Take us out of orbit, ensign

By Mustang Bobby

NASA gets down to some serious research:

NASA has invested $50,000 in equipment for "warp speed" research that would allow space travel faster than the speed of light. The research remains in the science phase and is unlikely to produce a practical application in the near future, but the team's intention is to get the ball rolling.

Though it seems ripped straight from an episode of Star Trek, NASA has invested real money into understanding the science behind travel faster than the speed of light.

Harold G. White, a NASA physicist, leads the small team at NASA who are trying to make reality out of a theory that suggests the possibility of traveling faster than the speed of light.

They'd better get on it. We have less than fifty years until April 2063, which, as everyone knows, is when Zefram Cochrane will launch the first warp-drive ship and we make first contact with the Vulcans.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

A.M. Headlines

(New York Times): "Qaeda messages prompt U.S. terror warning"

(The Hill): "House votes 232-185 to block the IRS from enforcing ObamaCare"

(NBC New York): "Anthony Weiner: I'm '100 percent not' sexting right now, deleted everything from past affairs"

(Wall Street Journal): "Live from New York! It's jobs day"

(Washington Post): "How fractured is the GOP?"

Kentucky horse racing

By Mustang Bobby 

It's a little early to be making accurate predictions, but it’s something to at least garner a little attention: Mitch McConnell might be in trouble in his re-election bid:

McConnell faces fights on two fronts in his quest for reelection. First, businessman Matt Bevin announced a primary challenge from the right last week. Bevin's an underdog, but he's got the backing of influential conservatives including Erick Erickson, and as we learned in 2010, longstanding GOP senators can't take reelection for granted these days. Rand Paul also upset establishment pick Trey Grayson in the 2010 primary for the other U.S. Senate seat in Kentucky. 

Assuming McConnell knocks off Bevin, however, he'll face a second challenge from Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes, the Kentucky secretary of state. A poll by the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling, conducted for the liberal Progressive Change Campaign Committee and Democracy for America and out this morning, suggests Grimes will give McConnell a run for his money. Not only is the senator's approval underwater, he also trails Grimes head-to-head...

If you think it's outside the realm of possibility that a powerful Senate leader could end up losing his own election, give Tom Daschle a call. The former Senate Majority Leader can fill you in on what happens when the folks back home decide you're spending too much time on Capitol Hill and not working for them. 

However, Mr. McConnell's biggest challenge isn't the Democrats, it's the move in from the right flank. Making the Kentucky GOP choose between two candidates opens the door a little for Ms. Lundergran Grimes. Or, as they say at Churchill Downs, when the money is split between the favorites, bet on the long shot.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

How much could McDonald's pay workers?

By Frank Moraes

On Monday, The Huffington Post published an article claiming that McDonald's could double its wages and it would only increase the price of their offerings by 17%. So instead of a McDouble being $1.29, it would be $1.51. The understandable response to this was, "That doesn't sound that bad to provide a living wage to McDonald's workers." It turns out that it isn't quite so simple, but as you will see, I'll show that it still works out about the same.

The original article was called "Doubling McDonald's Salaries Would Cause Your Big Mac To Cost Just 68¢ More." Unlike most news outlets, however, instead of just adding an update, they've replaced that article with a full discussion of what was wrong with the article. In the simplest terms, the whole thing was more or less a prank. A student at the University of Kansas did a back of the envelope calculation. McDonald's entire employment costs are indeed only 17% of their operating budget. The problem is that most of the workforce costs are not due to the corporation but rather the 80% of all the stores that are franchises. Of these franchises, roughly a third of their expenses are due to workforce costs. So that $1.29 McDouble would cost $1.72.

But again, it isn't that simple. The Huffington Post quotes Dean Baker on two related issues. First: doubling wages would doubtless cause some layoffs. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Increased work costs have a tendency to make employers more efficient in how they use their labor force. What's more, the increased wages would attracted better employees. The second issue is more important. Increased labor costs are generally shared between increased prices and decreased profits—with profits getting hit twice as hard as the prices. (I talk about this all the time!) So if labor costs go up by one dollar, the cost will go up 33 cents and profits will go down by 67 cents.

Read more »

A.M. Headlines

(Politico): "Edward Snowden asylum: Russia’s ‘zero-sum calculations’"

(CNN): "Exclusive: Dozens of CIA operatives on the ground during Benghazi attack"

(Bloomberg): "Jobless claims in U.S. fall to lowest level in five years"

(TPM): "GOP telegraphs mass filibuster of Obama's top judges"

(Reuters): "Obama picks government trouble-shooter Koskinen to lead IRS"

P.M. Headlines

(Reuters): "Russia gives Snowden asylum, Obama-Putin summit in doubt"

(TPM): "Poll: Kentucky voters want McConnell out"

(Pew Research Center): "GOP views of Paul, Christie reflect fight over civil liberties"

(Andrew Sullivan): "The GOP calls its own fiscal bluff"

(Christian Science Monitor): "Florida education chief Tony Bennett resigns over how a C became an A"

All in the (Republican) family

By Capt. Fogg

Remember Richard Nixon? Who? You know, the guy they tried to rehabilitate after he fled the White House ahead of the prosecutors, the guy they built a museum about with fake exhibits showing how he really was a great guy who was victimized by the Liberal Press?

Well as long as we have Dick Nixon's words on tape we don't have to kick him around any more, since his unique talent for kicking himself in the ass with both feet in his mouth relieves us of the burden.

Watching All in the Family and completely failing to get what it was about, all the trickster could get out of it is that it "glorified homosexuality" made a hippie out to be a better man than a "hard-hat" and was likely to destroy America. CNN plans to air this clip and more Nixon outrages tonight. I don't plan to watch it. I don't need to listen to this shitweasel, this piece of snake dung talking about how Rome and Greece were destroyed by "fags." I had enough many years ago when I heard him talking to Billy Graham about how the Jews were destroying America. I've had far more than enough of the party that supported him for decades, that attacked truth and justice to protect this horror, committed crimes to re-elect him and who now thinks he's way too far to the left for the modern tea-stained Republicans.

Watch this (my apologies for the ad) and ask yourself how this piece of human garbage ever got elected, how anyone would debase themselves and their country by supporting him in full knowledge of his words and deeds. Ask yourself how low a person has to be to be a Republican. Listen to his words America, and despair.

Why poverty happens to good people

By Carl

Lesson to learn -- it’s usually not their fault. Case in point:

Donald Cardin became a firefighter at age 20 in Central Falls, R.I., a town just north of Providence that filed for bankruptcy in 2011. He was making $60,000 a year as a fire chief before retiring at age 42 in 2007 to take care of his wife Lana, diagnosed with thymic carcinoma, a rare cancer with extremely low survival rates.

The couple relied on Cardin’s health insurance, which required no copay, to cover Lana’s $8,000-a-month treatment. Cardin worked a part-time contracting job to make up the difference between his $34,000-a-year pension and his former salary.

But that all changed in 2011 when Cardin, and his fellow firefighters and policemen, were called to a meeting at the local high school, where state-appointed receiver Robert Flanders warned them that the city would not have enough money to survive if pensions were not cut. Weeks later the city would file for bankruptcy.

“After a lifetime of service, with the stroke of a pen, Judge Flanders changes the rest of our lives and doesn’t care,” said Cardin.

So here’s a man who put in a lifetime’s work based partly on the promise that, in exchange for risking his life now, the city would help take care of him in his retirement. Nevermind that he retired at an age young enough to go find another job with a living wage and have a completely new career – which is not an easy proposition living in a small New England town, by the way, and that’s before considering his wife’s medical needs – that was the contract implied at hiring. Then, shortly after retiring, half his pension and half his medical insurance was taken away, leaving him making $17,000 AND paying $48,000 in medical bills, annually.

In a town of 19,000 people, it’s likely many if not most knew Chief Cardin, and other retirees who saw their lives brutalized by unfeeling bean counters, but you’ll notice in reading the article and doing further investigation, the subject of raising taxes never once comes up.

Until they emerged from bankruptcy in record time. They did this by shifting the bankruptcy burden off the town and onto the middle class pensioners, and increasing property taxes 25% over five years. Had it been discussed before the bankruptcy, perhaps those pensions could have been saved or at least, given a shave, not a beheading.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Filibuster deal crumbling?

By Frank Moraes

In case you were wondering about that filibuster deal that John McCain made with Harry Reid, well, it looks like it is crumbling. And this is the first vote after the critical seven that Reid said must be approved. Earlier this afternoon, the Senate was anxiously waiting for Senator Heidi Heitkamp to fly back to Washington. The reason? The Democrats are trying to pass a cloture vote on the nomination of Todd Jones to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Thus far they only have 59 votes and they need 60.

There are a couple of things that are worth nothing here. First, this wouldn't even be an issue if the Senate had passed one of the minor filibuster reforms that people like me were calling for earlier this year. The proposal was to put the filibuster onus on the people filibustering, not the majority. So instead of the majority having to get 60 votes, the minority would have to get 41 votes. The way it is today with 59-40, Todd Jones' nomination would already have had a successful cloture vote. The truth is that this is just pathetic. Not a single one of those 40 Republicans who have voted against cloture even need to be in Washington. It is all about the majority having to prove that it has the votes to stop a filibuster; the minority has no obligation to sustain its own filibuster.

The other thing about this is that this is a fucking filibuster! I am so tired of this bullshit. The idea of the so called nuclear option was that it would disallow filibusters on executive branch nominations. The deal was that the Republicans would not filibuster 7 critical nominations. But that's not what happened. Every one of those nominations was filibustered. It is just that enough Republicans voted for cloture that the filibusters were unsuccessful. But they were still filibustered. There was still a whole lot of time wasted. The Democrats still had to make sure that every one of them was present to vote for cloture because most of the time the Republicans didn't even give them a single vote to spare.

Read more »

Marriage in Minnesota

By Mustang Bobby

Clad in red and black gowns, Margaret Miles and Cathy ten Broeke stood facing each other, smiling through tears in the white-marbled, Minneapolis City Hall rotunda as the clock ticked toward midnight.

Seconds later, Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak declared: “Margaret and Cathy, by the power now finally vested in me, by the laws of the people of Minnesota, we hereby declare Margaret and Cathy legally married. You may now kiss the bride.”

The two kissed as hundreds of guests erupted in cheers and applause, amid a hall filled with fresh flowers, live music and cases of donated champagne.

From Minneapolis and St. Paul to Duluth and Crookston, dozens of gay and lesbian couples tied the knot in the pre-dawn hours Thursday as Minnesota became the 13th state to legalize same-sex marriage. Couples and guests gathered in city halls, a conservatory, the Mall of America, even a bar to be among the first to usher in a new era of marriage equality in Minnesota.

“We are happy to recommit to one another every day, but the opportunity to be the symbol for the community is unequaled,” a beaming Miles said.

Mazel tov and best wishes to each and every one of them.

Oh, and can’t forget about Rhode Island.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

America's imaginary lavish social welfare safety net that exists only in Republican minds

By Marc McDonald 

In America, we hate the poor. We really, really hate the poor. We are indoctrinated from birth to hate the poor. Jesus may have said, "Blessed are you who are poor." But America has no time for that Jesus. Our motto is "Screw the poor."

The Century Foundation

As a result, America has never been big on social welfare programs for the poor. Even during the peak years of U.S. social program spending (during LBJ's "Great Society" years), America had a skimpy social safety net, compared to other industrialized nations.

Compared to generous European social safety nets, America these days more closely resembles the likes of Mexico than a modern First World industrialized nation. Jobless benefits, for example, are far more meager and stingy in the U.S. than they are in Europe. In fact, for one reason or another, millions of Americans don't even ever qualify for jobless benefits. (I know: I was one of them. Years ago, I applied for jobless benefits and was turned down.)

The other pillar of the U.S. social safety net, food stamps, is also very meager. I recall recently playing around with the food stamp eligibility program on a Texas state government Web site. I was curious as to exactly how low one's income had to be in order to qualify. I kept plugging in lower and lower income numbers and kept getting a response page that said, "You earn too much to qualify for food stamps." Eventually, I concluded the Web site must be broken. It was only later that I discovered, much to my amazement, that the Web site was in fact working just fine and the Third World-like wages I'd plugged into the search form were indeed considered too high to qualify for aid.

In short, in America these days, if you're poor, you are screwed.

Read more »

People will notice if the Republicans get any crazier

By Frank Moraes 

The other day, Jonathan Chait wrote a provocative post, "Are House Republicans Voter-Proof?" In it, he argued that the Republicans likely have nothing to worry about in going full-tilt Michele Bachmann. After all, most people don't even know which party is in control of the House of Representatives. Why would they blame the Republicans?

Under normal circumstances, I agree with Chait. If the Republicans keep doing what they have been doing killing the economy inch by inch, the electorate will not notice. As I wrote last week, I fully expect the Republicans to pick up some seats in the House and also likely take control of the Senate. But I do wish people would stop talking about the Sixth-Year Curse. This is the belief of political observers that the president's party loses big the sixth year of his presidency. Sean Trende has debunked this idea. What actually happens is that the president's party loses big in one of the midterm elections. That already happened to Obama in 2010. Although it is likely that 2014 won't be a good year for the Democrats, they are already doing about as badly as they can. There aren't many seats (in the House at least) that they can gain.

Chait mentions five factors that work in the Republicans' favor. The first is the silly Sixth-Year Curse. The second is that Democrats tend to do badly in midterm elections. That's true, but that's already figured into the calculation. The third is that there aren't many swing voters anymore. I'm not sure how this gives the Republicans an advantage when most of those swing voters are just Democrats now. The fourth is the observation that Democratic voters are concentrated and thus their votes don't count as much. That's true in the Senate races, but not in the House. So I don't get his point given that the big issue is the House. And the fifth is that the 2010 redistricting favors the Republicans. That's true, but again, already figured into the calculation.

Read more »

A.M. Headlines

(Politico): "Why Rand Paul and Chris Christie went to war"

(TPM): "GOP's long-predicted comeuppance has arrived"

(Detroit News): "Snyder's approval rating gets boost from bankruptcy, Medicaid decisions"

(The Hill): "Dems urge national discussion on racial justice following Trayvon Martin case"

(USA Today): "MLB prepared to ban A-Rod for life, suspend eight others"

P.M. Headlines

(New Republic): "John McCain, undecided 2016 voter"

(Washington Post): "House approves deal that would save students millions in loan fees, sends bill to White House"

(ThinkProgress): "Paul Ryan wants Boehner to bring immigration reform to a vote even if most Republicans don't support it"

(New York Times): "U.S. outlines N.S.A.'s culling of data for all domestic calls"

(Politico): "Ted Cruz taunts fellow Republicans in Obamacare fight"

The mystery of the lead coffin

By Mustang Bobby 

From the annals of archaeology...

Archaeologists were surprised when they opened an excavated stone coffin only to find another coffin made of lead inside. The team said they've never seen anything like it.

The remains of King Richard III were lost for centuries beneath a parking lot in Leicester, England, until archeologists discovered the site in Sept. 2012 and later confirmed the match. But other mysteries have been found, including a double coffin thought to have been sealed more than 100 years before Richard was buried.

Archaeologists returned to the Grey Friars monastery site in early July for more study. After several weeks of excavation, eight people lifted the lid off of a heavy coffin made of stone on July 23. They discovered that an inner coffin made of lead was sealed within the outer stone coffin.

The 7-foot-long stone coffin was thought to have been sealed in the 13th or 14th century. After its opening, the lead inner coffin was moved to the University of Leicester for researchers to analyze how to access it without damaging the remains inside.

This is how every scary movie about demons from the past being disturbed from their slumber starts. All we need is Brendan Fraser* as the dashing archaeologist and a score by Jerry Goldsmith.

*Or Harrison Ford or Stewart Granger, depending on your generation.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Fox zealot vs. mainstream Aslan

By Frank Moraes

The Fox News interview of Reza Aslan was interesting and fun. (For those who haven't seen it, it is embedded below.) He was on to hock his book, Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth. And basically, the entire interview was about why a Muslim would write a book about Christianity. I understand why they approached Aslan and his book this way. The truth is that he was only being interviewed because according to conservative ideology the only interesting thing about the book was that Aslan is a Muslim. And really: who in the mainstream press is interested in New Testament scholarship?

What is sad about the current state of Biblical scholarship is that the field is overflowing with Christians. To me, there is no question that a Muslim can be a good Biblical scholar. But I have great questions as to whether any given Christian can be a good Biblical scholar. This isn't to say that there aren't Christian Biblical scholars who are good. In fact, there are great Christian biblical scholars. But there is a natural concern that these scholars will try to conform their scholarship to their religious beliefs. A Buddhist, for example, doesn't have that problem.


The attitude on view at Fox News is typical. It is also an indictment of modern American Christianity. The way I see it is that "believers" are so insecure about the truth of their belief that they can't brook any objective discussion of it. What's funny about it is that such people think they are protecting the religion. But any objective viewer can see the terror in their attacks.

Read more »

John Kerry, peacemaker?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Well, this is something:

Secretary of State John Kerry said Tuesday that Israeli and Palestinian negotiators would convene again in the Middle East within two weeks and that their goal would be to work out a comprehensive peace agreement within nine months that would lead to an independent Palestinian state. 

"The parties have agreed to remain engaged in sustained, continuous and substantive negotiations on the core issues," Mr. Kerry said at the State Department, flanked by Tzipi Livni, Israel's justice minister, and Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator.

"Our objective will be to achieve a final status agreement over the course of the next nine months," Mr. Kerry said. "We all understand the goal that we're working towards: two states living side by side in peace and security."

It's good to see the U.S. again assuming a productive leadership role with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian situation, something that only seems to happen when a Democrat is in the White House, but a meaningful agreement on a two-state solution, however desirable, seems less likely than Kate giving birth to another undeserving "royal" in nine months.

Nonetheless, if Kerry pulls it off, the Nobel is his, deservedly so, and all of us who thought he was a fantastic pick to be secretary of state, perhaps better even than Hillary, and thought he would have been a similarly fantastic president, will be proven right.

Manning up

By Carl

Attention, Edward Snowden: This is how you do it and maintain the higher ground.

FT. MEADE, Md. — Army Pfc. Bradley Manning was convicted Tuesday of violating the Espionage Act and faces up to 136 years in prison, but his acquittal on the even more serious charge of aiding the enemy was hailed as a victory for the press and the Internet against the government's crackdown on leaks of classified information.

Manning's leak of more than 700,000 State Department cables, terrorism detainee assessments, combat logs and videos was the largest breach of classified secrets in U.S. history. Among the information was a now-infamous 2007 video of an Apache combat helicopter attack in Iraq in which U.S. soldiers fired on civilians and killed 12, including two Reuters journalists.

Manning becomes one of only two people ever convicted under the Espionage Act for making classified data available to the public; the other, Samuel L. Morison, a government security analyst convicted in 1985, was pardoned by President Clinton on his final day in office.

I would expect President Obama to do something similar on his way out the door, and Manning will not have to rely on the kindness of totalitarian dictators to eke out a survival existence, the constant threat of either retaliation by the US government or continuous monitoring by his “host” ever looming in the background.

The Manning verdict seems pretty fair: found innocent of aiding and abetting an enemy of the United States, but convicted of stealing and releasing classified information. We may agree with the spirit of what he did (or not), and we may welcome the exposure his information has gotten, but the law is the law. At least Manning, this frail looking Marine, stood up and took responsibility for what he did.

Which is why I’m persuaded to believe that Obama will end up pardoning him. It’s the right thing to do.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

No such thing as bad publicity (for Reza Aslan)

By Mustang Bobby 

Reza Aslan is raking it in after the mega-cringe-inducing interview on Fox News:

Since then, the Buzzfeed page featuring the video has been viewed nearly four million times. Mr. Aslan quickly amassed an additional 5,000 Twitter followers. On Monday, Random House, Mr. Aslan's publisher, said the interview had clearly helped book sales: in two days, sales increased 35 percent.

On Friday, "Zealot" was in the No. 8 spot on Amazon.com, the nation's biggest seller of books; by Sunday, it had hit No. 1.

Random House is rushing to meet the surge in demand for the book. On Monday, the publisher ordered 50,000 copies, bringing the total to 150,000 copies in print by the end of the week.

An investigation of the historical Jesus, "Zealot" has been praised by many reviewers since its publication on July 16. In a review in Tablet magazine, Adam Kirsch called "Zealot" a "coherent and often convincing portrait of who Jesus was and what he wanted."

But some conservative critics have suggested that the book is not a work of scholarship, but merely "an educated Muslim's opinions about Jesus and the ancient Near East," as John S. Dickerson, an opinion columnist, wrote on FoxNews.com last week.

[...]

Mr. Aslan said that after reading Mr. Dickerson's essay on FoxNews.com, he was prepared for a similar line of attack from Ms. Green.

He was so eager to promote the book on Fox News that his publisher tried — in vain — to secure an interview spot on "Fox & Friends," a morning show.

"I'll be perfectly honest — I'm thrilled at the response that people have had to the interview," Mr. Aslan said. "You can't buy this kind of publicity."

Mr. Aslan should send Ms. Green a plate of baklava.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Obama's economic clique and the Summers pick

By Frank Moraes 

When Obama and Clinton were running for the Democratic nomination for president, I tended to side with Obama. The reason was not one I've heard anyone else mention. My fear was that Clinton would be another George W. Bush, just on the left. By that I mean that she would have been to insular. I thought that Obama would be more broad in where he looked for input. But that hasn't been the case. Obama has been very insular. And when it comes to economic policy, it seems that the people he listens to are a group of New Democrat, pro-banking nitwits.

I've been thinking about this because of all the speculation about Larry Summers being nominated as Federal Reserve Chair. It isn't that Summers would make a terrible choice for the job. I have big problems with him, especially his strong dollar policies (under and then following Robert Rubin) while he was in the Clinton administration. But there are far worse candidates for the job. The big problem is: why would Obama be so keen on Summers?

The answer, I think, is just that Obama's insular economic decision making team is dominated by the kind of people who think that Larry Summers rocks. Obama could have just picked Janet Yellen, the current Vice Chairman of the Fed. She is extremely well qualified for the job and she is, as the pronoun indicates, a woman. Obama could have nominated arguably the best person for the job and also done something historic. Apparently, that didn't matter. Or more likely, that didn't even occur to Obama's economic clique.

It's pretty clear that a Summers nomination is not going to fly with most of the Democratic Party.

Read more »

A.M. Headlines

(Politico): "Harry Reid: White House has given enough to GOP"

(Maureen Dowd): "Quit is the way to roll"

(New York Times): "Kerry says goal is Mideast peace deal within 9 months"

(Businessweek): "The Bradley Manning verdict and the wisdom of judicial statesmanship"

(Fox News): "San Diego City Council to sue Filner over costs from sexual harassment lawsuit"

Bradley Manning found guilty, while the real criminals remain free

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Following up on my post from earlier, (courageous whistleblower) Bradley Manning was indeed found guilty today, just not on the most significant, and most ridiculous, charge:

A military judge on Tuesday found Pfc. Bradley Manning not guilty of "aiding the enemy" for his release of hundreds of thousands of military and diplomatic documents to WikiLeaks for publication on the Internet, rejecting the government’s unprecedented effort to bring such a charge in a leak case.

But the judge in the court-martial, Col. Denise R. Lind, convicted Private Manning of six counts of violating the Espionage Act of 1917 and most of the other crimes he was charged with. He faces a theoretical maximum sentence of 136 years in prison, although legal experts said the actual term was likely to be much shorter.

While advocates of open government celebrated his acquittal on the most serious charge, the case still appears destined to stand as a fierce warning to any government employee who is tempted to make public vast numbers of secret documents. Private Manning's actions lifted a veil on American military and diplomatic activities around the world, and engendered a broad debate over what information should become public, how the government treats leakers, and what happens to those who see themselves as whistle-blowers. 

Okay, well, let's look at the elements of that debate:

First, according to the U.S. federal government -- which, let us not forget, is currently led by Democrat Barack Obama -- no information should become public that is in any way sensitive regarding national security (or pretty much any other area), and certainly no information that might in any way expose what the government is really up to, not least its criminal or even questionably ethical activities.

Second, the U.S. federal government treats leakers like traitors.

Third, the U.S. federal government, including the military, tortures whistleblowers and persecutes them relentlessly.

A fierce warning? Yes, I'd say so. Cross the government, expose its criminal activities, and you're done for.

Read more »

P.M. Headlines

(New York Times): "Manning acquitted of aiding the enemy"

(Politico): "Concern grows for Huma Abedin within Clinton world"

(Reuters): "Obama offers 'grand bargain' on corporate tax rate, infrastructure"

(CNN): "Paul: Christie is the 'king of bacon' on government spending"

(Roll Call): "Democrats, too, plan to slam Washington in August"

Your STFU list for today

By Carl

I’m tired, I’m pissed off, the Bag of Salted Rat Dicks I work for is trying to cause trouble for me, and I’m on deadline, so posting is a bit of an exercise is getting ahead of the curve.

Anyway, I realized this morning there is an entire list of people who need to shut up and go away. Dig a hole, climb in and sew it closed behind you. Get dropped in the middle of a tundra naked and alone. Close the door, and bolt it shut.

1) Anthony Weiner – JUST! SHUT! UP! You’re toast. Your candidacy is dead in the water. You’ve humiliated your wife again (altho she must have had plenty of warning which speaks really bad about her, as well.) I wanted to believe your comeback. Hell, I was ready to vote for you, along with tens of thousands of other New Yorkers, and elect you mayor. I wanted the reformation to be real. You may have had Bill Clinton officiate at your wedding, but you ain’t the Big Dog, the greatest President since FDR. You just ain’t.

2) In a similar vein, Eliot Spitzer – Dude, I will vote for you, but you have to get out of commenting on the mayor’s race unless you plan to switch races. By your own admission, you aren’t a saint and you made mistakes. If you expect us to forgive and forget, you have to lead by example.

3) Sarah Palin – Go away. Your fifteen minutes were over five years ago, except in your own slow spiraling descent into the black hole of obscurity that is your fate (that obeys the laws of physics, by the way: time does slow down near a black hole.) And you lied. The McCain campaign let you shoot your mouth off enough times that you shot McCain in the foot.

4) Mitt Rom…Romney? RomBot? Romalomadingdong? Whatever… -- OK, so you know how there’s videotape of you quoting you at length? Go lend a shoulder to your would-be queen wife, Ann. She’s been crying since last November.

5) Brooke Goldstein – Never heard of her before? Don’t worry, neither have I. Neither has anyone else. And with any luck, you don’t need to worry about this wanna-be Ann Coulter. She needs to dye her hair blonde and grow a set first.

6) Maureen Dowd – Huma Abedin is too, errr, mewling, to leave Weiner? Really? HILLARY’S Chief of Staff?

7) Sydney Leathers – Girlfriend, the NY Post is NOT your friend. Your time is up, you lost the story a week ago and with a body like this, you won’t even get the inevitable Playboy offer. Sorry, hon. You’re done.

8) George Will – Because African American single moms lent money to Detroit at usurious rates, and are sitting at home on the couch, clipping bond coupons, I bet. ARGH! SHUT UP!

9) Rand Paul – Not in my town, Brillo-top.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Five reasons GOP government shutdown is suicide

By Frank Moraes 

Whenever I read Ramesh Ponnuru, I wonder why it is the conservative movement can't be more like him. After all, it isn't like he is exactly reasonable. I can't usually read more than two paragraphs without being forced to sit through silly Republican talking points. For example, he never misses an opportunity to slam Obamacare as though he wouldn't be firmly on board with the program if it had been enacted by President McCain.

And last Friday, he argued that one of the reasons the recent Republican efforts (to defund Obamacare via government shutdown) will look bad is because the Republicans don't have an alternative for healthcare reform. This is just silly. As I've argued before, Obamacare was the conservative alternative to health-care reform. When they decided that it was a communist conspiracy, they left themselves with nothing. Ponnuru must know that the there is no alternative to Obamacare and thus his suggestion that the Republicans need to have one is just pure conservative propaganda.

But most of the article -- "Drop the Disastrous Plan to Defund Obamacare" -- is quite good. In it, he provided five reasons why the Republican plan to shut down the government or even default on our debt is a bad idea for the Republicans themselves:

1. Republicans are less popular than the Democrats and thus all else equal will lose partisan finger-pointing contests.
2. The executive has natural advantages over a group of legislators in a crisis atmosphere.
3. People will be naturally inclined to assume that the more anti-government party must be responsible.
4. Some Republicans will say that government shutdowns or defaults are just what the country needs, and those quotes will affect the image of all Republicans.
5. The news media will surely side with the Democrats.

I think this can all be boiled down into what I have come to think of as Biden's Law. You may remember in the vice-presidential debate that Paul Ryan was talking about the almost $600 billion taken out of Medicare. He was arguing that the Republicans were the true defenders of Medicare. Joe Biden didn't even counter the specifics; he just said, "Look, folks, use your common sense. Who do you trust on this?"

Read more »

Bradley Manning to be found guilty today

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The show trial of Bradley Manning, the courageous whistleblower whose leaks documented U.S. military crimes and other misdeed and who for revealing the truth has been tortured in custody, is almost at an end:

After spending three years in custody, the man accused of the largest leak of classified information in U.S. history will learn Tuesday whether he has been found guilty of aiding the enemy.

A verdict from the judge in the court-martial of Pfc. Bradley Manning will be announced at 1 p.m. ET Tuesday, according to a spokeswoman for the military district of Washington.

If found guilty on the aiding the enemy charge, Manning could be sentenced to life in prison. He has pleaded guilty to nearly a dozen lesser charges that carry a sentence of up to 20 years behind bars.

The aiding the enemy charge is ridiculous, just as the persecution of Bradley is outrageous, but it shouldn't come as a surprise if he's found guilty -- it's what the government wants, because it wants at all costs to prevent any more of the truth from getting out, and obviously this trial is an effort to send a message to anyone else who might want to follow Manning's lead.

But even if for whatever reason he gets off on that charge, there's hardly any doubt he'll get the max, or close to it, for the rest -- again, because a message must be sent, because the country's crimes are, apparently, top secret. Isn't this also why the government wants to make an example of Snowden as well?

In America, after all, you're only really free if you play by the very narrow, government-determined rules of the national security state.

According to #BradleyManning trial, U.S. govt says anyone who exposes its criminal and otherwise reprehensible activities is a traitor.
— Michael Stickings (@mjwstickings) July 25, 2013

Obama had better have that pardon ready for #BradleyManning. Because this gross injustice is on him too. (He won't.)
— Michael Stickings (@mjwstickings) July 25, 2013

Fast food revolt: Striking for fair wages, striking for opportunity, striking for justice

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Salon, with a piece worth reading in its entirety to get a sense of the gross injustice facing workers at fast food establishments:

[Yesterday] morning [marked] the start of what will likely be the largest fast food worker mobilization in U.S. history, with a New York City walkout today kicking off strikes in seven cities over four days. These work stoppages by non-union workers are the latest escalation in an embattled labor movement's unprecedented challenge to the overwhelmingly non-union industry, whose ranks are growing and whose conditions are spreading elsewhere in the U.S. economy.

"I know you're tired of suffering," KFC employee Naquasia LeGrand told fellow workers gathered with clergy and politicians at a rally last Wednesday announcing that New York City worker-activists had voted to strike this week. "I don't want to see the next generation suffering and suffering. I don't want my kids suffering. I want to make sure they have a better future than I do." Looking out on a crowd of about 150 at the entrance to Brooklyn's Prospect Park, LeGrand added, "So if I want that to happen, I need you guys to stand with me just as long as I'm standing with you."

As Salon first reported, the fast food effort went public last November, with a strike by about 200 employees of various chains in New York City. Over the past four months, that walkout has been followed by similar work stoppages in five other cities, and a second New York City strike roughly twice as large. Each of those strikes has been backed by the Service Employees International Union and local allies, and each has shared the same demands: a raise to $15 per hour, and the chance to form a union without intimidation by management.

I wish them well. I really do. It is a society that is rotten to the core that treats its workers this way.

Read more »

A.M. Headlines

(Atlanta Black Star): "FBI arrests 150 pimps and rescues 105 children forced into prostitution"

(ABC News): "Sources: Clintons' patience growing thin with Anthony Weiner"

(Mother Jones): "Mitt Romney's incredible 47-percent denial: "Actually, I didn't say that"

(New York Times): "Big name GOP donors urge members of Congress to back immigration overhaul"

(Washington Post): "Heiresses apparent: Daughters take their turn for the political dynasty"

P.M. Headlines

(Maureen Dowd): "Time to hard-delete Carlos Danger"

(First Read): "Cruz: Republicans not willing to 'stand up' to defund ObamaCare"

(USA Today): "Verdict reached in WikiLeaks court-martial"

(Associated Press): "Pope Francis says he will not judge gay priests"

(The Hill): "White House says Hillary Clinton, Obama lunch meeting 'chiefly social'"

Not so long road to GOP authoritarianism

By Frank Moraes 

Last week, Robert Reich wrote an article trying to explain, Why Republicans are Disciplined and Democrats Aren't. Basically he argued that this is because of the kind of people who are attracted to the two parties. Republicans tend to lean toward authoritarianism, and thus it isn't surprising that their politicians would be good at delivering the same brainless talking points over and over and over again. I don't think there is much question of this. When I was a libertarian, I hated the Republican Party and still had a certain fondness for the Democrats for exactly this reason. (Sadly for the movement, most people are exactly the opposite, which ought to tell you all you need to know about libertarianism as a practical matter.)

What confuses me is that according to Reich, it ever was so. He quotes Will Rogers saying, "I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat." He likely said that before the first World War. But I'm not sure it means what Reich claims. After all, people normally make that kind of joke about whatever organization they are associated with. But I do think the joke works because Democrats have long recognized themselves in it and Republicans have felt superior for that reason. But is that image correct?

In many ways, the Republican Party has always been conservative. When the party started in the 1850s, it had a very compelling slogan, "free labor, free land, free men." The "free land" part of that referred to the fact that plantation owners tended to own all the good farm land in an area. As a result of this, free (white) farmers were kept down because the system was proto-feudal. But it's clear that the slogan is laser focused on slavery. The first and third phrases are about slavery and the second is about slave holders. The truth is that from the beginning, the Republican Party was very much pro-business, although it is certainly true that business then was quite different from now.

Read more »

Angels wanna wear my red shoes

By Carl

Well, well, well... this is a refreshing change of heart:

ABOARD THE PAPAL AIRCRAFT — Pope Francis reached out to gays on Monday, saying he wouldn’t judge priests for their sexual orientation in a remarkably open and wide-ranging news conference as he returned from his first foreign trip.

"If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?" Francis asked.

What? No "Burn in Hell!"? No "God hates fags!"?

Whatever is religion coming to?

God is what?

Yes, there are plenty of things from yesterday's papal press conference (!) that we can criticize, such as the "investigation" into a monsignor on his staff on pedophilia charges, but this position, seemingly unqualified and unconditional, leaps off the page.

People of all colors, creeds and orientations struggle to find meaning in life. Even atheists have been known to try and answer what is essentially a spiritual dilemma: What's the point?

For me, for this Christian, the pope strikes the right tone about religion. It's a voyage of self-discovery. It's about finding a place for one's higher power in one's life, because let's face facts, there are times you need one, and wish you had one. Maybe it doesn’t answer your questions or solve your problems, but a god or goddess or enlightened plane or what have you help you get ready to get through and then past a crisis.

Many of my friends, scientists and realists, are atheist (or at least agnostic), and I respect them for that, but a lack of a system of faith is, well, still a system of faith, since none of us can ever really know the answer to the ultimate questions we all have.

Even Francis has tacitly endorsed atheism. It's not about holding a book or hands folded in prayer, it's about how we all behave towards one another.

On that point, I believe we can all find common ground.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

A word from the sponsor

By Mustang Bobby

Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity may be changing channels:

In a major shakeup for the radio industry, Cumulus Media, the second-biggest broadcaster in the country, is planning to drop both Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity from its stations at the end of the year, an industry source told POLITICO on Sunday.

Cumulus has decided that it will not renew its contracts with either host, the source said, a move that would remove the two most highly rated conservative talk personalities from more than 40 Cumulus channels in major markets.

The decision comes after negotiations between Cumulus and Premiere Networks, the division of Clear Channel that distributes Limbaugh and Hannity's shows, broke down due to disagreements over the cost of the distribution rights, the source said. Cumulus is known to drive a hard bargain on costs, and Clear Channel is known to seek top dollar for big names.

No, it doesn't mean either of them are going off the air. The most it will mean is that they will go from one radio station in major markets to another. This has nothing to do with ratings or popularity, and your crazy uncle will still be able to get his fix of racist xenophobia. He'll just have to change the radio pre-set in his 1975 Ford Granada.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

A.M. Headlines

(John Avlon): "Pope Francis's lessons for the GOP"

(Politico): "Cumulus planning to drop Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity"

(The Hill): "Obama, Hillary Clinton set for Monday lunch"

(New York Times): "Detroit looks to health care law to ease costs"

(Politico): "GOP senators to Liz Cheney: We like Mike Enzi"

P.M. Headlines

(New York Times): "Israelis and Palestinians to resume peace talks"

(Fox News): "Pope Francis delivers mass before reported 3 million faithful in Brazil"

(USA Today): "Anthony Weiner vows to stay in NYC mayor's race"

(ABC News): "Longtime Tenn. Lawmaker Lois DeBerry Dies at 68"

(Houston Chronicle): "AP Photos: 60th anniversary of Korean armistice"

Behind the Ad: The latest from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC)

By Richard K. Barry

(Another in our extensive Behind the Ad series.)

Who: The DCCC

Where: Web ad

What's going on: Good question. What is going on? The DCCC captures here just a few random idiocies from some of the more ridiculous members of the GOP just so we won't forgot how stupid things have become. Not much chance of that.



(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

In which Matt Taibbi is a prude

By Frank Moraes

I have tried my best to avoid coverage of the Anthony Weiner scandal, but I made the mistake of clicking on a link to a Matt Taibbi article that I thought might give an interesting perspective as he often does, Electing Anthony Weiner Isn't as Funny as it Sounds. It was really disappointing—surprisingly hand wringing, middle America, Villager outrage.

According to Taibbi, the Weiner scandal isn't just about sexting. He says of Weiner, "This marriedpolitician sent unsolicited pictures of his penis to female strangers on the Internet!" Now I couldn't care any less than I already do about the fact that he was married and despite what Taibbi claims about not wanting to sound like a prude, the fact that he italicized the word "married" does in fact make him a prude. But if Weiner sent unsolicited pictures to these women, that's a whole other story. It does, as Taibbi points out, make Weiner a "a 21st-century flasher who used the U.S. Congress as a raincoat." If that's true of Weiner, he really needs to get some help and the decade that Taibbi suggests sounds about right.

The problem is that I had never heard anything about this. Admittedly, I've done my best to avoid learning about this case. But I would have thought that Weiner forcing himself on disinterested women would have stood out. So I read the whole Wikipedia page on the scandal and a number of referenced articles. And I found nothing. All I can think is that what Taibbi means by "unsolicited" is that the women didn't send him explicit messages, "Please send me a picture of your crotch ASAP!"

Read more »

A.M. Headlines

(New York Times): "Interview with President Obama"

(Ross Douthat): "Going for Bolingbroke"

(The Hill): "Report: Weiner's campaign manager quits after revelations"

(Reuters): "Lew says stubborn Congress risks repeating U.S. fiscal wounds"

(National Journal): "Why it finally makes political sense to talk about climate change"