The NRA keeps ramping up the nasty, brutish, short, and crazy at its annual meeting

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The NRA has a crazy new neo-Confederate anti-government president and at its annual meeting this weekend in Houston it's been plumbing the depths of gun-nut craziness.

As usual, there was Wayne LaPierre, the face of the organization, using militaristic rhetoric and the usual paranoid delusions of the right to ramp up the fearmongering, as if being able to own any gun you want, whatever your fetish, whatever your own delusions, is the only freedom that matters, or rather the only component of freedom that matters, in the Hobbesian state of nature of the gun nuts' imaginings. (Hobbes viewed the state of nature as a dystopia leading to civil society; LaPierre and the rest of the nuts consider it, or something closely resembling it, their utopia. Yes, what I'm saying is that the NRA's project involves at its core the undoing of civil society and the replacement of it with life that is nasty, brutish, and short.)

And then there was this gem:

Gun owners should store a gun in their kids' room, according to a 'Home Defense Concepts' seminar offered at the National Rifle Association's Annual Meeting, comments that came just days after the fatal shooting of a two-year-old at the hands of her five-year-old brother.

The course was taught by Rob Pincus, who owns the popular firearm instruction company I.C.E. Training. Pincus argued that, in the event of a home invasion, parents would instinctually run to their children's room anyway, they might as well have a gun stored there to kill two birds with one stone:

PINCUS: How about putting a quick-access safe in your kids' room? [...] Good idea or bad idea? We have an emotional pushback to that. Here’s my position on this. If you're worried that your kid is going to try to break into the safe that is in their bedroom with a gun in it, you have bigger problems than home defense. [Laughter]... In the middle of the night, if I'm in the bathroom or getting a glass of water or in the bedroom or watching TV in the living room, if that alarm goes off and the glass breaks and the dog starts barking, what's the instinct that most people are going to have, in regards to, "am I going to run across the house to get the gun, or am I going to run over here to help the screaming kid?" And if I'm going to go to the kid anyway, and I have an extra gun and an extra safe, why not put it in their closet?

Oh, sure, what could ever go wrong?

Read more »

Niall Ferguson, right-wing asshole, targets the gays

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Yes, Niall, it's all well and good that you apologized, if only after the shit hit the fan, saying that your "comments about John Maynard Keynes... were as stupid as they were insensitive," specifically your anti-gay comments that, as Tom Kostigan of Financial Advisor wrote, "Keynes' economic philosophy was flawed and he didn't care about future generations because he was gay and didn't have children," but you can't just apologize away your bigotry (which apparently lies at the heart of your aggressively right-wing views, your anti-Keynesian austerianism):

My disagreements with Keynes's economic philosophy have never had anything to do with his sexual orientation. It is simply false to suggest, as I did, that his approach to economic policy was inspired by any aspect of his personal life. As those who know me and my work are well aware, I detest all prejudice, sexual or otherwise.

Not when it wasn't exactly an "off-the-cuff response," as you suggested, what with your history of making similar remarks, your history of connecting Keynes's economic theories to his homosexuality.

Isn't the Internet great, Niall? You "apologize," you deny, but immediately you're exposed as a fraud.

Vimeo of the Day: "Bless You"

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(For previous entries in this series, see here.)

"An architect in the skies tires of his creation and decides to spice things up a bit." Feel free to (try to) apply a religious interpretation to it. (God as egomaniacal creator/destroyer? Creation as divine whim?) My advice is just to enjoy it. It's very amusing.

Bless You from Philip Watts on Vimeo.

Believe it or not, the NRA is about to get a whole lot crazier

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Wait, is that even possible? Yes, apparently so (sorry for the long blockquote, but you need to know just what the NRA is all about):

Just in time for its wingnut-filled annual meeting tomorrow, the National Rifle Association is set to install a new president: an Alabama lawyer who laments "the war of Northern Aggression," calls Barack Obama "this fake president," and fantasizes about "whipping" opponents of the gun lobby's agenda.

Jim Porter of Birmingham, a longtime board member whose daddy's name graces an NRA championship shooting trophy,... laid those views out last summer in a videotaped address... to rod-and-gun enthusiasts in Ulster County, New York. While speaking to residents of that rural upstate region, which saw significant losses in life and wealth fighting for the Union cause in the Civil War, Porter took an unconventional tack. The NRA, he said in a barbecue-licked Dixie lilt,

...was started 1871 right here in New York state. It was started by some Yankee generals who didn’t like the way my Southern boys had the ability to shoot in what we call the 'War of Northern Aggression.' Now, y'all might call it the Civil War, but we call it the 'War of Northern Aggression' down south.

That was apropos of the NRA's original purpose, Porter said: to train civilians to use military-style weapons so that "when they're ready to fight tyranny, they're ready to do it. Also, when they're ready to fight tyranny, they have the wherewithal and the weapons to do it."

Apparently, the time to fight tyranny is now. "The NRA, I can assure you, is dug in," he said. "And I can assure you, we're whipping their ass. Everywhere we can go. Right, left, up and down."

Porter never specified who "they" were in his applause line, but he later ranted against Obama, "this fake president," whose "entire administration is anti-gun, anti-freedom, anti-Second Amendment." He reserved special ire for Attorney General Eric Holder, whom he called "rabidly anti-gun, rabidly un-American, involved in trying to kill the Second Amendment at the United Nations."

The speech wasn't a fluke for Porter. At the 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference, he told an NRA interviewer of the need to rally "warriors for freedom" against Obama's push not merely for gun control, but for an all-encompassing "European socialistic bureaucratic type of government."

An anti-government, anti-Obama (racist, xenophobic, you name it) neo-Confederate with serious paranoid delusions... and an anti-Amerian traitor with clear criminal intentions.

Yes, he's right at home in the NRA.

False equivalence and the hero archetype

By Frank Moraes 

Jonathan Chait thinks that all the calls for presidential leadership to get Congress to, you know, do its job is magical thinking. In a post yesterday, he wrote that there are two kinds analysts: quants and guts. Quants are people who look at the numbers. "The Democrats don't have a filibuster-proof majority so little gets done." Guts are people who just know that if Obama would show leadership and, say, part the red sea, everything would be fine. He's right as far as it goes: a lot of observers want to create a kind of romantic narrative where the president is Achilles who can win the battle through force of will.

Where I think Chait got it wrong is in assuming that these people are not apologists for the Republican Party. He noted that the pundits who are pushing this line largely agree with Obama. While that's true, they aren't liberals; they are professional centrists who tilt slightly to the right or left depending on the person. They cannot allow themselves to say that something is wrong with the Republican Party much less with our entire political system. And so they focus all of their disappointment on Obama's supposed lack of leadership.

These same commentators were not complaining about the watered down legislation that Obama did get passed when he had the power. That's because they all like middle-of-the-road legislation. Of course, it is even more the case that they don't want any actual economic reforms. After all, their lives are good. But when it comes to new legislation that might inconvenience gun buyers a tiny amount but otherwise would be useless, well, that's unacceptable! Maureen Dowd, Dana Milbank, and Ron Fournier want Congressional action for its own sake. If Obama had complete control the Congress and he decided to enact a financial transaction tax, I'm sure they would be outraged.

Read more »

Lincoln Chafee, Rhode Island, and the fight for marriage equality (and against Republican extremism)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Yesterday, Rhode Island became the tenth state to legalize same-sex marriage.

The state's governor, the man who signed the Marriage Equality Act into law, is Lincoln Chafee.

Governor Chafee, now an independent, used to be a Republican, serving in the Senate from 1999 to 2007. He was defeated in 2006 by Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse and left the Republican Party for good in 2007.

"It's not my party anymore," he explained at the time.

The following year, in an interview with Mother Jones, he said that he "saw the Republican Party change over [his] lifetime" and agreed that he had more in common with the Democrats than the Republicans.

And, to be sure, his views on issues ranging from abortion to Israel are quite progressive. The thing is, they always have been. But he was a Republican when a lot of Republicans were fiscally conservative and if not progressive on social and other issues at least not rigidly right-wing.

Which is to say, once upon a time, it made sense for Chafee to be a Republican, particularly in a blue state like Rhode Island. It would make zero sense now. Which is why he left.

Read more »

Behind the Ad: Mark Sanford says, "don't look here, look there"

By Richard K. Barry

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

Who: The Mark Sanford campaign.

Where: South Carolina's First Congressional District

What's going on: With the South Carolina House special election only days away, it seems that former Gov. Mark Sanford is taking a different approach. In a new ad, he calmly faces the camera and announces that the "contest is bigger" than just him. The obvious point is that if people do think it's just about him, he is about to lose. 

His attempt to draw Nancy Polosi into the fray is clearly meant to fire up local conservatives in a way that makes them forget what he has done to his life and political career. 

That's a little desperate. 



(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

A.M. Headlines

(Fox News): "Hagel: US rethinking resistance to arming Syrian opposition"

(New York Times): "US spending cuts seen as key in slowing growth"

(NECN): "Post Capitol Hill victory, NRA holding annual convention in Texas"

(USA Today): "Thousands flee Calif. wildfires"

(New York Times): "Boston plot said to initially target July 4"

P.M. Headlines

(The Recorder): "The Arena: Handicapping the Senate race [Mass]"

(National Review): "The Rand machine ramps up"

(New York Times): "Politics and vetting leave key US posts long unfilled"

(ABC News): "RI Legislature OKs gay marriage bill, Gov. to sign"

(Time Magazine): An angry Obama, finally"

Vimeo of the Day: "Beth" (the story behind the KISS song)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I really need to get back to this series featuring some of the best from Vimeo.

Here's a funny one, with the following explanation:

You know a song is a classic when it gets parodied. The legendary KISS ballad, "Beth" is no exception. This short film, directed by Brian Billow, chronicles the completely fictitious story of the song's inspiration. The Peter Criss character's dialogue stays true to the song's lyrics

Ah, if only life had been like art, if only fiction were fact, I might like the song.

As it is, I don't, not much, though there's something to be said, something good, for Paul Rudd's version in Role Models.

BETH from anonymous content on Vimeo.

The spy who fed me

By Carl

Intriguing little item in the news today: Bolivian President Evo Morales expels USAID

Bolivian President Evo Morales has said he will expel the US Agency for International Development (USAID).

Mr Morales accused the agency of seeking to "conspire against" the Bolivian people and his government.

US state department spokesman Patrick Ventrell rejected the allegations as "baseless and unfounded".

USAID has been working in Bolivia for almost five decades, and had a budget of $52.1m (£33.4m) for the country in 2010, according to its website.

USAID’s mission is to provide basic humanitarian and civilian foreign aid to developing countries. USAID was created in 1961 under President Kennedy as a restructuring of what up to that point had been a morass of foreign aid agencies, sometimes working at cross-purposes. It was, at the time, viewed as both a Cold War tool – likely many covert CIA operations in Latin America and worldwide were executed – as well as a way to shore up Latin American support for the United States, which had taken a massive hit under Eisenhower.

Nominally. It has also used its influence and foreign contacts to…well, they term it “promote freedom and democracy abroad,” but that can be interpreted in many different ways and often has, particularly under a certain yahoo from Texas who was our President during the 2000s. For instance, in 2005 USAID spent $95,000 on a seminar in Brazil designed to foment dissent among the Worker’s Party, a leftist party that was ruling the nation at the time, as well as other liberal political organizations. This was done under the guise of promoting a United States perspective in Brazil and her politics. Nice rationale. Should have been handled less clumsily.

Morales terms this recent action, taken after the ALBA nations issued a call in 2012 for the expelling of USAID, as a way to “nationalize dignity”. I take that to mean he finds the USAID mission to be demeaning in a sovereign nation on its face, but is also polite cover for kicking out what he might rightly view as a subversive foreign influence within his borders.

Now that we no longer have Chavez and the Castros are merely a footnote, is Morales our next “evildoer”?

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Jamestown Jane and the cannibals

By Michael J.W. Stickings and Frank Moraes 

MJWS:

The BBC had a really interesting article yesterday on new evidence of cannibalism at Jamestown, the first permanent English colony in what is today the United States. It includes this historical nugget:

The Starving Time was one of the most horrific periods of early colonial history. The James Fort settlers were under siege from the indigenous Indian population and had insufficient food to last the winter.

First they ate their horses, then dogs, cats, rats, mice and snakes. Some, to satisfy their cruel hunger, ate the leather of their shoes.

As the weeks turned to months, nothing was spared to maintain life. How many of the growing numbers of dead were cannibalised is unknown. But it is almost certain the girl was not the only victim.

Relief came in the form of Lord De La Warr, who sailed into the settlement with food and new colonists. After six months of siege and starvation, only 60 of the original 300 settlers had survived.

"It's somebody doing what they had to do," said Dr [Doug] Owsley [a Smithsonian anthropologist who worked on the project] of the cannibalism.

Needless to say, it was a difficult time.

**********

FM:

Meet Jamestown Jane. Or as her friends in Jamestown may have referred to her, Juicy Jane. According to USA Today, in a presentation at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History, her reconstructed face was presented as shown in the picture at the left. A lot of reconstruction was necessary, because she was apparently butchered for food during the a bad winter in 1609-10 when 80 percent of the residents of the colony died -- mostly of starvation. Poor Jane had her skull based open to get to her high protein brain. No one can say whether she was specifically killed to eat or not. Regardless, pretty girl.

This isn't the first time that cannibalism has been associated with Jamestown. Accounts at the time claim that one man was put to death for eating his wife. (I assume this is not a euphemism!)

Read more »

Behind the Ad: The RNC attacks President Obama's legislative agenda

By Richard K. Barry

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

Who: The Republican National Committee (RNC).

Where: RNC website.

What's going on: Oh, my. What a slimy little ad. It's called "The First 100 Days," and it's a reference to Obama's legislative agenda, and the GOP's accusation that it has been unsuccessful. 

The Republicans certainly have no shame. Not only do they use an image of the president reaching out to comfort a mother of a Sandy Hook victim as a suggestion of failure, but they cite the Senate's unwillingness to pass gun control legislation as the president's fault. Let's forget that Republicans killed the bill.

In light of Sen. Pat Toomey's (R-PA) comments that gun legislation failed because Republicans didn't want to give Obama a victory, this ad is even more pathetic.

It's all in the game. Republicans are the party of "no," and they hope they can get Obama to take the blame for their obstinance.

You'd have to be a pretty low information voter to fall for that.


(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

Obamacare is bad for Republicans

By Frank Moraes 

Yesterday morning, I was reading Jonathan Chait about "The Obamacare Opposite-of-a-Train-Wreck Scenario." He argued that even though next year's implementation of Obamacare will likely have problems, these will be trumped by the fact that many millions of people will finally get health insurance. For a man who is too often mired in the middle, he is very blunt, "To the extent that the implementation brouhaha comes into any focus, it will shine a light on those people's struggle to get needed help from the government. Republicans aren't trying to get those people better help. They're trying to screw them."

As usual, I got to thinking about this. I remembered all of the brouhaha from conservatives about immigration reform. "We will be creating 11 million citizens who will all vote Democratic!" (Well, I guess they would say, "Democrat.") I understand the concern and I've even argued that Republicans should not be for immigration reform, given that they are unwilling to do anything else to court the immigrant vote. Maybe the Republicans are doing the same kind of calculation with Obamacare.

What am I thinking? We know that poor people don't live as long as rich people. Part of that has to be due to the lack of good health care throughout their lives. By providing health insurance to everyone, the poor will live longer. The poor are overwhelmingly liberal. Therefore, Obamacare will make more liberals!

I know this sounds fanciful. And in truth, it is possible that the Republicans have not thought of this. There are, after all, a lot of reasons they hate Obamacare. The most fundamental one is that they think that the poor are morally inferior and they don't believe in helping them at all. But Obamacare is clearly a good political strategy for the Democrats and poison for the Republicans.

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Craziest Republican of the Day: Pat Toomey

By Michael J.W. Stickings

No, not for his and Democrat Joe Manchin's less-than-stellar but probably better-than-nothing gun control bill that went down in the Senate because of a Republican filibuster but because he is blaming his fellow Republicans for its failure.

And not because he's necessarily wrong, because he may be right, but because it's generally not a wise thing to do to criticize Republicans if you're a Republican yourself, particularly if the Republicans you're criticizing pretty much dominate the party. Actually, it's not just unwise, it's fucking crazy if you have any hope of getting your party to support you ever again:

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) revealed that some members of his party opposed expanding background checks for gun sales recently because they didn't want to "be seen helping the president."

Two weeks ago, only three Republican senators voted for the bipartisan background checks amendment sponsored by Toomey and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), despite overwhelming popular support for such a measure.

"In the end it didn't pass because we're so politicized. There were some on my side who did not want to be seen helping the president do something he wanted to get done, just because the president wanted to do it,” Toomey admitted on Tuesday in an interview with Digital First Media editors in the offices of the Times Herald newspaper in Norristown, Pa.

Republicans are "politicized" and obstructionist -- opposed to anything and everything the president wants to do simply because it's the president? Sure. This has been the Republican strategy ever since Obama took office. It's a way of life now for Mitch McConnell and the minority Republicans in the Senate.

Read more »

Nasty developments in the South Carolina special House election

By Richard K. Barry

Push polling is a campaign technique that ranges from being a mildly disingenuous practice to downright despicable. It involves a group calling voters under the guise of conducting a legitimate poll, only to ask questions that leave a voter with a very misleading impression that an opposing candidate is in some way unacceptable.

A shadowy group called SSI Polling has been calling voters in South Carolina ahead of the special House election between Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch and Republican Mark Sanford. 

According to ThinkProgress, the questions asked "ranged from outlandish smears to thinly-veiled Republican talking points." The approach varied somewhat from call to call, but these were some of the "questions" asked:

- "What would you think of Elizabeth Colbert Busch if I told you she had had an abortion?" 

- "What would you think of Elizabeth Colbert Busch if I told you a judge held her in contempt of court at her divorce proceedings?" 

- "What would you think of Elizabeth Colbert Busch if she had done jail time?" 

- "What would you think of Elizabeth Colbert Busch if I told you she was caught running up a charge account bill?" 

- "What would you think of Elizabeth Colbert Busch if she supported the failed stimulus plan?" 

- "What would you think of Elizabeth Colbert Busch if I told you unions contributed to her campaign?"

Isn't that amazing? They never actually accuse Colbert Busch of having had an abortion, or being held in contempt by a judge, or having done jail time, etc., but the impression the voters takes away is unmistakable. 


Read more »

A.M. Headlines

(Commerce Secretary): "Penny Pritzker to be nominated for Commerce secretary"

(New York Times): "US to defend age limits on morning-after pill sales"

(New York Times): "More forceful Fed stands by stimulus"

(Washington Post): "SEC subpoenas firm, individuals in a case of leaked information"

(Daily Beast): 'David Petraeus to teach at USC"

P.M. Headlines

(Chicago Tribune): "Boston Marathon bombings: 3 charged with hiding backpack, fireworks belonging to suspect"

(CNN): "Government source: Bells should have gone off for student in custody in Boston case"

(Huffington Post): "Pat Toomey: Background checks died because GOP didn't want to help Obama"

(New York Times): "Failure of gun bill casts shadow on immigration reform"

(National Review): "Cruz in 2016"

Some good news

By Carl

We might end up dragging this nation into the 21st Century after all:

Slightly more voters say they’ll vote Democratic in the 2014 congressional elections than Republicans, bucking a historical trend of the president’s party losing seats in his sixth year, a new poll Wednesday shows.

Forty-one percent of voters said they’ll vote Democratic while 37 percent said they’ll vote for Republicans, according to a Quinnipiac University survey.

Overall, 48 percent of voters want one party to control both the Senate and House, while 43 percent would like it split. Sixty-four percent of Democrats want complete control, while 30 percent of them want it split. Meanwhile, 50 percent of GOPers want complete control while 44 percent it split. Among independents, 53 percent want complete control and 35 percent want it split.

So there you have it: people are tired of the obfuscation that Republicans, Inc. have engaged in for the past thirty years, and have ramped up in the past five.

But this is particularly good news this late in the second term of a President: traditionally, in the sixth year of any administration, his party ends up losing seats (see: 2006).

They look at recent history, when Democrats controlled Congress for 40 years, and see progress. Progress on civil rights, progress on peace, progress on science, progress on the economy.

Things got done, in other words. Now? Not so much. And they’re disgusted with the partisan blockade that lets this country burn while Republican, Inc. leadership fiddles. They see history and they are deeply discouraged for the future, not because it’s going to be hard work to fix this nation, but because roughly half of Congress stands in the way, blocking that work from getting underway.

It’s kind of like building a house, only to have the half the zoning commission throw up roadblock after roadblock, simply because they are afraid of what you’re doing.

It’s time to retire Republicans, Inc. for good.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Behind the Ad: Democratic super PAC on Mark Sanford's affair

By Richard K. Barry

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

Who: House Majority PAC (Democratic PAC).

Where: South Carolina First Congressional District.

What's going on: Anyone paying even slight attention knows that former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford famously disappeared to meet his Argentine mistress while in office. He is now trying to revive his political career by running in a special House election in the state. In this ad, a Democratic super PAC draws attention to the affair and attempts to appeal to women in particular who may have concerns about the indiscretion.


(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

Because I was not a terrorist...

By Frank Moraes 

Everyone knows Martin Niemöller's "First they came for the communists..." poem. These days, we mostly hear it from conservatives because it is based on the slippery slope argument that is so beloved on the right. But I think the poem is fundamentally wrong; oppression doesn't happen that way.

I was thinking about this yesterday while reading Glenn Greenwald. He was writing about some reporting in the Los Angeles Times that quoted an anonymous source who said that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev repeatedly asked for a lawyer and was refused "since he was being questioned under the public safety exemption to the Miranda rule." This is a big deal if it is true. It is one thing to not tell a suspect his rights, it is quite another to withhold those rights. And there is nothing in the public safety exemption of the Miranda rule that allows the government to refuse a suspect his right to representation for hours or even days.

And that's what got me thinking about the Niemoller quote. It is not that we don't speak up for the "communists" because we are not one. It is that we don't speak up for them because we hate them. I know the reaction of the vast majority of people in this country to my belief that Tsarnaev deserves all of the guarantees of the Constitution. They would say something along the lines of, "He's a terrorist! We shouldn't give him any rights at all!" So may I humbly offer a rewrite:

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I hated the communists.

And that really is the way rights are lost. This is why we allow the Nazis to have parades. It isn't because we like them. As a culture, we hate them. But as John Adams wrote, we have "a government of laws, and not of men." And if we can't listen to him, perhaps we can listen to that hippy Jew, "Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of mine, even the least of them, you did it to me."

I don't have any specific fondness for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. But I have a great fondness for this country and especially its ideals. And if one criminal can destroy that, we are all lost. 

Read more »

Behind the Ad: The NRA comes to the aid of Sen. Ayotte

By Richard K. Barry

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

Who: The National Rifle Association.

Where: New Hampshire.

What's going on: Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) was the only Northeastern senator to vote against the background check plan, which was an integral part of the gun legislation defeated in the Senate.

She is planning three town hall meetings soon and will likely be confronted by angry demonstrators along the way. While she is not up for reelection for three years, many critics are promising to work against her.

According to one:

"I have worked on a lot of issue campaigns in this state and I've never seen this level of natural momentum on any issue," said Judy Stadtman, a founder of Project for Safer Communities N.H., which is one of several liberal groups working together across the state to track the senator this week.

But she does have friends, notably the National Rifle Association. They began airing radio ads on Monday that criticize politicians who only "care about their power," instead of the safety of their children.

Seems like a pretty weak position, which is not where the NRA is used to finding itself.

As for Senator Ayotte, I'd be worried if I were her.

Listen to the NRA ad:



(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

A.M. Headlines

(The Hill): "Markey takes Massachusetts Democratic Senate primary in a rout"

(Politico): "Poll: Democratic edge for 2014"

(Valley News): "Back home, Ayotte gets an earful"

(Huffington Post): "If Koch brothers buy LA Times, half of staff my quit"

(New York Times): "Banks rally against strict control of foreign bets"

P.M. Headlines

(CBS Boston): "Turnout for Boston primaries expected to be light"

(The Guardian): "Obama: Guantánamo prison 'not in the best interests of the American people'"

(Washington Post): "As FBI expands Boston investigation, Obama defends law enforcement efforts"

(Christian Science Monitor): "Appalachian Trail not forgotten: Women voters still wary of Mark Sanford"

(Politico): "Tom Wheeler to be nominated for FCC head, sources say"

Ted Cruz goes squish

By Mustang Bobby

Jennifer Rubin, the right-wing columnist for The Washington Post, is peeved at Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) for not playing nice with other Republicans and calling those who supported background checks for guns "squishes."

For starters, it's just not smart to annoy colleagues whose cooperation and support you'll need in the future. Second, as a conservative he should understand humility and grace are not incompatible with "standing on principle"; the absence of these qualities doesn't make him more principled or more effective. Third, for a guy who lacks manners (see his condescending questioning of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) he comes across as whiny. They yelled at me! Boo hoo, senator.

When liberals go after each other, it's like watching Quakers argue: "Friend, I have a concern," and you can practically hear the sorrowful sighs. Not so with conservatives. They can really get into it.

In Ms. Rubin's case, it's not surprising that she'd be put out. She just got herself pilloried by just about everyone for the puff piece she wrote last week about how wonderful George W. Bush was and how history will treat the gentle fool with kindness. Then in comes this new senator from Texas like he was Godzilla and Washington was a Japanese fishing village. Squish. There goes the compassionate-conservative rehab.

What's interesting is that it's not like they didn't know what they were getting when he ran. He campaigned as a whack-job, he won the primary against the hand-picked Republican establishment candidate, and he won as a whack-job. Unlike Democrats -- or anyone with prefrontal development beyond the age of 14 -- he never learned that once you get into office you pretty much have to learn that to do much more than get your 15 minutes on C-SPAN, you have to work together. Your constituency is slightly larger than the Tea Party rally in the parking lot of Family Dollar in Buzzard Gulch.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Rand Paul is already running hard

By Richard K. Barry

Sen. Rand Paul is certainly running hard for the presidency, early as it is. He'll be in Iowa and New Hampshire in May, and in South Carolina in June. 

CNN reports that he is getting ready to endorse Mark Sanford in the special election in South Carolina:

Paul is organizing a series of public and private appearances across the first-in-the-South primary state in June, GOP sources with knowledge with the plans told CNN. The trip is "an effort to get to know Republicans across the state," as one person involved in the event-planning described it.

Paul makes no secret of his libertarian leanings, just like his father, but he is trying to cleave to the centre a bit more in order to have a credible run at the top job. The question may be whether he can appeal to moderates without completely alienating libertarian activists who make up so much of his enthusiastic base. 

The bigger problem is probably that he won't be able to shed enough libertarian orthodoxy to appeal to moderates. 

And if Rand Paul finds some way to get the GOP nomination, Hillary won't need to break a sweat. 

(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

The death of gay culture

By Frank Moraes 

There used to be a large minority of the gay community that never wanted marriage equality. These people didn't want to be like the straight population and they feared that their movement would be co-opted by the corrupt mainstream society. They were right.

Recently, it was announced that American hero and government scapegoat Bradley Manning would be the Grand Marshall of the San Francisco Gay Pride Parade. After this announcement the SF Pride board president Lisa L Williams released a hysterical statement saying it was all untrue. She said, "Bradley Manning is facing the military justice system of this country. We all await the decision of that system. However, until that time, even the hint of support for actions which placed in harms way the lives of our men and women in uniform -- and countless others, military and civilian alike -- will not be tolerated by the leadership of San Francisco Pride." 

Glenn Greenwald countered her argument in some depth. He pointed out that her claim that Manning put people in harm's way is "a substance-free falsehood originally spread by top US military officials which has since been decisively and extensively debunked, even by some government officials." He then goes on to note all of the vile sponsors of the parade that are a-okay with Williams:

So apparently, the very high-minded ethical standards of Lisa L Williams and the SF Pride Board apply only to young and powerless Army Privates who engage in an act of conscience against the US war machine, but instantly disappear for large corporations and banks that hand over cash. What we really see here is how the largest and most corrupt corporations own not just the government but also the culture. Even at the San Francisco Gay Pride Parade, once an iconic symbol of cultural dissent and disregard for stifling pieties, nothing can happen that might offend AT&T and the Bank of America. The minute something even a bit deviant takes place (as defined by standards imposed by America's political and corporate class), even the SF Gay Pride Parade must scamper, capitulate, apologize, and take an oath of fealty to their orthodoxies (we adore the military, the state, and your laws). And, as usual, the largest corporate factions are completely exempt from the strictures and standards applied to the marginalized and powerless. Thus, while Bradley Manning is persona non grata at SF Pride, illegal eavesdropping telecoms, scheming banks, and hedge-fund purveryors of the nation's worst right-wing agitprop are more than welcome.

Read more »

Out in bounds: The Jason Collins story

By Michael J.W. Stickings and Mustang Bobby 

MJWS:

I applaud Jason Collins. The culture may be changing rapidly towards full and equal rights for LGBTs, but this still took guts. A lot of guts. If you don't understand that, you don't understand the retrograde and frequently bigoted culture of male team sports in America, and of American sports generally, the sort of closed and sometimes hateful culture that allows an idiot like Chris Broussard to spew his bigotry at the biggest platform of them all, "worldwide leader" ESPN.

But it's good to see Collins receiving so much support. I hope others can now follow his lead, in the NBA and elsewhere, and that American (and really North American) team sports finally embrace not just toleration but full acceptance and inclusion.

It's about time.

**********

Read more »

Ron Paul has a point about that whole Boston "military-style occupation" thing

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I'm not saying he's entirely right, but he's certainly got a point:

Former Rep. Ron Paul said the police response to the Boston Marathon bombings was scarier than the bombing itself, which killed three and wounded more than 250.

"The Boston bombing provided the opportunity for the government to turn what should have been a police investigation into a military-style occupation of an American city," Paul, a Texas Republican, wrote [yesterday] on the website of the libertarian writer Lew Rockwell. "This unprecedented move should frighten us as much or more than the attack itself."

Paul said the scenes of the house-to-house search for the younger bombing suspect in suburban Watertown, Mass., were reminiscent of a "military coup in a far off banana republic."

"Forced lockdown of a city," he wrote. "Militarized police riding tanks in the streets. Door-to-door armed searches without warrant. Families thrown out of their homes at gunpoint to be searched without probable cause. Businesses forced to close. Transport shut down."

And he's right to remind us of this key fact:

"The suspect was not discovered by the paramilitary troops terrorizing the public," Paul wrote. "He was discovered by a private citizen, who then placed a call to the police. And he was identified not by government surveillance cameras, but by private citizens who willingly shared their photographs with the police."

As a civil libertarian myself, I do sometimes find myself in agreement with Paul's libertarianism, even though his version of it is generally a rather extreme right-wing one.

In this case, I understood the over-reaction to the Boston Marathon bombing, particularly after the shootout in Watertown that left an MIT officer dead, but I also found it worrisome.

Read more »

My bipartisan immigration plan

By Frank Moraes 

I have an immigration plan that should gain wide bipartisan support in Congress. This is because it will appeal to Republicans. Also: Democrats will go along with anything. There are three pillars of my plan: border security, guest workers, and path to citizenship.

First, border security. The Canadian border is fine the way it is, because they're white like us. But we really need to make the border with Mexico secure. May I suggest: the Berlin Wall. Let's set up two walls with armed guards every 20 feet on top of the north wall. Anyone who gets over the south wall will be shot. This would require a total of a bit more than 1.5 million guards at a total cost of $30 billion per year, if we pay them minimum wage and give them no benefits. But that is a small price to pay for securing our borders.

Second, guest worker program. American workers are famously demanding. What we need is a program that will allow any employers to hire guest workers if they can't find American workers at a price they like. But I know what you're thinking, "With the ridiculously high $7.25 federal minimum wage, won't the guest workers still break the backs of the American businessman?" No, because we will not only eliminate the federal minimum wage, we will make it illegal for states to set a minimum wage. With these pro-growth policies, the US economy will be as strong as Bangladesh.

Read more »

A.M. Headlines

(Associated Press): "Obama calls Collins, offers support on coming out"

(Ballot Box): "Colbert Busch holds her own against Sanford in debate"

(Politico): "Obama's budget puts House Democrats in bind"

(Boston Herald): "Lackluster voter turnout could shake up primaries"

(The Week): "Republicans struggle to find decent Senate candidates"

(New York Times): "As jobs lag, Fed is viewed as unlikely to do more"

P.M. Headlines

(Washington Post): "US working hard to find political resolution to Syrian conflict"

(US News): "Mark Sanford's South Carolina comeback in limbo, but not dead yet"

(CNN): "Paul laying 2016 groundwork in South Carolina"

(Public Policy Polling): "More backlash against Senators on gun vote"

(USA Today): "MLB players applaud Collins, but some are mum on matter"