Feed on
Posts
Comments



Elderly protesters maced

Gives “To protect and serve” a whole new slant, huh?

WASHINGTON — Police maced several elderly protesters Tuesday at JPMorgan Chase’s annual shareholder meeting in Columbus, Ohio, according to activists present at the event.

Hundreds of people from dozens of community organizing groups swarmed the Tuesday meeting to demand the company overhaul its widely criticized foreclosure policies. JPMorgan Chase has improperly broken into the homes of its borrowers in order to pursue foreclosures and has been accused of robo-signing thousands of key foreclosure documents. Federal regulators slapped the company with a consent order over foreclosure problems earlier this year, and the federal government is currently contemplating filing charges that the company defrauded taxpayers with its foreclosure policies on government-backed loans.

In telephone interviews with HuffPost, multiple protesters complained of an overly aggressive police presence.

George Goehl, Executive Director of National People’s Action, which helped organize the protest, said he and several elderly protesters were maced as police attempted to move protesters back from the building.
Continue Reading »

Support killing people

Or lose your job. Nice little system we have here, huh?

America held hostage

You can tell Krugman is approaching a state of chronic hopelessness over Obama:

So hitting the debt ceiling would be a very bad thing. Unfortunately, it may be unavoidable.

Why? Because this is a hostage situation. If the president and his allies operate on the principle that failure to raise the debt ceiling is an unthinkable outcome, to be avoided at all cost, then they have ceded all power to those willing to bring that outcome about. In effect, they will have ripped up the Constitution and given control over America’s government to a party that only controls one house of Congress, but claims to be willing to bring down the economy unless it gets what it wants.

Now, there are good reasons to believe that the G.O.P. isn’t nearly as willing to burn the house down as it claims. Business interests have made it clear that they’re horrified at the prospect of hitting the debt ceiling. Even the virulently anti-Obama U.S. Chamber of Commerce has urged Congress to raise the ceiling “as expeditiously as possible.” And a confrontation over spending would only highlight the fact that Republicans won big last year largely by promising to protect Medicare, then promptly voted to dismantle the program.

But the president can’t call the extortionists’ bluff unless he’s willing to confront them, and accept the associated risks.

According to Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, Mr. Obama has told Democrats not to draw any “line in the sand” in debt negotiations. Well, count me among those who find this strategy completely baffling. At some point — and sooner rather than later — the president has to draw a line. Otherwise, he might as well move out of the White House, and hand the keys over to the Tea Party.

Like Digby, I don’t believe the Republicans will do it. They’ve already said they won’t do it, and if that’s true, Obama is merely using the debt ceiling crisis as cover for what he wants to do, anyway.

Glenzilla

This is so fucking depressing. Go read it all:

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton told the House of Representatives that “the White House would forge ahead with military action in Libya even if Congress passed a resolution constraining the mission.”  AsTPM put it:  “the administration would ignore any and all attempts by Congress to shackle President Obama’s power as commander in chief to make military and wartime decisions,” as such attempts would constitute “an unconstitutional encroachment on executive power.”  As Democratic Rep. Brad Sherman noted, Clinton was not relying on the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (WPR); to the contrary, her position is that the Obama administration has the power to wage war in violation even of the permissive dictates of that Resolution.  And, of course, the Obama administration has indeed involved the U.S. in a major, risky war, in a country that has neither attacked us nor threatened to, without even a pretense of Congressional approval or any form of democratic consent.  Whether the U.S. should go to war is a decision, they obviously believe, “for the President alone to make.”

Initially, I defy anyone to identify any differences between the administration’s view of its own authority — that it has the right to ignore Congressional restrictions on its war powers — and the crux of Bush radicalism as expressed in the once-controversial memos by John Yoo and the Bush DOJ.  There is none.  That’s why Yoo went to The Wall Street Journal to lavish praise on Obama’s new war power theory:  because it’s Yoo’s theory (as I was finishing this post, I saw that Adam Serwer makes a similar point today).  If anything, one could argue that Yoo’s theory of unilateral war-making was more reasonable, as it was at least tied to an actual attack on the U.S.:  the 9/11 attacks.  Here, the Obama administration is arrogating unto the President the unilateral, unrestrained right to start wars in all circumstances, whether or not the U.S. is attacked.

Yes, but but but… Cornell West is petty!

Ben Stein

Becomes quite the civil libertarian when a member of the establishment is accused!

Just like Tom Thumb’s blues

Dylan live at Albert Hall, 1966:

Percy’s song

Dylan song performed by Fairport Convention:

Rick Perry

Are you kidding me? How’s he going to address the rumors about being yet another GOP closet case?

You’re gonna make me lonesome when you go

Shawn Colvin covers Bob:

Buckets of rain

Bob:

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

'
eXTReMe Tracker