P.M. Headlines

(New York Times): "Obama says income gap is fraying U.S. social  fabric"

(The Hill): "Family ties no guarantee of success"

(Reuters): "Teresa Heinz Kerry leaves rehab hospital, full recovery expected"

(Fox News): "Accused Fort Hood shooter releases statement to Fox News"

(Roll Call): "Steve King's district will get DREAM gathering courtesy of Durbin, Harkin"

The mythical political center

By Frank Moraes

Yesterday on the cover of the New York Times, Jonathan Martin wrote one of those stupid Villager articles we all know and despise, Some Democrats Look to Push Party Away from Center. This is an issue I've been ranting about for years. There is no "center." All the mainstream press does is define the "center" somewhere to the right of the Democrats and to the left of the Republicans. What that means is that the Republicans can and have moved the "center" far to the right, just by being extreme. The effect is that the left is defined by a practical approach to politics and the right is defined by the most extreme elements of our political system. As a result, we end up with a "center" that is skewed to the extreme right.

Ezra Klein pushed back on Martin's article, There's No Such Thing As 'The Center'. He puts a different take on what the "center" actually means. "It's more a reference to an amorphous Washington consensus." That's another way to look at that is undoubtedly more accurate. Because the truth is that on social issues, the far right turn of the Republican Party has not caused the mainstream press to move the center of debate on gay or abortion rights. It is just on economic issues—the issues that the nation as a whole cares the most about—on which the center gets constantly pushed to the right, despite the fact that nation is far to the left.

The whole thing makes me wonder—and I've written about this in the past—does the press move the economic playing field further to the right because the Republicans move right or does it work the other way around. I'm afraid it is the latter. When it comes to social issues, the country is relatively divided. But liberal economic ideas are hugely popular. So I doubt that the Republicans would have moved so far right if it hadn't been that they got no push back from the press. A great example of this is the "professional moderate" industry. I wrote this last year about Serious Centrist Saletan's Selfishness:

What most people find annoying about centrist pundits is the arrogance of their supposed objectivity. A quick look at their almost comically stereotyped views within the social and economic areas shows this clearly. Saletan's social views are typically liberal: pro gay rights; pro abortion rights. I'll bet he even believes in evolution! But his economic views are typically conservative: pro free trade; vaguely anti-union. Would you believe he's very concerned about the deficit?!

The reason that Saletan and his peers share this kind of political outlook is clear enough: it speaks to their personal interests. They are socially liberal because the corresponding views improve their lives. They have friends who are gay. They've had girlfriends who have had abortions. Their careers depend upon a strong first amendment. So their lives would be poorer and their bank accounts too, if the social conservatives got power in the United States. As a result, they are socially liberal—even extremely so.

On the other side of things, they are rich. Whether on the TV, in newspaper, or increasingly even on the internet, pundits are rich. They are all well inside the top 20% of earners. As a result, Saletan finds it easy to be a booster for so called free trade. No Chinese worker is going to takehis job. (Not that there aren't about a million who could do it as well.) But unionized IT professionals might reduce his income. And increased taxes on the upper class could certainly reduce his income. So it just makes sense to argue that Social Security must be cut while ignoring the obvious fix of increasing the payroll tax cap, which it just so happens would increase his tax burden.

It is no accident that professional moderates like Saletan so often skew socially liberal and economically conservative. It is in their own best interests. And I don't blame them. But I do blame the system itself, which selects for exactly this kind of thinking. It does it in the name of objectivity or "even handedness." When accused of liberal bias, they can trot out conservative economic bona fides. When accused of conservative bias (Rarely!) they can trot out their liberal social bona fides. But these pundits are not objective or even handed. They are on the extremes in a very predictable way.

And this is what is happening with people like Jonathan Martin. (And even Ezra Klein at times!) They are surrounded by like minded people who have the exact same interests that they have. Thus they think they really are being objective; they are blind to their own assumptions. A good example of this is how "free" trade agreements are really unpopular but in the mainstream press, it is considered radical and stupid to suggest that these agreements are anything but the best possible policy.

To a large extent, this is why I applaud biased news sources. If you are reading this blog, you know that I am biased. I don't claim to be "objective." Just the same, I would never intentionally misinform you. And I try very hard to provide the strong counterarguments, when they exist (in the current political environment, that is sadly rare). But knowing my biases allows you to decide if you are going to listen to me. Much worse are people like Martin who play the part of objective reporter when they have as many skewed opinions as I.

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Contemptible, yes; surprising, no

By Mustang Bobby

Norm Ornstein on the Republicans’ attempts to sabotage Obamacare and in the process deny people healthcare and demolish the system that provides it, all because they hate the man who signed the law.

When a law is enacted, representatives who opposed it have some choices (which are not mutually exclusive). They can try to repeal it, which is perfectly acceptable — unless it becomes an effort at grandstanding so overdone that it detracts from other basic responsibilities of governing. They can try to amend it to make it work better — not just perfectly acceptable but desirable, if the goal is to improve a cumbersome law to work better for the betterment of the society and its people. They can strive to make sure that the law does the most for Americans it is intended to serve, including their own constituents, while doing the least damage to the society and the economy. Or they can step aside and leave the burden of implementation to those who supported the law and got it enacted in the first place.

But to do everything possible to undercut and destroy its implementation — which in this case means finding ways to deny coverage to many who lack any health insurance; to keep millions who might be able to get better and cheaper coverage in the dark about their new options; to create disruption for the health providers who are trying to implement the law, including insurers, hospitals, and physicians; to threaten the even greater disruption via a government shutdown or breach of the debt limit in order to blackmail the president into abandoning the law; and to hope to benefit politically from all the resulting turmoil — is simply unacceptable, even contemptible. One might expect this kind of behavior from a few grenade-throwing firebrands. That the effort is spearheaded by the Republican leaders of the House and Senate — even if Speaker John Boehner is motivated by fear of his caucus, and McConnell and Cornyn by fear of Kentucky and Texas Republican activists — takes one’s breath away.

Maybe I’m more cynical than Mr. Ornstein, but the actions of the Republicans do not take my breath away. I was wondering when they would get around to doing all of this.

These are the actions of cowards, bullies, and racists. Cowards because in the decades leading up to Obamacare, they never had the guts to stand up to the powerful lobbyists who represented the groups such as insurance and pharmaceutical corporations that profited mightily from the broken system; indeed, they lived off their campaign donations. Bullies because they never allowed anyone the chance to try to fix a system that was keeping the poor and the chronically ill in a vicious cycle of debt and despair. And racist because they knew the system preyed upon the minorities and their families, and also because the law that passed was modeled on Republican ideas forged by the Heritage Foundation and Bob Dole and put in place by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts; but because it was championed by Barack Obama, it had to be evil socialized medicine because that’s what secret gay Kenyan Muslims want.

What I don’t get is that if the Republicans are right and Obamacare will crash and burn on its own, why don’t they just stand aside and let that happen? It’s probably because they really know that it will work and that people will like it and the GOP will end up looking like the cowards, bullies, and racists that they are if it succeeds. So they’re willing to let people go broke or even die just to score political points and win an election. Now that’s contemptible.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

A.M. Headlines

(Ramesh Ponnuru): ""Drop disastrous plan to defund ObamaCare"

(New York Times): "Scores of demonstrators killed in Egypt"

(Politico): "Obama to visit Hill Democrats next week"

(CNBC): "Wall Street wants Yellen, not Summers as next Fed chief"

(The Washington Times): "Rand Paul to Chris Christie: You need to talk more to real Americans"

A view of the Curiosity rover from high above Mars

By Michael J.W. Stickings

After the stunning images of Earth from spacecraft orbiting Saturn and Mercury, showing us what our planet looks like from a long way away, here's another amazing image from space.

Taken by the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, which has been orbiting the red planet since 2006, it shows the landing spot of the Curiosity rover (see my post from last August, upon its landing, for details about the rover and its mission), the rover's tracks, and, yes, the rover itself. As Slate's Phil Plait (who helpfully annotated the image) explains:

The Curiosity rover is about 3 meters long, so it's easily visible in HiRISE [High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment] images. Its wheels are 50 centimeters across and a little less than that wide, so the tracks are visible as well. The rockets used in the last moments before the rover landed on the surface blew the dust and surface material around, so that blast pattern (which looks blue in this color-enhanced shot) is easily seen in the image, too...

The tracks are a little over 3 meters (10 feet) apart, to give you a sense of scale. At this point, the rover had traveled about 1 kilometer (0.6 miles) from its landing site. On July 21, it took its longest jaunt yet, traveling about 100 meters in a single drive. Its eventual goal is Mt. Sharp (technically, Aeolis Mons), which is roughly 8 kilometers (5 miles) from the rover's location.

Engineers have been cautious about moving Curiosity around but will soon take it on even longer drives. Eventually, its auto-navigation system will be used, allowing the rover to go beyond routes deemed safe by looking at previous images; essentially the destination can be programmed in, and the rover will find the best path to get there itself. 

Incredible. Simply incredible.

Rand Paul imagines there's no racism -- it isn't hard to do

By Frank Moraes

The smart bigot's argument against affirmative action is that the very idea is racist. As George Will is fond of saying things similar to this, "If you want to stop racism, stop being racist." It all sounds so great. According to this theory, all we need to do is stop thinking in racial terms and everything will be fine. The problem is that we won't all stop thinking in racial terms. We might stop talking in racial terms. We might all pretend that many individuals, institution, and system are beyond operating in racial terms. But racist thinking will then simply have free rein to work its pernicious magic. So all we're really getting from people like Will is an appeal to ignore racism and hope it goes away (not that it matters one way or another to him).

A good example of how racism works can be found in Texas. Within 24 hours of the Supreme Court gutting the Voting Rights Act, Texas began working to make its voting system more racist. Of course, there is nothing new about this. According to a federal court ruling from last year, "The [Texas Congressional District 23] mapdrawers consciously replaced many of the district's active Hispanic voters with low-turnout Hispanic voters in an effort to strengthen the voting power of CD 23's Anglo citizens." This is the kind of thing that the Voting Rights Act was designed to protect against. But now the Supreme Court has ruled that they have to be allowed to suppress the vote and only then stopped.

Attorney General Eric Holder has decided that the federal government still can go after this kind of behavior before it directly affects voters. In a transcript of a talk he gave to the National Urban League Annual Conference, he said, "Based on the evidence of intentional racial discrimination that was presented last year in the redistricting case, Texas v. Holder -- as well as the history of pervasive voting-related discrimination against racial minorities that the Supreme Court itself has recognized -- we believe that the State of Texas should be required to go through a preclearance process whenever it changes its voting laws and practices."

Read more »

John Boehner thinks Steve King is crazy

By Michael J.W. Stickings

You'll recall that Iowa Republican Steve King made some remarkably bigoted comments about the children of undocumented immigrants the other day -- essentially that most of them are drug mules.

There's no doubt that many Republicans find this sort of thing offensive and are embarrassed by it, but rarely do they actually call out their own.

But House Speaker John Boehner, to his credit, has apparently had enough of this wacko, and he's basically telling him to shut the fuck up:

Boehner on Thursday called his comments about illegal immigrants "deeply offensive and wrong."

"What he said does not reflect the values of the American people or the Republican Party," the speaker said.

I would agree with the first part, but the second part is open to question. Certainly most Americans do not share such bigotry, but who is more in tune with the values of the Republican Party, Boehner or King?

The 12% Congress

By Mustang Bobby 

Say what you will about President Obama's approval rating falling to below 50%, he'd have to be somewhere on the same level as anthrax and galloping diarrhea to get to the level of the United States Congress:

The new NBC/WSJ results show Congress' approval rating at 12%, with 83% disapproving. When was the last time support for Congress was this awful? NBC/WSJ have been doing national polls for about two decades, and it's never been this bad.

Given that Obama's support is still lukewarm, and he'll never be on the ballot again, I'd argue that Congress' woeful approval rating is significantly more important.

Indeed, this number could get considerably worse if congressional Republicans kill immigration reform, force a debt ceiling crisis, and threaten a government shutdown.

Indeed, the closer one looks at the poll, the worse things appear for the legislative branch. Obama's personal favorability is 48%, while for House Speaker John Boehner, it's 18%. Only 22% believe congressional Republicans emphasize unifying the country, while 67% believe they prioritize partisanship. A 56% majority believe GOP lawmakers are "too inflexible" when dealing with the White House.

And a 51% majority wants Republicans to stop holding votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

As a practical matter, if GOP lawmakers wanted to be more popular, it'd be pretty easy — they could, in theory, pass a popular immigration-reform bill, turn off the deliberately harmful sequester, pass a measure to reduce gun violence, maybe consider a bill or two that creates jobs, or compromise on a budget plan.

The most maddening thing of all is that next year, fully 90% of these people will win re-election, and the Republicans stand a 50-50 chance of getting a majority in the Senate as well.

So explain to me why elected officials who have a lower approval rating than the dictator of North Korea can rest assured that they will never lose their job or face the consequences of basically bringing the country to a halt through a perpetual act of adolescent petulance.

Congress may suck, but we're the enablers.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Did George Zimmerman get away with murder?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Well, a lot of us think so, and so does one of the jurors:

The only minority on the all-female jury that voted to acquit George Zimmerman said today that Zimmerman "got away with murder" for killing Trayvon Martin and feels she owes an apology Martin's parents.

"You can't put the man in jail even though in our hearts we felt he was guilty," said the woman who was identified only as Juror B29 during the trial. "But we had to grab our hearts and put it aside and look at the evidence."

She said the jury was following Florida law and the evidence, she said, did not prove murder. 

After the loathsome comments of that juror who came out in defense of Zimmerman, and who was probably going to vote to acquit no matter what, it is refreshing to see such a sense of responsibility given the gravity of the situation:

"I was the juror that was going to give them the hung jury. I fought to the end," she said.

However, on the second day of deliberations, after spending nine hours discussing the evidence, Maddy said she realized there wasn't enough proof to convict Zimmerman of murder or manslaughter under Florida law. 

I said it afterwards, and I'll say it again: The verdict, sadly, made sense. The jury did what it had to do and ended up reaching a verdict that was probably the right one given the circumstances.

The problem wasn't the judge or the jurors or the system, even though there is racial discrimination in how such incidents are treated by police and prosecutors. In this case, the problem was the law, which allowed Zimmerman to carry a gun while acting as a self-appointed vigilante and then to shoot an unarmed black teenager, whom he was clearly targeting, supposedly in self-defense.

That's how he got away with murder.

There's no Tea Party rift

By Frank Moraes 

Ed Kilgore reflected yesterday on the fact that the only real ideological divide in the Republican Party is over national security. That is true, although even Rand Paul has shown himself to be nothing is not malleable when it comes to ideology. But it is true that a large bipartisan minority voted for an amendment to the half-trillion-dollar defense authorization to restrict the NSA's ability to collect telephone metadata on U.S. calls. The final vote was 205-217, so it only barely lost.

Kilgore speculated that there would have been more Democratic votes for the amendment if a Republican had been in the White House. Of course that's true. Even still, I'm pretty happy with the party; they voted in favor of the amendment 111-83 -- that's 57% of the caucus on a bill where the leadership and the White House were very vocal about how it would mean the end of free society and would effectively mean the terrorists won.

On the Republican side, Kilgore is less certain about how the White House control affected the vote. As it was, while Republicans voted for the amendment in large numbers, they did not have a majority. The vote was 94-134 -- that's just 41%. I suspect that had a Republican been in the White House, that number would have gone down to perhaps 30%.

The main question is why some Republicans care about privacy issues while others do not. Kilgore noted, "I certainly haven't figured out any consistent principle... that makes it possible to predict which fire-eating Tea Party conservative these days is frothing for an immediate war with Iran and perhaps domestic profiling of Muslims, and which is worried about excessive overseas commitments or domestic surveillance." For example, Michele Bachmann and Steve King both voted against the amendment.

Read more »

Sabotaging Obamacare: The reductio ad absurdum of Republican extremism and obstructionism

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As long-time Congress-watcher Norm Ornstein (a self-defined centrist who actually works at the right-wing American Enterprise Institute) writes:

When a law is enacted, representatives who opposed it have some choices (which are not mutually exclusive). They can try to repeal it, which is perfectly acceptable -- unless it becomes an effort at grandstanding so overdone that it detracts from other basic responsibilities of governing. They can try to amend it to make it work better -- not just perfectly acceptable but desirable, if the goal is to improve a cumbersome law to work better for the betterment of the society and its people. They can strive to make sure that the law does the most for Americans it is intended to serve, including their own constituents, while doing the least damage to the society and the economy. Or they can step aside and leave the burden of implementation to those who supported the law and got it enacted in the first place.

But to do everything possible to undercut and destroy its implementation -- which in this case means finding ways to deny coverage to many who lack any health insurance; to keep millions who might be able to get better and cheaper coverage in the dark about their new options; to create disruption for the health providers who are trying to implement the law, including insurers, hospitals, and physicians; to threaten the even greater disruption via a government shutdown or breach of the debt limit in order to blackmail the president into abandoning the law; and to hope to benefit politically from all the resulting turmoil -- is simply unacceptable, even contemptible. One might expect this kind of behavior from a few grenade-throwing firebrands. That the effort is spearheaded by the Republican leaders of the House and Senate -- even if Speaker John Boehner is motivated by fear of his caucus, and McConnell and Cornyn by fear of Kentucky and Texas Republican activists -- takes one's breath away.

It does, and it may be unprecedented, but it's now par for the course for Republicans, the disloyal opposition.

P.M. Headlines

(Marist Poll): "Quinn reclaims lead from Weiner in Democratic primary...Should Weiner drop out? Dems divide"

(ABC News): "George Zimmerman juror says he 'got away with murder"

(Washington Post): "McDonnell switches advisers, strategy in answering allegations"

(Politico): "Rand Paul caught in the middle in Kentucky"

(CNN): "80 dead in Spain crash; video catches train's final moments"

Bad news/good news

By Carl

Altho it’s hard to find good news in this:

In a 205-217 vote, lawmakers rejected an effort to restrict the National Security Agency's (NSA) ability to collect electronic information.

The NSA's chief had lobbied strongly against the proposed measure.

The vote saw an unusual coalition of conservatives and liberal Democrats join forces against the programme.

I’m going to try.

Yes, the measure was defeated, but look at that vote total: if only six votes had swung the other way, this bill passes – and probably dies a slow painful death in the Senate. But for once, we could have been proud of the House.

Second, a coalition of ideologues from both wings of the nation – liberal and conservative – banded together. We finally found something to agree upon.

Given Congress’s abysmal ratings – HIV probably polls higher – the fact the House could get anything done is to be commended, which is a little like clapping for your tyke when he hits the toilet while sitting down.

But even in this good news lies a dark, nasty secret: this bill, supposedly advanced by a “renegade” conservative Republican…and really, how conservative do you have to be for Boehner to turn his back on you?...had some surprisingly establishment assistance:

Boehner opposes the NSA amendment. Leadership doesn’t care much for Justin Amash. But they were listening to complaints from a broad swath of Republicans who wanted to vote against the spying program, exposed by former security contractor Edward Snowden.

And even after GOP leadership privately determined Amash’s threats were likely empty — that he didn’t have the votes to keep the Defense appropriations bill from coming to the floor — top aides to Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) staff spent the week holding Amash’s hand, helping him turn an unworkable amendment into language that would effectively quash one of the spy agency’s most effective tools.

“Amash was out there acting like he was fighting against the leadership trying to shut us down,” one Republican involved said. “The reality is [leadership was] twisting ourselves in knots for a week trying to craft language that was germane and got at the issue.”

Oh. So it wasn’t that he was too radical for them, he was too big an iliterate douchebag nutcase. Got it now.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Republican scare tactics

By Mustang Bobby 

The House Republicans are planning to scare the crap out of Americans about Obamacare:

The August House Republican Conference planning kit, titled "Fighting Washington for All Americans," offers a rare glimpse into the constituent outreach efforts of the GOP. Those efforts, it turns out, are highly calculated, hashtag-heavy and rife with references to the video app Vine.

The best way to stay in Washington appears to be to deride Washington, and Republican leadership isn't going to deviate from that familiar formula.

That would be a really cool plan were it not for the inconvenient fact that the Republicans are the majority party in the House and they're the ones who are doing things like trying to repeal Obamacare every time John Boehner farts. 

Steve Benen: but wait, there's more:

Among the other tidbits:

* The House Republican Conference is apparently preoccupied with Vine, a social-media tool that allows users to create and easily share six-second videos. Good luck, House GOP, on solving your problems six seconds at a time.

* Members are being encouraged to publish op-eds in local media on the IRS "scandal." That there is no IRS "scandal," and all of the allegations Republicans raised have been discredited, has apparently been deemed irrelevant.

* According to the Roll Call piece, the Conference "suggests planting questions" at local events "to get the conversation rolling in the right direction."

* And House Republicans are encouraged to go on an "Energy Production Facility Tour" during the recess. Members, of course, have been told to "wear a hard hat" and — you guessed it — put this and other events on Vine.

What could possibly go wrong?

It sounds like the GOP realizes that Obamacare is really going to work and that scares the crap out of them.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Two things I don't care about: The Royal Baby and Anthony Weiner's sexting

By Frank Moraes 

(Ed. note: I'm with Frank on this. I don't give a shit about the Royal Baby, other than to the extent that I care about human beings generally, because I loathe that silly family and stupid institution. As for Weiner, the way the media are reacting with a combination of prudish moralism, titillation, and hypocrisy almost makes me feel sorry for him. As it is, I don't care about the sexting, because I'd like to think I have a broad understanding of and appreciation for human sexuality. The problem there is the dishonesty, narcissism, and lack of judgment. I'm not sure that disqualifies him for mayor, but he does seem to be a shameless creep. -- MJWS)

I have no interest in the royal baby. In general, I have no interest in a royal family -- at least until the sons start killing each other in order to become king. To me, we had a war so we wouldn't have deal with this bullshit. And then when we created this country, we specifically didn't create our own explicit class of people who are better than the rest of us. It's all a big joke and people who are caught up in it really need to get a life.

The other thing I don't care about is Anthony Weiner's newest sex scandal. But I do care about how the Democratic ecosystem reacts to it. It isn't new, of course. We all know that when something like this happens to a Republican, they circle the wagons. Eventually, they may abandon the man (It's always a man!) in the middle of it. But they will assume the best and try to play defense. The Democrats are just the opposite—they have no loyalty at all. It doesn't matter if it's former IRS head Steven T. Miller or Shirley Sherrod or Weiner. Democrats might think that we should be understanding of the unnamed masses, but if it is a named person who is part of our team, they have to go.

Read more »

A.M. Headlines

(Reuters): "At least 78 killed, 131 injured, in Spain train disaster"

(USA Today): "Judge: Detroit bankruptcy to proceed; city's health at risk"

(Dana Milbank): "A warmed-over jobs message"

(New York Times): "Many New York women are baffled at loyalty shown by Weiner's wife"

(The Hill): "Senate approves deal on student loan rates"

P.M. Headlines

(New York Times): "Account of Weiner's conversation fits pattern of online exchanges"

(Politico): "5 takeaways from Obama's economy speech"

(CBS News): "Poll finds more Americans than ever want ObamaCare repealed"

(USA Today): "Obama to nominate Kennedy for Japan post"

(The Daily Beast): "Will the GOP's North Carolina end run backfire"

Darrell Issa moron

By Carl

Darrell Issa has a long-standing reputation as a self-indulgent obsessive criminal creep. This story might take the cake:

But Rep. Darrell Issa, the California Republican leading the House effort to save the postal service, wants more. He has made doing away with doorstep delivery a key part of his bill, which would require everyone to get mail at a curbside box or from a cluster box.

"A balanced approach to saving the Postal Service means allowing USPS to adapt to America's changing use of mail," said Issa, who is chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Moving away from door-to-door delivery saves a lot of money. Right now, 35 million residences and businesses get mail delivered to their doorstep.

It costs $353 per stop for a delivery in most American cities, taking into account such things as salaries and cost of transport. By contrast, curbside mail box delivery costs $224, while cluster boxes cost $160, according to a report from the Postal Service's Office of Inspector General.

Issa has been called a “pathological liar”, so it will come as no surprise when he goes all Nathan Thurm on this story as the backlash builds when he’s reminded that the USPS is the only government agency – hell, the only entity of any kind in the history of the nation – which has to fully fund in cash its pension obligations, and if we allowed them to do what every other frikkin’ entity uses, the USPS would be profitable: "I know that! You don't think I know that?"

He’d rather see the American people inconvenienced and their mail put in jeopardy: stolen checks, lost bills, important documents misplaced, than pony up and fix the real problem for the average American’s benefit. Issa moron. Nuff said.

(Cross-posted at Simply Left Behind.)

Earth, from space, a distant speck

By Michael J.W. Stickings

There is something both glorious and terrifying about space, and about our place in it, this tiny planet that seems like, and really is, a miniscule speck against the backdrop of a neverending vastness, a tiny particle surrounded by the awesome wonders of a universe we know so much about, and so little too.

We look outward into this vastness, with wonder, searching for answers, or just admiring the cosmos, from the perspective of earth at the center, everything in relation to us, to our planet.

But what about the other way around? What does the Earth look like when you're out there? Now we know. As Phil Plait writes at Slate:

This is nothing short of stunning: Two spacecraft on nearly opposite sides of the solar system both took pictures of the Earth at nearly the same time, showing our entire planet as not much more than a smeared flash of slightly overexposed light.

There is the image of the Earth taken by the Cassini spacecraft, orbiting Saturn. There we are, that relatively bright speck of light below the rings, 1.4 billion kilometers away.

And there is the image of Earth and the Moon taken by the Messenger spacecraft, orbiting Mercury. There we are, 50 million kilometers away.

As Plait concludes, with the wonder and amazement he always brings to his writing:

[T]he legacy of these images may be the smallness, the shining insignificance and singular beauty of our planet hanging in the depths of space. Context matters. We send our robot proxies into the terrible vastness, and when they turn them around to look back at us we see ourselves for who and what we really are. We're part of that Universe, and it's an outstanding achievement even being able to acknowledge that.

Stunning indeed.

The next three election cycles

By Frank Moraes 

I've been thinking what the coming elections will bring. And I'm going to present them now, although obviously they are highly uncertain. In 2014, I expect the Republicans to make small gains in both the House and Senate. I figure they have about 50% chance of retaking the Senate. (On the other hand, if the Republicans manage to force the federal government into a default over the Debt Ceiling, it will decimate the party and the Democrats will control both houses at the beginning of 2015.) After this reasonable showing, Republican conventional wisdom will be that they won't have to do anything to reform. Karl Rove will increase his daily dose of Prilosec.

In 2016, the Democrats will have a huge year. They will retain the White House and get or retain control of Congress. At this point, all of the pundits will say that surely now the Republican Party will reform itself. But the party will not make any changes for the same reason they aren't now: they don't want to offend the base of support (which will still be substantial) that they already have. This is when the chance of a Karl Rove heart attack really increases.

In 2018, the Democrats will make small gains. Given that it is an off year elections, the Republican Party will be forced to reconsider. They will note that their gerrymandering is no longer helping. What's more, if they don't do anything, the Democrats will be able to gerrymander them out of existence in 2020. They will note that their efforts at voter suppression have failed. They will see their base dying off and their policies seen as medieval. And they will, at long last, rebuild the tattered remains of a once great American political party. If Karl Rove is still alive, he won't be of much help. Just the same, lots of Republicans will tell him, "We should have listened to you!"

Read more »

A life in black and white: Personal reflections on race in America

Guest post by Robert Stein

Ed. note: I'm extremely pleased to be able to present to you this wonderful piece by my friend Bob Stein, who looks back over the nearly nine decades of his life to tell a very personal story about race in America. On another note, I'm just pleased to be able to have Bob as a guest blogger here. I've long been a fan of his blog, Connecting the Dots, which I highly recommend. He's an extremely thoughtful writer, and in his writing you will find a deeply humane and compassionate man. -- MJWS

Robert Stein has had a long career as an editor, publisher, media critic, and journalism teacher. A former chair of the American Society of Magazine Editors, he currently blogs at Connecting the Dots.

**********

Now that Barack Obama has turned personal about race and started a national debate, an older witness is impelled to step forward and testify.

Nearly 90 years ago, I was born to white shopkeepers in the black ghetto of Harlem, living in back of a small store, selling things to people even poorer than they were. Their customers were descended from African slaves, while they themselves had left behind a Europe where their kind would soon be killed by the millions.

We were all safe here from servitude and slaughter, but not fully American, free but far from equal.

When I was three and seriously ill, my parents gave up the store and moved away, but my father kept working in Harlem for the next forty years. When I was old enough, I would sometimes go with him on a Saturday for the fourteen hours he spent in a pawnshop there.

The patrons came parading through, most of them well-dressed, almost all black, carrying clothes, jewelry, musical instruments, cameras to offer as hostage for the few dollars they had to have for a few days or weeks.

Some seemed down and defeated, but many were jaunty, with the aliveness of people always dancing on the edge. Seeing me, they flashed white smiles from their dark faces, surprised and amused to find a kid among the forbidding figures guarding the pawnbroker's cash box. I always smiled back, trying to drink in some of their joy.

Pawnbrokers made loans to the desperate, with higher interest than banks were allowed to charge. In earlier days, they were little more than fences, acquiring stolen goods cheap to resell. Now strict laws required them to be wary -- but it was a sad business, bordering on usury, profiting from human misery. For my father, it was simply where he worked sixty hours a week to earn sixteen dollars.

Read more »

Who said anything about "rebranding"?

By Mustang Bobby 

All that talk about rebranding the GOP after the beatdown in last year's election was just that: talk.  They really didn't mean it, according to RNC Chair Reince Priebus:

Speaking with David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network posted today, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus confirmed that the party will try to reach out to groups like gays and lesbians by simply appearing to be more respectful without actually changing its views on issues such as marriage equality.

After Brody said conservative evangelical voters are nervous that the GOP thinks "we have to be more tolerant," Priebus said there is nothing to worry about. "I don't know if I've used the word 'tolerance,' I don't really care for that word myself. I don't have a problem with it, I just think it has another meaning politically that can go the other direction," the party chairman said.

"It's not what you say, I think, it's sometimes – like our moms used to tell us – it's how you say it. And I think that's really the issue. And quite frankly, I think some of that has been overblown."

Priebus assured Brody that the GOP will continue to represent "things that are very square with our beliefs as Christians" and recognize that "there's only one sovereign God."

How very reassuring. For a while there we had a hope that they might become tolerant and open-minded, which would have been a major change and might even attract voters who previously saw them as sniveling patriarchs and bigots who saw the error of their ways. Not to worry; they're still the same old cranks.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Liberals finally wake up: GOP will destroy economy

By Frank Moraes 

"It's almost as if spoiled children seized control of part of the federal government and don't appreciate just how much damage their recklessness can do." That was written yesterday by Steve Benen. He is one of the prominent members of the Happy Horseshit Caucus (HHC), a group of liberal pundits who are far better than I at ignoring all the evidence and assuming the best about the Republicans.

I first came up with the name when writing about Greg Sargent's repeated claims that we didn't have to worry about the Republicans destroying the world with the Debt Ceiling. He would always say something like, "Boehner has already admitted Republicans won't allow default." As I said back in May:

It is true that Boehner said, "I'm not going to risk the full faith and credit of the federal government." But one can only read so much into that. To begin with, Boehner is talking about himself, not the party. But far more important, the statement sounds like a hope more than a commitment. If he is signaling, it is to his caucus, not to the rest of the nation. It's more like, "Please guys, don't do this!" And since saying it, he's been pretty quiet.

Well, all that has changed! Yesterday, Boehner said, "We're not going to raise the debt ceiling without real cuts in spending. It's as simple as that." Quelle surprise! 

Read more »

Iowa Republican Steve King ramps up the anti-immigrant bigotry

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Yes, some of the less extreme Republicans understand that their party has to make a concerted effort to reach out to Hispanics in order to remain electorally viable, and some of the less bigoted ones also realize that their party needs to be sincere in rebranding itself as more inclusive, even that it's good in and of itself to embrace basic decency and respect for others...

But then there are the likes of Rep. Steve King of Iowa, who obviously speak for many more in the Republican Party when they ramp up the ideological extremism and blend it with unabashed bigotry, including contributing to an immigration debate that is already making Republicans look like a bunch of retrograde fools by targeting the children of undocumented immigrants:

Iowa conservative Republican Congressman Steve King said in an interview with Newsmax that for every valedictorian DREAMer who has been brought to this country by his or her family, "...there's another 100 out there who, they weigh 130 pounds and they've got calves the size of cantaloupes because they're hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert. Those people would be legalized with the same act."

Seriously -- you can watch the clip below. This guy -- a prominent Republican congressman with solid standing in the party -- says that for every one success story there are a hundred drug runners. I can't speak for Hispanics, but this doesn't appear to be a compelling appeal for their support, and one could hardly fault them for thinking that the Republican Party doesn't much care for them, you know, what with the way it vilifies them and all.

P.M. Headlines

(The Hill): "Government shutdown looms over ObamaCare"

(National Journal): "Poll: Most Americans don't wan't Congress to repeal ObamaCare"

(Ezra Klein): "Right now, Larry Summers is the front-runner for Fed chair"

(Fox News): "Anthony Weiner admits to sending more lewd images, texts but vows to stay in mayor's race"

(Public Policy Polling): "Cheney Senate bid looks like an uphill battle"

Behind the Ad: Spitzer apologizes for that whole hooker thing

By Richard K. Barry

(Another in our extensive Behind the Ad series.)

Who: The Eliot Spitzer comptroller campaign

Where: New York City

What's going on: In an ad that addresses the prostitution scandal that destroyed his political career, former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer asks for forgiveness. In the opening line he says, "Look, I failed. Big time."

He goes on to say that his history of "being hated by the Wall Street firms" makes him the best candidate to protect New Yorker's money. Another point he makes is that screwing up shouldn't mean you have to give up on having a productive career.

I like to say that the kind of shit that doesn't destroy political careers should make us look hard at the kind of shit that does. I'm thinking here of Iran-Contra for Reagan and WMD for Bush.

I give Spitzer some credit for the being direct. No doubt the best approach.

(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

America accepts police power abuse

By Frank Moraes

The video below is quite interesting and worth watching. But let me give you an overview. The police have a woman in handcuffs and are searching her and her car. A man who lives across the street yells at the cops that they are Nazis and similar taunts. The police are in the process of letting the woman go, so two of the cops go up to the guy and demand to see his identification. They eventually arrest him for disturbing the peace or some such. Toward the end of the video, you case see a lot of guy's wacky beliefs. But that doesn't matter as far as I'm concerned. People have a right not only to hold wacky opinions, they have a right to say them.


What's clear in the video is that this guy didn't disturb any peace and he didn't interfere with an investigation -- note that the police only approached the man after they were done with the woman. What the guy did do is annoy the cops. And the cops used their power to arrest someone for no other reason than that they did not like the guy. Anyone who has had any interactions with the police knows how this works. If they don't like you, they will arrest you. It doesn't matter what it is for and it certainly doesn't matter if the charges are later dropped. You will be out time and often money because, for example, your car got towed.

This situation is actually worse than a police state. It effectively means that the police are above the law.

Read more »

President Obama, leading with maturity and understanding

By Mustang Bobby 

Andrew Sullivan marvels at President Obama's ability to handle a very tense situation with coolness and reflection.

No other president could have said what Obama said on Friday afternoon with similar authority. What was striking to me was the tone of acute sadness – a tone others could have used after what was, under any interpretation, a tragedy. And then there was the fact that this first black president, even after such a polarizing incident, spoke to all Americans, white and black. I cannot fathom how some on the knee-jerk right could have seen this as a divisive set of comments – just as I cannot quite fathom how this president is capable of controlling and channeling his own emotions.

What he tried to do was explain to white America how it must feel like to be perpetually deemed guilty before being proven innocent just because of your age, gender and the color of your skin. He didn’t deny the facts of the Martin case; he didn't dispute the jury's decision; he didn't dismiss legitimate issues like the toll of gun violence within the young black male population – but he did insist that we all understand the context, the history, and the reason, behind the anguish and anger of many African-American men and parents and boys. What he was asking for was some mutual empathy.

To answer his point about the knee-jerk right seeing this as divisive, it was a given; Sean Hannity and the rest of the people at Fox News and other such places would have had the same reaction if the president had come out and given his mother's recipe for beef stew.  Their response to anything he says is programmed far in advance. He speaks like Martin Luther King, they hear Malcolm X.

Read more »

U.K. to impose restrictions on Internet pornography

By Michael J.W. Stickings

You'll excuse the crassness of the tweet I wrote yesterday, posted below. But how is one to respond to Prime Minister Cameron's announcement that the British government intends to impose restrictions on Internet pornography?

Look, I'm not defending (all) Internet porn, and I'm not saying that there's nothing wrong with porn. But the point should be to crack down on illegal porn -- depicting children, criminal violence, etc. -- not to demand that there be filters that customers must turn off if they want to see any adult content. First, this isn't going to stop anything that ought to be stopped. And second, it's about freedom, and the right of people to consume information/entertainment as they please.

Even if you argue that the purpose here is to go after criminal activity, it's clearly the thin end of a dangerous wedge that could see the government and its corporate partners intrude ever deeper into people's private lives -- a slippery slope, if you will.

Consider the problems: Who decides what is and is not appropriate content, or what in this case will only be able to be accessed by turning off the filter (thereby announcing one's intent to anyone paying attention)? It's one thing to try to block obviously horrific content. But that's just at the extreme. The massive gray area is another matter entirely. Furthermore, who decides what "horrific" search terms to blacklist, as Cameron put it? And what are those search terms? Again, there may be a number of obvious candidates, but there's a massive gray area otherwise.

The government, obviously. But do you really want the government telling you what you can and can't see on the Internet, or on television, or wherever? And do you really want the government telling you what search terms you can't use? This is the sort of thing authoritarian states do to restrict access to information. Coming from a supposed liberal democracy like the United Kingdom, it's just as appalling. Those who have fought for freedom and won should know better than to turn the clocks back.

Cameron is concerned that pornography is "corroding childhood." Look, I don't want my children seeing it either, in any form, but censorship is hardly the answer. Criminal activity should obviously be dealt with under the law. But free people should be able to be free, genuinely free, without the government legislating its own narrow idea of morality. Because there's no telling where it might stop.

Looking forward to XXX porn video featuring character named "David Cameron" into spanking and pegging. Called "Cum Through the Tory Hole."
— Michael Stickings (@mjwstickings) July 23, 2013

Edward Snowden and U.S. hypocrisy

By Frank Moraes

Glenn Greenwald mentioned an interesting bit of American hypocrisy over the weekend that relates directly to what is going on with Edward Snowden. In 2001, Muslim cleric Abu Omar was granted asylum by Italy because he was being persecuted by the Mubarak government in Egypt. Then, two years later, a group of CIA agents kidnapped him off the street in broad daylight. They took him back to Egypt, where he spent four years in prison being tortured. He was originally charged with belonging to an illegal group, but the charges were ultimately dropped.

In February of this year, four members of the Italian secret service were convicted of complicity in this kidnapping and were given six to ten years in prison. What about the American CIA operatives? In 2009, the Italian government indicted 23 of them, including Milan station chief Robert Lady. The United States would not cooperate (justice is for the little people and foreigners) so the Italian government had to convict them in absentia. Greenwald made three points about this at the time. First, such convictions would never happen in our country; government officials have done far worse and we just ignore it. Second, our government did everything it could to interfere with the Italian judicial process. And third, our lack of accountability is an indication that we don't have a truly independent court system. The article is very good and well worth reading in full.

Since retiring, Robert Lady has lived in Latin America. Last week, while crossing the boarder into Panama, Lady was arrested at the request of Italy who wanted to extradite him to serve his sentence for the kidnapping. But on Friday, he was released following some negotiations with the U.S. State Department. And that is probably as it should be. I think that countries ought to look out for their citizens, although as in this case, the United States has far too much power in this regard.

Read more »

A.M. Headlines

(Politico): "Obama rallies supporters for August push"

(New York Times): "Pentagon lays out options for U.S. military efforts in Syria"

(Washington Post): "Super PACs, other independent political groups already setting pace for 2016 presidential race"

(Atlanta Journal-Constitution): "Michelle Nunn declares herself a U.S. Senate candidate"

(Boston Globe): "Warren and Markey question ‘stand your ground’"

Pentagon warns against military action in Syria

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Well, it can do any number of things, but there are, as expected, few if any good options if the goal is actually to make a difference in the ongoing civil war:

The Pentagon has provided Congress with its first detailed list of military options to stem the bloody civil war in Syria, suggesting that a campaign to tilt the balance from President Bashar al-Assad to the opposition would be a vast undertaking, costing billions of dollars, and could backfire on the United States. 

Of course, this isn't Rumsfeld's, or Cheney's, Pentagon anymore, and so one must expect it to be a tad more conservative, and realistic, in its outlook and approach to possible military action.

The counter-argument, from neocons as well as from liberal hawks, is that any such risk is worth it, because humanitarianism, or history, or geopolitics, or American hegemony, or whatever. And often I'm sympathetic to the liberal interventionist cause.

But the fact that the Pentagon's assessment of military action is so troubling should give us all pause. As much as we may not like it, there's just no easy way to topple Assad's horrendous regime, and of course no guarantee that its successor would be at all desirable in its own right.