P.M. Headlines

(CBS News): "American troops, civilians killed in Afghan attacks"

(The Hill): "House Republicans prepare contingency plan for debt hike"

(USA Today): "FBI interviews Petraeus as part of probe"

(New York Times): "Nuclear talks with Iran end without advances"

(RT): "Third major oil spill in a week: Shell pipeline breaks in Texas"

Listening to Now: The Archies - "Sugar, Sugar"

By Richard K. Barry

As I say in the subtitle of my music blog (Listening to Now), it's about music: the good, the bad, the ugly. I could just post good music (whatever that means), but I'm at least partly interested in any song or style that becomes popular, good or not.

Let's face it, bubblegum pop is always going to be with us and the cool kids are always going to scratch their heads about it. One of the signature tunes in the genre has to be The Archies' "Sugar, Sugar."

It was written by Jeff Barry and Andy Kim and performed by a group of fictional teenagers in the television cartoon series The Archie Show. Most incredible is that it reached No. 1 in the U.S. and stayed there for four weeks in 1969. It was, in fact, the number-one single of the year.

Want to know what other songs in 1969 were not the number-one single? That would be "I Heard it Through the Grapevine," "Every Day People," "Aquarius/Let the Sun Shine In," "Get Back," "Honky Tonk Woman," and "Come Together." You get my point.

Ron Dante sang lead vocals for "Sugar, Sugar" and was accompanied by Toni Wine (who sang the line "I'm gonna make your life so sweet"), and Andy Kim. Together they were the voices of The Archies.

This is Dante singing without the benefit of animation. And below is Archie and the gang. Sorry if this weirds you out. 

And, by the way, why was the song so popular? It's all in the beat, not to mention that it was written by two guys who knew how to get it done. 

(Cross-posted at Listening to Now.)

Best political movies, in honour of Mr. Ebert

By Richard K. Barry

In honour of movie critic Roger Ebert, who died last week at the age of 70, Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post republished a list of reader-generated favourite political movies that were first posted in March 2010. Top vote-getters were the 1972 Robert Redford film "The Candidate" and the 1992 Tim Robbins film "Bob Roberts."

Good choices.

I'm not nearly focused enough at the moment to generate my own comprehensive favourites list, so I'll cherry pick a few others from the Post list, which you can find here.

• All the King's Men
• All the President's Men
• Being There
• Bulworth
• The Manchurian Candidate
• Primary Colors
• Wag the Dog
• The War Room

As I think about it, there are a number not on the Post list worth mentioning, and I'm sure you have your own.

Read more »

And then there were four

By Richard K. Barry

Now that North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitkamp and Indiana Sen. Joe Donnelly have voiced their support for same-sex marriage, there are only four Democratic senators who maintain the opposite view.

The hold outs are are Joe Manchin (WV); Mary Landrieu (LA); Mark Pryor (AR); and, Tim Johnson (ND). 

Not to simplify things too much, but Manchin is a right-wing crank and Landrieu and Pryor are both up for re-election next year in states that are strongly opposed to same-sex marriage. 

The most complex of the four is likely Johnson, who is not running again. As The Week reports:

Johnson is unique in that he's retiring at the end of the year, leading some to speculate that, given the minimal personal political risk, he'll be the next senator to change his mind. However, Johnson's son may enter the race to replace him, and "having a parent weigh in would lock him into a position he might not hold or want to hold," says Slate's Dave Weigel. Last week, Johnson's office told The Huffington Post that he remained opposed to gay marriage.

Just the thought that we are down to a few stragglers, at least among Democrats, is quite remarkable.

A.M. Headlines

(Washington Post): "NRA tactics erode post-Newtown support for gun-control measures"

(Politico): "12 GOP senators back Rand Paul on gun-control filibuster"

(The Hill): "Obama budget to take aim at wealthy IRAs"

(New York Times): "Rubio is yet to commit on immigration bill"

(BBC): "Pope Francis calls for action of clerical sex
abuse"

Are Republicans killing women?

By Frank Moraes

The remarkable map below is from health researcher Bill Gardner via Sarah Kliff at Wonk Blog, This Map of America's Female Mortality Rates Is Pretty Terrifying. The reason that Kliff refers to the map as "pretty terrifying" is that 43% of U.S. counties are seeing rising levels of female mortality. In the red counties, the life expectancy of women is going down. In the light blue-green counties, it is increasing slowly. And in the blue counties, it is increasing substantially. The map is indeed striking:

But there is an elephant in this map that neither Gardner nor Kliff even mention. For that, we must turn to economist Dean Baker who wrote this morning, "I hate to be partisan here (seriously -- I criticize the Obama administration all the time), but this map showing declines (blue) in mortality rates for women and increases (red) looks a lot like voting patterns." And in fact, the correlation is shockingly clear:

Read more »

P.M. Headlines

(ABC News): "Oregon takes up gun control bills"

(Washington Post): "US economy adds just 88,000 jobs, fewest in 9 months, unemployment falls to 7.6 pct."

(Talking Points Memo): "Left furious with Obama for backing Social Security cuts"

(BuzzFeed): "Conservative Democrats take joint plunge on gay marriage"

(Ballot Box): "Rand Paul: Defenders of DOMA are going to 'lose that battle'"

North Carolina goes south

By Mustang Bobby

(Ed. note: For more on this effort to use "Nullification" to circumvent the separation of church and state, yet another Republican assault on the Constitution, see my post from Wednesday. -- MJWS)

North Carolina won't have a state religion after all. Well, at least not this year. Yet.

North Carolina House Speaker Thom Tillis's office said Thursday that a resolution asserting North Carolina has the power to set an official state religion is dead, and won't go any further.

The resolution, filed by two Republicans from Rowan County, declared "each state is sovereign and may independently determine how the state may make laws respecting an establishment of religion" – thereby claiming the federal government and courts have no authority to decide what is constitutional.

The bill's primary sponsors were Reps. Harry Warren and Carl Ford, a tea party member. Eleven other legislators signed the resolution. Legislators introduce hundreds or even thousands of resolutions every year, honoring constituents or declaring their stances on issues, but they carry little legal weight.

Warren said in a statement that the bill was only intended to allow Rowan County officials to open their meetings with prayer, not to establish a state religion.

Instead, they've turned their attention to another GOP obsession (no, not gay sex): voter suppression.

Read more »

Hillary Watch 2016: James Carville supports a Clinton candidacy (big surprise)

By Richard K. Barry

A super PAC with the pithy name "Ready for Hillary" has been put together for the purpose of encouraging the former secretary of state to run for the presidency in 2016. According to The Washington Post, someone familiar with the group's outreach efforts said that James Carville will be assisting them by sending an e-mail encouraging others to get on board:

"He is the first of several heavy hitters who will be rolled out by Ready for Hillary PAC," the person said.

Carville, Bill Clinton's campaign manager in 1992 and a legend in the world of political campaigns, has indicated that he is not joining the super PAC in an official capacity but is happy to lend a hand:

"I'm not going to waste my time writing you about how great Hillary is or how formidable she'd be – you know it all already," he says in the e-mail, which was shared with Post Politics. "But it isn't worth squat to have the fastest car at the racetrack if there ain't any gas in the tank — and that's why the work that Ready for Hillary PAC is doing is absolutely critical. We need to convert the hunger that's out there for Hillary's candidacy into a real grassroots organization."

Ah, that James Carville. He sure knows how to say stuff.

Rick Santorum is not ruling out a 2016 presidential bid (oh, goody!)

By Richard K. Barry

It takes both hands to get my
head out of my ass every night.

It seems possible we might again have Rick Santorum to kick around. In an interview with Newsmax TV's Steve Malzberg, he said he was "certainly leaving the door open for that." He followed that up by saying, "I'm making no commitments at this point, but we're not doing anything inconsistent with running in 2016."

As you might imagine, Santorum's pitch is that Republicans need to be more conservative to win next time. Yes, that's what he is saying:

"The same advisors who botched these last two campaigns are now saying, 'Well, you know, since we can't win with moderate Republicans, we have to now try to be liberal Republicans to win instead of standing up for the values that made our country great,'" he said.

"We have not had a nominee that is ready to go out and articulate a unified vision of what conservatism is, what America's first principles are about, and why we're the greatest country in the history of the world. And then we wonder why we don't win."

Yes, please. Be more conservative next time. Great idea. 

A.M. Headlines

(New York Times): "Obama budget to include cuts to programs in hope of deal"

(Boston Globe): "Scott Brown not ruling out run for office in N.H."

(New York Magazines): "Siren: Eric Cantor will consider higher taxes"

(The Hill): "Most don't want same-sex marriage decision left to states, poll finds"

(Pittsburgh Post Gazette): "The cautionary instruction: Public servants the target of assassins"

Roger Ebert (1942-2013) -- the critic as educator

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Roger Ebert died today at the age of 70 after a long battle with cancer. He was an extraordinary man.

I was concerned when I read what has turned out to be his final piece yesterday, the 46th anniversary of him becoming the film critic for the Chicago Sun-Times. Entitled "A Leave of Presence," it explained that he was taking a new direction with his writing, moving away from prolific review-writing in favor of doing "selected reviews" of movies he actually wanted to review, including for his wonderful "Great Movies" series, re-launching his website as a new-and-improved Ebert Digital, and continuing to work on various other projects. At the same time, it noted that the reason for the change was his health -- a "painful fracture" that turned out to be cancer, requiring radiation treatment.

Promising news, and yet not good news, both at the same time.

We all knew he was suffering from ill health, but he has kept going through some pretty dismal times. But who knew the end would come so soon?

There is a lot that has been written about Ebert today, and there will be a lot more in the days to come. He was the world's most famous film critic, a great writer, a progressive thinker, a mentor to younger critics, an avid tweeter. And of course there was the whole "thumbs up, thumbs down" thing that we now all take for granted.

What strikes me, though, is how personal the reaction to his death has been from so many people. He was that important to the culture, but in a way also that important on a personal level to so many of us, even if we never knew him personally, and never even met him. (The closest I ever came was reported sightings at the Toronto film festival.) Maybe it's because the movies are so personal to us, because we love them, because they mean so much to us on a deeply personal level. Maybe it's because he brought us into the world of movies through his unabashed love of the movies, introducing us to new things, to new experiences, so much so that the way we look at movies, and at the world around us in relation to the movies, was very much shaped by his guidance, and by his love.

Read more »

Listening to Now: Earth, Wind & Fire - "Got To Get You Into My Life"

By Richard K. Barry

I was thinking about this song today. I'm not sure why. I remember when Earth, Wind & Fire came out with it in 1978. I didn't realize then it was a Beatles song first. 

The original was written by Paul McCartney, though it is credited as a McCartney-Lennon collaboration. It was first released on the album Revolver in 1966, but didn't make a ton of noise then. In a 1980 Playboy interview, however, Lennon called the song one of McCartney's best.

According to allmusic, “Got To Get You Into My Life” is enormous fun and a heartfelt Stax tribute from Paul McCartney. There’s no denying the tune’s catchy, and the faux-soul arrangement is spot-on." And by "Stax tribute" they mean in part the way that horns are used in the original, which helped define the Stax sound.

In 1978, Earth, Wind & Fire covered the song for the Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band soundtrack, giving it another life. It reached No. 1 on the Soul singles chart and No. 9 on the Hot 100 singles chart.

The song won a Grammy Award for Best Instrumental Arrangement Accompanying Vocalist(s) and also got a Grammy nomination for Best Pop Performance by a Duo or Group with Vocals.

Absolutely on the Best Instrumental Arrangement. 

It seems appropriate that a song intended as an homage to soul music would get better notice by a bona soul/R&B act - not that there was anything wrong with the Beatles' version. 



(Cross-posted at Listening to Now.)

P.M. Headlines

(CBS News): "Majority of Americans favour legalizing pot, poll shows"

(Reuters): "Connecticut governor signs strict gun law after Newtown shooting"

(Tampa Bay Times): "Bill Nelson reverses opposition to gay marriage"

(New York Times): "North Korean missile moved to coast, but little threat seen"

(The Canadian Press): "Aid groups push Obama administration to shift the way US helps feed starving people abroad"

Mona Lisa now

By Frank Moraes

Giovanni Carmine, an art curator in Switzerland, had an interesting idea. It also turned out to be horrifying. He took a number depictions of women in great pieces of art throughout history and altered them into our modern standards of beauty. That is: he made them painfully skinny. We aren't talking here about Rubenesque models who we know to be plump. He took women who I'd always thought of as being pretty thin -- women like the model for Mona Lisa.

I recommend clicking over to the Ensemble Magazine article, "The Mona Lisa Retouched, According to the Ideal of Beauty Now." What really stands out is how sickly the women look compared to the originals. But if you look at the new imagines for a while, you soon see that they aren't distortions. They really are what the modern world thinks of as beautiful.

And that's why it is horrifying.

Note: the Mona Lisa above is probably the least horrific of the many examples.

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Connecticut enacts tough new gun law

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I used to think of Connecticut as that mildly pleasant but largely forgettable parcel of land that you drove through to get from New York to Boston and vice versa, back when my family lived in New Jersey and I went to college in the Boston area.

Okay, I still think of it that way sometimes, but, then, it's also the state where Sandy Hook happened, and now it's the state that has enacted serious new gun control legislation in response to that horrific event:

After more than 13 hours of debate that was at moments impassioned and agonized, the General Assembly early Thursday approved an historic and far-reaching gun-control bill that proponents said was their toughest-in-the-nation response to the Dec. 14 Newtown school massacre.

A majority of Republicans in both the House and Senate voted against the bill, shame be upon them, but it's nonetheless a solidly bipartisan piece of legislation.

Governor Malloy, a Democrat, signed the bill into law at noon today.

Read more »

Republican rebranding 2.0

By Mustang Bobby

I guess all that talk about "rebranding" and "autopsy" at the RNC really didn't take hold. Even party chairman Reince Priebus is ditching all that introspection about reaching out to women and minorities when it comes to raising money from the gullible and the paranoid.

"The President, the Senate Majority Leader, the House Democratic Leader, and the Chair of the Democratic National Committee (in whose home state this hearing occurred) made funding Planned Parenthood an issue in the 2012 campaign," Priebus wrote. "They should now all be held to account for that outspoken support. If the media won't, then voters must ask the pressing questions: Do these Democrats also believe a newborn has no rights? Do they also endorse infanticide?"

The case in question was testimony before a Florida legislative committee on really vague hypothetical questions about Planned Parenthood's position on what to do if a baby survives an abortion, or something like that. The implication is that PP and all the liberals would try to kill it. At least that's what it sounds like when he uses the word "infanticide." But then, he’s writing to an audience that he thinks doesn't know the difference between a newborn baby and a clump of cells floating around in a uterus.

This is the new GOP model: cynically exploit the ignorant because you think you can get away with it. Every politician tries it, but this brings it to a whole new level.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

North Korea agonistes

By Carl

A true test of a nation's mettle comes not in how it deals with "existential threats" (i.e., a force equal to or greater than its own) but with the niggling trouble-makers.

Thus enters North Korea:

SEOUL, South Korea — South Korea's defense chief said on Thursday that North Korea had moved to its east coast a missile with a "considerable" range, but that it was not capable of reaching the United States. The disclosure came as the Communist North's military warned that it was ready to strike American military forces with "cutting-edge smaller, lighter and diversified nuclear strike means."

That last likely should be taken with a grain of salt, but clearly not discounted completely. We know they've been working on a nuclear capability for some time now, they have a reactor that is not hooked up to the power grid (so we know it’s not for energy), and they had been in touch with our old fiend, Abdul Qadeer "A.Q." Khan, who likely advanced their ambitions by several decades.

Too, North Korea has been gearing up for some time to "battle" the United States and South Korea.

I put "battle" in quotes for a reason: there's significant cause to believe that Kim Jong-Un is saber-rattling not for international purposes but in order to clamp down dissent domestically. Precious little news of the North ever really gets out, so we have to infer a lot, but here's my thinking in support of this notion.

Read more »

Ken Cuccinelli hates blow jobs

By Michael J.W. Stickings

From the Blade:

Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli has filed a petition with the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond asking the full 15-judge court to reconsider a decision by a three-judge panel last month that overturned the state's sodomy law.

The three-judge panel ruled 2-1 on March 12 that a section of Virginia's "Crimes Against Nature" statute that outlaws sodomy between consenting adults, gay or straight, is unconstitutional based on a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2003 known as Lawrence v. Texas.

One assumes that Cuccinelli is motivated largely by anti-gay bigotry (they can kiss, but that's it... but not the genitals!), but of course a sodomy law covers other things as well, like, you know, blow jobs. (No word on what he might have against those.) Or maybe he's just sick and tired of Alice not putting out unless he goes down on her first. (I mean, sure, they have seven children, and maybe he owes her some tongue action, but come on, it's smelly down there, and it takes, like, forever!)

Whatever the case, he can go shove a large turnip up his ass. Which he has every right to do. It says so in the fucking Constitution.

More or less.

Strong gun control laws reduce gun violence

By Michael J.W. Stickings

That's stating the obvious, but of course the obvious is anything but obvious not just to the gun nuts but to the rest of America's gun-obsessed culture. And even if it were obvious to them -- the nuts, their supporters, and all their various enablers -- they'd deny it because they live not in reality but in a dystopia of denialism.

Via ThinkProgress, here's the key finding in a new report from the Center for American Progress:

While many factors contribute to the rates of gun violence in any state, our research clearly demonstrates a significant correlation between the strength of a state's gun laws and the prevalence of gun violence in the state. Across the key indicators of gun violence that we analyzed, the 10 states with the weakest gun laws collectively have a level of gun violence that is more than twice as high -- 104 percent higher -- than the 10 states with the strongest gun laws.

Of course, when you're dealing with people for whom the facts mean nothing, this report will mean nothing. And so the denialism, and the violence, will continue. Not even Sandy Hook could do anything about that.

A.M. Headlines

(Politico): "A viewer's guide to Hillary fever"

(New York Times): "In budget gesture, Obama will return 5% of his salary"

(New York Times): "Obama in California for congressional fund-raiser"

(The Hill): "Obama: 'No conflict' between gun control and gun rights"

(Washington Post): "Japan central bank to massively expand supply of money in bid to revive stagnant economy"

Listening to Now: Paper Lace - "The Night Chicago Died"

By Richard K. Barry

Paper Lace was a British pop group formed in 1967. They are considered a one-hit-wonder on this side of the pond, but had a bit more success over there.

"The Night Chicago Died" was their big hit as far as Americans are concerned. It was released in 1974. In England, they also scored with "Billy Don't Be a Hero," though Bo Donaldson and the Heywoods had the hit with it here.

Another song called "The Black-Eyed Boys" reached No. 11 in the UK and 37 in Canada.

When a friend recently mentioned "The Night Chicago Died," I did remember the name of the group, for what it's worth. It's just one of those trivia questions. 

The reason he mentioned it, by the way, is that he stopped into a barber shop in the east end of Toronto and learned that the man cutting his hair was the son of one of the original members of Paper Lace. I guess there are stories like that everywhere.

I have to say after listening to a few of their tunes, they're not half bad. 



(Cross-posted at Listening To Now.)

P.M. Headlines

(CBS News): "Dementia costs U.S. up to $215 billion per year, study finds"

(USA Today): "Connecticut Senate passes nation's toughest gun laws"

(New York Times): "Report shows March weakness in hiring and services"

(WRAL): "Proposal supports state religion in North Carolina"

(First Read): "Morning Joe poll: 60% percent of Americans want stricter gun laws"

North Carolina Republicans launch formal assault on the Constitution, seeking establishment of state religion

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Just in case you weren't quite sure Republicans are the party of Christian theocracy:

A bill filed by Republican lawmakers would allow North Carolina to declare an official religion, in violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Bill of Rights, and seeks to nullify any federal ruling against Christian prayer by public bodies statewide.

The legislation grew out of a dispute between the American Civil Liberties Union and the Rowan County Board of Commissioners. In a federal lawsuit filed last month, the ACLU says the board has opened 97 percent of its meetings since 2007 with explicitly Christian prayers.

Overtly Christian prayers at government meetings are not rare in North Carolina. Since the Republican takeover in 2011, the state Senate chaplain has offered an explicitly Christian invocation virtually every day of session, despite the fact that some senators are not Christian.

The First Amendment initially prohibited Congress from establishing a state religion at the federal level, but as a result of Everson v. Board of Education (1947) and other subsequent case law the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has come to apply to the Establishment Clause of the First, meaning that the prohibition against establishing a state religion applies not just federally but to the states as well. (It's called "Incorporation.") And there hasn't been a state religion since 1833 (Massachusetts).

The North Carolina proposal ignores all of this:

"The Constitution of the United States does not grant the federal government and does not grant the federal courts the power to determine what is or is not constitutional; therefore, by virtue of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the power to determine constitutionality and the proper interpretation and proper application of the Constitution is reserved to the states and to the people," the bill states.

"Each state in the union is sovereign and may independently determine how that state may make laws respecting an establishment of religion," it states.

This is the "Nullification" argument that states' rights conservatives have frequently used to try to circumvent federal law, including with respect to slavery. Essentially, it posits the supremacy of the Tenth Amendment, and of course of the states themselves.

Read more »

Media accountability

By Frank Moraes

Yesterday, I wrote about Liz Cheney's insane rant against Obama and Obamacare. The insightful health care policy observer Aaron Carroll wrote about the Reagan quote she used that freedom was over because of the evil which Cheney dare not speak its name. That evil, of course, is Medicare. Cheney conveniently left out that context for the quote because it only would have highlighted how wrong Reagan was and Cheney is with their hysterical domino theorizing.

Carroll puts it all into context:

Yes, Medicare was the death of freedom in 1961. It was tyranny. It was the end of America.

Last I checked, Medicare passed, and America is still here. Now it's Obamacare that will kill freedom, enact tyranny, and end America.

At what point do people who use such hyperbolic rhetoric stop and recognize that their dire warnings never come to pass? One would imagine that people who repeated Reagan's talking points back in 1961 might find it a bit humbling to see how wrong they were. You'd think they'd shy from repeating those arguments again.

But, no. They get op-ed space in the WSJ.

This, I think, is the real problem. No one ever loses anything because they are shown to be shockingly ignorant. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, no one wants to be around others who make them look bad. So someone like John McLaughlin is not going to fill his panel show with people who were right about the Iraq War or the housing bubble. The mainstream media will continue to be wrong about major policy issues because they don't want to admit being wrong in the past. Another reason is just that the people on the TV machine and in major newspapers are not there because they are right or smart; they are there because they are friends with with the people who run the TV stations and newspapers.

Read more »

Brainy idea

By Mustang Bobby

This is cool:

President Obama [announced on Tuesday] a broad new research initiative, starting with $100 million in 2014, to invent and refine new technologies to understand the human brain, senior administration officials said Monday.

A senior administration scientist compared the new initiative to the Human Genome Project, in that it is directed at a problem that has seemed insoluble up to now: the recording and mapping of brain circuits in action in an effort to "show how millions of brain cells interact."

It is different, however, in that it has, as yet, no clearly defined goals or endpoint. Coming up with those goals will be up to the scientists involved and may take more than year.

The effort will require the development of new tools not yet available to neuroscientists and, eventually, perhaps lead to progress in treating diseases likeAlzheimer's and epilepsy and traumatic brain injury. It will involve both government agencies and private institutions.

The initiative, which scientists involved in promoting the idea have been calling the Brain Activity Map project, will officially be known as Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies, or Brain for short; it has been designated a grand challenge of the 21st century by the Obama administration.

There are several reasons why I like this. Everybody knows someone who has either suffered some kind of injury or has a brain disorder. It is also the kind of thing that government funding does best. Private medical research could do it, but unless there's a way to make money at it, they're probably going to spend more time on boner pills and hair restoration than curing Alzheimer's.

It is often the government that gets America to do big bold things without a profit motive. If you think of some of the things that we've done in the last sixty years, such as the interstate highway system or putting Neil Armstrong on the moon, it was done because we as a nation decided to do it through the government. And along the way, the government didn't exclude the capitalists; it hired them and paid for the research and promoted their products along the way. Everybody wins something, and that's called progress.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

From the frying pan into the fire

By Carl

I guess Malcolm Smith (nominal D-NY) can be forgiven. After all, he watched as Michael Bloomberg purchased the mayoralty three times.

Smith's problem is, he tried to buy the office of the mayor at the five-fingered discount:

At one stage, Mr. Smith was part of a Democratic power troika that lavished goodies on an openly crooked state senator, Pedro Espada Jr., in the process of getting Mr. Espada to vote with them. Mr. Smith himself recently jumped with a small group of Democratic senators to shift power to the Republican minority. Along the way, an inspector general’s report said he had finagled a casino land deal in Queens. The F.B.I. was also investigating nonprofit groups that he helped obtain government funds.

Undaunted, Mr. Smith set his ambitions on becoming the Republican candidate for mayor of New York City. Strictly speaking, as a Democrat, Mr. Smith had no business on a Republican ballot, but, understandably for a person practiced in the customs of Albany, that seemed like a small obstacle. In fact, he could get a spot on the primary ballot by special dispensation from three of the city’s five county Republican leaders.

These not-so-longish-shot hopes brought him into a series of negotiations that, a federal complaint charged, moved beyond the horse-trading of ordinary legal-graft politics into the realm of outright bribery.

What it seems to boil down to is that federal authorities claim that Mr. Smith swapped road improvements in Rockland County for a spot on the ballot in the Republican primary for mayor in New York City.

For the record, Rockland County is not near the city by a good stretch. It does give one pause.

It sort of boiled down to this, so bear with me, because it gets a little convoluted, but is an interesting read for those who want to read up on the machinations of local government.

Read more »

A guide to the Republican civil war

By Michael J.W. Stickings

In a post yesterday on the ongoing Republican civil war, which is well worth reading, Mario Piperni included this helpful chart from Daily Kos's Markos Moulitsas of "all the various conservative factions" in the GOP:

But there's one thing missing: power.

Yes, there's something of a civil war going on in that wretched party, but Republicans have a long history of putting aside their bitter differences for the sake of electoral success, including last year when they all got in lockstep behind Romney after a rather brutal primary campaign that saw the party search desperately for an anybody-but-Romney candidate.

Don't discount this. Power, or rather the quest for power over all else, is what holds the party together in a way that just isn't the case with the Democrats. It's that old dynamic at work: Those on the right want to be in power, while those on the left want to be right. They put aside their differences and unite for an overriding common purpose, while we bicker amongst ourselves. We strive for truth, they strive for power, and all the things power brings. (We're getting better at the whole questing for power thing, but Republicans are ahead of us by a fairly wide margin.)

I certainly hope the current divisions in the Republican Party, and within conservatism generally, do damage to it at the polls. Maybe immigration and marriage equality and warmongering really are divides that can't be overcome. Certainly the extremism, absolutism, and general craziness on the right are taking their toll.

But something tells me they pull it together. The civil war is real, and it's entertaining, but it likely won't ever amount to much more than a sideshow.

A.M. Headlines

(ABC News): "Associated Press drops 'illegal immigrant' from stylebook"

(Huffington Post): "Ben Carson: White liberals are the 'most racist people'"

(Associated Press): "Mark Sanford wins South Carolina House GOP primary runoff"

(New York Times): "Retailers track employee thefts in vast databases"

(Washington Post): "North Korea bans South from joint industrial park"

Listening to Now: Stan Getz - "Autumn Leaves"

By Richard K. Barry

"Autumn Leaves" is one of the most beautiful jazz standards. It was written in 1945 as the French song "Les feuilles mortes" ("The Dead Leaves") with music by Hungarian-French composer Joseph Kosma and lyrics by Jacques Prévert.

It's a well-covered song. Stan Getz, one of my favourite horn players, certainly does it justice. 

It may be a song out of season, but so is everything else this spring, at least where I live.

P.M. Headlines

(USA Today): "NRA schools report suggests training staff in weapons"

(BBC): "UN passes historic arms treaty by huge majority"

(CNN): "11 educators report to jail in Atlanta cheating scandal"

(New York Times): "Lawmakers charged in plot to buy spot on mayoral ballot"

(CNN): "Cruz to test 2016 waters with South Carolina trip"

Thoughts on the marriage equality conversions of Senators Carper and Kirk

By Michael J.W. Stickings

There were two high-profile endorsements of same-sex marriage today from two senators who have "evolved" on the issue:

Democratic Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware:

As our society has changed and evolved, so too has the public's opinion on gay marriage — and so has mine. I pray every day for God to grant me the wisdom to do what is right. Through my prayers and conversations with my family and countless friends and Delawareans, I've been reminded of the power of one of my core values: the Golden Rule. It calls on us to treat others as we want to be treated. That means, to me, that all Americans ultimately should be free to marry the people they love and intend to share their lives with, regardless of their sexual orientation, and that's why today, after a great deal of soul searching, I'm endorsing marriage equality.

Republican Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois:

When I climbed the Capitol steps in January, I promised myself that I would return to the Senate with an open mind and greater respect for others," Kirk wrote on his blog.

Same-sex couples should have the right to civil marriage. Our time on this earth is limited, I know that better than most. Life comes down to who you love and who loves you back -- government has no place in the middle.

Okay, my thoughts:

1) Great. Wonderful. Fantastic. Public opinion has been shifting rapidly in support of marriage equality, but it still needs all the help it can get, including from those on Capitol Hill.

2) I realize that "evolve" is the word being used by politicians to explain what might otherwise be seen as a Romney-style flip-flop, but, really, it's not so much evolution as it is (often belated) reaction to shifting public opinion. Which is to say, it's "safe" now to come out in support of same-sex marriage, and indeed politically dangerous in many cases not to, so politicians are doing just that. This is not to say that people can't grow, and can't change their minds, but in many cases all this just smacks of political convenience as opposed to sincere conviction. And, yes, that goes for President Obama as well. (And, yes, I get political convenience. Politicians need votes and so much paner to public opinion. I'm just saying.)

Read more »

Hillary Watch 2016: The first paid speech

By Richard K. Barry

I have no idea what this means, but Hillary Clinton has signed on for her first paid speech in this her post-Secretary of State phase. CNN is reporting that the speech will be to the National Multi Housing Council in Dallas. No word on how much she will receive. 

The National Multi Housing Council is an organization that represents rental apartment firms. My guess is they have some money to spend. 

Ms. Clinton is with the Harry Walker Agency and, according to CNN, could earn in the six-figure range per appearance.

It's worth noting that she will also deliver unpaid remarks at two events this week, including the Vital Voices Global Leadership Awards in Washington and the Women in the World Summit in New York. 

Just so you know that there is real money in this line of work, Bill Clinton has earned at least $89 million in speech-related income since leaving office.

I'm sure she'd be doing this kind of thing even if she weren't running for president, but she is. 

More right-wing scare tactics on Obamacare

By Carl 

So, next year, the Affordable Care Act fires up in earnest. Yesterday, Vermont released its proposed health-care exchange rates for 2014, the first state to do so.

Guess what? There's great news:

After years of anticipation, Vermont became the first state Monday to publish proposed 2014 individual health insurance rates under the federal health law. Despite Republican and insurers' predictions, there was no "rate shock" in the new premiums, according to the Vermont governor's office and insurance representatives.

That state may not be the best barometer of the impact of the heath overhaul on premiums, however, because it already prohibits insurers from using health status to determine an individual's premiums. It is one of only seven states in the country which have so-called community rating regulations.

Vermont also requires prices to be the same regardless of person's age. Two of the health law's biggest changes include prohibiting insurers from using health status to determine premiums and prohibiting insurers from charging older people more than three times the rates of younger people.

Now, the caveats in those last two paragraphs should be noted: Vermont already had tight reins on some of their insurance carriers.

But here's the thing: the right wing is terrified of the free market coming to one of the most lucrative plutocracies known to so-called "free" enterprise. The ACA expands coverage to encourage young people and others who don't have health insurance to pick some up or be subject to a tax. This will have all sorts of good ripple effects for the rest of us who have insurance and are getting older and sicker by the minute.

Read more »

Worst Democrat of the Day: Mark Pryor

By Michael J.W. Stickings

ThinkProgress:

Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) hinted on Tuesday that he would oppose a Democratic initiative to expand background checks to all gun purchases, but reiterated his support for an NRA-backed measure that would permit individuals deemed mentally ill or incompetent to purchase firearms more freely. Pryor is part of small group of Democrats in red states who have not endorsed universal background checks, even though the measure is supported by a majority of residents.

"You know, I'm a Second Amendment guy, everybody knows that. People in our state are very strong believers in the Second Amendment and the right to gun ownership," Pryor told "The Alice Stewart Show," which airs on KHTE 96.5 The Voice. The conservative Democrat then highlighted his co-sponsorship of an NRA concocted proposal that would reduce the number of records in the existing background check system by removing prohibitions against individuals who were involuntarily committed to mental institutions. 

This is insane. The problem isn't that some people "got their name wrongly in the first place or they've gone through some issue or whatever and that's behind them and they need to get their name out of the database," as Pryor put it, as if it's all about rectifying unfortunate mistakes and administrative errors, it's that, as TP explains, "[t]he bipartisan NICS Reporting Improvement Act would allow these people [those "ordered by a court into involuntary treatment, found to pose a danger to themselves or others, or lack the mental capacity to enter into legal contracts from buying weapons"] to purchase weapons immediately after being released, unless it can be proven that they pose an 'imminent' danger."

Read more »

Freedom to choose

By Mustang Bobby

David Brooks thinks that he's clever by saying that marriage equality is actually a loss of freedom for those who want it:

Recently, the balance between freedom and restraint has been thrown out of whack. People no longer even have a language to explain why freedom should sometimes be limited. The results are as predicted. A decaying social fabric, especially among the less fortunate. Decline in marriage. More children raised in unsteady homes. Higher debt levels as people spend to satisfy their cravings.

But last week saw a setback for the forces of maximum freedom. A representative of millions of gays and lesbians went to the Supreme Court and asked the court to help put limits on their own freedom of choice. They asked for marriage.

Marriage is one of those institutions — along with religion and military service — that restricts freedom. Marriage is about making a commitment that binds you for decades to come. It narrows your options on how you will spend your time, money and attention.

Whether they understood it or not, the gays and lesbians represented at the court committed themselves to a certain agenda. They committed themselves to an institution that involves surrendering autonomy. They committed themselves to the idea that these self-restrictions should be reinforced by the state. They committed themselves to the idea that lifestyle choices are not just private affairs but work better when they are embedded in law.

And far from being baffled by this attempt to use state power to restrict individual choice, most Americans seem to be applauding it.

Except that Mr. Brooks misses the larger point, which is that being denied the right to limit your own freedom is in itself a limitation on freedom. Straight couples have the right to choose to get married or not. They know going in that they may lose some of the freedoms that they had when they were single, but that's a choice they get to make. Same-sex couples don't have that choice.

It sounds as if Mr. Brooks is telling us in the LGBT community, "be careful what you wish for." Yeah, well, I think most people over the age of majority have pretty much figured out that, to quote Lawrence and Lee in Inherit the Wind, "Progress is never a bargain. You have to pay for it." In this case, however, I think a number of us would be willing to sacrifice something in order to be treated the same way as everybody else. At the very least, give us the choice.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)