I guess I am glad that Lincoln Chafee is running for president. I don’t think that he’ll get much traction, but it will be interesting to hear what he has to say and he’ll attract some small subsection of the electorate. He’s a good guy. In some alternate universe, he might even make a good candidate for the office. But that would be a universe quite a bit more pure than the one we live in.
Month: June 2015
Wanker of the Day: Ruth Marcus
Looking at my archives, I realize that I’ve written about Ruth Marcus more often than I thought. It has never been flattering.
Typically, I say things like “If Ruth Marcus suddenly sounds like Jane Hamsher, maybe both of them are wankers” or “Ruth Marcus is concern-trolling again” or, maybe, “I understand what Ruth Marcus is saying, but you should never lament the fall of a shit-weasel like Eric Cantor.”
Once, when it was completely appropriate, I opted for the simple “Ruth Marcus is such a wanker.”
More recently, I wrote about how Sally Quinn and Ruth Marcus tag-teamed Huma Abedin, and not in an erotic way.
So, let’s just say that I’m not surprised to open up my Washington Post this morning and discover that Ruth Marcus has joined her cocktail weenie-eating cohort Bill Press in questioning the prosecutorial zeal of the United States attorney for the Northern District of Illinois.
You see, for those who flock around the carved ham at Sally Quinn’s Georgetown banquet table, there can be nothing quite so unsettling as seeing a formerly respectable Man of the Beltway brought up on charges. In the past, we’ve seen arguments from Richard Cohen that the crimes of people like Scooter Libby are not “an entirely trivial matter since government officials should not lie to grand juries, but neither should they be called to account for practicing the dark art of politics.” This came after he celebrated the Christmas Eve pardoning of the Iran-Contra Six.
Cap [Casper Weinberger], my Safeway buddy, walks, and that’s all right with me. As for the other five, they are not crooks in the conventional sense but Cold Warriors who, confident in the justice of their cause, were contemptuous of Congress. Because they thought they were right, they did not think they had to be accountable. This is the damage the Cold War did to our democracy…
But [Bush] is wrong in asserting that a mere difference of opinion constituted the charges against the pardoned six. They were accused of lying to Congress. In a political context, that might not warrant jail time, but it’s something short of noble.
Lying to Grand Juries, lying to Congress, lying to the FBI…these things might not warrant jail time so long as they are done in a political context.
That’s problematic enough, but Ms. Marcus turns that argument on its head this morning by arguing much like Bill Press did yesterday that Dennis Hastert is being persecuted precisely because his crime wasn’t political.
Hastert did, it seems, a terrible thing. He is, or was, paying for it — literally. He shelled out $1.7 million “to compensate for and conceal his prior misconduct,” the indictment says. He is at once alleged perpetrator and victim of a shake-down scheme; his alleged victim is both prey and blackmailer.
Yes, but he’s also a former speaker of the House, two heartbeats away from the presidency. If this sordid scheme arose when Hastert were in office, not lobbying away, I might feel differently.
Now, though, I keep returning to the question: What, precisely, is the federal government’s interest — the public interest — at this point in prosecution and humiliation?
There are a lot of quite loathsome ideas packed into a small area here. First, there’s the idea that Hastert may have done a terrible thing but he’s already paid enough for it through the cash payments he made to his victim. Then there’s the diminishment of blame by comparing Hastert’s sexual immorality to the morality of the person he molested. Then there’s the explicit idea that anyone who was once two heartbeats away from the presidency shouldn’t be humiliated. Finally, there’s the sentiment that things might look worse if Hastert had done this bank fraud and lying to the Feds in a political context.
The takeaway is that Beltway insiders shouldn’t be charged with lying to Congress or Grand Juries or the FBI if they did it for political reasons and they shouldn’t be charged if they did it for personal and private professional reasons.
When, then, should they be prosecuted for lying?
Remarkably, in this column, Marcus couples her concerns about the Hastert prosecution with qualms about charges against ridiculously corrupt members of the international governing body of soccer, FIFA. Even though Marcus doesn’t see international soccer as something that concerns most Americans “who aren’t rabid soccer fans” anyway, she still feels compelled to stick up for these elites.
For different reasons, I find both indictments unsettling — not necessarily wrong, but worth thinking through whether they ought to have been brought.
But what really upsets her is this Hastert thing:
Lying is bad. Lying to FBI agents is even worse.
But, really, wouldn’t that have been your first instinct, too?
I want Ruth Marcus to go into court and argue that her client, a young black man from Baltimore facing charges of lying to investigators about his role in a drug distribution ring, was only following his “first instinct” to lie to investigators and should be let go with no punishment more severe than a stern warning. Then I want her to devote a column to the issue of prosecutorial discretion and the Drug War.
Somehow, for Marcus and her Sally Quinn-buffet colleagues, it’s more acceptable when a person who was two heartbeats away from the presidency lies to try to cover his ass than when an impoverished citizen of our inner cities attempts the same thing.
This is why I continue to mock these supposed liberals relentlessly.
Dick Cheney Embraces Vader Persona
This is a bit of a silly exercise, but our former vice-president has the worst human rights record of any elected American official since…I don’t know…Andrew Jackson? And he likes to flaunt it.
Former Vice President Dick Cheney doesn’t seem all that ruffled by his villainous public persona.
During a recent trip to a high school rodeo in Casper, Wyo., Mr. Cheney responded to a question about his unpopularity by flashing his signature uneven grin.
“Remind me to show you the back of my truck,” he said.
Outside the rodeo arena, he took a moment to show off the latest feature on his Ford F-350 Super Duty truck, a Darth Vader trailer-hitch cover, a nod to his alter-ego from the Bush days.
“Darth Vader,” he said, smiling. “I’m rather proud of that.”
The Wall Street Journal
Maybe you’ve never much gotten into the finer points of Star Wars. I know that I am no expert. But I do know that Darth Vader’s real name is Anakin Skywalker. And I know that Anakin goes over to the Dark Side in a vain effort to save the life of his wife who nonetheless dies shortly after giving birth to Luke and Leia. The main reason that she dies is that her disappointment in Anakin is so great that she loses the will to live.
So, how does Dick Cheney fit in?
I suppose you can choose your analogies, but we must start at the beginning. On the Sunday after the September 11, 2001 hijacking attacks, Cheney appeared on Meet the Press and told host Tim Russert that “We have to work the dark side, if you will. We’re going to spend time in the shadows.”
It was a warning that we were not going to be proud of what Cheney did in our name.
In other words, he might have thought that he was trying to save us, but in the end we would be so disgusted by his behavior that we would rather die than be the mother of his children.
Or something.
The point is that Cheney made a decision not to confront evil but to embrace it. He chose fear.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” –Yoda, Jedi Grand Master
Darth Vader isn’t a badass. He’s a coward.
If you’re proud of being compared to Darth Vader, you’re a total dumbass.
But there’s probably something serious in all this.
There’s definitely something seriously wrong with Dick Cheney.
Wanker of the Day: Bill Press
We need to create a name for the genre of political opinion writing devoted to explaining why people like Casper Weinberger, Scooter Libby, Dennis Hastert and anyone else who may have once shopped in the same Safeway produce aisle as Richard Cohen and Bill Press, shouldn’t have to live by the rules that the rest of us are expected to live by. You know, we’re not allowed to lie to Congress or the FBI. Why is it that seeing Beltway insiders get prosecuted for obstructing justice and perjuring themselves makes Beltway insiders so uncomfortable? And why don’t they keep their discomfort to themselves rather than publishing it for all to see? All this does is make the rest of the country angry and contemptuous.
Look at Bill Press on Dennis Hastert:
As a Democrat, I know I’m supposed to cheer now that former Republican Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) has been charged with federal crimes. But, in fact, I feel just the opposite.
It looks to me like he got a raw deal, and ended up the victim of an overzealous federal prosecutor.
Personally, I don’t give a shit if Bill Press wants to cheer or be sad, but he just accused the prosecutor of being overzealous in a case of gross sexual misconduct, lying to the Feds, and obstructing an investigation. What’s the appropriate thing to do when a guy lies to the FBI about why he’s flouting banking laws in order to pay hush money to someone he sexually molested?
So, let’s see what Mr. Press comes up with:
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t condone Hastert’s rumored sexual abuse of a former student, if that’s what happened.
Yeah, the millions of dollars Hastert paid this guy really leaves this allegation in question. And Mr. Press isn’t condoning sexual abuse of students, he’s just saying that you shouldn’t charge someone with a lesser crime.
But we’re getting to that.
But if that student still felt harmed, so many years later, why didn’t he go to the police instead of going to Hastert and hitting him up for hush money? And why hasn’t he been charged with extortion?
There’s this little thing called the Statute of Limitations that makes it impossible to charge someone for the crime of sexual misconduct with a minor in the 1970’s. And who knows whether this victim will or will not be charged with extortion, or whether or not Bill Press will think that the prosecutor is overzealous if he is.
Most of all, what does the case against the extortionist have to do with the price of tea in China?
Nothing.
Remember, Hastert hasn’t been charged with sexual abuse. He’s been charged with “structuring” — taking out multiple bank withdrawals to avoid federal reporting requirements on large transactions — and then lying to the FBI about it. Ironically, the law against structuring is part of the Patriot Act, which Hastert helped get through Congress.
But even that begs the question: As long as it’s his own money — and nobody’s accused Hastert of stealing — why’s it any business of the FBI whether he leaves it in the bank or not?
First of all, points are deducted here for using “begs the question” the wrong way, and I don’t care if moronic usage (if repeated frequently enough) becomes accepted usage. Bill Press is an educated and cultured man, and he looks like an idiot when he writes “begs the question.”
Secondly, as already mentioned, Hastert hasn’t been charged with sexual abuse because he can’t be charged with a crime that occurred four decades ago.
Thirdly, this as clear-cut a case as can be imagined of a Beltway insider asking for special rules for other Beltway insiders. Hastert was Speaker of the House when this banking provision became law. Why can’t he abide by it?
Fourthly, if Hastert had honestly explained the true purpose of his skirting the banking laws, the FBI wouldn’t have charged him with anything despite the fact that he deserves to be held accountable for his crimes. And this is a point that Press conveniently ignores in this next bit.
In an interview, James E. Barz, former assistant U.S. attorney in Chicago, where the Hastert charges were filed, told me the “structuring” statute was designed for cases involving drug dealers or terrorism suspects. If they couldn’t be caught committing the actual crime, prosecutors could nab them for trading in large sums of mystery money. But, says Barz, if it’s a case of somebody taking his or her own money out of the bank to settle a private civil case, “one could legitimately question: Where’s the federal crime?”
…Barz believes it’s likely that the FBI, once tipped off to Hastert’s withdrawals, originally investigated the case because it believed it had something to do with his official duties as Speaker or as a lobbyist. Once the FBI discovered it was a private matter about alleged sexual misconduct, and had nothing to do with public or illegal funds, Barz suggested one might question what federal interest was served by proceeding rather than referring the misconduct allegations to state law enforcement to handle.
Here’s something even an idiot can understand: Hastert wasn’t settling “a private civil case.” And, in order to discover that this was about a private matter involving sexual misconduct, the FBI had to interview Hastert. That was when Hastert lied. You can’t lie to the FBI. Once you do, you’re going to get charged because it’s in the federal interest not to let people get away with lying to them. Notice, the FBI did not charge Hastert with sexual misconduct. This was because they couldn’t due to the Statute of Limitations, but even if the crime had been more recent, it wouldn’t be a federal crime.
One thing’s for sure: If his name were Denny Harris, and not Denny Hastert, these charges would never have been filed. Hastert was charged with federal crimes only because he’s a high-profile politician. And that’s neither just nor fair.
Actually, as ordinary people understand only too well, prosecutors are very reluctant to file charges against high-profile politicians. In the case of Dennis Hastert, he was protected when he was in office and could well of been prosecuted back then if Attorney General John Ashcroft actually cared about the guy third in line to the presidency taking bribes from Turkish-American criminal organizations.
Denny Harris can’t lie to the FBI and get away with it. What would be wrong is if Dennis Hastert could.
It’s really rare that anyone in power gets held accountable in this country, whether they serve in the White House, Congress, or work in corporate boardrooms. And when it actually happens, we never get to celebrate without reading columns like this from people who have no idea how much it makes us hate them.
So, what do we call this genre?
Ever Thus to Deadbeats
This is pretty awesome.
What better way to celebrate a class’s graduation from high school than to point out that two-thirds of the graduates are morons? That’s what Volusia County, Florida, School Board Chairwoman Linda Costello decided to do during her commencement speech. The best part is that she seems genuinely surprised that much of the audience didn’t appreciate the sentiment.
Costello said by phone she regrets including part of a short speech that offended many of the nearly 400 graduates and their families. She said she didn’t realize she had erred until Monday morning when she received a handful of emails from people who were upset.
“Speaking of who you are as a class, you are smart. More than one-third of you are graduating with distinguished honors,” Costello told the group Sunday afternoon at the Ocean Center in Daytona Beach.
She paused for a moment as the room erupted in applause. But her audience was silent after the next line: “The rest of you underperformed.”
Yeah, yeah, I know that a lot of these kids really applied themselves and did they best they could and still did not get any distinguished honors for their efforts. But the important thing is not to let the slackers celebrate four years of unfocused teenage angst and misplaced priorities. It’s like, “Okay, here’s your diploma, congratulations on doing the bare minimum. Good luck in life, losers.”
And, of course, the appropriate reply is, “Look! Here is me, applying myself!”
Nicely played, Ms. Costello.
Nicely played.
How to Tell Floridians That They’re Doomed
When the hazards damage analyst says this about your state, don’t you think maybe you should consider moving?
Were a big hurricane to slam Miami or Tampa Bay, the damage would easily reach $100 billion, said Charles Watson, a hazards damage analyst.
“The bottom line in Florida, the polite way I can put it is: You’re doomed,” he said.
Frankly, hurricanes are less of a worry than seawater. Unless they want to turn it into an aquarium, southern Florida is most definitely doomed. A couple of Republicans are actually willing to contemplate this fact, but it’s too late anyway and it hardly has any impact on the GOP as a whole:
Curbelo, a Hialeah native, says he doesn’t view climate change as an ideological question, of conservative versus liberal, but rather a “real issue that demands real solutions.”
“I actually believe that more people agree with me in my party than they’d like to admit,” [Representative Carlos] Curbelo [R-Miami] says. “Unfortunately it’s become part of the political game.”
I mean, which game is that? Is that the game where the Democrats listen to scientists and the Republicans take money from ExxonMobil and accuse the rest of us of being religious cultists?
I Hate the Pro-Gitmo Crowd
There are a lot of things that piss me off, but there’s really nothing that angers me like the politicians who defend the prison in Guantanamo Bay and oppose transferring even the innocent out of that indefinite extrajudicial detention facility. Part of it is that it offends me when my elected representatives behave like a bunch of bedwetting sissies who are afraid to put terrorist suspects in our maximum (Supermax) prisons. Part of it is that George W. Bush filled Guantanamo with a hodgepodge of people, some of whom were extraordinarily dangerous and some of whom were entirely guiltless. Part of it is that people were in some cases horribly mistreated at Gitmo. Part of it is that almost everyone agrees that creating Gitmo was a mistake, a major moral failing, a huge propaganda boon to America-haters, a failure of both our military and civilian criminal justice system, a major blow to our heritage and our international image, and one of Congress’s biggest fuck-ups on record.
But maybe the biggest problem is the same one that so angered me about Republican opposition to the 2009 economic stimulus bills. If you make an enormous blunder and create a huge mess, it’s your obligation to try to make it right. And if you’re not up to the task of helping to make it right, at least get out of the way and let others give it a shot. But to handcuff the president and refuse to let him even try to clean up your wreckage?
In any other area of life, how would you react to that kind of behavior?
Russian Wedge for Gas Deal with Greece and Turkey
Greece says financing agreed to extend Russian gas pipeline
MOSCOW (AFP) June 1, 2015 – The financing of the extension of a pipeline carrying Russian gas from Turkey to Greece has been secured and a deal could be signed this month, the Greek energy minister said today, AFP reported.
In an interview with Russian public television, Panagiotis Lafazanis indicated he had had a series of very productive meetings in Russia, which is ready to participate in the financing.
He said there is “enormous interest” among Greek companies for an extension of the Turkish Stream gas pipeline.
Moscow axed its South Stream gas pipeline to southeastern Europe last year, even though construction had already begun, as relations with the EU hit a nadir over Russia’s role in the Ukraine conflict.
Instead Moscow announced a pipeline to Turkey, which should be ready in December 2016, and told European nations they would need to build links to get the gas.
Ever since the radical-left Syriza party swept the elections in January, Moscow has been courting Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, a former communist who has made no secret of his desire for closer ties with Russia and criticised the EU sanctions imposed over Ukraine.
Pipeline would end at the border with Macedonia …
○ NATO and EU call for calm after deadly Macedonia clashes | France24 |
○ America and Russia clash in Macedonia | Pravda |
Russia Just Made A Bold Move To Keep Its Gas Leverage On Europe | Business Insider |
Kremlin-funded RT says Moscow will use funds and materials intended for the original South Stream project to build the new Black Sea pipeline.
« click for more info
Turkey and the new energy politics of the Black Sea region (2012)Russia’s Future Game Plan Outside Of Europe
Russia has been publically exploring energy (and military) relationships with countries outside of Europe — most notably China and India. In May 2014, Russia’s Gazprom and China National Petroleum Corp. (CNPC) signed a historic 30-year contract to supply natural gas to China.
My earlier comment …
Not breaking … by Oui on Jan 15, 2015
This decision was made earlier this month and reported in the media. No direct supplies have been cut, it’s in the planning due to canceling of the South Stream project. Indeed, the supply stream from the Black Sea will be diverted to Turkey. Erdogan is moving away from Europe to a more independent or possibly joining the East Asia bloc of nations. See today’s resolution by the European Parliament – EP urges Turkey to respect freedom of press.
Today, Royal Dutch Shell has canceled the Qatar LNG project [$6.2bn] which was signed 4 years ago due to lower price of oil, poor exploration results making the investments not feasible. Does this mean Assad gets to stay in power in Syria, because his overthrow was part of the Qatar LNG transport and the oil partners: GCC states and the Old Colonial West.
Info one month ago …
On South Stream and Turkey:
○ New moves alter energy routes around Turkey
How Will the Iowa Caucuses Work?
It’s good to know that Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has a plan to win the Republican nomination. Reading about his excellent plan, it occurred to me that it’s about time for us to bone up on the actual rules of the Republican nominating process. If we take, for example, the Iowa caucuses, the rules are not the same for Democrats and Republicans. They also seem to change a bit from presidential to presidential year.
In order to do any kind of intelligent analysis on Iowa, we’re going to need to understand some simple things like “how many votes do you need to get an actual delegate out of a caucus?”, and “are candidates allowed to trade votes if they’re below the threshold for a delegate?”
With seven billion candidates running in Iowa, it will be hard to crack 5% of the vote for most of these folks, but there’s a whole strategy behind maximizing your delegates. If I remember correctly, the Democratic side has more of this kind of thing than the Republican side. So, for example, O’Malley and Sanders could agree to share voters to maximize their respective delegate counts. Say that you need 12 voters to get a delegate in a particular caucus, and Sanders has seventeen while O’Malley only has seven. The five extra Sanders voters could join with the seven O’Malley voters to give them each a delegate, taking one away from Hillary. Do this across the whole state, and it begins to add up.
Last time around, the Republican side was a mess. Romney was announced as the winner and got a little bounce out of it, but it turned out that Santorum had actually won more delegates. And then Ron Paul basically stole all Santorum’s delegates when the votes were actually cast at later county conventions.
So, this is really a battle of perception and a battle of organization. You don’t want to be Santorum and win without getting credit for it and then lose the actual representation at the convention. Better to be seen as the winner, like Romney, or be the winner like Ron Paul.
Still, it matters what the rules are. Especially with so many candidates out there who will have voters but not enough voters to count, we’ll be seeing alliances and cross-endorsements between rivals. The Anybody But Bush vote will be strong. There will be neocon and anti-neocon factions. There will be competition for the evangelical vote and multiple Catholic candidates to choose from.
Anyway, who wants to go look up the rules for the Republican Iowa caucuses and share them with us?
Can’t Businesses Just Pay Taxes?
I’m going to do something a little out of my comfort zone and go back to that Politico piece on Bernie Sanders that I cited in my last piece. According to that reporting, one of the things that Sanders campaigned on in his first run for mayor of Burlington was opposition to raising residential property taxes. Instead, he wanted to get money out of commercial properties and well-to-do non-profits. In Burlington, the latter would be the University of Vermont and the hospital.
Sanders had campaigned against the incumbent mayor’s plans to raise residential property taxes, and proposed raising taxes on commercial property instead…
…Later in his tenure, Sanders went after the University of Vermont and a local hospital, non-profit institutions that owned large swathes of valuable land in the city but were exempt from paying taxes and cut deals for them for them to contribute “Payments in Lieu of Taxes.”
Sanders didn’t invent PILOTs in Burlington. That other people’s republic, Cambridge, Mass, had been receiving them from Harvard since the 1920s, as had other cities since. But he did anticipate an approach that’s become increasingly popular in the Northeast in recent decades as tax-exempt hospitals and universities have swallowed up more and more land and local governments have put the screws on them to pony up more money for city services.
I’ve never been thrilled with the PILOT way of doing business. Certainly, some kind of revenue is better than nothing, but there are principles that are compromised along the way. Take what’s happened in Chester, Pennsylvania. In order to lure a Major League Soccer team to their dilapidated waterfront, the city and Delaware County struck a deal with the ownership of the Philadelphia Union. The Union would make “payments in lieu of taxes.”
When Nick Sakiewicz envisioned a home for the team, he looked at locations across the country. He settled on Chester, bypassing cities including Philadelphia and Portland, Ore., because he “saw this was a great place to be.”
“Revitalizing the city isn’t what we ever promised,” said Sakiewicz, the team’s chief executive and operating partner. “One business doesn’t fix decades of economic mismanagement in a city.”
To sweeten the deal, the state kicked in $47 million, the Delaware River Port Authority gave $10 million, and Delaware County committed $30 million in the form of a bond.
For Chester’s benefit, a 30-year lease was arranged, which stipulated that in lieu of property taxes, PPL Park would pay the city $500,000 a year through 2014. After that, payments would drop to $150,000 through 2040.
[Mayor] Linder said those payments – in a financially distressed city with $5 million in debt – are not sufficient. He said Chester owes the county more than $400,000 annually to pay off the $30 million bond. Chester is responsible for paying one-fourth of the bond, said John McBlain of the Delaware County Council.
Apparently, there was some issue with the Union making their annual $500,000 payment in a timely manner, but the real trauma is that the salad days are over. This year, the payment is down to $150,000, which doesn’t even come close to covering the cost of the city’s bond payment. And this arrangement is supposed to persist for the next quarter century.
Yes, having a MLS franchise is great for Chester’s blighted image, and the organization does employ a lot of Chester residents. They create significant economic activity, both legitimate and black market. They are doing commendable things in the community on a number of fronts, from simple charity to organizing youth soccer leagues to setting up mentoring programs for troubled youth. There’s no doubt that there are tangible benefits to having the Union in Chester, but it probably doesn’t make up for having a significant structural deficit for the foreseeable future.
Given the choice of having a franchise or not having a franchise, Chester would probably prefer to have the franchise, but it’s not an ideal situation by any means, and it’s a not a clear-cut win for the city or the county. That’s why both the outgoing and the incoming mayor are complaining about the arrangement and begging the Union to give more.
And this is what I don’t like about PILOT programs. The Union aren’t bad citizens, and they’re not responsible for single-handedly fixing one of the most awful cities in the region. But they got a sweetheart deal, and now it causes problems and resentments. Wouldn’t it be better if they just paid commercial property taxes that the city could set at a reasonable level and rely upon when they do their budget?
Again, getting something is better than getting nothing, and Sanders was able to get something in Burlington that improved the city for all its residents. That’s commendable, and a mayor has to get results within the system that exists. I just think it’s a bad system.