Prairie Weather

Christian fundamentalists in attempt to "rescue" children

Only the BBC -- that I've heard so far through the the most recent two news cycles on World Service -- has the story of the effort of Christian fundamentalists to "adopt" children from Haiti to "rescue" them from "the devil."   We're not talking about orphans. We're not talking about temporary rescue until the children's parents are found.  We talking about a very different effort, beyond the report of the Idaho church women stopped -- with Haitian children -- attempting to bus into the Dominican Republic.

More on this when/if more's available.  There's nothing posted at the website yet.  Anybody heard anything about this in US media?  Repeat, this report went beyond reports on the women from Idaho.

Exactly, Matt

I hadn't yet seen Matt Taibbi's piece hauling out David Brooks for a dust-up -- and still haven't read it in its entirety -- but there's a bit in there I like so much that I want to repeat it, dance to it.

If I were in his position, I probably would have punched me in the nose for the shot I took at him last week, but the response of David Brooks to being called out as a racist weenie is to write a passionate defense of the rich, one that includes the admonition that while blaming the wealthy is easy and feels fun, truly wise men should “tolerate the excesses of traders.”

The phrase in italics just gets my feet a-tappin', something that Brooks' largely benign paternalism and patronizing tones do not.

The trap Obama has created for his presidency

For a while I figured that this decade of Americans used the word ["elites"] to describe a group of hateful people, a group to which they don't belong.  Now it looks as though the word means a group of hateful people in which they would like to be members.

I wrote that a couple or days ago in an effort to pin down the loose usage of the word "elites."  The words "elites" and "populist" seem to have picked up a hundred different meanings, depending where you're coming from.  I didn't get the distinctions right.  Simon Johnson does. 

The economist manages to clarify the nature of the "war" between "elites" and "populists."  He concludes, with good reason, that Obama is dooming his own presidency with a complete misunderstanding of what's really happening to the relationship between Wall Street and the rest of us.

Amidst otherwise strong coverage of the growing debate around the nature of finance and the power of big banks, a surprisingly high number of journalists continue to misuse the word “populism”.

For example, in an article on criticism of bankers at Davos, the Wall Street on Saturday morning reported that President Sarkozy of France delivered a “populist broadside” when he said,

    “That those who create jobs and wealth may earn a lot of money is not shocking.  But that those who contribute to destroying jobs and wealth also earn a lot of money is morally indefensible.”

The implication, of course, is that some politicians are pandering to “the people” vs. “the elites” – part of a long-standing theme in some interpretations of democratic political conflict.  While elites invest and engage in productive activities, the argument goes, plebians from time to time demand excessive income redistribution or punitive taxation or other measures that would undermine productivity and prosperity.

Or, as President Obama said in March 2009, “My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”

Such language reveals a complete misunderstanding of our current situation....

Johnson's understanding of how the word "populist" is being misused reveals what could prove to be a fatal flaw within the Obama administration.

... The fact that dramatic banking reforms would be popular does not make them populist.  It merely means that a broad cross-section of our population has woken up to part of our appalling reality.  Sure, they are angry – but with good reason, and the remedies they seek are entirely appropriate.  Most of our elites are on the side of the broader population on this issue; only the diseased heart of Wall Street holds out.

Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the Obama administration remains convinced that merely tweaking our existing regulations is the only responsible way forward.  Even their new “Volcker Rule” increasingly looks like superficial rebranding without new substance.

This will go nowhere – except to sad, unnecessary, and complete defeat in the November midterm elections.

For the full story from Simon Johnson along with valuable links and comments, go straight to his blog.

The face of corporate Justice

Jeffrey Toobin, who writes about the Court and its human components for the New Yorker, confirms that yes, it's true.  Obama didn't get it quite right.

Obama may have been overstating the point when he said foreign companies now had the same unlimited rights to participate in our elections.

But (big but), when he grimaced and murmured, Alito hauled into the bright light of day a nasty little secret.  The "apolitical" Court is political from its corns right up to its dandruff.

The larger issue raised by Alito’s pouty face goes to the place of the Court in American life. In public, and especially in confirmation hearings, the Justices try to portray themselves as Olympian figures, removed from the hurly burly of politics. In Chief Justice Roberts’ famous (now mostly infamous) phrase at his confirmation hearing, the Justices are like baseball umpires, who do nothing more than call balls and strikes. But that’s not true—and it never has been true. (I discussed this issue in my Profile of Roberts.) The Justices have strong political views, which have powerful impacts on how they do their jobs. Alito performed the public service of making this point clearer for a national audience.

What makes Alito’s reaction even more delicious is that it’s further evidence that the Justice just can’t stand Obama. As a Senator, Obama voted against Alito’s confirmation, which the Justice does not seem to have forgotten. When the President-elect Obama made a courtesy call on the Justices shortly before his inauguration last year, Alito was the only member of the Court not to attend. (Obama voted against Roberts, too, but the Chief Justice managed to spare the time to welcome Obama.) The first law that Obama signed as President was the Lilly Ledbetter Act—which reversed a decision by the Supreme Court that had erected new barriers to plaintiffs filing employment discrimination cases. The author of that now-overruled decision? Samuel Alito. These two guys have a history.

And now everyone knows it.

A Republican, an ally of the Senate no-men, Alito has exposed the dirty truth.  "The Justices have strong political views" and their views affect their decisions.

Does this remind you of corporate America, 2010?

The evil genius of  [the system] was to occupy the consciousness of all citizens, thereby forcing them to collaborate in their own destruction.

For "the system," you could easily substitute "fascism" or "capitalism."  Or whichever "ism" you prefer. 

In fact this quote, minus one word, comes from Madison Smartt Bell's review of Marie Vieux-Chauvet's extraordinary novellas about Haiti. The missing word is refers to the 1950's Haitian dictator, Papa Doc -- "Duvalierism."

NPR interviewed an orphan on the streets of Haiti.  More than anything he wanted a home, wanted someone to take him in.  "I'd ask them if they want a slave or have work..." he said.

Pro-choice affirmation, kinda

Republican Sen.-elect Scott Brown of Massachusetts says he opposes federal funding for abortions, but thinks women should have the right to choose whether to have one. Brown tells ABC's ''This Week'' that he disagrees with his party's position that the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion should be overturned. ... NYT/AP