Krugzilla

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/21/opinion/krugman-profits-without-production.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

I can't read as much Krugman as a I used to (thanks NY Times paywall!).  But as usual his analysis seems spot on.

The term "monopoly rents" basically means that some corporations have such overwhelming control over aspects of a market that they can set prices outside the normal laws of supply and demand.

Additionally - though Krugman doesn't seem to say this outright - what we have created is a form of monopoly over labor.  Through outsourcing and offshoring - not to mention a federal retreat from labor rights - labor has lost any leverage to raise wages.  Depressed wages means a depressed economy.

Finally, the financialization of the economy, where everything is evaluated by quarterly reports, means that no one really cares at the corporate level about the long term health of their companies or the economy as a whole.  If you can boost your stock price 10% by sending all your manufacturing jobs to China and Mexico, then you do it.  No matter the cost to community or the long term health of the country or the country's economy on which the company depends.

I'm looking forward to more in this series of how the economy is changing.  It should be interesting.

Tears Of A Clown

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/06/suddenly_the_stakes_are_clear.php?ref=fpblg

Marshall is right.  The inability of the GOP to pass their own legislation is embarrassing.

Cantor and Boehner are blaming Pelolsi for not providing votes.  But the Farm Bill was anathema to the Democrats because of the draconian cuts to SNAP and other food assistance programs.

As Booman sez why would Democrats vote for a bill that guts food assistance and imposes drug testing on recipients.  The Republicans got 24 Democrats to vote for this piece of crap bill.

Boehner continues to solidify his place as the least competent Speaker in history.  What this means for the Immigration Bill is anyone's guess.

But the idea that Boehner can deliver anything with Republican votes, besides a ban on lesbian abortion Obamacare repeals is laughable.

The (Boring) Debate We Should Be Having

How does Intelligence oversight work?  Does it even work at all?

TPM gives a great oversight of the problem:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/06/snowden-revelations-cast-new-doubts-on-intelligence-oversight-process.php?ref=fpa

Nate Silver Cuts Some Nuts

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/nate-silver-politico-co-founders-lack-curiosity-for?ref=fpb

Pretty Categorical

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/obama-defends-surveillance-we-should-take-pride-in?ref=fpb

"What I can say unequivocally is that if you are a U.S. person, the NSA cannot listen to your telephone calls, and the NSA cannot target your emails."

“And have not," Rose wondered.

“And have not," Obama confirmed. "They cannot and have not, by law and by rule, and unless they -- and usually it wouldn't be ‘they,’ it'd be the FBI -- go to a court, and obtain a warrant, and seek probable cause, the same way it's always been, the same way when we were growing up and we were watching movies, you want to go set up a wiretap, you got to go to a judge, show probable cause...”

Obama asked for this interview with Charlie Rose.  Like all presidential interviews, he was prepped out the wazoo.

Unless he really is Nixonian - and I don't see any evidence of that in his past actions - then DOJ and NSA are telling him categorically that what he said above is the truth.

This still doesn't obviate the need for greater oversight, and the Wyden-Merkley Bill looks like a good idea.

But I still don't see any evidence of law breaking.

The Shoe That Didn't Bark

Over the weekend, the fabled other shoe seemed to be poised to drop in the NSA kerfuffle.

CNET ran a story that suggested that Rep. Nadler was told that any NSA prole could listen on any American at any time without a warrant.

Turns out... not so much.  They based in on an ambiguous exchange, and Nadler kind of swatted that down.  They have withdrawn the story.

Then we had the Snowden chat.  In it, Snowden seems to say that the problem isn't that there was a policy on spying on Americans without a warrant.  Rather there was a possibility to do this because the technology was there.  All some NSA guy had to do was flip a switch (or something) and he could access someone's phone calls.

Really disturbing.

And illegal.

And what's more, Snowden notes that The restrictions against this are policy based, not technically based, and can change at any time. Additionally, audits are cursory, incomplete, and easily fooled by fake justifications.      Put another way, if an NSA agent wanted to break the law and access personal information, they could.

Put another another way, people who break the law can break the law.

And this is where Snowden (and Greenwald) show their hand.  For them, the mere possibility that the government can break the law means that the government will break the law.  That's kind of the starting point for libertarianism, that the state is more or less a de facto criminal intrusion on our liberties.

So, the NSA has the capability to listen in on anyone's phone calls, but it's illegal to do so.

Let's tease this out: the Armed Forces could kill and enslave most Americans.

The Atomic Energy Commission could discharge nuclear waste in an American city.

The CDC could release Ebola into the drinking water.

Those capabilities all exist, but they are illegal.

But if, as Snowden states, the barriers are merely "policy based", which is another word for laws then they are insufficient.  As he says later " it’s important to understand that policy protection is no protection - policy is a one-way ratchet that only loosens."

Really?  It only loosens?  The Church Commission didn't exist?  We didn't stop torturing people?  We didn't stop throwing people in Gitmo?

And torture is a good example.  The problem with torture under Bush is precisely that it was policy.  I'm not some naif that thinks that American soldiers never tortured people in certain situations, some even just for the pure sadistic catharsis of it.  But it was only policy once before - during the Filipino War - and was subsequently outlawed.  When Bush and Cheney made it policy they implicated us all in a shameful episode in our history.

That is now what's happening here.  Here, the policy is "don't listen in on Americans without a FISA warrant."  But it's possible that someone could do this illegally via the technology that the NSA has.  This is similar to Snowden's fear that a Delta team is going to show up surrounding his bed and snuff him out.  Hey, they have the capability.

Now Snowden and Greenwald remain correct that greater safeguards are needed because you don't want everything to come down to who might occupy the White House.  And if this whole kerfuffle does lead to some reduction in oversight powers and some increase in oversight, that will be for the best.

But this isn't a breathless expose of tyranny or government powers run amok.  This is about a legal program that has the potential for abuse because it's secret.

Which is true of a lot of things.

Fer Fun...

http://media.talkingpointsmemo.com/slideshow/new-york-city-subway-construction/1-310157

Pretty cool pics.

Man Of Steel

Went to see it with the family as a Father's Day outing.

Thing Two was crying at the end because Clark's dad dies in a noble act of self-sacrifice.

Reviewers have been notably unkind to the movie, and they have one very good point: This movie is very loud in ways it didn't have to be.  The action sequences are too long and too hectic.

But it's a pretty darn good movie.  It takes an inherently difficult character to make dramatic - Superman - and makes him dramatically compelling.  Superman is perfect, impervious to harm and incredibly powerful.  So the story is about his lack of belonging to either world, Krypton or Earth.

There are some superb performances, most surprisingly by Kevin Costner as Jonathon Kent.

The Avengers was more fun and Whedon knows when to dial down the BANG BOOM and he's verbal and smart.

But Man of Steel was thoughtful and moving.

And Thing Two hugged me all through dinner so that was nice.

UPDATE: Having slept on it, it's really a story about fathers and sons.  Clark/Kal El has two fathers, two visions for him.  Jonathon Kent wants him to be safe and hidden, Jor El wants him to be exceptional.  It's these competing visions that constitute the dramatic arc of the story, but it's also these competing visions that typify every parent's visions for their child.

Happy Father's Day

Or Happy Motherf%#*@$ Day as it's known in Samuel L. Jackson's house.

Holy Crap!

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/15/us-iran-election-idUSBRE95C1E120130615

I just assumed that the mullahs were going to throw the election to Jalili and that reform minded Iranians would stay home.

Rohani is only an improvement, not a transformative figure.  But his election does suggest that the regime backed off naked voter fraud.

This could be a big deal, if it signals a willingness of the regime (read Ayatollah Khamenei) to negotiate with the West.

Greenwald Battles The Strawmen!

The most vocal media critics of our NSA reporting, and the most vehement defenders of NSA surveillance, have been, by far, Democratic (especially Obama-loyal) pundits.

Um, no.

Rep. Peter King wants to try you and Snowden for treason.  Other Republicans are outraged to the point of talking about arrests and trials, too.

Most Democratic "loyalists" are taking the position that we would like to see more oversight and transparency, but that we understand that there are trade-offs between security and liberty.

As I've written many times, one of the most significant aspects of the Obama legacy has been the transformation of Democrats from pretend-opponents of the Bush War on Terror and National Security State into their biggest proponents: exactly what the CIA presciently and excitedly predicted in 2008 would happen with Obama's election.

Here's where Greenwald gives away the game.  See, HE'S pure.  HE'S noble.  HE'S consistent.  The O-Bots are just narrow partisans!  Only true Libertarians who are uncorrupted by "politics" can be trusted on these issues.

I love this part:

Some Democrats have tried to distinguish 2006 from 2013 by claiming that the former involved illegal spying while the latter does not. But the claim that current NSA spying is legal is dubious in the extreme: the Obama DOJ has repeatedly thwarted efforts by the ACLU, EFF and others to obtain judicial rulings on their legality and constitutionality by invoking procedural claims of secrecy, immunity and standing.

You see, these programs are illegal BECAUSE they are secret.  The fact that Congress passed and the Judiciary signed off on these programs is irrelevant, because Glenn Greenwald can't read the rulings himself.

I understand the need to be suspicious of government power.  And candidly, I can understand that I trust Obama with these programs more than I would have trusted President McCain and Sec Def Neocon McWarpowers.  And that makes the programs themselves troublesome.

But that's why I want to see oversight and some additional transparency.  Like most "Democratic pundits".  

I don't see these programs as "illegal" because they cannot be illegal.  They might be unconstitutional, though no court has yet found them as such.  

But Greenwald knows he's right so screw it.

The Bush Doctrine

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2013/6/15/11735/0010

When the Arab Spring broke out a few Bush Apologists noted that this was the point of the Iraq invasion: Bring Democracy to the Middle East!!

As those democracies have proven to be problematic, with ties to Islamist groups that are hostile to Israel (the neo-cons one, true love), you don't hear nearly as much of this.

If you want to see the Bush Doctrine in action, look at Syria.  As Booman notes, when we toppled Saddam, we opened a chapter of sectarian violence in the Shi'ite Crescent that is currently ripping Syria to pieces.

Game Changer, indeed.

Future Stars

I was watching Blackhawk Down (TV version) with Thing One yesterday and it was amazing how many future stars/superheroes populate that movie:

Legolas, Jaime Lannister, the Incredible Hulk, Obi Wan Kenobi, Mr. Fantastic, Bane, Sir Galahad and of course, Phil Dunphy.

The GOP Problem On Obamacare

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/06/obamacare-and-conservative-self-delusion.html

As Chait notes, the GOP has been wildly overselling the catastrophe of the approaching full implementation of Obamacare.  For 26 year old single men (you, know, assholes), Obamacare will probably prove onerous (unless they get sick).  For most people, they won't see a lick of difference in their health care.  For those who were without... BONUS!  Most importantly, we should continue to see an overall decline in the national cost of health care, which is the most important fiscal issue the country faces.

The problem for the GOP is that in a few years, Obamacare will be the status quo, and few people will want to mess with it.  As Chait notes, the most successful GOP attack on ACA was that it would cut Medicare and result in "death panels".  That these attacks were brazen lies did not diminish their effectiveness.  But they were making a temperamentally conservative case against change, rather than an ideological conservative case against government involvement in health insurance.

In a perfect world, Obama spends his second term setting up the provisions in ACA and Hillary gets elected with enough coattails to bring in a Democratic House and we finally get a public option.  Ultimately, in 20 years or so, I expect the US will have a single payer system.  Ultimately, that was the point of the entire exercise in 2009-10.  You can't get from Point A to Point C without going through Point ACA.

And this is why the GOP is so scared (and right to be scared).  This is indeed a slippery slope, just as Social Security was 70 years ago.

But it's not a slippery slope to socialism, but rather a slippery slope to a further invalidation of their most cherished beliefs.

The Slow Motion Revolution

Super Funtime Revolution!

I was thinking about how the Obama Administration manages change when reading about two things unrelated to the NSA stuff and how it relates to the NSA stuff.

First there is the access to Plan B over the counter by minors.  The administration really slow walked this one, for no apparent political or scientific reason.  It does not hurt kids to use it.  Those who need it at age 14 are likely the ones who can't go to their parents.  He was never going to win the votes of those who are opposed to contraception as a matter of principle.

But at the end of the day, Plan B is now available over the counter to everyone.

Secondly, there is greenhouse gas emissions.  Obama intends to use the Clean Air Act and the EPA to make major changes in our emissions.  It will be done quietly, out of the limelight and without the ability of the GOP House to obstruct.

Then there is immigration reform.  Obama can't lead on this issue, because if he does, it becomes an Obama initiative and the GOP will rally around opposing it.  So he has to lead from behind on what is arguably the most important legislative initiative of his second term.

But at the end of the day, if immigration reform passes and the EPA reduces CO2, Obama will have addressed three of the biggest problems facing America: global warming, illegal immigration and those with out health insurance.

It's not like he's going to get credit for any of it.  Obamacare will be a lightning rod for another ten years, before the GOP finally gives up and accepts it. Immigration will be focused on Congressional leadership and will likely be (like Obamacare) a series of half measures and compromises.  Climate change may always be a case of too little, too late.

But he will be able to say in 2017, that he fundamentally changed American domestic policy.  (Maybe he can give the whole Grand Bargain thing a rest for now.)

He also will have withdrawn us from Iraq and Afghanistan.  He will have ended DADT and put America on a glide path towards marriage equality.

When Obama said he "welcomed the debate" on the NSA stuff (I refuse to call it a scandal until there is evidence of law breaking), I have to wonder if this isn't more slow motion revolution.

First, of course, we have to understand what is really going on with PRISM and the phone monitoring.  Right now, I'm not agog at any of the revelations, but the potential for abuse is there.  But will this debate lead to a fundamental change in the various PATRIOT Act intrusions on civil liberties?  Will his speech a few weeks ago signal a shift in the use of drones?

In the media - and perhaps even more in the blogosphere - there is a tendency to get lost in the moment.  What is happening NOW is the most important thing EVAH!!11!!

Bill Clinton is more popular than ever.  Even Dubya has slipped into a plurality approval rating (must be the paintings).

But it will be interesting to look back on the Obama Administration from 2020 and beyond.

I think we will see these eight years as dramatically altering the course of American politics.