he described me as a ‘unicorn,’ someone he could hardly believe existed.”

Just as Republicans in Congress ignore climate scientists, they also ignore economics professionals when it comes to government spending. Economics may not be the hard science that climate science is, but still, it is reminiscent of the whole war on knowledge/war on intelligence/war on science trope.

No, the Republican ideologues prefer to put their faith (which is the right word, since they pursue their ideology with religious zeal) in discredited doctrines.

Krugman, ever fair-minded, does point out the exception to the rule:

The odd man out — literally — in that poll on stimulus was Professor Alberto Alesina of Harvard. He has claimed that cuts in government spending are actually expansionary, but relatively few economists agree, pointing to  work at the International Monetary Fund and elsewhere that seems to refute his claims. Nonetheless, back when European leaders were making their decisive and disastrous turn toward austerity, they brushed off warnings that slashing spending in depressed economies would deepen their depression. Instead, they listened to economists telling them what they wanted to hear. It was,  as Bloomberg Businessweek put it, “Alesina’s hour.”

The professional consensus not always right, Krugman allows. It’s just that politicians increasingly pick the wrong so-called experts to believe. “Bear in mind that the American right is still taking its economic advice mainly from people who have spent many years wrongly predicting runaway inflation and a collapsing dollar,” Krugman reminds. “All of which raises a troubling question: Are we as societies even capable of taking good policy advice?”
Sadly, the answer seems to be ‘no.’ Not in the realm of economics. And not, most glaringly, in the realm of climate change.

Emphasis Mine

See: http://www.alternet.org/economy/paul-krugman-reveals-devastating-reason-knowledge-not-power?akid=12082.123424.zhQa0i&rd=1&src=newsletter1013815&t=11

Republicans deliver another self-inflicted wound

chasdarwinLeave a comment

Source: Washington Post

Author: Dan Balz

Republicans may yet win the elections in November. They may end up in control of both houses of Congress come January. But in the final week before a lengthy August recess, they have shown a remarkable capacity to complicate their path to victory.

The latest blow came Thursday in what has become predictable fashion: chaos in the House. Amid fractious infighting, House leaders abruptly pulled their alternative to President Obama’s bill to deal with the influx of Central American children crossing the border. What was said to be a national crisis turned into one more problem facing deferral.

But there was more over the week that could contribute to the deteriorated brand called the Republican Party. On Wednesday, the House voted to sue Obama, an action that may cheer the party’s conservative wing but that also may appear to other voters to be a distraction at a time of major domestic and international problems.

In the background this week was talk of impeachment. Republicans rightly suggest that the White House and Democrats are doing all they can to stoke discussion of the topic as a way to raise money and motivate their base. But it is a subject that has bubbled up from the conservative grass roots of the GOP and that now bedevils Republican leaders.

Fundamentals in this election year continue to favor the Republicans. Obama’s approval rating is low and stagnant. Not much on the immediate horizon is likely to change that, given the state of the world. The economy is getting better, but many voters aren’t convinced of that. The Senate map favors Republicans, who need a net of six seats to gain control of the chamber.

This isn’t 2010 all over again by any means: The unrest is more muted. But looking toward November, it’s better to be in the Republicans’ position now than the Democrats’. Standing in the GOP’s path to victory, however, are perceptions of the party itself, nationally and in some of the states. How much self-inflicted damage is too much?

The tea party movement gives the Republicans energy, but it continues to push the party further to the right than some strategists believe is safe ground. In a number of states, strategists for the GOP say tea party positions are outside the mainstream, even the conservative mainstream.

Republicans are asking for the right to govern, to control the legislative machinery starting in 2015. But they continue to struggle with that very responsibility in the one chamber they control. How many times have Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and his top lieutenants suffered similar embarrassments as support for leadership measures suddenly eroded in the face of a conservative revolt?

Republicans have been repeatedly criticized for not offering a governing agenda if they take power. What happened Thursday underscores why that has been so difficult. Getting the party’s factions on the same page has proved more than difficult. In some states where Republicans control the governorship and the legislature, there has been a backlash to their governing agenda. Kansas and North Carolina are two prime examples.

In Congress, Republicans have spent four years attacking the Affordable Care Act with a series of votes to repeal or defund it. But is there a Republican alternative they are collectively promoting this fall? No. Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.) told reporters at a breakfast held by the Christian Science Monitor on Thursday that he is working on one — but that it is just one of several GOP ideas on health care.

House Republican leaders say Democrats are hypocritical to blame them for the gridlock and chaos. They point to a series of bills approved with Democratic support that are parked in the Senate with no action. They say Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) should let senators vote on them. But by their own high-voltage missteps, they draw attention away from that and to themselves. They reinforce a narrative that remains not in their favor.

The immigration issue offered a fresh example of the conundrum for Republicans. The border crisis presented Obama with a serious problem — substantively and politically. He offered his own plan for $3.7 billion in spending, which was too high-priced for the GOP. Their alternative called for $659 million in spending.

 But at the center was an issue of power. Republicans view Obama as an out-of-control executive who has exceeded his constitutional authority and they want to take him to court (although ironically for doing something with the Affordable Care Act, delaying the employer mandate, a move they favor).

The issue of executive power extends to immigration. With comprehensive immigration reform locked down in the House and heading nowhere this year, Obama’s administration is exploring what he can do through his executive powers to accomplish some of what immigration reform legislation would do, including possibly allowing some of the adults here illegally not to face deportation.

Many House Republicans want to stop him. Some also wanted to force him to roll back what he did in 2012, when he allowed children who came into the United States illegally with their parents to stay without an immediate threat of deportation. All of that contributed to the collapse of the border bill.

It also prompted a call from at least one powerful Republican for Obama to act on his own.

“I think this will put a lot more pressure on the president to act,” House Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers (R-Ky.) told reporters on Capitol Hill. “In many ways, it was his actions and inactions that caused the crisis on the border, and we attempted in this bill to help remedy this crisis. He has the authority and power to solve the problem forthwith.”

Obama ridiculed the House for wanting to sue him. “They’re mad because I’m doing my job,” he told an audience in Kansas City, Mo., on Wednesday.

That’s a large overstatement by the president, but Republicans have handed him the argument to make through their actions and inactions.

Republicans will have five weeks outside of Washington to let things settle after Thursday’s breakdown. They will have time  to regroup and try to put this moment behind them. Obama and the Democrats are still on the defensive in the battle for control in these midterm elections. But Republicans would do better if they found a way to stop hurting themselves.

Emphasis Mine

See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/republicans-deliver-another-self-inflicted-wound/2014/07/31/d78f131a-18e5-11e4-9e3b-7f2f110c6265_story.html?wpisrc=nl_politics&wpmm=1

Two Theories of Poverty

chasdarwinLeave a comment

Source: Portside

Author: Matt Bruenig

Paul Ryan released his anti-poverty plan last week. In it, he proposes that a variety of federal means-tested welfare programs be turned into cash block grants to states, who would then be allowed to dole out the cash in exchange for recipients laying out a life contract for how they will increase their market incomes for a nosy case worker. As I explained on the day it came out, this is a bad idea, unnecessary, and seriously misunderstands the nature of American poverty.

In response to Ryan, many commentators pointed out that people do not need life contracts to go on to boost their market incomes because they already do that (myself, Weissman, Bouie). These writers point out that people move in and out of poverty a lot. Even though the poverty rate stays pretty steady year to year, “poor people” are not the same people each year.

Although these rebuttals have been fairly modest in scope, they actually lay bare a fundamental difference in the way right-wingers and left-wingers understand poverty.

Theory One: Poverty Is Individual

The right-wing view is that poverty is an individual phenomenon. On this view, people are in poverty because they are lazy, uneducated, ignorant, or otherwise inferior in some manner. If this theory were true, it would follow that impoverished people are basically the same people every year. And if that were true, we could whip poverty by helping that particular 15% of the population to figure things out and climb out of poverty. Thus, a program of heavy paternalistic life contracts to help this discrete underclass get things together might conceivably end or dramatically reduce poverty.

Theory Two: Poverty Is Structural

The left-wing view is that poverty is a structural phenomenon. On this view, people are in poverty because they find themselves in holes in the economic system that deliver them inadequate income. Because individual lives are dynamic, people don’t sit in those holes forever. One year they are in a low-income hole, but the next year they’ve found a job or gotten a promotion, and aren’t anymore. But that hole that they were in last year doesn’t go away. Others inevitably find themselves in that hole because it is a persistent defect in the economic structure. It follows from this that impoverished people are not the same people every year. It follows further that the only way to reduce poverty is to alter the economic structure so as to reduce the number of low-income holes in it.

Which is true? Structural Poverty

To figure out which theory is true, the easiest thing to do is answer the question: are impoverished people the same people every year or different ones? The individual theory predicts that they are the same people (and further that they need paternalist intervention to get their act together). The structural theory predicts that they are different people (and further that we need to alter the economic structure to make things better).

As all of the commentators linked above mentioned, longitudinal surveys show that impoverished people are not the same people every year. The last SIPP (three-year longitudinal survey done by the Census) had around one-third of Americans finding themselves in episodic poverty at some point in the three years, but just 3.5% finding themselves in episodic poverty for all three years. The PSID data show that around 4 in 10 adults experience an entire year of poverty between age 25 and 60. If you count kids, the number of people who experience at least one year of poverty rockets even higher of course.

Also, it deserves pointing out that nearly 45 percent of adults use a means-tested welfare program in their life (this, presumably, is the number of adults who would need to prostrate themselves before social workers at some point in their life to spell out some ridiculous life contract under Ryan’s plan).

Getting Specific About Structural Holes

The revolving door of poverty is a slam dunk indicator that the structural theory of poverty is correct, but we can get even more specific by identifying where the structural holes are. There are many places to focus, but one very easy and indisputable one is age.

First, consider child poverty. Children have much higher poverty rates than adults and younger children have higher poverty rates than older children.

Why is this? Two reasons. First, families with children in them have to get more income each year to stay above the poverty line than families without them. But, the market does not distribute families more money just because they have more children. Consequently, the mere act of adding a child to a family makes it more likely that the family will be in poverty. Second, adults have children when they are young workers, but young workers also make the least income. This too makes it more likely a child will be in poverty than an adult purely because of the way the economy is structured.

Why do young children have higher poverty rates than older children? Because young children have young parents and old children have old parents. Old parents make more money than young parents because they are deeper into their income life cycle. That is why the graph above looks the way it does.

Second, consider adult poverty by age:

It’s common to describe 25-65 as prime working-age adults. But look at how much poverty falls over those working years. Nearly 20% of 25-year-olds are in poverty while less than 10% of 64-year olds are. Why? Young workers make less money than old workers. Young workers are often taking care of children as well, while older workers generally aren’t. This is structural. This is one of the very blatant structural reasons why you are going to see people swapping in and out poverty over their life course just like the longitudinal data show.

I could go on, but the point is clear. Poverty replicates itself in very predictable structural ways. Since the problem is structural, the solution must be structural as well. This is not nearly as difficult a task as it may seem. For instance, in the case of structural poverty problems afflicting children and young families, it is very easily dealt with by using a Child Allowance program, which is commonly used throughout Europe.

Posted by Portside on July 31, 2014

Emphasis Mine

See:https://portside.org/2014-07-31/two-theories-poverty