Beaches are Going to be a Hot Political Topic

In the latest issue of the Washington Monthly, Theodoric Meyer has a book review of Orrin H. Pilkey and J. Andrew G. Cooper’s The Last Beach. The news is pretty depressing:

Pilkey and Cooper’s predictions are grim: “We believe that the current outlook, biased toward protection of property, will inevitably lead to a worldwide loss of beaches lined with development.” Artificial stone steps descending into the water and strips of sand behind seawalls will become increasingly common along developed coastlines, they suggest. Increased pollution will likely mean rules against walking barefoot on some beaches, even if such rules seem unthinkable today.

A lot of the focus is on beach replenishment efforts, which the authors argue are ultimately destructive of beach systems. If you don’t already know how important this topic is going to be over the next few decades, I encourage you to watch the latest episode of HBO’s Vice.

You probably should learn as much as you can about rising sea levels and how we’re going to need to react from a public policy standpoint. This review is a great place to start.

The pollution issue is important, too. I don’t like thinking about beaches so toxic that we can’t walk on them.

Bibi Almost Weak Enough to Knock Off

Israel seems headed for a depressing election result. It looks like Netanyahu is weakened enough that his party will take a bath. But the right-wing parties are almost assured of getting at least a slim majority of the seats in the Knesset. This means that the Israelis will go vote against Netanyahu but probably won’t be able to get rid of him.

Of course, the polls are close enough that anything can happen, and even if the results come in as expected, there’s no certainty that Netanyahu would be able to cobble together a majority. The only thing that seems locked in right now is that Bibi will emerge weaker.

I Am Not Alone In My Opposition To The PermaGov. Not By A Long Shot

After an seemingly endless…and as usual totally fruitless…colloquy between myself and centerfielddj in the comments section of Booman’s apparent Arthur Gilroy callout Rand Paul is Just Like the Others (The first sentence of which was “I’m just paging Arthur Gilroy here. Any response?”), ol’ centerfield admitted intellectual defeat by posting yet another in a long line of name-calling.

Arthur, your impenetrable cynicism makes you appear as an increasingly sad man. Nothing means anything to you.

My answer follows. There as well as here.
Centerfielddj, my “impenetrable cynicism” regarding U.S. politics is simply the truth of the matter as I…and millions of other Americans…see it. (The following is from the supposedly left-centrist Atlantic, by the way. Yeah, I know. It sounds more like The Washington Times except the prose is better. That’s where we’re headed, bubbelehs. Deal wid it. Rand Paul is way out front on this trend. In point of fact, his efforts…and those of his father’s before him…are one of the things that are driving this anti-PermaGov movement. Is he just another cynical, vote-grabbing pol? Maybe, maybe not. We shall soon see, won’t we. We were all surprised by the depth of Obama’s commitment to the PermaGov, were we not? Our capacity at surprise regarding the perfidy upon which this system is presently based should be wearing thin by now.)

Have Americans Officially Given Up on Washington?

Poll results reveal an overwhelming preference for stronger local leadership, and less federal input.

Michael Hansen, age 45, is not alone in thinking that national politics has become “almost like a slow-motion car wreck.” Every week brings another seeming crisis from Washington, D.C.–the congressional showdown over the continuation of funding for the Department of Homeland Security was just the latest. It’s enough to turn off ordinary Americans from the down-to-the-wire negotiations and theatrics.

“After 10 years of paying attention to politics, I just prefer state and local government,” says Hansen, an independent voter who works in food sales and lives in Idaho, just outside of Sun Valley. “I think local and state politicians actually listen more. They have to live within the same rules that they create.”

The most recent results of the 22nd Heartland Monitor poll, sponsored by Alllstate and National Journal, bear out Hansen’s assessment of who is best suited to lead the U.S. Years of federal gridlock and dysfunction have left the public favoring state and local institutions over the federal government as the places best equipped to offer solutions to the country’s ongoing economic and social challenges.

—snip—

The preference for governance that is closer to home carries across people of various ages and genders. Sixty-seven percent of men favored state and local institutions over national ones, compared to the breakdown among women of 61 percent for local and state level versus 27 percent for national. Poll participants who identified as Republicans expressed some of the least regard for leadership at the national level. Just 14 percent of Republicans said the national level was marching ahead toward its goals; Republicans, who have long advocated for a smaller footprint for the federal government, overwhelmingly favored the activity of state and local institutions.

—snip—

The polling did not just show the lack of faith in national institutions and leadership; it also shows that people increasingly feel that the best solutions for the country’s problems will come from local communities, state governments, and institutions. Sixty-nine percent of respondents said that state and local institutions–from governments to businesses to community groups and volunteers–offer the best new ideas because they were closer to the problems, more adaptable, and had a greater stake in finding solutions. Just 22 percent of respondents thought the federal government and big business were better equipped to solve the country’s challenges.

To varying degrees, that attitude remained constant across gender lines, age, race, and party affiliation–reflecting respondents’ strong preference for state and local institutions and solutions. “The federal government is too big and too slow. I think it needs to be cut down,” says Luke Roberts, a 30-year-old Republican from Littleton, Colorado, “I just think that less is more right now with the federal government.”

Overwhelmingly, poll respondents said that state and local governments, nonprofits, and institutions were best equipped to handle the majority of problems that the country faced: everything from making neighborhoods more attractive places to live to improving education, helping poor people, and developing new products and services to create jobs. Respondents even believe that fair regulation of businesses would fare better under local and state oversight, according to the polling data.

—snip—

Deal wid it.

AG

How We Deal With Racist Students

I think that the way the students at the University of Oklahoma chapter of Sigma Alpha Epsilon have been treated is pretty indicative of how this country has officially become anti-racist. I don’t mean that racism isn’t alive and actually enjoying a major comeback over the last several years. I just mean that you simply can’t get away with letting your Klan Flag fly anymore. You’ll lose your professional basketball team or get expelled from college, or maybe your entire fraternity will be banned.

If you’re just kind of a young impressionable bystander watching this, you definitely internalize that being a racist isn’t acceptable at all. Whatever flies in your little social circle, that shit is not going to fly once you go out in the wider world. This fraternity incident shows how safe spaces for this kind of sentiment are disappearing. What’s more insular that a Greek brotherhood? Yet, look at what happened to them, their chapter, and the whole national fraternity just from this one drunken incident.

I don’t know about you but I am a little conflicted about it. I don’t feel like these kids are being treated unfairly or that people are overreacting, but I also think they are young and come from sheltered backgrounds. The University of Oklahoma is supposed to educate these youngsters. If the school is doing its job, it’s taking in teens who may arrive with racist attitudes and transforming them into tolerant, open-minded, young adults. If this particular fraternity is an impediment to that mission, then go ahead and ban the fraternity. But I don’t think I agree that universities should expel students for doing stupid racist shit like this. The bar should be a little higher, in my opinion. If it’s intimidating someone or it somehow denies someone an opportunity, then I think it has to be treated like a civil rights violation. But in a society with a lot of racism, universities are going to do a better job anticipating that fact and having a plan to educate their students than by just hitting every knucklehead with the shit-hammer of expulsion.

On the upside, their peers can see how these frat brothers have been branded with the Scarlet R, and that will hopefully do more than just deter them from openly expressing racist attitudes. It will hopefully help them internalize that racism is stupid and hateful.

On the downside, making an example of these kids isn’t an efficient or sufficient response that will really address the larger problem. I don’t see this as really being much of a free speech issue, but I do see it as being as least somewhat of a freedom to be a stupid kid issue. I just hope some of these kids learn what they were supposed to learn from the school in the first place and find a way to redeem themselves.

On Defense Spending, Thanks, Obama

I remember when most people, including me, thought that the Republican Party was so in bed with the defense industry that they would never allow sequestration to take place. It turned out that somehow the Tea Party virus was more powerful than Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumann, and General Dynamics combined.

However, the military-industrial complex is just a tad savvier than Louie Gohmert and Steve King, so they’ve managed to assure that their man-servants are serving as chairmen of the House and Senate Armed Services committees. And it’s from those lofty perches that Rep. Mac Thornberry and John McCain currently bleat out their impotent rage at the budget hawks in their own deranged party. It’s almost hilarious, except this is our country.

McCain and Thornberry directed their message to budget hawks in their own party who are unwilling to overturn the $1 trillion in cuts to the defense budget over 10 years known as “sequestration,” which was imposed by the 2011 Budget Control Act (BCA) after lawmakers failed to agree on tax and spending reform.

Overturning the cuts would take an act by a Republican-controlled Congress, but there are many within the Republican Party who see sequestration as a valuable asset in their drive to cut government spending.

“Heaping nearly $1 trillion in cuts on the U.S. military while ignoring entitlements is not conservative fiscal policy and will not solve the problems of deficits and debt,” the chairmen wrote.

Rather, the true drivers of debt are entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare — not defense spending, they wrote, adding that it is only 16 percent of federal spending and the lowest share since before World War II.

“There is nothing conservative or Republican about pretending that Washington can balance the budget by cutting defense spending. The new Republican majorities in Congress should not allow such reckless policy,” they added.

“How can Republicans — the party of Ronald Reagan and ‘peace through strength’ — possibly justify a lower defense budget than that of President Obama?” they asked.

Under sequestration, the 2016 defense budget will be $500 billion. The White House has submitted a defense budget for $535 billion. McCain and Thornberry went further, arguing it should be $577 billion — the level planned before sequestration hit.

If the cuts aren’t relieved by Oct. 1 or lawmakers don’t find areas in the defense budget to cut, $35 billion would indiscriminately be cut from the budget by slashing an equal percentage from every Pentagon program.

McCain and Thornberry — two advocates of acquisition reform — acknowledged there is waste in the Pentagon’s budget, but said “sequestration does not target Pentagon waste.”

I’m hoping you can see the jujitsu that President Obama has pulled off here. If we went back to 2007 when he first emerged as a candidate and he was promising to convince the Republicans to lowball him on defense spending, well, we would have thought he was promising us rainbows and unicorns. “Pure bullshit.” “Never happen,” we would have said.

“Yeah, I will get the Republicans to force a $77 billion cut in my own scaled back Pentagon budget, and I won’t give them anything in return for it. They’ll just do it. In fact, I’ll have to beg them for the money I think we really need.”

Yeah, I know I’m being a little too cute here, but the Republican turnabout has been stunning. And it’s driving Old Man McCain absolutely bonkers. He’s literally losing the shit he’s already lost six times already. He’s close to having no more shits to lose.

Sequestration happened because this madness wasn’t supposed to be possible, so it’s not really fair to give the president credit for it. But it will be part of his record. He will be able to say that the Republicans (“the party of Ronald Reagan and ‘peace through strength'”) gave him lower defense budgets than he requested. He will be able to say that he went a long way toward balancing the budget “by cutting defense spending.” He’ll be able to quote McCain arguing that under his presidency the defense budget took up the “the lowest share since before World War Two.”

I know the whole situation is nuts. This isn’t any way to do budgeting for the Pentagon. It’s insane and reckless of Congressional Republicans to behave like this.

But on an overall dollar amount?

No progressive candidate would have been believed if they promised this kind of result.

47% Have No Decency

Issue #1 –Letterhead

While the letterhead doesn’t include the Seal of the United States Senate, it was meant to look like an official communication from the US Senate.  A communication that wasn’t authorized by that legislative body.  With forty-seven signatories, the promoters couldn’t even get a majority of US Senators on board.  Why didn’t they use the letterhead of any one of the forty-seven Senators to which the others could add their signatures?

Is there a US Senate rule that proscribes the use “US Senate” letterhead?  Individual Senators may not use their Senate Office letterhead for other than official office business or otherwise proscribed.

Issue #2 – Logan Act

Plenty of fodder here for public arguments.  Technically, it’s not difficult to find violations of the law over the past 215 years.  Practically, it’s never used.  The historical antecedents to the act was a private US citizen encouraging French officials to negotiate peaceful resolutions to conflicts with the US government.  That enraged the quasi-monarchist President Adams.  The prohibitive act subsequently passed by Congress is silent as to the intent of any non-US government authorized communication.  Thus, legally, encouraging foreign governments to engage in conflict or war with the US or stymying official peace  negotiations is on equal footing with unauthorized peace efforts.  As colluding with  foreign powers to wage war against the US had already been dealt with, the intent of  “Logan” was to prohibit peace efforts by unauthorized US citizens.  However, even those guys weren’t about to sign on to anything so blatantly anti-peace; thus, the silence on the intent.  

With regard to the letter of the law (where are those Congressional “rule of law” thugs now?), John Boehner and 47% of the US Senate appear to be in violation of the law.  Yet, to charge them would not only create a partisan political super-storm, but also require application of the law in the future for peace-seekers, the original intended targets.  It’s a bad, dishonest, and poorly written law.  In a functioning democracy, it would long ago have been repealed.  But for reasons inexplicable to me, US lawmakers prefer to leave inoperable laws on the books.

Issue #3 – Decency

It’s not hyperbole to reference Senator Joseph McCarthy as a precursor to the current sitting 47 Senators and their bleitzkrieg to destroy President Obama.  They have no decency.  No respect for all the unwritten rules and manners that are conditions precedent to a modicum of democracy.

So, why is Boehner’s invitation to Netanyahu such a big deal?
First off, it’s a huge violation of protocol and massively disrespectful to President Obama and the authority of the executive branch.
It is completely unprecedented for the Speaker of the House, or any member of Congress, to invite a foreign leader to come to the US and speak to Congress without getting authorization and/or cooperation from the White House.  

The 47% Senate letter is similarly unprecedented.  Imagine such a letter being sent to Mao by 45 Senators during the years the Korean Armistice Agreement was negotiated!

The 47% are indecent and as drunk on hate as all similar vermin in US history.  They are unacceptable. The people in the states that elected them should be ashamed of themselves.  One Joseph McCarthy was too many for this nation.  Wisconsin still has some explaining to do for that, but instead chose to toss out the decent Senator Feingold in favor of a McCarthy clone.  Shame on the majority of Wisconsin voters.

Shame on Iowa for Grassley and Ernst.

Shame on Kentucky for McConnell and Paul.

Shame on Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Georgia, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, etc.

Not on this wall of shame is amazingly enough Mississippi.  Something to be said for old school manners which might be the only reason that Senator Thad Cochran didn’t sign this abomination.  Cochran appears to have managed to retain a shred of decency in a time when his political party has sunk to a new depth of depravity.  Not something any of the 47% can ever claim to possess forever more.  Here’s looking at you, Senators Orrin Hatch and Chuck Grassley.  

Elizabeth Warren and the Black Vote

I’m beginning to feel that people are writing about Elizabeth Warren’s presidential prospects for no other reason than that y’all keep clicking on the articles. And I’m not going to say that I disagree with the overall thrust of Nate Cohn’s analysis that Warren couldn’t have beaten Hillary in 2008 and cannot beat her in 2016.

I do think, however, that Mr. Cohn has missed Warren’s opening with black voters. And I think it’s for the same reason that so many white progressives miss Obama’s appeal to black voters.

When Cohn tries to imagine an issue that Warren could use to distinguish herself from Clinton and bring black voters into her camp, he talks about prison and sentencing reforms. Those are not bad issues. But Elizabeth Warren’s bread and butter is consumer protection. It’s not a sexy issue for intellectuals, but walk into any ghetto in America and you’ll immediately see how important it is to protect people from payday loans and check cashing joints, predatory mortgage companies, income tax filing operations, credit card companies, and all manner of rip-off artists. The legal scam industry is enormous in this country, and no one has done more to crack down on it than Elizabeth Warren and (through her) President Barack Obama.

These economic concerns form the bulk of what’s on the minds of black folks living in our poorer communities, along with anger about drugs, crime, bad schools and out of control policing. Elizabeth Warren has credibility on these issues and what’s significant about that is that these are issues that festered and were ignored for years and years until Warren came along and got in the president’s ear about them. Clinton can try to co-opt them now, but not very convincingly.

It’s kind of insulting to think that black folks will only respond to black candidates. As Mr. Cohn notes, they supported Clinton over Obama until Obama proved he could win white votes in Iowa. They would respond to Warren because Warren is, more than anyone else, the person responsible for the president’s effective progressive focus on urban issues related to consumer protection.

People talk about black folks getting taking for granted by Democratic politicians. Elizabeth Warren built her whole career on making their concerns front and center for a change. People of all races are impacted by predatory lending and other scams, but no one is more impacted than the urban poor.

So, no, Warren isn’t running. But, if she did, she has the credibility to take the black vote from Clinton precisely because she isn’t an Ivory Tower academic white progressive. She would not be the latest iteration of Gary Hart or Paul Tsongas.

If you don’t get that about Senator Warren, then you don’t understand her at all. And you probably don’t give credit to the president for being a progressive champion because he doesn’t champion your progressive agenda.

Bibi As King of the Hill Becomes Paranoid

We’ve worried before about Bibi’s sanity for his decisionmaking traveling to Paris and US Congress recently, not mentioning the ill-fated warcrimes for the attack on the civilian population of Gaza. Bibi is pondering why the world community prefers regime change in Israel … Bibi placing himself in the role as victim, a well known trick to get some sympathy, but will it save the fierce hardliner??

Netanyahu says sees ‘worldwide’ effort to topple him | Ynet News |

‘Nothing is guaranteed because there is a huge, worldwide effort to topple the Likud government,’ says prime minister.

 « click for more info
Has Israel got the six-year itch with Netanyahu?

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in broadcast remarks on Tuesday there was a “huge, worldwide effort” to ensure he loses next week’s closely contested election. Army Radio, which aired what it said were comments he made on Monday to activists of his right-wing Likud party, interpreted them as referring to foreign funding for advocacy groups campaigning for a change of government in Israel.

Political parties in Israel are banned from accepting money directly from overseas donors during an election campaign. But such funding is allowed under Israeli law for non-profit organizations espousing political viewpoints, and US consultants have advised Israeli candidates for years.

“It is a very tight race. Nothing is guaranteed because there is a huge, worldwide effort to topple the Likud government,” said Netanyahu, who received rousing applause in the US Congress last week.

Saving Israel through foreign NGOs .. LOL

As election day approaches, “Netanyahu is feeling the pressure … he is shooting in all directions”, Zionist Union leader Isaac Herzog told Israel Radio.

Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon echoed the prime minister’s sentiments and said Sunday that “English-speakers” were scheming to promote left-wing and Israeli Arabs to go out and vote come Election Day. [Must be shameful to promote democracy, let the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria vote too! – Oui]

“There are non-profit organizations here that are funded by foreign money – European money and other groups that don’t want to see Netanyahu (in power),” said Ya’alon at an event at the Interdisciplinary College in Herzliya.

Ya’alon Gives Kerry High Forecheck to the Boards

Byron York on Bob and Suzanne’s Marriage

Suzanne and some of her friends are livid over Bob’s drinking. They have a right to be angry — but not to be surprised.

There’s a war going on between this husband and wife in which Suzanne has shown contempt for Bob’s autonomy, and now, in response, Bob is showing contempt for Suzanne’s decision making. It’s an unfortunate situation, but it’s what Suzanne has wrought.

The latest development is that Bob threatened representatives of Pottery Barn with bodily harm, and had a bunch of his buddies co-sign the threat. Sent Monday morning, the letter reminds Pottery Barn that Suzanne unilaterally chose the new kitchen curtains on her own, without his formal approval. Suzanne is not pursuing compromise, which would have to be agreed to by Bob, or a joint marital agreement, which would also require Bob’s approval.

“We consider the choice of pink kitchen curtains, which was not approved by Bob, as nothing more than an agreement between Suzanne and Pottery Barn,” the letter read. “Bob could revoke such an agreement at any time.”

Just in case there’s any confusion, Bob and his friends remind Pottery Barn that he could easily divorce Suzanne and get a new wife.

The letter comes on the heels of Bob’s decision to invite his friends over to the house in what amounted to an extended attack on Suzanne’s choice of curtains.

It should go without saying that the reason Bob and his friends are doing these things is because they are deeply concerned about Suzanne’s irrational insistence that Bob stop getting fall-down drunk in front of the kids. But another reason they’re acting is because they can. On the curtains, and before that on a dispute over Bob’s refusal to help with the dishes, Suzanne has taken pushiness beyond its proper limits, on the flimsy pretense that she is entitled to act unilaterally if Bob won’t take care of even the most basic of his responsibilities. Could anyone fail to anticipate that in response Bob would stretch his own authority, too?

Suzanne’s friend JoAnne quickly condemned Bob’s letter, calling it “a cruel strategy to deny Suzanne’s ability to run her household.” Barbara, undoubtedly speaking for other of Suzanne’s friends, called the letter “bizarre” and “a desperate ploy to avoid responsibility.”

Remember what preceded Bob’s action. A number of Bob’s friends, led by Corky Smithers, had been thinking about helping Bob put in new cabinets. The discussion of remodeling the kitchen was a response to Suzanne’s decision not to seek approval for the curtains despite a long history of Bob playing a role in their home decorating, which has provided “added class and a male touch to many of their rooms,” notes Bob’s friend Garth.

Suzanne’s response to the remodeling plan was swift. “There is no way in hell that you drunks are ripping out the cabinets.”

Now, Suzanne and her friends interpret Bob’s letter as the latest in a long line of alcohol-fueled outrages. “It’s safe to say that no wife in modern times has had to put up with this kind of stupidity,” says Suzanne’s “friend” Paul. “But as Bob’s alcoholism enters its final phase, he’s embarking on an entirely new enterprise: he’s decided that as long as he’s still married to her, it’s no longer necessary to respect his wife at all.”

Actually, things are much simpler than that. Time after time, Suzanne has told Bob to go to hell. Now Bob is telling Suzanne to go to hell. It’s an entirely predictable development.

Of course, it is still a bad thing. It is not good to invite your inebriated friends over just to mock the kitchen curtains and threaten to rip out all the fixtures. It is not good to undermine Suzanne’s ability to make the most basic decorating decisions. But it’s not a good thing to cut Bob out of the decision making either, or to threaten even more unilateral decorating decisions in the future, as Suzanne has done.

It’s too bad for Suzanne that she couldn’t persuade Bob to stop drinking. That did not give her the right to just go ahead and pick whatever kitchen curtains she wants. They’re pink for Chrissakes.

Now Bob is pushing back. It’s a shame it’s come to this, but that’s the way things work.