News digest / Catching up on news (12.06.2014)

I've been way too busy and there's way too much catching up to do, so here's a selection of important stories from the past month. If you read them then you'll know some of what I do:

"Ebola control: the Cuban approach." By Shah Ebrahim, et al, December 6, 2014, The Lancet. URL: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62329-1/fulltext

"Judge Allows Glenn Beck Boston Marathon Defamation Lawsuit To Move Forward." By Kyle Mantyla, December 2, 2014, Right Wing Watch. URL:  http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/judge-allows-glenn-beck-boston-marathon-defamation-lawsuit-move-forward#sthash.Gu8a2LEd.dpuf

"Driessen: Corporate Tax Fate May Hinge on Modeling Omission." By Paul Caron, December 2, 2014, TaxProfBlog. URL: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2014/12/driessen.html

"Russia Warns Of Recession In 2015 Amid Sanctions And Low Oil Prices." By Nataliya Vasilyeva, December 2, 2014, AP. URL:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/02/russia-recession_n_6255810.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

"Study: Campaign Cash Brings Tax Benefits On Capitol Hill." By Peter Oberby, December 2, 2014, NPR. URL: http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2014/12/02/368010428/study-campaign-cash-brings-tax-benefits-on-capitol-hill?sc=tw

"Whites greatly overestimate the share of crimes committed by black people." By Ana Swanson, December 1, 2014, Washington Post. URL:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/12/01/whites-greatly-overestimate-the-share-of-crimes-committed-by-black-people/?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost

"Capital controls feared as Russian rouble collapses." By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, December 1, 2014, The Telegraph. URL:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11266746/Capital-controls-feared-as-Russian-rouble-collapses.html

"Real world contradicts right-wing tax theories." By David Cay Johnston, December 1, 2014, Al Jazeera. URL: http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/12/laffer-curve-taxcutshikeseconomics.html 

"Which past is prologue for Putin’s Russia?" By Hannah Thoburn, November 30, 2014, Reuters. URL: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/30/idUS318808040420141130

"Let's talk about 'black on black' crime." By Leonard Pitts Jr., November 30, 2014, Miami Herald. URL: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/11/30/248504/leonard-pitts-jr-lets-talk-about.html 

"In America, black children don’t get to be children." By Stacey Patton, November 26, 2014, Washington Post. URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-america-black-children-dont-get-to-be-children/2014/11/26/a9e24756-74ee-11e4-a755-e32227229e7b_story.html

"Keynes Is Slowly Winning." By Paul Krugman, November 26, 2014, New York Times. URL: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/26/keynes-is-slowly-winning/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto

"Why Interstellar Should Be Taken Seriously -- Very Seriously." By Paul Stefanski, November 26, 2014, Huffington Post. URL:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-stefanski/why-interstellar-should-b_b_6213002.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

"An Open Letter of Apology to the United States of America [about Benghazi]." By Brian Joyce, November 25, 2014, Huffington Post. URL:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-joyce/an-open-letter-of-apology_b_6219340.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

"Should Putin fear the man who ‘pulled the trigger of war’ in Ukraine?" By Lucian Kim, November 25, 2014, Reuters. URL: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS368525725520141125

"Why America may be set for success." By Fareed Zakaria, November 24, 2014, CNN. URL: http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2014/11/24/why-america-may-be-set-for-success/

"Falling apart: America's neglected infrastructure." By Stefe Kroft, November 23, 2014, CBS News. URL: http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/falling-apart-americas-neglected-infrastructure/

"Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons potential for reassurances it would be defended." By Bennett Ramberg, November 22, 2014, Guelph Mercury. URL: http://www.guelphmercury.com/opinion-story/5151036-ukraine-gave-up-its-nuclear-weapons-potential-for-reassurances-it-would-be-defended/

"Special Report: Crimean savers ask: Where's our money?" By Steve Stecklow, Elizabeth Piper and Oleksandr Akymenko, November 20, 2014, Reuters. URL: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0J40FJ20141120

"Enough Is Enough: The President's Latest Wall Street Nominee." By Sen. Elizabeth Warren, November 20, 2014, Huffington Post. URL:http://huff.to/1uKQUYB

"Top Obama official: Ky. not ready on new bridge." By Deirdre Shesgreen, November 19, 2014, Cincinnati. URL: http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2014/11/19/top-obama-official-ky-ready-new-bridge/19286625/

"Clarke and Dawe - Growth first. Then these other things can be dealt with, whatever they are." ClarkeAndDawe, November 19, 2014, YouTube. URL: http://youtu.be/OTfSZ0D39AI

"Sen. Bernie Sanders On How Democrats Lost White Voters." By Steve Inskeep, November 19, 2014, NPR. URL: http://n.pr/1wUqrVb

"Legal Panel At [Conservative] Federalist Society Begrudgingly Accepts Obama's Immigration Powers." By Sam Stein, November 19, 2014, Huffington Post. URL: http://huff.to/1qVW6DJ

"Stop calling me 'the Ebola nurse'." By Kaci Hickox, November 17, 2014, Guardian. URL: http://gu.com/p/43bqe

"US voter turnout is an international embarrassment. Here's how to fix it." By Bernie Sanders, November 10, 2014, Guardian. URL:http://gu.com/p/436mm

"Про що мовчать розумні українці." By Stanislav Bilchenko, November 9, 2014, Ukraininska Pravda. URL: http://www.pravda.com.ua/columns/2014/07/9/7031378/?attempt=1

"Beyond The Unemployment Rate: Look At These 5 Labor Indicators." By Sonari Glinton, November 7, 2014, NPR. URL: http://n.pr/1vVVOyf

"Capitalism Is Making China Richer, But Not Democratic." By Frank Langfitt, November 7, 2014, NPR. URL: http://n.pr/1qtMeAD

"Fewer Babies Are Born Prematurely, But Many Still Suffer." By Nancy Shute, Novebmer 6, 2014, NPR. URL: http://n.pr/1tgMCT4

"Interstellar Travel? Nah! (Part 2)." By Dr. Sten Odenwald, November 5, 2014, Huffington Post. URL: http://huff.to/1qq537W

FOX tries its best to spin Senate BENGHAZI! report

Check out the GOP Spin Zone over at Fox News: 

• 
  COMPREHENSIVE REPORT BY the Senate Intelligence Committee definitively declares that individuals tied to 
• Al Qaeda groups were involved in the Benghazi attack, and that the attack could have been prevented.

Yet further down in the article it says:

The Senate committee report stressed that the intelligence still suggests the attack was not “highly coordinated,” but rather “opportunistic” – possibly put in place in “short order” after protests over an anti-Islam film elsewhere in the region.

“It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attacks,” the report said. 

So those conclusions from the Senate committee's own biased, partisan report refutes two of the Republicans' four main accusations against the Obama Administration: that al Qaeda was behind the attacks (and not just al Qaeda-affiliate groups being "involved"); and that the anti-Islam film had nothing to do with the timing of the attack. 

The third main accusation by the GOP is that the State Department and the White House ignored security threats inside Libya. This I won't go into now. It suffices to say that Amb. Stevens alone made the decision to visit Benghazi that day, not Hillary Clinton or President Obama. He was quite aware of the risky post-conflict security situation in Libya. Rep. Grayson made this amply clear in a House hearing on Benghazi, see it here:

The fourth main accusation by the GOP is that Obama and his generals did not come to the rescue of Amb. Stevens and other U.S. personnel in time, for reasons unclear or speculative. I won't respond to this accusation now either, since I've written about it before, and no credible analysts have been able to dispute the actual events or timing.

So there you go.  BENGHAZI! has been reduced to plain old Benghazi, a political tempest in a teapot, where brave Americans' lives and memories have been used cynically as political ammunition by the GOP.  Moving on.

Post-Benghazi, GOP hurts Libyan diplomacy

This is basically what I said earlier: U.S. diplomats understand that they must sometimes work in dangerous places, and they're willing to take some risks to do their jobs:

Thousands of U.S. diplomats do their jobs every day, conscious of the dangers they face but accepting of the risks that come with the job. Excessive security that interferes with their jobs doesn't serve our interests abroad or make us safer at home. The politicians who play political football with Benghazi should be ashamed of themselves.

In other words, our foreign service officers can't do public diplomacy when they are ridiculously outnumbered by armed guards, or holed up in a fortress embassy.  

FSOs also receive extra compensation (danger pay) for working in posts like Libya. 

(Mieczyslaw Boduszynski was a Foreign Service officer with the State Department from 2004 to 2013.)

The Benghazi syndrome

By Mieczyslaw P. Boduszynski 

December 3, 2013 | Los Angeles Times

URL: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/12/03/210354/the-benghazi-syndrome.html

Rush: 'Don't trust Obama!'...'It's too bad people distrust Obama'

Here's the end of a very long rant by Rush Limbaugh today about Obama's order to close 21 embassies in the Middle East and Africa:

But there's another aspect of this that's dangerous. 

The very fact that there are so many people who are cynical about this, the very fact that there are so many Americans who think they're being lied to about a terror threat, is a really dangerous thing.  It is an unhealthy thing for the country.  It is the surest sign of the wanton lack of respect for this country that has swept all across this country.  This threat may be real.  Everything we're being told could be real.  We could be facing something somewhere as bad or worse than 9/11 -- and I dare say, the majority of Americans think it's a lie. 

What does that tell you that what most Americans think of the people who are telling them about this threat? 

They're liars, too. 

Before I comment on that, here's part of a WaPo op-ed by conservative pundit and NSA-spying defender Marc Thiessen that says basically the same thing:

When President Obama dismisses the IRS’ political targeting of his conservative critics as a “phony scandal,” he is not only stretching credulity — he is undermining our nation’s security.

[...] That collapse is a direct result of the disintegration in public trust that has taken place on Obama’s watch. 

Why are Limbaugh and Thiessen both full of shit?

Because they, and the rest of the GOP and talk radio Axis of Evil, spend all day, every day, seeking to undermine the public's trust in Obama, asserting day after day that he hates America, he's a secret socialist, he persecutes Tea Partyers, and on and on.  Then these same scaremongers turn around and bemoan the public's (alleged) lack of trust in Obama when it comes to national security.

The nerve of these self-serving jerks!  ... The same jerks who urged us to rally 'round the flag in the Dubya years, no matter what we thought of him or his foreign policies -- they've never once rallied to Obama.  Hypocrites. We should have nothing but contempt for them.

UPDATE (08.07.2013):  Speaking of hypocrites, why no mention from the Right about how Tom Ridge admitted he was pressured to raise the terror threat level for Dubya just before the 2004 presidential election?  

Letter to Uncle T. on BENGHAZI!

Uncle T.,
How can a lawyer say that incompetence (not negligence) is a crime?  Mind you, I'm not accusing anybody of incompetence.  Hindsight is 20/20.

Another good test of whether it's a kooky conspiracy theory or a real scandal is try to avoid using the pronoun "they."  Can you do that when you explain Benghazi?  

The GOP Congress slashed the State Department's diplomatic security budget by $500 million, i.e. Congress appropriated less money than Obama asked for. Hillary warned Boehner back in 2011 that such cuts would hurt national security.  If you want to find fault, start there.

Regarding threats -- duh!  There's a reason DOS personnel in Libya get danger pay... because it's dangerous!  U.S. personnel were in a conflict zone where al Qaeda affiliates were known to operate.  Then again, why did Congress cut DOS's budget?  We also got threats before 9/11 that Rice and Bush apparently ignored. Criminal incompetence... or nothing concrete enough to act on?  Be fair.

Next, the military commanders on the ground -- you know, those guys that politicians are never supposed to question -- decided not to scramble jets or send in FAST commandos from Spain during those 2 days. Was that the right decision? I don't know. But it was their decision. It wasn't a political decision.  Are you saying that SecDef Panetta, General Ham and General Dempsey at AFRICOM should be held accountable for "criminal" incompetence?  Remember Panetta's words: "the basic principle here… is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on; without having some real-time information about what's taking place."  They didn't know so they didn't send in commandos.  

Here's the Benghazi timeline sent by Panetta to the House Armed Services Committee.

Next, what happened after.  Talking points for a Sunday talk show one week after. OMG, that's important.  I mean, that's like testifying under oath.  And that was when we still didn't know who carried out the attack.  We STILL DON'T KNOW.  Yet it was terribly important for the Right to call it a "terrorist" attack by al-Qaeda.  Why?  I don't know.  What difference does it make?  Apparently it makes all the difference, even though those people will still be dead.  (By the way, how many times did Cheney and Rice go on Sunday talk shows saying Saddam had WMD, ignoring all the evidence that he didn't have any? No crime, no incompetence there? Remind yourself here.)  

Next, there was no cover-up about security. The State Dept. did its own investigation.  Congress has read the partly classified report and has not disputed its findings.  The report did not say the video was the cause of the attack; they said most likely some planning had gone into it, but it was an opportunistic strike.  No cover-up there.

Next, this deputy mission chief Hicks says he is being mistreated for "blowing the whistle," although he still has a job at the same level of pay.  The State Dept. is not allowed to comment on his employment status since it's a personal matter.  So the lawyer in you should wonder what the other side of the story is.  By law, we cannot hear it.  

So, in all the above, tell me who did what wrong and how it rises to the level of a cover-up or even a criminal act. Be specific, counselor!

Here is a liberal take on what the State Dept. & White House did wrong.  

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ I have cleaned up Uncle T's spelling and grammar a bit. - J ] 

My how you play word games. Since when is it not a cover up if only incompetence is involved and not a crime. (The little Democratic soldier marches on, with blinders always in place, no matter what the facts are).

The facts are that there was a specific warning given to the State Dept. (and possibly Secy. of State Hillary Clinton) of increased activity indicating the real possibility of a planned terrorist attack. The State Dept./ Clinton's response was to ignore the warning.

The Benghazi embassy then specifically requested increased security due to the known warnings and known increased terrorist activity.  The State Dept./ Clinton's response was to deny same.

It is overwhelming evidence that you NEVER let the facts get in the way of your opinion when you declare the you "don't get it" because the State Dept. sure "got it " and realized that it's incompetence costs American lives. The Dept's response was to  just plain lie and declare that the attack was an isolated unplanned uprising due to a video. That's a cover up by anyone's but your definition.

Obama sure "got it" as he tried to protect Clinton and his administration and continued the unplanned isolated uprising lie.

Lying about the warning and lying about the denial of requested additional security and then making up non-existent facts in an attempt to deny culpability are facts for which you should be outraged.


UPDATE (05.16.2013): McClatchy is doing some tough reporting on Benghazi that gives the lie to the GOP's insistence on some kind of scandal or cover-up.  Check out these two articles:  "Benghazi emails show CIA deputy did most of editing on talking points," and "Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers for more security, U.S. officials say."  

BENGHAZI!! Sorry, I'm still yawning

All of you outraged by Benghazi! should read this post by Professor Andrew Sabl. Here's the key part:

Look, I’m not a Benghazi expert. I’m willing to entertain the possibility that there’s something here that the media aren’t telling me. But before I evaluate the case, I need to see some concrete charges. My challenge to conservatives is to tell me, very simply, the following:

(1) What, in your view, was the crime? Who did what and which law did it break? No crime, no cover-up (in the usual sense).

But the idea seems to be that what was “covered up” was not crime but incompetence. (That stretches the former meaning of “cover-up,” but never mind.) So:

(2) Who failed competently to perform his or her job, in which concrete ways? Which decisions are we talking about, by whom, at what time, and on what grounds should we believe that a competent person in the job in question would have had to make a different decision? Again, failure to devote unlimited resources to guarding every consulate at all times does not constitute an incompetent decision but rather precisely a competent one. And a judgment (apparently held by the diplomats on the ground at the time) that there was a tradeoff between high security and diplomatic effectiveness is also, absent conclusive arguments to the contrary, quite defensible. We need more.

(3) What information was covered up, and how? What facts do we (a) now know to be the case that (b) were previously concealed from view by (c) illegitimate threats or undue influence (as opposed to agency politics as usual, whereby those higher up would rather sweep mistakes under the rug but grudgingly tolerate subordinates who air them)?

Unless all three of these elements in (3) are  present, there was no cover-up—at most a halfhearted attempt at a cover-up, or an honest difference of opinion about facts. And unless number (1) or (2) is present, there was nothing to cover up.

My standing challenge to my Republican friends is to tell me in your own words who did what wrong, and be specific.  Then ask yourself if this rises to the level of a scandal, crime or coverup.  Keep Sabl's words in mind when you do.

Actually Stephen Colbert does a pretty good job of showing there is no "there" there in this conspiracy theory:

On Benghazi—An honest plea for specific charges

By Andrew Sabl

May 9, 2013 | The Reality-Based Community

URL: http://www.samefacts.com/2013/05/secrecy-in-government/on-benghazi-an-honest-plea-for-specific-charges/

The bullshit artists of distraction: Exhibit B(enghazi)

It just hit me, the absurdity.  Here Rush Limbaugh is complaining and alleging once again that Democrats and of course the media don't care about the four people who were killed in the attack on a U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012.  

Now the GOP House is having hearings about Benghazi.  They're out to prove the Obama Admin. perpetrated a big cover up of... something.  I'm still not sure what.  (Usually the best way to trip up any conspiracy theorist is to ask him to describe to you, in less than four sentences, what the conspiracy was about.)

That's also absurd, but that's not what I meant.  I meant that Republicans all over our country are outraged -- OUTRAGED! -- that four career government employees who signed up voluntarily for a dangerous job were killed in a chaotic post-Qaddafi environment, and yet, and yet... these same Republicans don't get angry enough to do anything after 20 six- and seven-year-old kids were gunned down in one of America's "safest" public schools.  (Public schools are always safe until they're not.)  In fact, when we mention stats such as, from 2007 to 2010 America suffered 121,084 firearm fatalities, they immediately go on the defensive, clinging to their guns and religion.  

We have Republicans in the House holding hearings on Benghazi; meanwhile they call for teachers to carry guns; meanwhile, Congress doesn't allow anybody except law enforcement to carry firearms into the Capitol Building.  (Hey, Congressional Republicans may be crazy but they're not stupid.)

How absurdly absurd!  This is exactly what I meant the other day when I talked about the cable-radio media trying to distract and divide us by shouting endlessly about stupid shit.  This is Exhibit B right here, folks.  

There's stuff that matters and stuff that doesn't.  Can't we tell the difference anymore?

It's Simple: What the Left Believes Explains the Regime's Inaction on Benghazi

May 7, 2013 | The Rush Limbaugh Show

URL: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/05/07/it_s_simple_what_the_left_believes_explains_the_regime_s_inaction_on_benghazi

White House sure learned its lesson after Benghazi!

This time, the White House called it "an act of terror" right away. Isn't that what you Republicans wanted? Doesn't it make you feel better? Isn't that all that matters, in the big scheme of things: that murders halfway around the world are properly labelled for you by your leaders in the span of one news cycle?

Congratulations, like training a dog, you've forced the WH to learn a pointless new trick by screaming at it for weeks until it does what you want. Now go and brag to your friends about what a great thing you did.

(That was a generous helping of post-Benghazi sarcasm. You're welcome.)

White House: Turkey suicide attack 'clearly an act of terror'

By Felicia Sonmez

February 1, 2013 | Washington Post

URL: http://wapo.st/WZ3gbT