Wednesday Morning Male Beauty

Putin to Blame for Ruble’s Collapse

Like many failed Russian leaders before him, Vladimir "Adolph Want to Be" Putin is destroying Russia's economy as he pursues his own megalomaniac agenda.  Right now, Russia's currency, the ruble, is in free fall because of Putin's failed policies and a big drop in oil and gas prices, the country's main source of hard currency.  Much of the suffering will impact the Russian people as has been their plight throughout history.  Meanwhile, Putin may become even more dangerous.  An editorial in the Washington Post lays fault directly at Putin's feet.  Here are highlights:

THE DRAMA playing out in Russia on Tuesday was not pretty. The ruble’s exchange rate has collapsed by some 50 percent against the dollar since mid-June, with an accelerating fall in recent days. A panicked attempt by the central bank at 1 a.m. Tuesday to stop the slide was a failure. Russia now faces a full-blown currency crisis.

For President Vladimir Putin, the crisis is his own doing, a direct outgrowth of a meddlesome adventure into Ukraine, in which he seized Crimea and subverted the Donbas region with pro-Moscow separatists. Mr. Putin’s incursion led to Western sanctions on Russian industry that are blocking badly needed refinancing on global financial markets; huge debts are coming due. The oil giant Rosneft is particularly hard-hit and has implored Mr. Putin to deliver a bailout. Russia has billions of dollars in foreign currency reserves but can’t easily bail out everyone who needs to repay loans. These squeezed companies are in many cases led by Mr. Putin’s cronies, and they have little room to maneuver. 

The currency slide is also a consequence of the fall in global oil prices. There are a number of reasons for that decline, but the inescapable fact for Russia is that it remains heavily dependent on oil exports and Mr. Putin did little in recent years to diversify the economy. Lower oil prices will crimp Russia’s budget revenues, and the higher interest rates ordered by the central bank will cut into economic growth. Prosperity and stability in recent years have been essential elements in Mr. Putin’s formula of repressing critics while remaining popular. 

It’s important to keep Mr. Putin and his capricious behavior the target of Western policy — and remember that he is the chief cause of Russia’s troubles. The ruble’s plunge may portend a dangerous moment. Until now, Mr. Putin has steadfastly refused to back down in Ukraine and has escalated violence when his allies were cornered. He may respond to the latest uncertainty by striking out again in Ukraine or elsewhere, and he will most certainly ramp up the anti-American rhetoric.

Jeb Bush Signals He May Be Running in 2016

I for one suffer from extreme Bush fatigue and the thought of another Bush running for the presidency makes me nauseous.  How anyone of a right mind could want another Bush as president after the Chimperatior's failed regime, which included war crimes, is hard to grasp. The only positive aspect is that if Jeb Bush does throw his hat in the ring for the GOP presidential nomination, it will likely trigger another civil war within the GOP as Bush has to face insane would be candidates like Rick "Tortured Closeted Gay" Santorum.  The New York Times looks at Jeb Bush's tentative steps to launch his campaign.  Note, when the piece refers to "conservatives" it really means Christofascists, and, as usual, it fails to call out hate groups for what they are.  Here are article excerpts:

Former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida said Tuesday that he would “actively explore” a presidential run, immediately sending reverberations through the potential Republican field, tying up donors whom other candidates are courting and forcing contenders to accelerate their own considerations for 2016.

Mr. Bush became the first Republican to take an overt step toward a White House bid. He announced on Facebook that he would create a political action committee next month, allowing him to raise money and travel the country ahead of an eventual decision, He also spent part of the day calling donors.

Mr. Bush, 61, quickly reshaped a Republican race that had scarcely begun forming.  Mr. Bush’s early move amounted to a pre-emptive strike on his most likely rivals for the blessing of establishment-oriented contributors and party officials. 

The most immediate effect of his announcement was with his party’s financial bundlers, those who raise the most money for candidates.  Many of those donors have long ties to the family that has dominated Republican politics for the last quarter-century and were waiting for a signal that the younger brother of former President George W. Bush was serious about a campaign.

Mr. Bush’s move also may make fund-raising more difficult for Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, whose base of New York-area donors will face pressure from Bush loyalists to hold out for a familiar political brand. 

Further, the possibility of a third campaign by Mitt Romney, the Republicans’ 2012 standard-bearer, now seems less likely.  Some party elites were eying a Romney revival in large part because they were seeking a candidate formidable enough to take on former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The question that looms over yet another Bush candidacy, though, is whether he can appeal to rank-and-file Republican primary voters as much as he does the party’s elites.   In that sense, Mr. Bush’s early lean toward a run is not entirely bad news. If it turns out that he cannot appeal to the party base or backs away from a run entirely, there would be time for others to make a move.

Conservative leaders said Mr. Bush needed to move swiftly to address questions about such issues as his support for Common Core — a set of standards for students from kindergarten through high school.

For Democrats, though, Mr. Bush’s step toward a campaign was cause for concern, as many said the Spanish-speaking former governor of Florida, perhaps the most electorally pivotal state in the country, would be the toughest Republican to defeat.

“I keep reminding people Michael Corleone was the younger brother of Fredo,” said the Democratic strategist Paul Begala, comparing characters from “The Godfather” to Bush family dynamics.

The Plight of Being a Gay Teacher

In a few weeks the Virginia General Assembly will go into session and, as in past years, attempts will be made to win passage of bill(s) that would provide employment protections for LGBT Virginians.  Under existing Virginia law, even state departments and institutions are free to fire employees based on their sexual orientation.  Opposing such legislation will be The Family Foundation ("TFF"), a hate group in all but formal designation by the Southern Poverty Law Center.  Falling all over themselves to prostitute themselves to TFF will be members of the Republican Party of Virginia.  As set out on its website, TFF believes that (i) students should be able to proselytize in school and make anti-gay statements (i.e., bully LGBT students), (ii) Christians deserve special rights under the guise of "religious freedom," and (iii) that employers should be able to fire gays at will.  A piece in The Atlantic looks at the plight of teachers in Virginia and other anti-gay states where they can now marry but still be fired at will.  Here are excerpts:

Very early in his career teaching in New York, Glenn Bunger witnessed a student getting called "faggot" in between classes, but he hesitated to respond. As a gay teacher who hadn’t come out to his students or staff, he felt hamstrung. 

"I worried: If I get involved, what will others think? Will they associate this with me? Is my reaction right now really about me? Or about the student? I was always processing these questions and insecurities that prevented me from speaking out."

Bunger remained silent that day but later brought up the issue to his supervisor. It was clear from the conversation that the supervisor felt students like this didn’t need any sympathy but, rather, just some "toughening up," Bunger said.

Bunger never came out to the school's leadership or any of his students during his first two years teaching. Many other LGBT teachers in the United States have long struggled with this same decision of whether to make their sexual orientations public—and the "extra layer" of worries that comes with it. The country's long history of discrimination towards LGBT teachers could help explain why so many of these educators are afraid to come out.

Currently, federal law protects people from workplace discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, religion, sex, age, and disability. But the law fails to specifically address sexual orientation. A recent executive order by President Barack Obama protects any federal employee or contractor—around 28 million workers, or one-fifth of the American workforce—from discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, it doesn't cover teachers, who are subject to state and local laws.

In five states—Indiana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Virginia—gay people can get legally married but also legally fired by an employer for being gay . . . 

Even teachers in states with legal protection worry that homophobic school leaders can still find a way to fire them regardless. "There is always the fear that if you were to share this, it could color how staff and administration view your performance, skew their evaluations of you, or otherwise influence whether you stay hired or not," said Jasmin Torres, who directs leadership development efforts for Teach for America in the Chicago area and oversees the office's LGBT initiatives.

Although the American Psychological Association and numerous other research organizations have concluded that homosexuality does not make someone more likely to sexually abuse children, Conservative organizations such the Family Research Council [TFF is affiliated with FRC] and the American College of Pediatricians—a group that requires its members to "hold true to the group's core beliefs of the traditional family unit" before joining—argue that homosexuality is a threat to children.

[B]eing in the closet comes with an extra layer of work—and stress. "During my first few years teaching, I was lonely," she said. "You are constantly thinking about what you’re saying, what you’re not saying, whether you’re giving anything away. You become hyper-aware of how people perceive you, and you worry that you’re not allowed to be your genuine self at work." 

There's more in the piece that deserves a read.  It is time for religious freedom for all and not just special rights for Christofascists and other religious extremists who cling to hate and bigotry to support their sick and toxic religious beliefs.  There are few more selfish and self-centered than the "godly folk."

 

Tuesday Morning Male Beauty

Could Elizabeth Warren Beat Hillary for the Nomination?

There are some who would like to see Senator Elizabeth Warren run for the 2016 Democrat presidential nomination.   For now, she is saying that she will not run.  Yet some, including David Brooks, a New York Times columnist who has spoken to "family values" hate groups, are saying that Warren could win over Hillary Clinton.  Whether Brooks is merely being duplicitous (i.e., secretly wanting a weaker candidate to face whoever the GOP selects from its clown car of would be nominees) is hard to say.   Here are excerpts from his column that looks at Warren and her message that could appeal to many:

Her biggest adult fight has been against the banks, against what she saw as their rapacious exploitation of the poor and vulnerable. The crucial distinction Warren makes is this one: It’s not just social conditions like globalization and technological change that threaten the middle class. It’s an active conspiracy by the rich and powerful. The game is rigged. The proper response is not just policy-making; it’s indignation and combat.

The political class has been wondering if Warren, a United States senator from Massachusetts, will take on Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination. This speculation is usually based on the premise that Warren couldn’t actually win, but that she could move the party in her direction. But, today, even for those of us who disagree with Warren fundamentally, it seems clear that she does have a significant and growing chance of being nominated.

Her chances are rising because of that word “fight.” The emotional register of the Democratic Party is growing more combative. There’s an underlying and sometimes vituperative sense of frustration toward President Obama, and especially his supposed inability to go to the mat.

Events like the Brown case in Ferguson and the Garner case in New York have raised indignation levels across the progressive spectrum. Judging by recent polls, the midterm defeat has not scared Democrats into supporting the safe option; it’s made them angrier about the whole system. As the party slips more into opposition status, with the next Congress, this aggressive outsider spirit will only grow.

In this era of bad feelings, parties are organized more around what they oppose rather than what they are for. Republicans are against government. Democrats are coalescing around opposition to Wall Street and corporate power. In 2001, 51 percent of Democrats were dissatisfied with the rise of corporate power, according to Gallup surveys. By 2011, 79 percent of Democrats were. According to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll last month, 58 percent of Democrats said they believed that the economic and political systems were stacked against them.

Clinton is obviously tough, but she just can’t speak with a clear voice against Wall Street and Washington insiders. Warren’s wing shows increasing passion and strength, both in opposing certain Obama nominees and in last week’s budget fight.

The history of populist candidates is that they never actually get the nomination. The establishment wins. That’s still likely. But there is something in the air. The fundamental truth is that every structural and historical advantage favors Clinton, but every day more Democrats embrace the emotion and view defined by Warren.

Climate Deniers Get Even Crazier and More Dishonest

Just when you thought the Koch brothers and their sycophants and paid liars could not possible get any more insane in their opposition to accepting the reality of climate change, they roll out a new lie: carbon dioxide is good and that we need even more of it in the atmosphere.  What's equally disgusting is the fact that there are some who for a buck will tell any lie regardless of the long term harm that will be done.  A column in the Washington Post looks at this newest insanity.  Here are excerpts:

For years, the fossil-fuel industries have been telling us that global warming is a hoax based on junk science.

But now these industries are floating an intriguing new argument: They’re admitting that human use of coal, oil and gas is causing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to rise — but they’re saying this is a good thing. We need more CO2 in our lives, not less. 

“CO2 is basically plant food, and the more CO2 in the environment the better plants do,” proclaimed Roger Bezdek, a consultant to energy companies, at an event hosted Monday by the United States Energy Association, an industry trade group. 

This was some creative thinking, and it took a page from the gun lobby, which argues that the way to curb firearm violence is for more people to be armed. 

Another questioner at the event asked Bezdek if he had considered ocean acidification, the release of methane gases, pollution and other side effects of rising CO2. This did not trouble him. “As you develop and you become wealthier,” he explained, “you have the wealth to clean up the mess.” He went on to point out that “35,000 people every year in the United States die in automobile accidents, but the solution is not to ban automobiles. You try to make them safer.”

The U.S. Energy Association membership comes from various sectors but includes big petroleum companies and utilities. Bezdek seemed to have a special place in his heart for coal, “the major world energy source of the past, present and future . . . lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.”

The presentation began as a standard recitation of the climate-change denial position, that “there’s been no global warming for almost two decades” and that forecasts are “based on flawed science.”

Expect these folks to be major donors to Republican candidates.  Note that the threat rising sea levels pose to many American cities was not even mentioned.

Taliban Storm a School in Pakistan, 126 Dead

Fundamentalist religion continues to prove that it is among the foulest forces in the world.   Taliban forces have stormed a school in Pakistan and reports are that 126 have died in the ensuing carnage.  Like ISIS, the Taliban claims allegiance to a ultra far right and brutal version of Islam that justifies, if not revels in brutality against others who fail to subscribe to such toxic beliefs.  And where are the "good Muslims" in all of this?  Like the "good Christians" who allow evil to be done by Christofascists, they sit on their hands.  The Washington Post looks at the horrors done in Pakistan.  Here are highlights:

Taliban militants stormed an elite army high school in northwestern Pakistan on Tuesday, killing at least 126 students and teachers, and holding others hostage, in one of the worst school shootings in modern times, according to Pakistani security and hospital officials.

More than three hours after the siege began at mid-day at an army-run high school on a Pakistan military installation in Peshawar, explosions and gunfire continued to be heard coming coming from the school.

A spokesman for the provincial government said 126 dead bodies had been recovered so far and 120 students and teachers have been wounded. Most of the dead were teenagers, he said. 

[E]ight to ten terrorists wearing military uniforms carried out the mid-day attack. He said they started “indiscriminate firing” after entering the school through a back door.

 “They started firing at students participating in a function at the auditorium,” Ghani told local journalists gathered at the scene. “The terrorists wanted to kill as many people as they could and they seemed to be not interested in hostage taking.”

In a statement, the Pakistani Taliban took credit for the attack, saying it was to avenge the Pakistan military operation in North Waziristan. The Taliban said six militants, including three suicide bombers, carried out the assault. 

Why a school as a target?  One reason is that modern knowledge and education are among the biggest enemies of fundamentalist religions.  It's no coincidence that while the the Taliban attacked a school. here at home the Christofascists want to dumb down public education and erode curriculum that show the lie of their 12th century beliefs.

More Monday Male Beauty

Ted Cruz's Idiocy Aids Democrats

By some reports, Texas Senator Ted Cruz isn't ignorant.  But that's not to say he isn't (i) batshit crazy, and (ii) more interested in grand standing to the ugliest elements in the Republican Party than in actually getting things done even if a small amount of compromise is the price of accomplishing much of one's agenda.  Conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin - I find it scary when she and I are in agreement - lets lose on Cruz and the manner in which he lets his grandstanding and attempts to prostitute himself to Christofascists/Tea Party loons deny the GOP the ability to acheive rational goals.  Here are excerpts from her piece in the Washington Post:

Most of the talk about Republican gadfly Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) in the last few days concerned his role in forcing a delay on passage of the $1.1 trillion spending bill. He was slapped down on his “point of order” by a 74-22 vote, including 20 no votes from Republicans.

In a scathing op-ed the conservative Washington Examiner editorial board wrote:

Cruz’s and [Sen. Mike] Lee’s parliamentary freelancing gave Reid all he needed to advance the schedule by two full days and guarantee the confirmation of these nominations. In exchange for making Reid’s job easy on ramming the nominations through, all Cruz and Lee got was a symbolic floor vote against Obama’s executive action on immigration. It drew the support of only 22 senators. . . . . . The weekend’s events demonstrate that some Republicans are not playing on the same team. This was not a simple, common occurrence of senatorial independence, but rather open defiance of caucus strategy — a decision by junior officers that their own tactical decisions take precedence over those of generals who were chosen for the job.

Criticism of Cruz usually centers on this type of grandstanding at the expense of colleagues. But he also has a propensity to vote no on every piece of major legislation that involves any compromise for the hard right. Some refer to this as making the perfect the enemy of the good, such as when House Republicans under his spell voted against the “Plan B” to minimize the elimination of part of the Bush tax cuts; the end result was worse for Republicans.

Is his concern for federal lands so great that it trumps national security? That is screwy, to be blunt, and suggests he subordinates the government’s highest priority (national security), including some key items on the war against the Islamic State, to his fetish for fiscal purity. This is why, I suspect, he will never vote on any vehicle to lift the defense sequestration cuts. Gasp — that might require a compromise!

[I]t is the philosophy of anti-governance, because getting everything one wants and taking no lumps make legislating impossible. Consistently rejecting useful and conservative legislation because of small infirmities is not the behavior of a leader dedicated to accomplishing important things, and it suggests Cruz is grossly unsuited for the Senate, let alone higher office. Imagine if he ran a state — or the country — without super-majorities of Republicans. Things would be worse than they are now. Rigidity of mind and contempt for opponents in a president have resulted in paralysis and nastiness for six years, so why repeat the experience?

The Senate is a personal platform for him, not a position to perform well in delivering the best possible results for Texans or Americans at large. Thank goodness voters found out early on that his fixation is with fame and not with tending to the real needs of the country.

Ouch!  The man is a douche bag!!