Here’s an open thread so we can have a safe space to not wage open internecine warfare over a certain Senator who used to work at SNL.
This is a safe space. No mentions of you know who.
This post is in: Open Threads
Here’s an open thread so we can have a safe space to not wage open internecine warfare over a certain Senator who used to work at SNL.
This is a safe space. No mentions of you know who.
by Adam L Silverman| 117 Comments
This post is in: America, Domestic Politics, Election 2016, Foreign Affairs, Open Threads, Politics, Silverman on Security, Not Normal
Here’s the live feed for the President’s remarks on the status of Jerusalem. What you’re going to want to watch and listen for is how he frames the specific portions on the status of Jerusalem. Does he call it Israel’s undivided capital? Only the capital of Israel? Or just the capital of Israel? In other words is there some nuance in his statement that keeps the final status of Jerusalem viable diplomatically.
Updated at 1:25 PM EST
The President made two very clear statements about both freedom of religion and access to religious sites in Jerusalem. Even more specifically he stated that Muslims must have access to the al Aqsa Mosque and stating that access for Muslims to the Harem al Sharif must be preserved.
My take away from the speech is that he’s going to continue to sign the waivers to keep the US embassy to Israel in Tel Aviv until an embassy can be built in Jerusalem in accordance with the 1995 law that recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. He made a very clear statement that beginning the planning for moving the embassy should not infringe on final status issues between the Israelis and Palestinians. This includes the final status of Jerusalem vis a vis the Israelis and Palestinians.
What needs to be understood is that no matter how nice the speech sounded, nor the nuance and clarity I highlighted above, is that the President’s statements and actions on the status of Jerusalem is completely disconnected from the reality on the ground. Despite seeming to reinforce the US policy preference for a two state solution, by changing US policy and embracing the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act he has undercut the US’s preference for a two state solution by preemptively dealing with the issue of Jerusalem.
This decision and the President’s remarks ignore just how fragile the status quo is in Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. It also ignores the vast minutiae across dozens of categories and sub-categories that have to be negotiated and agreed to before the big ticket items like the final status of Jerusalem can even be considered. Today’s decision places the cart before dozens of horses.
Finally, forget about who started what when. Forget about who did what to whom in the 19th or early 20th Centuries. Right now, today, the Israelis hold all the leverage and power in the relationship with the Palestinians. The Palestinians have three options: 1) acquiesce and remain forever in socio-political and ethno-national limbo, 2) make a good faith effort via a peace negotiation to get the best deal they can get and then live with it as the best that could be gotten, or 3) revolt. The first option is not viable or acceptable. The second only works if the Israeli leadership is willing to make a good faith effort to negotiate a settlement, which the current leadership isn’t. The third is violent self help.
The only things the Palestinians have to trade for a negotiated peace agreement and their own state is an intangible: peace. This isn’t trading land for land or resources for land or even money for land. It is about the Israelis who control the land being willing to give some of it up, as well as the administrative control over it, to the Palestinians in exchange for an intangible concept.
We’re once again back to something akin to Bernard Fall’s remarks about civic action:
Civic action is not the construction of privies or the distribution of anti-malaria sprays. One can’t fight an ideology; one can’t fight a militant doctrine with better privies. Yet this is done constantly. One side says, “land reform,” and the other side says, “better culverts.” One side says, “We are going to kill all those nasty village chiefs and landlords.” The other side says, “Yes, but look, we want to give you prize pigs to improve your strain.” These arguments just do not match. Simple but adequate appeals will have to be found sooner or later.
Simple but adequate appeals indeed…
The President’s Remarks on the Status of Jerusalem Live FeedPost + Comments (117)
by David Anderson| 586 Comments
This post is in: 2020 Elections, Election 2018, Women's Rights Are Human Rights, Fucked-up-edness
As elected officials, we should be held to the highest standards—not the lowest. The allegations against Sen. Franken describe behavior that cannot be tolerated. While he’s entitled to an Ethics Committee hearing, I believe he should step aside to let someone else serve.
— Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) December 6, 2017
Today, I am calling on my colleague Al Franken to step aside. I’ve struggled with this decision because he’s been a good Senator and I consider him a friend. But that cannot excuse his behavior and his mistreatment of women. (thread)
— Senator Mazie Hirono (@maziehirono) December 6, 2017
Might be a good idea to listen to your female colleagues, Senator Franken.
by Betty Cracker| 117 Comments
This post is in: Open Threads, Politics, The War On Women, Women's Rights Are Human Rights, Our Failed Media Experiment
I didn’t think this was real at first, but apparently it is:
Not the typical morning commute… pic.twitter.com/kJIOQeqsIK
— A. Mutzabaugh CMT (@WLV_investor) December 6, 2017
Y’all be careful over there!
In other news, Time recognized “The Silence Breakers” as its “Person of the Year” today, honoring a movement comprising mostly women who’ve refused to stay silent about sexual harassment, which has sent shock waves through entertainment, media and political power circles.
So, #MeToo is having a moment, but one of the NYT’s most notorious Beltway hacks put her own spin on it via a tweet about an article in her paper on Harvey Weinstein:
So Hillary, married to an alleged sexual abuser, took $ from an alleged sexual abuser to help her defeat an alleged sexual abuser and ended up losing partly b/c of an alleged sexual abuser. https://t.co/8nHzvLvbV1
— Amy Chozick (@amychozick) December 6, 2017
That seems to miss the point rather badly, so I’ll spell it out: Hillary Clinton aspired to a powerful office in an environment that was and is shot through with misogyny. The remarkable thing about the #MeToo movement is that it is revealing the scope of the abuse across industries and organizational charts.
The lesson we should take away from that isn’t “Whoa, how ironic that Hillary was dealing with human garbage at every turn!” It’s that it’s way past time to take out the fucking trash.
Anyhoo. Open thread.
by David Anderson| 27 Comments
This post is in: Anderson On Health Insurance, Election 2018, All we want is life beyond the thunderdome
The Washington Examiner had a piece earlier this week on how House Republicans want another pound of flesh to pass Alexander-Murray:
A top House Republican said Democrats need to make concessions that make them “wince” in order to get a vote on two Obamacare stabilization bills….Cole, a member of the House’s whip team, said the two bills are going to be a tough sell to Republican as they’re currently written.
“If that is what you want to get through, you had better put something with it that Republicans like because in the package right now there isn’t anything commensurate with what they are being asked to give up,” he told reporters on Monday.
This is a fundamental misreading of leverage and policy preferences.
There are four major elements in Alexander-Murray. The first is a two year appropriation for Cost Sharing Reduction subsidies. Secondly, outreach activities would be sent to the states instead of HHS. Finally there would also be reasonable changes to 1332 requirements and window-dressing changes to Catastrophic plans.
What happens if CSR is appropriated when measured against current reality instead of CBO baseline?
That is what would happen if Alexander-Murray passed this afternoon with no modifications.
Why would Democrats want or need to make further concessions?
Making it easier for Senator Collins to vote for the tax bill increases the probability that thirteen million more people are uninsured according to the CBO. That is not a Democratic policy preference.
Muddling the messaging that the Republican Party owns healthcare is not a Democratic political preference going into the midterms.
Making insurance more expensive for subsidized buyers is not a Democratic policy preference.
Walking away from an Alexander-Murray bill that funds CSR produces acceptable outcomes for Democrats. I do not understand the analysis that suggests that Democrats are the ones who need to offer concessions for the outcomes that Alexander-Murray delivers.
Alexander-Murray; outcomes and distribution of concessionsPost + Comments (27)
This post is in: C.R.E.A.M., Excellent Links, Foreign Affairs, Open Threads, Republican Venality, Russiagate, Trump Crime Cartel
Donald Trump's bank records are handed over to Robert Mueller https://t.co/ZDKw1ESH95
— The Guardian (@guardian) December 5, 2017
.
Paul Waldman, in the Washington Post:
… This may turn out to be no big deal — perhaps Mueller will find that all Trump’s transactions with Deutsche Bank were aboveboard and free of any funny business, and also that nothing he discovers there will lead to evidence of any other misconduct on Trump’s part… But the fact that Mueller is looking at Deutsche Bank means his probe is reaching the very heart of Trump’s financial life.
Why is Deutsche Bank so important? After a string of bankruptcies and broken promises, pretty much every other major bank stopped lending Trump money some years ago. The one exception was Deutsche Bank, to which Trump owed $364 million as of the end of last year. By sheer coincidence, Deutsche Bank recently had to pay $670 million in fines for its role in a Russian money laundering plot (though as Bloomberg reports, the bank’s internal investigation found no link between Trump and that scheme).
At this point, we don’t know exactly what Mueller is looking for in the Deutsche Bank records. Law professor Ryan Goodman suggests that Mueller could be trying to determine if Trump’s loans from the bank were guaranteed by Russian interests, which could mean he was indebted to them in ways that could compromise him.
What we do know is that the Russia investigation has led Mueller to Trump’s personal finances, which provide a target-rich environment if you suspect financial malfeasance…
… In that tweet about Flynn, Trump closes by saying, “There was nothing to hide!” That has indeed been a consistent line from Trump himself, the White House and the president’s defenders: nobody did anything wrong, all the contacts with Russians were just routine, and there’s nothing to hide.
But if that’s the case, why do so many Trump associates keep getting caught lying about Russia?…
BREAKING: Deutsche Bank receives subpoena from Mueller on Trump accounts
This is huge for 2 reasons:
– Deutsch Bank paid DOJ settlement for involvement in $10b Russian money laundering scheme
– Kushner took $285m loan from them right before election.
— Brian Krassenstein?? (@krassenstein) December 5, 2017
Via @JaySekulow lawyer for @realDonaldTrump “We have confirmed that the news reports that the Special Counsel had subpoenaed financial records relating to the President are false. No subpoena has been issued or received. We have confirmed this with the bank and other sources.”
— Major Garrett (@MajorCBS) December 5, 2017
News outlets independently confirming that Mueller subpoenaed Deutsche Bank:
ABC
WSJ
Reuters
BloombergFox News and Trump's attorney said it didn't happen.
Who do you believe?
— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) December 5, 2017
Given his vast, fragile ego, I would find it very believable that Trump was less worried about any criminal connections than about people finding out he wasn't as rich as he made himself out to be.
— Zoot Sutmas????????? (@zootsutra) December 5, 2017
Fiction by William Goldman with no relationship to the record. – RZ pic.twitter.com/AXBVNR5lkQ
— Richard M. Nixon (@dick_nixon) December 6, 2017
Wednesday Morning Russiagate Open Thread: “Follow the Money”Post + Comments (203)
This post is in: Excellent Links, Gun nuts, Open Threads, Republican Stupidity, Riveted By The Sociological Significance Of It All
"There is nothing like a functional, aesthetically appropriate set of trousers that are kept on for the entire work day." @dandrezner YOU COULD NOT BE MORE RIGHT THANK YOUhttps://t.co/NS7YksguXm
— Ben Palmer (@benjpalmer) December 5, 2017
Some people are anointed by Murphy the Trickster God to be joke targets, but Drezner’s pig-bladdering is enjoyable even if you haven’t been reading about Sebastian Gorka this week…
Late last month, former White House employee Sebastian Gorka gave quite the interview to Recoil Magazine’s Rob Curtis. [The hard-working staff here at Spoiler Alerts never misses an issue of Recoil. Objectively, it is the third-best magazine for Second Amendment lovers, right after Blowback and Shrapnel.] …
Beyond his sartorial choices, Gorka was widely mocked for his “everyday carry,” which includes two guns, a tourniquet that he can deploy with one hand, and a pocket copy of the Constitution. Naturally, Gorka himself attributed the mockery to “beta-males and progressives.” Over at Task and Purpose, however, Francis Horton does a fine job deconstructing Gorka’s “man-flair.” Like, for example, the two guns:
… Two guns. Not even two guns of the same brand. NOT EVEN TWO GUNS THAT SHOOT THE SAME ROUND. The Glock 29 is a 10mm pistol and the Smith is a 9mm. I suppose I can get behind carrying two guns if you anticipate a lot of shootouts, somewhat raising your odds of one gun spontaneously breaking mid-shootout. I mean, I guess you can’t trust only the gun taped to your back in the event that Hans Gruber has you cornered in Nakatomi Plaza and took your machine gun. Or just the gun stuffed in the ankle holster for you to pull out on your captor while you surreptitiously tie your shoe. I don’t really know. I don’t have hero fantasies. …
First off, don’t carry two guns. Or one gun, really. Especially when you’re a dude who works in Washington, where concealed carry is currently not legal.
As much fun as it is to point out Gorka’s massive inadequacy issues, the whole concept of the everyday carry (EDC) is what fascinated me. As Horton observes: “There are myriad places on the internet, including an r/EDC subreddit, dedicated to showing off and parsing people’s EDCs. Some can be pretty interesting. What does a medical student carry every day? How about a city firefighter?”
What about an academic aspiring to be a public intellectual? I am glad you asked! In the interest of opening up a window to how Spoiler Alerts goes about its day in 2017, here is a partial rundown of my EDC.
1. Pants. This being 2017, I feel it is important to point out how useful a nice pair of pants are to my everyday life. There is nothing like a functional, aesthetically appropriate set of trousers that are kept on for the entire work day. The great thing about men’s pants is that they have pockets that can carry almost all of my EDC. I recommend never taking off one’s pants at work, for any reason whatsoever. I highly recommend keeping those trousers on whenever one has to invite a colleague into one’s office…
5) Cash. I am sure that in some societies, carrying two guns and a tourniquet is common sense. I live in a society with a functioning Constitution and declining rates of property crime, however, so I feel like those accoutrements are unnecessary…
The Horton article — “Here’s What It Looks Like When Your EDC List Is A Cry For Help” — is also a fun read, with useful consumer info to boot!
… I use my phone as a flashlight, personally, and I used to have one of those little LED lights you could squeeze on my keychain. Mostly, I just have flashlights in strategic locations in my house, where I can always get a hold of one in the event of power loss…
So what distinguishes Gorka’s preferred model 6P flashlight? Amazon has some fancy descriptions of it, like High Strength aerospace aluminum body, anodized for durability and Tactical tail cap switch – press for momentary on, twist for constant on. Tactical! You can earn the yearly GDP of Latvia just by calling random things tactical. It’s a frigging flashlight. You aren’t taking it into space, you’re going to the Sean Hannity show to yell at civil rights attorneys…
You can get those rectangle keychain flashlights personalized. I would suggest getting a gross of those with your Twitter handle or something on it, cramming a dozen in your pocket, and giving the rest away.
Considering the 6P costs $79.20 on Amazon and you can get 50 personalized key chain flashlights for $80.50, I think I’d rather have the boxload of lights I can put pictures of tanks or clowns or whatever on…
(I may be prejudiced, since I’ve made it a point to carry a cheap-but-functional flashlight in my purse ever since having to stumble my way down 60 flights of inadequately-lit safety stairs during a highrise “smoke incident”, pre-9/11. I also carry one of those credit-card-shaped emergency tools, because I’d rather use a pen knife than break my nails trying to open packages.)
Late Night Crude Japes Open Thread: PANTS!Post + Comments (42)