Don Young on the fruits of productivity

By Frank Moraes

Have you heard about Alaska Republican Representative Don Young? People are having a lot of fun with him today because he said, "My father had a ranch; we used to have 50–60 wetbacks to pick tomatoes. It takes two people to pick the same tomatoes now. It’s all done by machine." Oh so much to unpack here! But the focus of most of the discussion (as usual) is about trivial stuff. 

Trivial Stuff

First, the racial slur. It was insensitive and idiotic, but not important. Jonathan Chait had the best response, "Also, dude: 'Wetback' is not the preferred nomenclature." That is a reference to The Big Lebowski. Here's the scene -- just 21 seconds long:


This got me wondering where the term "wetback" comes from. I had always thought that it referred to all Mexicans or Latinos, which for most Americans are the same thing. It turns out that "wetback" refers to people who came to the the United States illegally by crossing the Rio Grande. The word was first used in 1929. My question: why focus on their backs? After all, the Rio Grande is a "large river," so I would figure their whole bodies would be wet. "Wetfeet" I can see. And for those of you who think that the "back" doesn't refer to physical backs? If they were referred to as "wetbacks" after they returned to Mexico, that would make some sense. Otherwise, I'm not buying it. 

Important Stuff

Young's broader point is valid, although it is clear from the original interview that he doesn't have a clue what to do about it or that anything can be done about it. In a world in which more and more production is automated, how are we to employ everyone so that there will be people who can buy all the crap that machines make? I have some ideas about this, but I'm no economist. The problem is that most economists don't treat the issue seriously.

Read more »

P.M. Headlines

(CBS News): "Obama unveils plan for attracting private investment for public works"

(Talking Points Memo): "The GOP's post-election outreach hits some speed bumps"

(Politico): "Ben Carson: 'I apologize' for gay remark"

(The Atlantic): "Paying the costs of Iraq, for decades to come"

(Businessweek): "Why Republicans won't flip on gay marriage"

Rand Paul is going to keep us guessing - but not really

By Richard  K. Barry

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is saying that he won't be making any announcements about a possible 2016 presidential bid until next year.

I want to be part of the national debate. I think the country faces a lot of problems, and I do want to be a part of trying to bring about answers and solutions for making the Republican party big enough that we can be competitive again, but I won’t make any decision until 2014 or so.  

Another relevant piece of information is that Paul also would face re-election to the Senate in 2016.

Hard to know for sure, but my guess is that he runs. Yeah. He's running.

Ted Cruz accuses Obama of trying to "take advantage" of Sandy Hook massacre

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Teabagger Ted Cruz, first-term Republican senator from Texas, has emerged as one of the most loathsomely extremist members of what is overwhelmingly a loathsomely extremist party. And like any "good" Republican extremist, he's taking it upon himself to block any and all gun control efforts, and of course to use any and every occasion to attack the president:

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) responded to President Barack Obama's latest call for action on gun control Thursday, launching criticism at the White House and promising to do everything in his power to stop the administration's push for stricter legislation.

"It is saddening to see the president today, once again, try to take advantage of this tragic murder to promote an agenda that will do nothing to stop violent crime, but will undermine the constitutional rights of all law-abiding Americans," Cruz said in a statement. "I am committed to working with Sens. Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Marco Rubio, and Jim Inhofe -- and I hope many other colleagues -- to use any procedural means necessary to protect those fundamental rights."

Cruz also blamed the Obama administration for contributing to the gun violence it is now attempting to address.

Yes, you know, your "fundamental" right to own weapons of mass destruction that can do things like this, and to be able to acquire them without background checks, and to be able to do so within a gun-obsessed culture that glorifies gun violence, without effective law enforcement to go after criminals (Cruz blames the Obama administration, but it is Republicans, backed by the NRA, who have stripped the ATF of what it needs to do its job to enforce gun laws).

And of course it isn't just Newtown. It's Aurora, it's Oak Creek, and it's Tucson. It's Columbine. It's the mass murders that become media sensations and historical events, even if nothing is ever done about them, and it's the murders that don't because there are just so many of them, day after day after day. And it's so much else, including all the gun violence since Newtown.

Ted Cruz is a despicable right-wing ideologue with an agenda of extremism. But on this as on so many other issues he's solidly in the mainstream of the Republican Party, and he and his wretched party will continue to do all they can, no doubt successfully given the dysfunctionalism of American government, to block even the most mild (and even the most popular) gun control initiatives.

Dr. Ben Carson - already heading for the door

By Richard K. Barry

Ever since Dr. Ben Carson look a swipe at President Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast, Republicans have been running around touting him as a fresh new voice of conservatism.

The obvious problem with elevating someone so quickly is that there's not enough time to vet a range of opinions they might hold and how potentially inappropriately they might express them.

Right-wing talk show loon Sean Hannity has been bringing Carson on his Fox program recently to give him yet another platform. When Hannity asked Dr. Carson to opine on marriage equality, he said this:

Well, my thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman. It's a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality. It doesn't matter what they are. They don't get to change the definition. So he, it's not something that is against gays, it's against anybody who wants to come along and change the fundamental definitions of pillars of society. It has significant ramifications.

My guess is that at this rate Dr. Carson doesn't last very long as anyone's political darling. Sorry Doc, the time has passed when anyone can get away with comparing homosexuality to pedophilia and beastiality. I'm not even sure you're going to get your full 15 minutes.

A.M. Headlines

(Bloomberg): "Consumer spending in U.S. climbs most in five months"

(Washington Post): "Obama on guns - too little,  too late"

(Associated Press): "EPA taking aim at auto emissions, sulphur in gas"

(Reuters): "North Korea readies rockets after U.S. show of force"

(New York Times): "Cyberattacks seem meant to destroy, not just disrupt."

P.M. Headlines

(Reuters): "Obama makes impassioned plea for gun control legislation"

(New York Times): "Edgy calm as banks in Cyprus reopen"

(Washington Post): "Debate over gun control returns to the fore"

(The Alaska Star): "Murkowski's gay marriage views 'evolving'"

(The Daily Beast): "What the GOP autopsy proves"

Welcome to our new Cold War

By Carl

You probably heard on the news today about the war exercises in the Sea of Japan, including South Korea, this morning.

Two long-range B-2 bombers made the 6,500 mile flight from Missouri to South Korea, simulated a bombing run, then turned around and made it back to Missouri, possibly in time for breakfast. Wrap your head around that for a moment. Two stealth planes flew 13,000 miles non-stop to drop ordinance.

The conventional wisdom is this was a warning to North Korea and Kim Jong-Un, and it likely was, but my suspicion is there was a longer-term message being sent as well.

To China. Possibly Russia, as well, although there are more direct messages that can be sent to them.

A peace time demonstration of some of our military capabilities should be sufficient to give anyone with hegemonic ambitions pause, in addition to twisting the knickers of our petty adversaries. I’m not crazy about this development, but I can understand the logic behind it: you want China and North Korea to understand that a proxy war against one of our proxies can be answered in spades, and without proxies. 

Read more »

Christianity slows progress

By Frank Moraes 

Booman Tribune provides some useful information in its post "Religion and Gay Marriage in the Senate." What it shows is that the only ten Democratic senators who have not come out for gay marriage are all Christians. The article also presents a rundown of the religious affiliations of all the Senators. Other than Jewish and Buddhist, they all have a pretty bad record. I find this really telling.

Christianity is supposedly a forgiving religion, and yet, in the hands of most followers, it is just about bigotry and exclusion. So far from being edifying, Christianity warps its followers into being even worse than they normally would be. Think about it. Under normal circumstances, no one would really care about the sex lives of other people. But Christians are dragged back socially thousands of years by teachings of their religion that are not even primary.

Modern American Christianity seems focused on two issues that only have the vaguest of relation to spiritual matters: abortion and homosexuality. This is, sadly, what you get when you think that God wrote a book with a bunch of rules for you to follow. Or when you think that all you have to do is "believe in" Jesus and you are assured a seat next to God in the afterlife.

Read more »

Behind the Ad: Sarah Palin isn't going away, and that's a good thing

By Richard K. Barry

(Another installment in our extensive "Behind the Ad" series.)

Who: Sarah Palin.

Where: Sarah PAC website.

What's going on: In an ad called "Loaded for Bear," Palin makes it clear that she expects to play a role in the 2014 election. It's a slick piece, splicing together all sorts of comments to give the impression that Palin is still a massive force in American politics.

My sense is that it's over for the former Gov. of Alaska. Even Fox News gave her the heave-ho, reasoning that her 15 minutes were up.

The truth is that party nominations are frequently won by energizing smaller numbers of the party faithful. Palin is good at that. Her fans will certainly point to her early support for Republicans Ted Cruz of Texas and Deb Fischer of Nebraska, both of whom won their Senate races.

My guess is that her efforts will help to blow up the Republican party real good, like it needs the help (with apologies to the spirit of John Candy and Joe Flaherty).

Stupidest Shithole in America: Dietrich, Idaho

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(It's our third entry in this new series. The first two were Nelson, Georgia and Mississippi.)

Maybe it's not fair to call a place a "shithole" simply because of the ignorant, moralizing stupidity of a few parents who object to the teaching of science and sex, but until this nonsense is done, this small "community with heart" in the south-central part of the state, roughly between Boise and Idaho Falls, qualifies for the title:

A high school science teacher in Idaho is under investigation by the state's professional standards commission because he reportedly used the word "vagina" during a biology lesson.

Tim McDaniel, who teaches 10th grade science at Dietrich School, told the Twin Falls Times-News that four parents were upset when they learned that his lesson included the word "vagina" and information about the biology behind female orgasm.

"I teach straight out of the textbook, I don't include anything that the textbook doesn't mention," McDaniel remarked. "But I give every student the option not attend this class when I teach on the reproductive system if they don't feel comfortable with the material."

Oh no! High school students learning about vaginas and orgasms! Ah, but no wonder: This is a part of the state with a heavy Mormon population. And of course Mormons have neither vaginas nor orgasms.

"[T]here are a couple people in the community that are trying to get Mr. McDaniel fired for teaching the reproductive system, climate change, and several other science subjects," students wrote. "All these subjects were taught from the book and in good taste. He cares for each of his students and goes the extra mile to help them all. Now is the time for us to help by supporting him!"

Well, the children are the future, and at least these nobly enlightenment-seeking examples of teendom don't want to live in a stupid shithole.

You're teaching them well, Mr. McDaniel.

Louie Gohmert, asshole extraordinaire

By Michael J.W. Stickings

You all know that Louie Gohmert is crazy, even by the lofty standards of craziness set by House Republicans, but did you also know that he's a bullying jackass with a massive sense of entitlement? It's true:

A Texas Republican congressman got into a late-night verbal altercation with U.S. Park Police officers earlier this month, pulling rank in an attempt to get out of a parking ticket near the Lincoln Memorial.

Shortly after 11 p.m. on March 13, officers wrote Rep. Louie Gohmert a citation for parking his black Ford SUV in a spot reserved for National Park Service vehicles, according to a Park Police report obtained by POLITICO.

But Gohmert wasn't having it: He told the Park Police that his congressional parking placard allows him to park in that spot, and he's on the committee that oversees the agency.

Gohmert took the ticket off his windshield and placed it on a police car along with his business card with a written message: "Oversight of Park Service is my job! Natural Resources Thus the Congressional Plate in window."

He was "rude and irate," one officer reported. Another wrote that Gohmert was "ranting."

Oh, so very, very hard to believe.

Ashley Judd is not gonna do it

By Richard K. Barry

(Ed. note: This appears to be the great divide here at The Reaction. Richard is anti-Judd, while I'm pro-Judd. And I think it's a shame she's not running. -- MJWS)

Since I said some fairly snarky things about actor Ashley Judd possibly running against Senate Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in 2014, I should close the loop and report that she is not going to run after all. 

She made the announcement via tweet, writing: 

After serious and thorough contemplation, I realize that my responsibilities & energy at this time need to be focused on my family. 

According to The Washington Post:

Democratic Senate strategists have argued that Judd would be a good, if unconventional candidate, pointing to her ability to rival or even eclipse McConnell in fundraising. But McConnell’s path to victory involves savaging his opponent, and Judd’s status as an actress and celebrity would have offered him loads of ammunition.

And that may be, but it's not my issue.

I have nothing against Mr. Judd, but I do have concerns about those who confuse celebrity with political competence. Just because a lot of fools run and sometimes win election doesn't mean we shouldn't seek appropriate experience in our political leaders. 

A.M. Headlines

(The Hill): "Conservatives wary of Chief Justice Roberts in same-sex marriage cases"

(Politico): "Obama hopes SCOTUS doesn't punt"

(Reuters): "Michigan official wants progress before funds releases"

(Boston Herald):"Senate candidates face off"

(New York Times): "Calm gives way to tension in Cyprus as banks reopen"

Is DOMA dead?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Here's Lyle Denniston of SCOTUSblog, in line with most of the initial commentary after today's oral argument:

If the Supreme Court can find its way through a dense procedural thicket, and confront the constitutionality of the federal law that defined marriage as limited to a man and a woman, that law may be gone, after a seventeen-year existence. That was the overriding impression after just under two hours of argument Wednesday on the fate of the Defense of Marriage Act.

That would happen, it appeared, primarily because Justice Anthony M. Kennedy seemed persuaded that the federal law intruded too deeply into the power of the states to regulate marriage, and that the federal definition cannot prevail. The only barrier to such a ruling, it appeared, was the chance – an outside one, though – that the Court majority might conclude that there is no live case before it at this point.

This would be very good news. DOMA is legislated bigotry that deserves to die.

Read more »

Listening to Now: Bob Wills and His Texas Playboys - "San Antonio Rose"

By Richard K. Barry

Bob Wills was famous for a style of music called Western Swing. In 1934 he formed his band, called the Texas Playboys, with Wills on fiddle, Tommy Duncan on piano and vocals, rhythm guitarist June Whalin, tenor banjoist Johnnie Lee Wills, and Kermit Whalin, who played steel guitar and bass.  Sometimes they played with Leon McAuliffe on steel guitar, pianist Al Stricklin, drummer Smokey Dacus, and with a horn section.

San Antonio Rose was their signature song, which sold over a million records. 

They were an enormously popular band in the 1940s with hits like "Steel Guitar Rag", "New San Antonio Rose", "Smoke on the Water", "Stars and Stripes on Iwo Jima", and "New Spanish Two Step".

Lots of different configurations, always great music. Rather than try to describe Western Swing, just listen.

P.M. Headlines

(SCOTUSblog): "Argument recap: "DOMA is in trouble (FINAL UPDATE)

(New York Times): "Justices seem set to end U.S. ban on benefits for gay spouses"

(CBS News): "Poll: 80% of Americans unhappy with Washington"

(CBS News): "Ashley Judd not running for Senate"

(BBC): "'Biggest ever attack' slows internet"

You learn something new every day

By Carl

Justice Clarence Thomas may not be the single stupidest man ever to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States. That honor may fall to Samuel Alito:

“You want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution, which is newer than cellphones or the Internet?” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked. “We do not have the ability to see the future.”

Now, if his intent was simply to throw the case back to the lower courts, which would effectively end Proposition 8 in California and establish same-sex marriage there, then this is a ham-handed and clumsy way to go about it. Sonia Sotamayor said it far more elegantly:

“If the issue is letting the states experiment and letting the society have more time to figure out its direction, why is taking a case now the answer?” she asked

I fail to see what’s new about marriage, the legal conjoining of two people for the purposes of forming a family unit. And I fail to see what’s new about establishing equal rights under the law for all people – to-wit, if I can marry as a straight man, why can’t two lesbians or gay men marry, too?

Read more »

Constitution just happens to agree with Scalia's bigotry

By Frank Moraes

Adam Serwer wrote a great article this morning, Here Are the 7 Worst Things Antonin Scalia Has Said or Written About Homosexuality. Now, we all know that Scalia is a vile human being. But after reading Serwer's list, it was clear to me what I've long suspected: Scalia is no sober justice that his position implies.

What comes through in all of these comments is that Scalia isn't against gay rights out of any legal principle; he is just against homosexuality (he's a Catholic) and thus votes against gay rights. Think: Rob Portman before his son came out of the closet. And that shows that he is no kind of judge; he is, as Dan Savage said, just a partisan hack.

In his dissent on Lawrence v. Texas, the case that found sodomy laws unconstitutional, Scalia said such laws didn't violate the right to equal protection. He wrote, "Men and women, heterosexuals and homosexuals, are all subject to [Texas'] prohibition of deviate sexual intercourse with someone of the same sex." But Serwer noted that this was a long repudiated line of reasoning:

That should sound familiar: it's the same argument defenders of bans on interracial marriage used to make, arguing that the bans were constitutional because they affected whites and blacks equally.

But that just shows why Antonin Scalia is exactly the sort of person who should not be given the power that goes with sitting on the Supreme Court. He is not even looking at the law in these cases that collide with his personal moral code. Instead, he just uses his intelligence and erudition to justify his prejudices. And that is why he will find that both Prop. 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act are constitutional. Through ever more complicated and far-fetched legal reasoning, he will find—What a surprise!—that the constitution does indeed justify his long held personal bigotry. That's a constitutional originalist for you!

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Sinking to a new level

By Mustang Bobby

This is not from The Onion. It really happened.

Republican lawmakers in Tennessee sprung to action and demanded answers after confusing a mop sink recently installed in the state Capitol for a Muslim foot-washing sink.

Members of the state House and Senate contacted state Senate Clerk Russell Humphrey to ask if the floor-level sink had been installed outside the House chamber men’s restroom to accommodate Muslims’ ritual of washing their feet before prayer, according to The Associated Press.

“There was concern about why it had been modified,” Humphrey said.
Republican state Sen. Bill Ketron confirmed that he had taken this issue up with Humphrey after state Rep. Judd Matheny (R) became troubled that the sink could be for Muslims.

“I just asked the question about what was the intent of that,” Ketron explained.

Legislative Administration Director Connie Ridley assured the lawmakers in an email that “the facility administrator for the State Capitol Complex that the floor-level sink installed in the men’s restroom outside the House Chamber is for housekeeping use.”

“It is, in layman’s terms, a mop sink,” Ridley said.

Ketron told the AP that the explanation “satisfied my curiosity after it was presented to me.”

Nice recovery, dipshit.

Again the question arises: it’s no surprise that we have idiots in office; that has been true since time out of mind. But it sure makes you wonder who the dimbulbs were that voted for them over someone else.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Going where the right-wing thinks you've always been

By Richard K. Barry

We all know the right wing loves to talk about government waste, as if all we need to do is cut the fat and Bob's your uncle as far deficits are concerned. It's always bullshit, but they never tire of saying it.

Apparently, just for the hell of it, the IRS decided it would be a great idea to spend $60,000 on a Star Trek parody with some kind of a tax theme, and call it a training video:

The six-minute "Star Trek" video made in Maryland was shown to agency employees at a conference in 2010. In the video, IRS workers are meticulously dressed as characters from the popular TV show and are flying a staged space craft towards the planet "Notax."

I don't know what I find sillier, that they spent so much money on something so bad or that someone sought out William Shatner, aka Capt. Kirk, to ask him what he thought about the whole thing.

For the record, he was appalled and thought it was a waste of money. Great.

And thank you, IRS, for giving the right wing something to talk about for decades. We already loved you anyway.

One of the stupidest things ever written about gay marriage, by Megan McArdle

By Michael J.W. Stickings

There's a lot to read about the Prop 8 oral argument before the Supreme Court, and this includes a lot of the usual bigotry from the right, but I have a candidate for the stupidest article yet to appear on the matter and it comes from the remarkably stupid Megan McArdle.

In "Why Gay Marriage Will Win, and Sexual Freedom Will Lose" -- yes, that's the real title -- McArdle argues, or whatever the verb is for insane verbal diahrrea, that what we're seeing in the inevitable legal triumph of same-sex marriage is the end of the sexual revolution and libertinism generally and a return to the bourgeois repression of the Victorian era:

That's right, I said it: this is a landmark victory for the forces of staid, bourgeois sexual morality. Once gays can marry, they'll be expected to marry. And to buy sensible, boring cars that are good for car seats. I believe we're witnessing the high water mark for "People should be able to do whatever they want, and it's none of my business." You thought the fifties were conformist? Wait until all those fabulous "confirmed bachelors" and maiden schoolteachers are expected to ditch their cute little one-bedrooms and join the rest of America in whining about crab grass, HOA restrictions, and the outrageous fees that schools want to charge for overnight soccer trips. 

And that's not all:

The neo-Victorian morality will protect who you want to marry -- male or female, or maybe even something in between. But the wider open marriage is, the less necessary it becomes to defend the right to carefree sex -- or children -- outside of marriage. One can imagine a Republican politician fifty years hence ruining his career when he throws over his husband and children for a younger man.

Um, sure, maybe. But what of it? Would that really be a problem?

Actually, McArdle doesn't seem to know what she wants. On the one hand, she longs for "the old marital norms" because she's apparently worried about the children of all those single mothers out there (who, of course, shouldn't get any government help, conservatives and right-wing libertarians like McArdle say), but on the other she seems to think marriage rights should be limited, or just that there shouldn't be so much marriage, so that there can be more "carefree sex," sex for the sake of pleasure, a lot more sleeping around, by which I assume she also means gays fucking each other in bath houses instead of making love in their marital beds in some suburban dystopia, lights off, the dishes put a way, the kids finally in bed, maybe getting off before Colbert is over, maybe not.

Read more »

Does Stephen Colbert's sister have a chance in South Carolina's 1st Congressional District?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Yes. But I'd say it's less than a 50% chance.

According to a new PPP poll, she's doing well:

PPP's first look at the special election in South Carolina's 1st Congressional District finds a toss up race. Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch leads Republican Mark Sanford 47-45 and ties Curtis Bostic at 43.

This is a Republican leaning district and Barack Obama's approval rating in it is only 41% with 57% of voters disapproving of him. But Democrats are far more unified than the Republicans are. Busch is winning 87-89% of the Democratic vote while Sanford (76%) and Bostic (72%) are both earning less than 80% of the GOP vote. Busch is also up by 16-18 points with independent voters.

So far, so good.

Now, (Colbert) Busch's opponent is likely to be Sanford, who's trying to get back into office after, you know, taking some time off to hike the Appalachian Trail. And things do look promising for her:

Focusing in on the potential race between Busch and Sanford it's surprisingly close for one simple reason -- voters like Busch and they continue to strongly dislike Sanford. 45% of voters see Busch favorably to only 31% with a negative opinion. On the other hand Sanford is still stuck with a 34% favorability rating and 58% of voters seeing him in a negative light. 

Voters in the district have every reason to dislike the former governor. Even if you don't want to get into the trials and tribulations of his personal life, he violated the trust the voters of South Carolina placed in him, used state resources to support his philandering, and proved to be, as so many Republicans are, a massive hypocrite without a shred of genuine self-awareness or humility.

Read more »

Janet Napolitano won't say she won't run -- film at 11

By Richard K. Barry

One things that newspapers like to do is run stories that so-and-so hasn't ruled out a run for a certain political office when the only thing the person did was basically ignore the question.

The Washington Examiner, which is sort of a newspaper, ran a story yesterday saying Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano "didn't rule out a potential [presidential] bid":

The former long-serving Arizona governor instead brushed off the question, joking that she's too busy keeping U.S. borders safe to consider a race.

At a breakfast interview hosted by the Christian Science Monitor, she said, "my plate is so full now that that kind of contemplation would be the kind of thing that would keep me up at night, and I lose enough sleep as it is."

Napolitano is a Democrat. And do you know who else is a Democrat? Hillary Clinton. And Ms. Clinton is running, so no need to waste any time thinking about which other Democrats aren't formally ruling it out.

A.M. Headlines

(ABC News): "David Petraeus apologizes for affair in first speech since resignation from CIA"

(New York Times): "Deciding not to decide gay marriage"

(The Hill): "Steele: Priebus 'crapping' on my legacy"

(Reuters): "Supreme Court to weigh IRS penalties on alleged tax dodges"

(New York Times): "North Korea shuts last remaining hotline to South"

Supreme Court may dismiss Prop 8 case

By Michael J.W. Stickings

From the Times, it looks like a majority opinion may be emerging on the Supreme Court regarding the same-sex marriage case currently before it:

As the Supreme Court on Tuesday weighed the momentous question of whether gay and lesbian couples have a constitutional right to marry, six justices questioned whether the case, arising from a California ban on same-sex marriages, was properly before the court and indicated that they might vote to dismiss it. 

"I just wonder if the case was properly granted," said Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who probably holds the decisive vote, in a comment that showed a court torn over whether this was the right time and right case for a decision on a fast-moving social issue.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor seemed to share that concern. "If the issue is letting the states experiment and letting the society have more time to figure out its direction," she said, "why is taking a case now the answer?"

This would hardly be the optimum outcome for same-sex marriage supporters such as myself. But it wouldn't be a bad one, and it may be the best possible one from this court. 

Read more »

P.M. Headlines

(Reuters): "Analysis: Supreme Court seems poised to avoid same-sex marriage tide"

(Politico): "Jon Tester backs same-sex marriage"

(Reuters): "Obama appoints first woman Secret Service director"

(The Hill): "Banking gavel could fall to Wall Street critic"

(PPP): "South Carolina special a toss up"

(New York Times): "North Dakota governor signs strict abortion law"

Reince, may I recommend..?

By Carl

…a Grand Army of the Republicans, Inc.?

ALBUQUERQUE, New Mexico — Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus says his party needs to increase its numbers without changing its political platform in order to beat Democrats.

The Albuquerque Journal reports (http://bit.ly/Yx0a1L) that Priebus made the remarks during a speech Saturday in Albuquerque.

His remarks came less than a week after the NRC released a report recommending the party try to grow its ranks in part by supporting immigration overhaul efforts and offering more welcoming attitudes on gay rights.

“And as my first act with this new authority, I will create a grand army of the Republic to counter the increasing threats of the Separatists.”

Read more »

Farewell, gay liberals

By Frank Moraes 

I'm interested in where the gay rights movement is going. I will always feel a great kinship to my gay brothers and sisters. What's more their cause of gender orientation equality will always be my cause as well. Although this particular cause is definitely liberal, the LGBT community, is not. In fact, in many ways, it is conservative. And so, as time goes on, I'm afraid that I will have to say goodbye to many of my gay colleagues as they are more and more at odds with me on important issues. (I mean goodbye to them from the liberal movement; I'm not talking about cutting off people from my life just because we have policy disagreements.)

A large part of this is simply that as a group, gays and lesbians are more economically successful. Why this is, I'm not sure. The lack of unplanned pregnancies undoubtedly helps. And the lack of gender limited roles can't hurt. But the fact is that gay individuals and even more so gay couples are wealthier than their straight counterparts. We all know: the rich vote Republican. And as the Republican Party slowly gives up on its absurd anti-gay policies, we will see more and more of the LGBT community join it. 

Dan Savage 

There was an interesting moment on Up with Chris Hayes the other day. Hayes asked a question that I must admit has occurred to me a few times: is it possible that the Supreme Court will vote overwhelmingly to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act. On one level, it seems like a no-brainer. I don't even understand the constitutional argument for upholding it.

But gay activist and liberal pundit Dan Savage called out the lie in that kind of thinking, "Thomas, Alito, Scalia: they will twist themselves into any shape to avoid -- I think -- overturning DOMA. I think they're partisans and I think they're Republican hacks and I don't think they're justices who can be trusted to do the constitutional thing. I have no illusions; it's going to be very close; it's not going to be Brown [v. Board of Education]." Of course he's right. I am, however, curious to see what those jackasses will come up with to justify their bigotry.

Read more »

Away from blogging, as Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon turns 40

By Michael J.W. Stickings

My apologies for being away from the blog the past week or so. There have been a number of factors, including work, family, computer problems, and a fantasy baseball draft to prepare for.

Thankfully, I have a wonderful #2 (#1?) in Richard, and he's stepped in to keep the blog going, writing and editing and just generally keeping watch over the whole enterprise.

I'll be back soon at my usual pace, but for now I would like to mention that Sunday marked the 40th anniversary of the U.K. release of Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon, in my view the greatest album of all time by the greatest band of all time. (It came out on March 1, 1973, in the U.S. and Canada, and on March 24, 1973, in the U.K.) To mark the occasion, the band released a new poster with variations of the iconic prism cover art:

And here's Pink Floyd (without Roger Waters, alas) performing "Time" at London's Earls Court on October 20, 1994, from the Pulse DVD:


Forty years old, and as amazing as ever. There's nothing quite like Dark Side.

More Democrats, fewer Republicans

By Frank Moraes

Kos provided the following graph of party identification over the past four years. (It's from the Huffington Post, but he doesn't provide a link and I'm kind of mad about what they are becoming, so I'm none too interested in looking for it.) It's remarkable. I was expecting a peak around last November that would fade afterward. This is what happened with the Republicans, if by "dip" you mean "entered an abyss with no end in sight." The Democrats had a peak in November, but have grown steadily since then.

If you look at the Independents, you can kind of see what has happened. More and more of them are saying, "Let's get real: I'm never going to vote for the Republican Party the way it is; I'm really a Democrat." Similarly, a lot of Republicans are saying, "Let's get real: I'm conservative but it's embarrassing to associate with the Republican Party." That pretty much summarizes this chart:



Read more »

P.M. Headlines

(ABC News): "Michele Bachmann's presidential campaign investigated by ethics watchdog"

(Seattle Post Intelligencer): "Arkansas governor vetoes voter photo ID bill"

(CNN): "CNN poll: 'Rob Portman effect' fuels support for same-sex marriage"

(Talking Points Memo): "Pew: Republicans don't think Supreme Court is conservative"

(Reuters): "Senate banking chair Johnson to announce retirement"

The Autumn Wind Is A Pirate

By Richard K. Barry

I miss NFL football this time of year. Sure, there's all the news about free agency, and the college draft coming soon, but it's not the same thing. 

I happened to be watching the NFL Network yesterday, which I do too often, and caught a segment on Ed Sabol's induction into the Hall of Fame. Ed Sabol started NFL Films, one of the finest entertainment institutions around. I remember growing up with it, the incredible footage, Sam Spence's music, John Facenda's narration. Glorious stuff. 

It got me thinking about the old "Autumn Wind" piece on the Oakland Raiders, narrated by Facenda. It was done in 1974. The poem was written by Steve Sabol, Ed's son and co-founder of NFL Films, and it really captures something about the relationship between autumn and football, two of my favourite things. 

Fight the power

By Carl

Imagine, for a moment, you could go completely off the grid, in terms of energy usage. Would you do it?

You may get the chance. In fact, it may be easier than you thought:

NRG Energy Inc. (NRG), the biggest power provider to U.S. utilities, has become a renegade in the $370 billion energy-distribution industry by providing electricity directly to consumers.

Bypassing its utility clients, NRG is installing solar panels on rooftops of homes and businesses and in the future will offer natural gas-fired generators to customers to kick in when the sun goes down, Chief Executive Officer David Crane said in an interview.

Now, this is not exactly the image one has in mind when one thinks “off the grid,” to be sure. After all, you’re still dealing with someone who is most definitely on the grid and most definitely part of the energy cartels that partly control our society.

But it’s a start.


Read more »

Jennifer Granholm won't run for the open Michigan Senate seat

By Richard K. Barry

I've always liked former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm. I thought she might take a look at running for the Senate seat made available by Sen. Carl Levin's decision to retire. Alas, it was not to be.

As is becoming common these days, she rejected the idea using new media, writing on her Facebook page:

Friends, thanks for all of the encouragement on the Michigan Senate seat, but I’m not going to run. I appreciate all of the outreach I’ve received; for several reasons it’s just not right for us (it’s a family decision). My best to all the contenders — Levin’s US Senate seat will stay blue!

According to Roll Call, Democrats are indeed in a strong position to hold the seat given the way things have gone in Michigan recently. 

Potential Democratic candidates include Debbie Dingell, the wife of longtime Rep. John D. Dingell, and Reps. Gary Peters and Dan Kildee.

On the GOP side, Reps. Mike Rogers and Justin Amash, former GOP Chair Saul Anuzis and former Michigan Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land are mulling runs.

Yeah, but Jennifer would have made things fun.  

Poor coverage of GOP attack on the USPS

By Frank Moraes

According to The Hill, a number of large corporations—most notably Hallmark, the greeting card company—are trying to push back against the shameless Republican attack on the United States Postal Service.

It seems that the Postal Service's decision to end Saturday delivery has caught the attention of companies who will be hurt by the move. Until now, it has all been a big win for companies like FedEx and UPS who have been salivating for the USPS's most profitable routes.

Of course, helping out our corporate overlords is only part of what is driving Republicans. Even bigger is the idea of destroying one of the most visible examples of effective government. It all shows just how devoid of principles the conservative movement is. They make a big show for their love of the Constitution. But when it comes to parts of it that they don't like, they just ignore it. The Postal Service, after all, is in the Constitution. (Article I, Section 8, Clause 7: empowers Congress "To establish Post Offices and post Roads.")

Read more »

Karl Rove can read polls

By Richard K. Barry

Whatever else may be true of Karl Rove, he generally knows which way the wind is blowing. When the Fox News contributor and former Bush deputy chief of staff was asked if he could imagine a future Republican presidential candidate supporting gay marriage, he answered in the affirmative. 

Rove was asked on "This Week" this past Sunday if he could "imagine the next presidential campaign, a Republican candidate saying flat out I am for gay marriage?” He responded “I could.”

Rove's comments come just a few days after Ohio Republican Sen. Rob Portman announced that he had changed his position and now supports gay marriage.

While it is true that no other Republican Senator agrees with Portman, and few GOP members of the House do, the American public is rapidly coming on side with the idea. In recent polling, public support for gay marriage hit an all-time high, according to a new Washington Post-ABC survey. 

The poll showed that 58 percent of Americans now believe it should be legal for gay and lesbian couples to get married; 36 percent say it should be illegal. Public attitudes toward gay marriage are a mirror image of what they were a decade ago: in 2003, 37 percent favored gay nuptials, and 55 percent opposed them.

Yes, Karl Rove can read polls.