Trust Us

Here’s the guy who we’re supposed to trust that this newly revealed program is fine:

James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, is still working on his explanation for why he told Senator Ron Wyden in March that the NSA does not wittingly “collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans.” As we now know, the NSA does precisely that — metadata (but not content) from pretty much every phone call made in America is collected and stored.

On Thursday, Clapper claimed, “What I said was, the NSA does not voyeuristically pore through U.S. citizens’ e-mails. I stand by that.” Of course, that’s not what he said, and everyone knows it, because video. So now Clapper says that he simply has a different definition of collect than most humans, and this defniition allowed him to answer in the “least untruthful manner.” He admits that this explanation is probably “too cute by half.”

So, the person we’re supposed to trust lied to Congress. And:

The director of a top American spy agency said Tuesday that he believed that material from Iraq’s illicit weapons program had been transported into Syria and perhaps other countries as part of an effort by the Iraqis to disperse and destroy evidence immediately before the recent war.

The official, James R. Clapper Jr., a retired lieutenant general, said satellite imagery showing a heavy flow of traffic from Iraq into Syria, just before the American invasion in March, led him to believe that illicit weapons material ”unquestionably” had been moved out of Iraq.

”I think people below the Saddam Hussein-and-his-sons level saw what was coming and decided the best thing to do was to destroy and disperse,” General Clapper, who leads the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, said at a breakfast with reporters.

I’m sorry, but I don’t trust him.

Bombs not bikes

This is hilarious (I’m not going to link directly to the video). This is a private program run with no government money, but it’s socialism.  She says “We now look at a city whose best neighborhoods are absolutely begrimed, is the word, by these blazing blue Citi Bank bikes — all of the finest, most picturesque parts of the city.”, but doesn’t seem to mind how ugly many of the roads are … and they are paid for by the government–Socialism.

My favorite quote is “The bike lobby is an all-powerful enterprise”. The system in Boston, Hubway, is doing better than expected so far, but it’s only a matter of time until the bike lobby takes over complete control of Boston. You have been warned.

Also, see here.

War is peaches

Via here, I hear that the latest spin is that the IRS is going to let conservatives die through the implementation of Obamacare. Interesting. So, here’s the reasoning: Obamacare will, through the IRS, allow some people to die so we have to stop the expansion of Medicaid, such as in Texas, paid for by Obamacare. This will mean that … a lot of people will die from a lack of insurance–we need to let a bunch of people die so that some people don’t die. This is 1984 doublethink but without any rhyme or reason and without awareness (ok, I guess that’s the point in 1984).

Today is Friday, so I can’t end on this type of note. Here’s a picture of the latest Soyuz rocket being brought to the launchpad, I really like their look (Credit: NASA/Bill Ingalls):

Let her die

The highest court in El Salvador has ruled on the Beatriz case:

Her fetus, which has anencephaly, a severe birth defect in which parts of the brain and skull are missing, has almost no chance of surviving after birth, leading her doctors to urge an abortion to protect Beatriz’s health before it deteriorates further.

But in a 4-to-1 ruling, the court cited the country’s legal “absolute impediment to authorize the practice of abortion,” and ruled that “the rights of the mother cannot be privileged over those” of the fetus.

The court recognized that Beatriz has lupus, but it said that her disease was currently under control and that the threat to her life “is not actual or imminent, but rather eventual.”

It ordered that her health continue to be closely monitored, saying that if complications arose that put her right to life in imminent danger doctors “could proceed with interventions.”

Translated, the court has said that she can’t have an abortion now because her health isn’t in imminent danger, but she might be able to later if her health worsens. Of course at that point she will be more likely to die, but if she does die that’s the way it goes–a fetus that is most likely going to die is more important than this mother’s health (she already has one baby). This is what ‘pro-life’ supporters in the US want (Republicans, like Paul Ryan, also believe life begins at conception which would mean no exceptions if abortion is banned). And El Salvador shows that the Catholic Church and other pro-life people are ok with punishing women:

In 1998, the government passed a new Penal Code banning all abortions without exceptions. This was a shift from an earlier law which allowed abortions in cases of threats to the health or life of the woman, as well as in cases of rape, incest, or severe foetal abnormality. The abortion laws were further solidified in 1999 with a constitutional amendment defining a human being from the moment of conception. While the number of illegal abortions performed every year is unknown, attempts to self-abort are the second highest cause of maternal mortality in the country. In addition to the risk of death as a result of unsafe abortion procedures, El Salvador’s absolute ban on abortion has led to the arbitrary imprisonment of women suffering from miscarriages and complications in their pregnancies. Women are currently in prison for having abortions, some serving sentences of up to 30 years. Under current Salvadoran law, anyone who performs an abortion with the woman’s consent, or a woman who self-induces or consents to someone else inducing her abortion, can be imprisoned for up to eight years. Healthcare professionals are obliged to maintain patient confidentiality, but also to report any crimes to the police, including that of abortion. A note from the Attorney General’s Office is displayed in the maternity department of public hospitals, reminding staff of this and putting them under pressure to make reports. However, many women who miscarry or experience emergency obstetric complications, if the foetus is deemed to have been viable, are charged with aggravated homicide, for which they can be imprisoned for up to 50 years, and consequently spend decades behind bars. In June 2012, the Citizens for the Decriminalisation of Abortion (CFDA) pointed out that El Salvador’s stringent anti-abortion legislation has imprisoned 628 women since a law was enacted in 1998. Twenty-four of these women were indicted for “aggravated murder”, after an abortion, miscarriage or stillbirth. Morena Herrera, president of CFDA, maintains that the majority of women who have been charged are extremely vulnerable for being poor, young and with low levels of education. These women, who are more likely to suffer from obstetric complications, are regularly reported to the police following a miscarriage, stillbirth or premature labour. Significantly, not one such report has been made to the police by a private clinic or hospital.

Doctors can get up to 8 years in jail. Take special note of that last bit–this law doesn’t affect the rich.

No more Bachmann and anti-packing

So, Michelle Bachmann is going to retire. I don’t really care why, I’m just glad she’s going away. That doesn’t mean the craziness will go away (also see here):

That appeals court, known as the D.C. Circuit, often represents the last word on financial regulations, labor rights and environmental protections. With the confirmation last week of Obama’s first successful nominee to the court, Sri Srinivasan, the D.C. Circuit is now evenly balanced, 4 to 4, with appointees from Republican and Democratic presidents.

Enter Grassley with a bill he calls the Court Efficiency Act.

“The legislation is very straightforward,” Grassley said at a Senate Judiciary hearing last month. “It would add a seat to the 2nd and the 11th Circuit. At the same time, it would reduce the number of authorized judgeships for the D.C. Circuit from 11 to eight.”

Grassley says the D.C. Circuit doesn’t have enough work to do, so he wants to cut one seat altogether and send two others to busier appeals courts in New York and Georgia. He’s supported by seven other Republicans on the Judiciary Committee.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, a fan of the move, last week accused Obama of packing the court.

“I certainly hope that neither the White House nor my Democratic colleagues will instead decide to play politics and seek without any legitimate justification to pack the D.C. Circuit with unneeded judges, simply in order to advance a partisan agenda,” Lee said.

So, if President Obama doesn’t agree to reduce the size of the court so that Republicans regain some control then that’s partisan. Gotcha. I assume that Grassley would be willing to allow Obama to appoint 2 new judges and then move the two judges who have been at the court longest–after all, they have the most experience and so would be more help to the other courts. No?

Roman Polanski doesn’t know

Via here (with other great comments), this is disturbingly surreal:

Roman Polanski says the birth control pill has had a “masculinizing” effect on women and that the leveling of the sexes is “idiotic”

The director made the comments Saturday at the Cannes Film Festival, where he came to premiere “Venus in Fur,” a film adapted from the David Ives play which stars Polanski’s wife and toys with the subject of gender.

Polanski said the pill has “changed the place of women in our times” while talking to reporters. He further lamented that “offering flowers to a lady” has become “indecent.”

I wouldn’t be surprised if that last bit had to do with this (Geimer was 13 at the time):

Geimer later agreed to a second session, which took place on March 10, 1977 at the home of actor Jack Nicholson in the Mulholland area of Los Angeles. “We did photos with me drinking champagne,” Geimer says. “Toward the end it got a little scary, and I realized he had other intentions and I knew I was not where I should be. I just didn’t quite know how to get myself out of there.” She recalled in a 2003 interview that she began to feel uncomfortable after he asked her to lie down on a bed, and how she attempted to resist. “I said, ‘No, no. I don’t want to go in there. No, I don’t want to do this. No!’, and then I didn’t know what else to do,” she stated, adding: “We were alone and I didn’t know what else would happen if I made a scene. So I was just scared, and after giving some resistance, I figured well, I guess I’ll get to come home after this”.

Geimer testified that Polanski gave her a combination of champagne and quaaludes, a sedative drug, and “despite her protests, he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her”, each time after being told ‘no’ and being asked to stop.

Whoever was interviewing him should have asked the follow-up question: Do you think drugging and then raping a 13-year-old is indecent?

Who needs checks and balances?

From here and here, this article tells us how the IRS scandal happened:

The IRS Exempt Organizations division, the watchdog for about 1.5 million nonprofits, has always had to deal with controversial groups. For decades, the division periodically listed red flags that would merit an application being sent to the IRS’s Washington, D.C., headquarters for review, said Owens, the former division head.

…

Because this list was public, lawyers and nonprofits knew which cases would automatically be reviewed.

“We had a core of experts in tax law,” recalled Milton Cerny, who worked for the IRS, mainly in Exempt Organizations, from 1960 to 1987. “We had developed a broad group of tax experts to deal with these issues.”

In the 1980s, the division issued many more “revenue rulings” than issued in recent years, said Cerny, then head of the rulings process. These revenue rulings set precedents for the division. Revenue rulings along with regulations are basically the binding IRS rules for nonprofits.

…

Other checks and balances had existed too. Not only were certain kinds of applications publicly flagged, there was another mechanism called “post-review,” Owens said. Headquarters in Washington would pull a random sample every month from the different field offices, to see how applications were being reviewed. There was also a surprise “saturation review,” once a year, for each of the offices, where everything from a certain time period needed to be sent to Washington for another look.

…

The system began to change in the mid-1990s. The IRS was having trouble hiring people for low-level positions in field offices like New York or Atlanta — the kinds of workers that typically reviewed applications by nonprofits, Owens said.

The answer to this was simple: Cincinnati.

The city had a history of being able to hire people at low federal grades, which in 1995 paid between $19,704 and $38,814 a year — almost the same as those federal grades paid in New York City or Chicago. (Adjusted for inflation, that’s between $30,064 and $59,222 now.)

…

But by 1998, after hearings in which Republican Senator Trent Lott accused the IRS of “Gestapo-like” tactics, a new law mandated the agency’s restructuring. In the years that followed, the agency aimed to streamline. For most of the ‘90s, the IRS had more than 100,000 employees. That number would drop every year, to slightly less than 90,000 by 2012.

…

In 2003, the saturation reviews and post reviews ended, and the public list of criteria that would get an application referred to headquarters disappeared, Owens said. Instead, agents in Cincinnati could ask to have cases reviewed, if they wanted. But they didn’t very often.

“No one really knows what kinds of cases are being sent to Washington, if any,” Owens said. “It’s all opaque now. It’s gone dark.”

By the end of 2004, the Continuing Professional Education articles stopped.

So the problems came about because the number of workers at the IRS were cut (which meant both that the workers had to do more and there was less oversight) and they didn’t pay well enough to get good workers. Also, note that the changes were pushed by Republicans and signed off by the Clinton administration and were mostly done in the Bush II administration. Thanks guys. Also also, notice that this meant that the IRS was tougher on the small money groups than the big ones:

Over the last two years, government watchdog groups filed more than a dozen complaints with the Internal Revenue Service seeking inquiries into whether large nonprofit organizations like those founded by the Republican political operative Karl Rove and former Obama administration aides had violated their tax-exempt status by spending tens of millions of dollars on political advertising.

The I.R.S. never responded.

During the same period, the agency singled out dozens of Tea Party-inspired groups that had applied for I.R.S. recognition, officials acknowledged on Friday, subjecting them to rounds of detailed questioning about their political activities. None of those groups were big spenders on political advertising; most were local Tea Party organizations with shoestring budgets.

They also didn’t go after groups that were very likely breaking the spirit of the law:

A dark money nonprofit group that has run more than $1 million in ads in the Ohio race for U.S. Senate told the IRS last year it did not plan to spend any money to influence elections when it applied for recognition of its tax-exempt status.

David Dayen puts it together here:

According to data from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University, IRS audits of the largest and richest corporations have steadily declined since 2005, down 22 percent in the ensuing four years and even more from 2011-2013. In the same period, the agency accelerated its scrutiny of small and midsize corporations. Since 2000, the IRS has been more likely to audit the working poor, individuals and families making under $25,000 a year, than those making over $100,000 annually. The middle class received disproportionately more audits throughout the past decade as well. An IRS unit formed in 2009 called the Global High Wealth Industry Group, designed to give special attention to tax compliance of high-wealth individuals, performed exactly two audits in 2010 and 11 in 2011.

…

Congress knows full well that defunding the IRS will lead to these outcomes, and that gives a definable benefit to the rich and powerful, who know how to slip through the cracks of the tax code. “For a big corporation wanting to play fast and loose, this is manna from heaven,” David Cay Johnston said. “They’re the ones this is helping: the political donor class. It’s a subtle way of taking care of your friends.”

The problem is that neither of these explanations helps the Republican party, so you’re not going to hear this at the Republican investigation.

Cut the deficits now! Now I tell ya!

The US budget deficit is falling at the fastest rate since the end of WWII:

If the current laws that govern federal taxes and spending do not change, the budget deficit will shrink this year to $642 billion, CBO estimates, the smallest shortfall since 2008. Relative to the size of the economy, the deficit this year—at 4.0 percent of gross domestic product (GDP)—will be less than half as large as the shortfall in 2009, which was 10.1 percent of GDP.

Because revenues, under current law, are projected to rise more rapidly than spending in the next two years, deficits in CBO’s baseline projections continue to shrink, falling to 2.1 percent of GDP by 2015. However, budget shortfalls are projected to increase later in the coming decade, reaching 3.5 percent of GDP in 2023, because of the pressures of an aging population, rising health care costs, an expansion of federal subsidies for health insurance, and growing interest payments on federal debt. By comparison, the deficit averaged 3.1 percent of GDP over the past 40 years and 2.4 percent in the 40 years before fiscal year 2008, when the most recent recession began. During the next 10 years, both revenues and outlays are projected to be above their 40-year averages as a percentage of GDP (see figure below).

The Republican response? We need to cut more:

The lawmakers said the gap between revenue and spending is closing, but not by nearly enough, so they are sticking to their goal of balancing the federal budget within a decade.

On Tuesday the Congressional Budget Office said strong tax and other revenues caused it to slash its fiscal 2013 deficit forecast by more than $200 billion – to $642 billion, the smallest gap since 2008.

CBO said the brighter picture could push a deadline for raising the debt limit – necessary to avoid default on U.S. debt or a partial government shutdown – into November, from previous estimates of late July or early August.

When Republicans agreed to extend U.S. borrowing capacity in February, they had anticipated a summer deadline for raising the limit – over which they would demand cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

“It may change the amount and the size of the debt ceiling but it doesn’t change the reality of the debt ceiling,” said Representative James Lankford, a member of the House Republican leadership and the Budget Committee.

Gee, it’s almost as if they want to cut social spending and are using the deficit as an excuse –now that the deficit is falling, they’ll find another reason to cut (kind of how George W Bush argued for a tax cut because there was a surplus and then when the surplus went away argued for it because there was a recession).

What Catholics protest

So let’s see what the Catholics are protesting now:

The controversy over Prime Minister Enda Kenny of Ireland, who supports narrow abortion rights legislation in his country, speaking at Boston College’s commencement took a dramatic turn Friday when the head of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston declared that he will not attend the ceremony.

The announcement from Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley upped the ante in a ­debate that earlier in the week had pitted BC against the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, a group that opposes abortion rights and had strongly criticized the university for inviting Kenny.

And they’re really upset about this law:

The Catholic Church has pointedly left the threat of excommunication hanging over Irish lawmakers who vote against the church’s teachings on abortion in an upcoming parliamentary vote in the country.

The new law is a reaction to this case:

“The doctor told us the cervix was fully dilated, amniotic fluid was leaking and unfortunately the baby wouldn’t survive.” The doctor, he says, said it should be over in a few hours. There followed three days, he says, of the foetal heartbeat being checked several times a day.

“Savita was really in agony. She was very upset, but she accepted she was losing the baby. When the consultant came on the ward rounds on Monday morning Savita asked if they could not save the baby could they induce to end the pregnancy. The consultant said, ‘As long as there is a foetal heartbeat we can’t do anything’.

“Again on Tuesday morning, the ward rounds and the same discussion. The consultant said it was the law, that this is a Catholic country. Savita [a Hindu] said: ‘I am neither Irish nor Catholic’ but they said there was nothing they could do.

“That evening she developed shakes and shivering and she was vomiting. She went to use the toilet and she collapsed. There were big alarms and a doctor took bloods and started her on antibiotics.

“The next morning I said she was so sick and asked again that they just end it, but they said they couldn’t.”

She died. The new bill allows for abortion if the woman’s life is in danger, including from suicide:

Under the draft legislation, when the threat is not from suicide, two doctors must jointly certify that there is a “real and substantial risk” of the loss of the pregnant woman’s life, and that they believe abortion is the only way to avert that risk.

One of the doctors must be an obstetrician or gynecologist, and at least one of the two should consult with the woman’s own doctor where possible.

When the risk to the pregnant woman’s life is from suicide, the assessment must be made by an obstetrician or gynecologist, along with two psychiatrists.

A doctor is also allowed to terminate a pregnancy in the case of a medical emergency if there is an immediate threat to the pregnant woman’s life, the draft states.

The procedure must be carried out by a registered medical practitioner at an appropriate location. The final decision on whether to carry out the abortion will always be made by the pregnant woman, it adds.

This article doesn’t explicitly state it, but it is a very strict bill:

The new bill, which will have to be passed in both houses of the Irish parliament, will not include cases concerning rape, incest or fatal foetal abnormalities.

Notice that last one–abortions are not allowed if the fetus will not survive. This is the law that the Catholic Church thinks is so terrible that people who support it should be excommunicated. It really is difficult to not conclude that the Catholic Church doesn’t care about women. After all, how many times have you heard of these types of protests because of other issues, the death penalty or lack of compassion for the poor for example?

What the future holds

Here are two worrisome bits of information I found today:

via here, the C)2 level at Mauna Loa is poised to break 400 ppm for the first time in modern history. Here’s a chart for the levels since 1958 (from here, Credit: Dr. Pieter Tans, NOAA/ESRL (www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/) and Dr. Ralph Keeling, Scripps Institution of Oceanography (scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/).):

or, if you want a longer time frame (you might notice that sharp uptick at the end there):

And then there’s this:

When asked to agree or disagree with the following statement: In the next few years, an armed revolution might be necessary in order to protect our liberties.

In total, 29% agree, 47% disagree, 18% neither agree or disagree, 5% are unsure, 1% refused to answer. For Republicans, the percents are: 44% agree, 31% disagree, 20% neither agree or disagree, 4% are unsure, 1% refused to answer.

That’s … interesting. And unfortunately it seems we may be living in interesting times.

Rising unemployment and negative growth show austerity is working

Via here, this really is remarkable:

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Carlo Pier Padoan said euro-zone governments are close to stabilizing and even cutting their debts relative to economic output.

But he warned that governments facing resistance from voters as unemployment rates rise may halt their fiscal consolidations before they achieve that “remarkable result.”

“There is a risk that reform fatigue increases significantly, with governments facing very strong social resistance, and that happens at the wrong moment, because we are almost there,” Mr. Padoan said. “Our message is, we have done a lot in Europe, let’s not waste it.”

…

“Fiscal consolidation is producing results, the pain is producing results,” he said.

He added that euro-zone policy makers need to do a better job of communicating their successes to a weary population.

“There is an issue of communication,” he said. “It’s as if we will do more of the same and never stop. But we are achieving results, and we will see those results sooner than expected.”

…

Like other international financial institutions, Mr. Padoan said the OECD is set to cut its growth forecasts for the euro zone, and now fears that the currency area may face a long period of stagnation.

So, unemployment in the EU has gone up to 12.1%, including 27% in Spain and Greece, youth unemployment (under 25) is at 23.5%, 59.1% in Greece, and GDP is expected to decrease again this year, but austerity is working. Wow, imagine what things would be like if it wasn’t working. Also, note that last bit–a long period of stagnation obviously doesn’t mean austerity isn’t working. This is a perverted way of looking at the world.

What exactly is the American Community Survey for?

Via here and here, it seems Republicans have decided that the American Community Survey is too intrusive (the bill is here):

This week, the U.S. House voted 232-190, mostly along party lines, to prohibit the Census Bureau from using federal funds to conduct the survey. All four of the House members from East Tennessee voted in favor of the legislation.

…

The Census Bureau introduced the survey in 2005 to replace the “long form” questionnaire that had been used in the census count taken every 10 years. The idea was that the ongoing survey would provide statistical data on a regular basis, instead of the once-a-decade figures generated under the previous questionnaire.

But Duncan and others argue the survey is so detailed that it amounts to an invasion of privacy.

Duncan said he can’t think of any reason why the government needs to know how Americans get to work, how many bedrooms are in their homes or whether or not they have hot and cold running water — all questions that are posed on the survey.

“It’s just ridiculous how detailed these questions get,” Duncan said. “It seems to me there’s just almost no privacy anymore, and it just keeps getting worse and worse.”

Yes, it’s a mystery why they ask these questions. It’s not like the Census Bureau has a site explaining why questions are included … oh wait they do. Yeah, but is there really a reason to ask how Americans get to work?

Meeting Federal Needs

Basic knowledge about commuting patterns and the characteristics of commuter travel come from responses to these questions. The commuting data are essential for planning highway improvements and developing public transportation services, as well as for designing programs  to ease traffic problems during peak periods, conserve energy, reduce pollution, and estimate and project the demand for alternative-fueled vehicles. These data are required to develop standards for reducing work-related vehicle trips and increasing passenger occupancy during peak periods of travel.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) plans to use county-level data in computing gross commuting flows to develop place-of-residence earnings estimates from place of work estimates by industry. In addition, BEA also plans to use these data for state personal income estimates for determining federal fund allocations.

Community Benefits

Transportation

These data form the database used by state departments of transportation and the more than 350 metropolitan planning organizations responsible for comprehensive transportation planning activities.

Metropolitan planning organizations use these data to manage traffic congestion and develop strategies to mitigate congestion, such as carpooling programs and flexible work schedules.

Public transit agencies use these data to plan for transit investments, identify areas needing better transit service, determine the most efficient routes, and plan for services for disabled persons.

Emergency Preparedness

Police and fire departments use data about where people work to plan emergency services in areas of high concentrations of employment.

Employment

Data are used to identify patterns of discrimination in hiring among minorities and other population groups within labor markets.

Banking

Financial institutions use data about commuting patterns and occupation to define market areas for describing lending practices and the effects of bank mergers.

Well, perhaps but there couldn’t possibly be a reason to know whether we have hot and cold running water.

Complete plumbing facilities are defined as hot and cold running water, a flush toilet, and a bathtub or shower. These data are essential components used by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in the development of Fair Market Rents for all areas of the country. Federal agencies use this item to identify areas eligible for public assistance programs and rehabilitation loans. Public health officials use this item to locate areas in danger of ground water contamination and waterborne diseases.

Ok, but to be fair to Representative Duncan, I actually had to go to the Census Bureau’s web site to find this out. And that sounds like work. I should also note that Duncan didn’t say something as stupid as Rep. Webster:

“This is a program that intrudes on people’s lives, just like the Environmental Protection Agency or the bank regulators,” said Daniel Webster, a first-term Republican congressman from Florida who sponsored the relevant legislation.

“We’re spending $70 per person to fill this out. That’s just not cost effective,” he continued, “especially since in the end this is not a scientific survey. It’s a random survey.”

Really, he seems to think that making a survey random means it’s not scientific. He also stated the ACS is unconstitutional, here’s the Census Bureaus’s response to an earlier such question.

Not to be outdone, the Senate has introduced a bill to make filling out the ACS voluntary.

You can read more about this here, here, and here.

“Pro-life”

Via here, this is what ‘pro-life’ people want in the US: an absolute ban on abortions:

Doctor say Beatriz could die if she continues with the pregnancy, but have not yet treated her because they fear that if they end the pregnancy they might be prosecuted under the country’s total ban on abortion.

The 22-year-old woman is four-and-a-half months pregnant and has been diagnosed with a number of severe illnesses, including lupus and kidney disease.

Doctors have also confirmed that the foetus she is carrying is missing a large part of its brain and skull, which means it is expected to die before it is born, or within a few hours or days after birth.

It is now more than a month since the hospital requested permission to provide Beatriz with the treatment she needs, but the authorities have still not agreed to it being carried out.

The country’s Penal Code states that anyone seeking or carrying out an abortion could be given a long prison sentence. This means both doctors and Beatriz would be at risk of imprisonment if a termination is carried out.

“Beatriz’s situation is desperate and must not wait any longer. Her very chances of survival depend on a decision from the authorities,” said Esther Major, Amnesty International’s researcher on Central America.

And here is more (the page is translated by Google so the grammar is pretty bad):

But Dr. Carlos Alvarenga, representing the Association of Bioethics of El Salvador, said that “from the perspective of bioethics should preserve the life of both mother and child.

To Alvarenga, “just let her pregnancy progresses.”

…

To Julia Regina de Cardenal, president of the Association Yes to Life, “the multi-million dollar abortion industry, which includes radical feminist associations, abortion doctors and international organizations towards population control, being used to Beatrice to promote a change in our legislation. “

From Cardinal argues that “groups that cultivate the culture of death” take advantage of extraordinary cases of minimal statistical incidence, to become emotionally logo and sensitize the public and politicians to achieve the decriminalization of all abortion.

This is what the ethics of the pro-life movement looks like. A fetus that is almost certainly going to die is more important than the woman.

Not too soon?

Today is a day to celebrate, but it seems that some people want to use this tragedy to their advantage. Whenever there’s a gun tragedy, gun rights activists push back against any new legislation by saying it’s too soon or we shouldn’t pass laws on emotion:

“It’s dangerous to do any type of policy in an emotional moment,” said Senator Mark Begich of Alaska, a Democrat up for re-election next year who voted with three other Democrats and 41 Republicans against the compromise. “Because human emotions then drive the decision. Everyone’s all worked up. That’s not enough.”

Of course that rule doesn’t apply to conservatives:

“How can individuals evade authority and plan such attacks on our soil?” said Grassley, the top Republican on the committee. “How can we beef up security checks on those who wish to enter the United States? How do we ensure that people who wish to do us harm are not eligible for benefits under the immigration laws, including this new bill before us?”

Others went further.

“It’s too bad Suspect No. 1 won’t be able to be legalized by Marco Rubio, now,” conservative commentator Ann Coulter wrote on her Twitter account, referring to the suspect killed in the shootout. Rubio, a Florida Republican, is one of the main Senate authors of the legislation.

Sure, it turns out, the two suspects were here legally and one became a US citizen last year, but … ok I don’t see how this applies to the current debate on illegal immigration. Ask Grassley, I’m sure he can explain it.

We should get rid of all prevention measures

So a bill to expand background checks for buying guns has been filibustered. Here was one of the arguments against it:

“Criminals do not submit to background checks now,” said Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa. “They will not submit to expanded background checks.”

Of course criminals don’t submit to background checks now, why should they when they can easily buy a gun without one:

In 2000 or 2001, Bulger, 83, is ­believed to have called a Utah man who placed an ad in the “Thrifty Nickel,” or a similar newspaper, selling a 45-caliber Auto Ordnance pistol. The seller, who is not identified in court records, told agents that he sold the gun to the caller — an older man fitting Bulger’s description — outside a mall in Orem, Utah, ­because “he did not want to have the person come to his home,” accord­ing to court documents.

The reports detail efforts by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to trace 29 weapons — pistols, revolvers, shotguns, and rifles — that the FBI found stuffed in the walls and bookshelves of Bulger’s apartment in Santa Monica, Calif., after he and his girlfriend, Catherine Greig, were arrested in June 2011 after 16 years on the run.

“Obviously, anybody who managed to elude one of the most determined manhunts in US history would certainly figure out a way to buy weapons in Southern California,” said Mayor Jon Mitchell of New Bedford, who is one in a group of mayors pushing for stricter gun control and is also a former federal prosecutor who oversaw efforts to track Bulger. “In the case of private sales, no background check is ­involved, and that’s obviously a large loophole in the system.”

Bulger a longtime informant for the FBI, is charged with 19 murders in the 1970s and 1980s as part of a sweeping racketeering case and is slated to stand trial in June in US District Court in Boston.

If Whitey Bulger can buy guns this easily, imagine how easy it is for lower profile criminals. Criminals would still probably be able to obtain guns if the expanded background checks went through, but it would be more difficult. Personally, I want to make more difficult for them.

The logic in Grassley’s statement would mean we should get rid of all preventative measures–for example, all that security at the Boston Marathon didn’t stop the bombing so why bother with the security at all?

As an aside, four Democrats voted for the filibuster: Mark Begich of Alaska, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Max Baucus of Montana and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota. It’s one thing to vote against a measure put forth by your party, but if you filibuster it then you should be punished by the party–these four should lose something for defying the party.

Cut Social Security AND increase taxes on the poor and middle class

In my last post, I forgot about this:

But here’s who wouldn’t be protected: Seniors younger than age 76, veterans  who get compensation for war-related injuries, and some low-income families who  receive the Earned Income Tax Credit. The proposal also wouldn’t stop people  from rising into higher tax brackets more quickly, since the tax brackets won’t  get as much of an adjustment for inflation.

After all, the proposal is supposed to save $230 billion over 10 years – including $100 billion in new tax revenues – and that money has to come from  somewhere.

There are some protections, but that just means the cuts to Social Security would be smaller for some people. And this is in a time where retirement is shakier than it has been in the past. We should be expanding Social Security, not cutting it. This is also really bad politics, Republicans are already using it against Obama.

 

Obama wants to cut Social Security

President Obama has now officially said:

We’ll make the tough reforms required to strengthen Medicare for the future, without undermining the rock-solid guarantee at its core.  And we’ll enact commonsense tax reform that includes closing wasteful tax loopholes for the wealthy and well-connected – loopholes like the ones that can allow a billionaire to pay a lower tax rate than his or her secretary.

This is the compromise I offered the Speaker of the House at the end of last year.  While it’s not my ideal plan to further reduce the deficit, it’s a compromise I’m willing to accept in order to move beyond a cycle of short-term, crisis-driven decision-making, and focus on growing our economy and our middle class for the long run.  It includes ideas many Republicans have said they could accept as well.  It’s a way we can make progress together.

Hmm, he seems to have left off something. Let’s see:

Obama’s budget for fiscal 2014, set for release April 10, will propose reducing Social Security recipients’ annual cost-of-living adjustments by changing the inflation calculation, according to an outline released last week. The Medicare insurance program for the elderly would be cut by reducing payments to health-care providers and drug companies and imposing more costs on high-income beneficiaries.

Ah yes, cuts to Social Security. Republicans have been trying to cut Social Security and Medicare since they were introduced, but it looks like a Democrat who starts the process. Well, at least his budget will include some ‘stimulus’ (not really, since the budget is being cut):

Less than a week after job-creation figures fell short of expectations and underscored the U.S. economy’s fragility, President Barack Obama will send Congress a budget that doesn’t include the stimulus his allies say is needed and instead embraces cuts in an appeal to Republicans.

Wonderful. Let’s see what Republicans say:

“At some point we need to solve our spending problem, and what the president has offered would leave us with a budget that never balances,” Boehner said in a statement last week. “If the president believes these modest entitlement savings are needed to help shore up these programs, there’s no reason they should be held hostage for more tax hikes.”

…

Jon Kyl, the Senate’s second-ranking Republican until he retired in January, dismissed the budget proposal as “old wine in a new bottle.”

Still, Kyl, now a senior adviser for the Washington law firm Covington & Burling, said some Republican senators are concerned about the level of defense cuts in the automatic spending reductions under the sequestration and may be looking for a way to restart negotiations on the budget.

“There’s no harm in talking,” Kyl said, “and I suspect some people will view this as an opening gambit and see if some middle ground can be reached.”

This should have been obvious to Obama, what he considers a compromise is what Republicans now consider his opening bid and they will expect to see more compromise. If Obama actually reaches a deal with Republicans the cuts to Social Security and Medicare will have to be bigger–good job Mr. President. Go here to sign a petition to expand Social Security.

Let us reiterate, we will only help if we get something out of it

President Obama is trying to change how the US sends food aid to countries in need:

According to people briefed on the soon-to-be released fiscal year 2014 budget, the administration is expected to propose ending the nearly 60-year practice of buying food from American farmers and then shipping it abroad.

The administration is proposing that the government buy food in developing countries instead of shipping food from American farmers overseas, a process that typically takes months. The proposed change to the international food aid program is expected to save millions in shipping costs and get food more quickly to areas that need it.

The administration is also reportedly considering ending the controversial practice of food aid “monetization,” a process by which Washington gives American-grown grains to international charities. The groups then sell the products on the market in poor countries and use the money to finance their antipoverty programs.

Critics of the practice say it hurts local farmers by competing with sales of their crops.

Via here, these are needed changes:

In order to see how egregious current rules are, suppose that there is a famine in Ethiopia (I know, hard to do).  the quickest and most effective thing to do would be to find some farmer or group of farmers in other parts of the country, or in neighboring countries, buy their food and get it to the stricken area.  After all, one key cause of famine is the lack of money, not lack of crops.  But under current law, USAID is basically forbidden from doing that.  Instead, it must buy grain in the United States and ship it several thousand miles to the famine area.  You can imagine the amount of time that that takes; sometimes, several weeks.  it’s a logistic nightmare.  In the meantime, thousands die, usually the weakest such as children and the elderly.

But it’s worse than that.

If the food needs to be shipped, then that means that the shipping must be paid for.  And it sure is: according to a study done by AJWS and Oxfam, nearly 55% of the cost of American international food aid goes not to food, but to shipping costs.  That’s what your tax dollars are going to.

But it’s worse than that.

Just because a ship is flagged American, doesn’t mean that the sailors on it are American.  Hundreds of ships have been flagged under Liberian registry for years, and during much of that time, there was no “Liberia” to speak of.  So your tax dollars are not necessarily going to American jobs, and probably are not.

and he goes on. So this will not only make the program cheaper, it will make it better. Who could be against that?

“Growing, manufacturing, bagging, shipping and transportation of nutritious U.S. food creates jobs and economic activity here at home, provides support for our U.S. Merchant Marine, essential to our national defense sealift capability, and sustains a robust domestic constituency for these programs not easily replicated in foreign aid programs,” the groups wrote.

It’s as if the point of the program was to help Americans–as in: there’s a massive famine in Ethiopia, now how can we make money off it. It’s that crass.

President Bush also tried to change the program and the same groups spoke against it, so it wasn’t changed then. Perhaps this time.

Cuts for other people

There is a tendency for people who want to cut government spending to ignore spending that benefits them, the infamous example is ‘keep your government hands off my Medicare’–they want to cut government spending for other people who don’t deserve it like they do. That attitude shows up in this story on the First Congressional District of Kansas:

The residents of western Kansas are tired of out-of-control spending and government growth, and Huelskamp is their response. The fifth-generation farmer and former state senator easily won his first House race in 2010, 74 percent to 23 percent. In 2012, he wasn’t even opposed.

“I would say 90 percent of the people here are angry at Washington – because they’re reckless,” said Alan Snodgrass, the only doctor in Hodgeman County. “This president is trying to destroy the country I grew up in.”

…

Although the residents rely heavily on federal agricultural subsidies, the efficient work of USDA meat inspectors, and extra government aid for rural hospitals, voters in conversations across the district expressed nearly universal disdain for Washington.

Huelskamp is a bit different from many of these types, he actually is willing to cut spending that benefits his district, but it’s still part of the same phenomenon. He is for cutting spending for farm subsidies, but that’s not going to happen so it’s an easy vote–he can vote against it so he can claim he really does want to make these cuts without having to actually deal with the consequences from an actual cut. You can see that from the sequester. Huelskamp is fine with the sequester, the problem is that it passed and actually does affect his district:

A month into sequestration, Kansans are now beginning to bear the pain of austerity. Slashed education funding is a particularly big blow, given that the issue was contentious even before sequestration kicked in. A court ruled earlier this year that Kansas had failed to meet its constitutionally defined obligation to fund state education requirements. Now, the state Department of Education estimates a loss of $59 million in federal funds in the 2013-2014 school year, just as the state was looking to get its education funding back on track.

The cuts will also cost the federal courthouses in Wichita, Topeka and Kansas City $750,000 this year — 14 percent of their budget — according to the court clerk in Topeka. Judge Julia Gibbons, budget committee chairwoman for the U.S. Judicial Conference, said that as a result, some criminal cases in Kansas won’t be prosecuted this year, and Kansans who face federal charges may wait longer to see a court-appointed lawyer.

But most of the local attention has gone toward the closure of seven air traffic control towers, a consequence of the $600 million funding reduction for the Federal Aviation Administration this fiscal year. The towers, according to local officials, are vital to airport safety and revenue. Many of the rural communities in Kansas depend on small airports to boost their economy and business. In the case of the Manhattan Regional Airport, city officials were so concerned that they actually stepped in to take over funding for their local tower. They conceded they didn’t know how they’ll pay for it.

and let’s see his response:

Shutting down regional control towers was one impact of sequestration severe enough to actually elicit a response from Huelskamp and Pompeo. The two joined Republican Sen. Jerry Moran and other lawmakers in signing a letter opposing their closure.

“The Administration’s decision to shutter these air traffic control towers is short-sighted and dangerous,” the letter reads. “Closing control towers is equivalent to removing stop lights and stop signs from our roads.”

My guess is he will also come out against some of the other cuts.

Guns=Freedom

There was a rally in Boston for gun rights:

Dire predictions of tyranny were answered with defiance by 1,000 people on Boston Common. And the overarching message, delivered by a parade of speakers today to a receptive audience, was that gun control will subvert the US Constitution and open the door to a police state.

And here’s freedom in action:

The National School Shield Report focuses on a host of possible safety measures, such as internal door security and perimeter fencing, but its central recommendation is that armed personnel should be posted in all schools. Former congressman Asa Hutchinson (R-Ark.), who led the $1 million study, said schools could use “school resource officers” — typically local police trained to work in schools — or arm teachers or administrators designated by school boards or superintendents.

You might argue that basically locking up students and having armed personnel everywhere might be described as the beginning of a police state, but there’s a one word response to that: Guns. The same thing holds true in the way this was announced:

The National Rifle Association’s security guards gained notoriety earlier this year when, escorting NRA officials to a hearing, they were upbraided by Capitol authorities for pushing cameramen. The thugs were back Tuesday when the NRA rolled out its “National School Shield” — the gun lobbyists’ plan to get armed guards in public schools — and this time they were packing heat.

About 20 of them — roughly one for every three reporters  — fanned out through the National Press Club, some in uniforms with gun holsters exposed, others with earpieces and bulges under their suit jackets.

In a spectacle that officials at the National Press Club said they had never seen before, the NRA gunmen directed some photographers not to take pictures, ordered reporters out of the lobby when NRA officials passed and inspected reporters’ briefcases before granting them access to the news conference.

Again you might try to argue that this type of intimidation is the type of thing typical of a police state, but that would be silly. Ya see, private citizens with guns can’t do anything but increase freedom. It’s obvious.