Month: February 2015

It’s too bad that former Rep. Ron Paul thinks that the only reason that members of the Congressional Black Caucus are opposed to fighting reckless foreign wars is because they want food stamps, but that’s what he thinks. And that’s probably why thinks Martin Luther King Jr. opposed the Vietnam War. It was all about food stamps.

Unbelievable as it may seem, The Guardian is reporting today that the Chicago Police Department operates its own “Black Site” where people are taken, tortured and held in shackles without notification of family or the ability to have a lawyer present. One man is alleged to have died there after having been beaten. Shades of the “Disappeared” from the days a military junta ruled Argentina, but its happening here and now in a major city in the United States, and the place is known as “Homan Square.”

The Chicago police department operates an off-the-books interrogation compound, rendering Americans unable to be found by family or attorneys while locked inside what lawyers say is the domestic equivalent of a CIA black site.

The facility, a nondescript warehouse on Chicago’s west side known as Homan Square, has long been the scene of secretive work by special police units. Interviews with local attorneys and one protester who spent the better part of a day shackled in Homan Square describe operations that deny access to basic constitutional rights. […]

At least one man was found unresponsive in a Homan Square “interview room” and later pronounced dead.

Activities alleged to have occurred there include the following:

1. Detainees are kept out of the official police booking system.
2. Persons in custody are often shackled for long periods of time.
3. Attorneys are denied access to their clients
4. Frequent beatings, causing head injuries
5. Juveniles as young as 15 have been housed there

The facility also houses military-style vehicles. Defense attorneys, however are well aware of its existence:

Witnesses, suspects or other Chicagoans who end up inside do not appear to have a public, searchable record entered into a database indicating where they are, as happens when someone is booked at a precinct. Lawyers and relatives insist there is no way of finding their whereabouts. Those lawyers who have attempted to gain access to Homan Square are most often turned away, even as their clients remain in custody inside.

“It’s sort of an open secret among attorneys that regularly make police station visits, this place – if you can’t find a client in the system, odds are they’re there,” said Chicago lawyer Julia Bartmes.

Chicago civil-rights attorney Flint Taylor said Homan Square represented a routinization of a notorious practice in local police work that violates the fifth and sixth amendments of the constitution.

And just being a protestor can get you arrested and sent there, as Jacob Church, an activist who opposed the NATO Summit in 2012, discovered when he was arrested by police and “disappeared” there:

Jacob Church learned about Homan Square the hard way. On May 16 2012, he and 11 others were taken there after police infiltrated their protest against the Nato summit. Church says officers cuffed him to a bench for an estimated 17 hours, intermittently interrogating him without reading his Miranda rights to remain silent. It would take another three hours – and an unusual lawyer visit through a wire cage – before he was finally charged with terrorism-related offenses at the nearby 11th district station, where he was made to sign papers, fingerprinted and photographed.

Church is now on parole. He and two other co-defendants were found not guilty of terrorism charges at their trial, but were convicted on two lesser offenses: “possessing an incendiary device and the misdemeanor of “mob action”.” Church was the only one of the three willing to talk to the Guardian’s reporters. The others refused fearing retaliation from police if they spoke about their experiences at Homan Square.

It is outrageous that the federal government operates such “black sites” around the world. That one would exist in a major American city, however, run by that City’s own police department is more than outrageous to me. It’s downright terrifying. Who knows if other police departments around the country have their own Homan Squares where anyone of us could be deprived of our constitutional rights with impunity for any reason, or no reason at all.

Please read the Guardian’s article about this domestic black site run by the Chicago PD in its entirety. I assure you, it is well worth the time and effort. Then ask yourself, if it is happening there, where else in our country might also be operating such sinister and illegal detention sites?

In one sense, a prolonged debate about an appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security and the rules of the Senate doesn’t seem very interesting. But the silver lining here is the way that it really shines a light on the Republicans’ Reality Detachment Syndrome.

What will it take to get Republicans who don’t work in the Senate to understand that the Senate needs 60 votes to pass legislation? It’s not like the last four years haven’t been almost entirely gridlocked do to Mitch McConnell’s exploitation of this requirement.

What was it that Upton Sinclair said about it being hard to convince a man of something if his job requires him not to understand it? Yeah, pretty much.

Earlier this month, Freshman Republican Senators Cory Gardner of Colorado and Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia made a valiant effort to that end. “They explained to us how the Senate process works, and we were glad to have some of our former colleagues do that,” Representative Bradley Byrne of Alabama told the Washington Post. “From this House member’s perspective, and I think that I reflect the vast majority of the members of our conference,” Byrne added, “the Senate needs to do its job. Period.”

The lesson didn’t go well. To do its job (with or without a period) the Senate majority will need 60 votes, and the House legislation stands little prospect of attracting more than 54. “Sooner or later, we’re going to have to accept reality,” Representative Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania told the New York Times. Dent is one of the Republican Conference’s last moderates. In the House these days, that means you understand that 54 is not the same as 60.

Paraphrasing Tina Turner, “What’s reality got to do with it?”

Not to brag, but here in the Mid-Atlantic, our Republicans are more Wall Street and less Wal-Mart parking lot, so they actually have maintained a weak grasp on the string back to sanity.

“If I have to vote against Republicans, I will,” said Long Island U.S. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.). “If I have to vote against the Republican leadership, I will. I’m not going to see another 9/11.”

…King told [CBS2’s Marcia] Kramer that Republicans from New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania plan to meet house leadership Tuesday night to demand a vote on the bill.

He said he has enough Republicans willing to join with the Democrats to pass the bill. The big worry is that the leaders will keep the bill bottled up so it doesn’t reach the floor.

It’s probably never a good idea to schedule an appointment with John Boehner at night. He gets too deep in his cups to remember nocturnal conversations in the morning. Besides, the Republican Caucus-That-Can-Count isn’t big enough to matter.

David Corn has burrowed under Bill O’Reilly’s skin like a chigger. At this point, O’Reilly is desperate to make the news coverage of his fake war zone exploits in the Falkland Islands go away. At the end of his show last night, he was basically pleading, “I want to stop this now,” he said. “I hope we can stop it. I really do.” But he has a very curious way of starving a story of oxygen.

Mr. O’Reilly’s efforts to refute the claims by Mother Jones and some former CBS News colleagues occurred both on the air and off on Monday. During a phone conversation, he told a reporter [Emily Steel] for The New York Times that there would be repercussions if he felt any of the reporter’s coverage was inappropriate. “I am coming after you with everything I have,” Mr. O’Reilly said. “You can take it as a threat.”

So, now, in addition to getting all this attention for being a self-aggrandizing liar in the Brian Williams mold, he’s getting attention for threatening a female reporter over the telephone. And, of course, the very fact that he was on the phone with New York Times reporters was evidence that the story was about to get bigger even without him making insensible threats.

To a degree, getting called out for inaccuracy by the “lamestream media” doesn’t hurt Fox News or their talent. It actually fits right into their brand. They get to play the victim, call their critics “pinheads” and “guttersnipes,” and the audience gets the exact kind of stimulation that they’re looking for.

But if all Fox News accomplishes is preaching to the choir, they’re really not very dangerous. The insidious thing about Fox News is the way that they sway media coverage from other outlets that have more credibility with swing voters, or that have some actual responsibility for educating the public. As long as what they’re doing stays in their little padded cocoon, no one gets hurt.

Where this scandal is hurting Fox News is with their credibility with other newsmen and women. I know that in a sane world, Fox News wouldn’t have any credibility to lose with these folks, but we don’t live in a sane world. While it should be obvious that Bill O’Reilly is a paid liar and the furthest thing from a genuine news anchor, he has too often been treated as a real journalist, and his network as a real news provider.

But if Bill O’Reilly were a real news anchor and Fox News were a real news provider, O’Reilly would get the same kind of suspension that NBC News gave to Brian Williams. He’d be suspended to preserve the reputation of the news organization.

But Fox News doesn’t hold O’Reilly to the standards of a news anchor, and they don’t hold themselves to the standards of a news organization.

The controversy comes less than two weeks after NBC News suspended its anchor, Brian Williams, for six months without pay after he was found to have falsified a story about being on a helicopter that was shot down in Iraq in 2003.

The two news networks have taken different approaches in responding to the similar controversies engulfing their biggest stars. After military veterans complained about Mr. Williams’s story about the episode in Iraq, NBC News started an internal investigation into Mr. Williams before removing him from broadcasts. Fox News executives, in contrast, have defended Mr. O’Reilly, combating the Mother Jones report and other critics. “Fox News Chairman and C.E.O. Roger Ailes and all senior management are in full support of Bill O’Reilly,” a spokeswoman said in a statement.

That aggressive defense fits a broader strategy at Fox News, which consistently swings back against rival media outlets, journalism observers said.

“Fox News channel is news for people who don’t trust the rest of the news media,” said Jay Rosen, a journalism professor at New York University. “They actually want the controversy because it fits this strategy.”

Jay Rosen is making my point about Fox News enjoying the controversy rather than worrying about their credibility. But they do need to worry at least a little bit about how they are perceived by the people living outside of their armored bubble. Flouting journalistic standards and countenancing threats aimed at print journalists are behaviors that will get them taken less seriously by other news outfits, and that will reduce their ability to drive narratives.

Plus, if this story goes on much longer, Fox‘s biggest star is likely to have an aneurysm and die.

And who would replace O’Reilly in the 9pm time slot? Geraldo?

I’m totally wiped out. Let”s have some music.

Any thing interesting going on I should know about?

UPDATE:

This post has been updated to reflect errors by yours truly. Changes are shown in italics. Deletions are struck through with a solid black line. My apologies for the mistakes.

Steven D

*******

We’ve been in a “trickle-down” mode with respect to economic policy since the Reagan era. What has it gotten us? Income inequality, say liberals and progressives, but what does that buzzword mean in real terms? It’s easy to say that wage growth has essentially stalled or reversed course for the poor and middle classes over the last 40 years, but that statistic is hard to grasp. It’s difficult to look at aggregate numbers and get any real sense of the economic damage done to most people by neo-liberalism and its adherents in both parties have wrought.

But here is one statistic that should shock people: The average (not the median) amount of credit card debt for indebted American families stands at $15,000.

As the economy improves, more Americans are borrowing money to pay for purchases.

Thirty-seven percent have credit card debt that equals or is greater than their emergency savings, says a survey released today by Bankrate.com.

“These numbers mean that three out of every eight Americans are teetering on the edge of financial disaster,” says Bankrate’s Greg McBride.

The average credit card debt for U.S. households is more than $15,000, according to the Federal Reserve.

So, over a third of Americans have more credit card debt (not all debt, just what they owe on their credit cards) than their savings. The average amount of credit card debt of for US consumer households that carry debt and this includes as of the US Census, 69% of all US households everyone: rich, poor or somewhere in the middle of those two extremes is FIFTEEN FREAKING THOUSAND DOLLARS! Here’s how the numbers break out from 2010:

In March 2010, the last date at which the data can be reliably estimated, we found that:

The median American household owed $3,300 of consumer debt;
The average American household owed $7,768 and
The average indebted American household owed $17,630.

And from 2014 as to all household consumer debt:

U.S. household consumer debt profile:

Average credit card debt: $15,611
Average mortgage debt: $155,192
Average student loan debt: $32,264

Hell, the total personal debt Americans owe is in excess of ELEVEN TRILLION FREAKING DOLLARS!

Which is a sign the majority of middle class and below people are not in a good situation when it comes to saving for their retirement, their children’s education, or just a rainy day. And what advice to accounts and financial advisers have for these people?

“From a purely financial standpoint, it makes more sense to pay down that high interest rate” before you start to save, says Kelley Long, member of the American Institute of CPAs.

Borrowing money with a credit card is usually very expensive.

Well, duh. Except what do you do when you can’t pay your rent or your mortgage and still feed your kids? What happens when you can’t afford to pay your medical expenses if you have a high deductible policy, unless you use credit cards (or dip into whatever IRA or 401K savings you might have – at a significant penalty for doing so I might add)? What happens when that company you joined suddenly goes belly-up, or worse, decides to improve it stock price by lowering its expenses by firing a significant number of its workers, including you, Mr. or Ms. USA? How do you pay down your credit card debt then?

By the way, guess who is using all this consumer credit card debt to create more derivatives. Would it surprise you if I said the usual suspects?

The world’s total notional value of derivatives contracts was around $500 trillion prior to the financial crisis in 2007, a number which has since gone up to a staggering $710 trillion according to the BIS.

A recent survey of this derivatives minefield looks something like this:

Five banks in the US account for over 90% of all US outstanding derivative exposure – the same usual suspects of too-big-to-fail (TBTF) banks which all blew up and had to be subsequently bailed out in 2008. Each one carries more than $40 trillion in derivative exposure.

I suppose we should just trust them not to screw up the world economy like the last time, because obviously they clearly learned their lesson, right? Well, not exactly.

Banks are lending to companies and individuals at the fastest pace since the financial crisis, helping propel profits to near-record levels.

U.S. banks posted $40.24 billion in net income during the second quarter, the industry’s second-highest profit total in at least 23 years, according to data from research firm SNL Financial. The latest profits are just below the record $40.36 billion recorded in the first quarter of 2013. […]

Banks set aside less money to cover soured loans, helping to boost profits. At the same time, overall loan growth increased at its fastest quarterly pace since the financial crisis, topping $8 trillion in total loans outstanding for the first time since SNL began tracking the data in 1991.

Gee, ain’t that just peachy. Too bad the “We the people” aren’t considered too big to fail. On the contrary, considering our politics, it seems we will never be important enough not to be given the short end of the economic stick. In short, we are almost always allowed to fail, and the only question these days seems to be how much should we be made suffer for the mistakes of our betters.

This is the dumbest shit ever. The idea that the President Obama is partly to blame for the confusion over his religious faith is ridiculous. While Andrew Jackson was our first Trinitarian president, and he only converted after leaving the White House, we have never had any president who professed to believe in any religion other than Christianity or its unitarian offshoots. If we elected a Buddhist or a Jew or a Hindu or a Muslim or a Mormon, everyone would know about it.

If you asked people what religion George W. Bush was, most people would think you were asking whether he was Methodist or Baptist or Episcopalian or Catholic, not whether he was secretly practicing druid rites on the White House lawn in the middle of the night.

People know that Kennedy was Catholic, but most probably can’t identify the correct Protestant sect of our 20th-Century presidents. They just know that they were Christians.

Not Muslims.

Was Laura Bush Russian Orthodox?

If we paid people to spread that rumor, people would start to believe it.

It wouldn’t be Laura’s fault, even though we all know that she loves Dostoyovsky, right?

Right?

While y’all were watching the Academy Awards, I was publishing the March/April/May issue of the Washington Monthly. It takes me the better part of a week to convert the print issue into a digital format so you freeloaders can enjoy all our hard work without paying us anything, but that’s okay.

The big cover story is pretty interesting. It’s an effort by gay rights activists and social conservatives to bridge their differences and come together to strengthen the institution of marriage. Last month we had a man-eating polar bear on the cover, so this is a bit of a change of pace.

The most important part of the new issue is, of course, my book review. It’s nice to get into the print issue for the first time. And it’s a decent reward for having to suffer through reading a biography of George W. Bush. It’s not that the book was bad (it wasn’t), but I want to relive those eight years like I want to have bamboo hammered into my finger nails. I did my best.

Ed’s got a funny piece about how Huckabee stole Palin’s act.

My brother also has a book review in the new mag, so our parents may want to have this one bronzed.

I enjoyed working on all the articles and I think they’re all worth reading.

Over the next couple of weeks, I’ll be writing about a variety of the pieces. Ed and I usually divvy them up like a box of chocolates, so I’m not sure which ones I’ll get.

In any case, enjoy the new issue, and if you find any typos don’t tell anyone.

Scott Walker says he doesn’t know if Obama is a Christian, which makes sense to me. I don’t know if Scott Walker is a fascist, either. I imagine that both might be true. Anything is possible I suppose.

I’m not going to praise the fascist Ba’ath Party, either in its Syrian or Iraqi manifestations. But, prior to the invasion of Iraq, those two societies were the most ecumenical, tolerant places in the Arabian peninsula. People intermarried freely and Christians enjoyed a fairly decent life, with some even being given positions of immense responsibility. When you compared Iraq and Syria to Saudi Arabia, the differences were striking. And this was in spite of the fact that both Syria and Iraq were upside down countries where the majority sect (Sunnis in Syria, Shiites in Iraq) was not in control of the levers of government.

The war destroyed both societies along with all that religious tolerance and caused a region-wide sectarian conflict. It empowered two groups: the Iranians and their Shi’a proxies, and the radicalized and intolerant Sunni Arabs of the Saudi-type.

Most of this was predicted in broad details if not fine detail. It was predicted not only in academic circles, but also in congressional testimony. It was completely foreseeable.

So, now that we have a problem with radicalized Sunni Arabs, we know exactly who caused this. First and foremost, this is the Saudis’ fault for incubating this form of Islam. Then it is American policy-makers’ fault for encouraging the Saudis in this over the last thirty-five years. But the main driver was the invasion of Iraq, and the people responsible for that decision are all over my television complaining that the president doesn’t have an adequate plan to address the problem that they created.

They don’t know what they are talking about and they never have known what they are talking about. The only important thing is that they stay on television and out of policy-making positions.