P.M. Headlines

(The Hill): "Obama to mark anniversary of US financial crisis"

(Fox News): "McCain, Graham call US-Russia agreement on Syria 'meaningless'"

(Salon): "Mann and Ornstein: “Brighter future for politics and policy requires a different Republican Party”

(New Republic): "The House GOP is about to crack up: Three theories why" 

(Moyers & Company): "NFL concussion deniers see a “liberal sports media” conspiracy"

(ABC News): "Publisher sues Sarah Palin's PAC over WTC photo"

Oh, dry up

By Mustang Bobby

The mantra for the GOP is that whatever Barack Obama is for, they’re against. The same goes for Michelle Obama. She tells America to exercise more and eat healthy foods, and the Republicans defend couch potatoes and deep-fried Twinkies.

So I wonder how they’ll deal with this latest campaign:

First lady Michelle Obama led Wisconsin high school students in a toast to “the best drink in town” Thursday as she launched a campaign to encourage people to drink more water — something she said was the single best thing Americans could do to improve their health.

“Water is so basic, and because it is so plentiful, sometimes we just forget about it amid all the ads we watch on television and all the messages we receive every day about what to eat and drink,” Mrs. Obama said. “The truth is, water just gets drowned out.”

As Charles Johnson wonders, how long before conservatives die of dehydration?

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

On the Hustings

Natalie Tennant

(New York Times): "Bloomberg decides not to endorse a successor"

(The Hill): "Democrats land top recruit Tennant for Senate race in W. Va."

(Roll Call): "Conservative PAC wades into Alabama special | #AL01"

(National Journal): "Koch brothers break new ground in dark money"

(Virginia Pilot): "Trailing McAuliffe, Cuccinelli changes staff, focus"

Will political elites finally follow the people?

By Frank Moraes

I was a little bothered to see that Peter Beinart had written, The Rise of the New New Left. My concern was that he had scooped me, because I have been working on book about the New Democratic movement. But there was nothing to fear. For one thing, Beinart seems to buy the existing narrative that the New Democrats were a rational response to the Reagan "Revolution." While it is undoubtedly true that it was a response, it was not a rational response.

The article is worth reading, because it is downright inspiring. He argues that the liberal future is bright because the Millennials are so liberal, especially on economic issues because during their whole lives, the economy really has not worked for the vast majority of Americans. That's music to my ears. Even the focus on economic issues is wonderful to hear. And his thesis—America is going to get substantially more liberal in the coming two decades—is almost certainly true.

Where I part company with him is in his (implicit) belief that the political elites follow the people. Sure, to some extent they do. And once the voting public is 65% liberal, you can bet that the politicians will move to the left. But I don't think that the Millennials are really that much more liberal than their parents were. Sure, if you ask older people whether "socialism" or "capitalism" is better, they will pick "capitalism" in large numbers. That's because these words have been so propagandized as to be meaningless. But now or 20 or 40 years ago, if you described the systems in the United States and Sweden, large majorities would pick the Swedish system.

Read more »

Behind the Ad: When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro

By Richard K. Barry

Who: The Jeff Wagner mayoralty campaign

Where: Minneapolis

What's going on: You'll forgive me for borrowing the Hunter S. Thompson quote above, but it seems to apply. Jeff Wagner is running for mayor in Minneapolis, and I guess he decided he's had about enough of something. In this ad, which Political Wire calls the best of the current campaign season, Mr. Wagner vents about the negative impact money has on elections.

Good on ya, Jeff.

A.M. Headlines

(Washington Post): "U.S., Russia reach agreement on seizure of Syrian chemical weapons arsenal"

(Associated Press):  "Obama's larger Syria strategy in disarray"

(Bloomberg): "Republicans shift fiscal strategy to health-care delay"

(Politico): "W.H. rejects labor’s bid for Obamacare exemption"

(The Atlantic): "The death of gun control"

Photo of the Day - Microbus on Vancouver Island

By Richard K. Barry

Yes. Groovy.

P.M. Headlines

David Vitter

(First Read): "Poll: 44 percent of Americans oppose raising debt ceiling"

(CNN): "With apparent 'opening,' U.S. and Russia extend Syria talks another day"

(National Journal): "The case against Larry Summers"

(Politico): "Will Democrats haul out hookers in David Vitter fight?

(Fox News): "At least 4 dead, thousands evacuated as Colorado flooding cuts off mountain towns"

Save the blobfish!

By Michael J.W. Stickings

This creature, the blobfish, was voted the official mascot of the Ugly Animal Preservation Society, and so may be considered the ugliest animal in the world.

Yes, this will hopefully aid in its preservation. It's not just the cute animals, after all, endangered or otherwise, that deserve our attention and support.

The bizarre creature lives off the coast of south-eastern Australia and Tasmania, at depths of between 600 and 1,200m, where atmospheric pressure is several dozen times higher than at sea level.

Its gelatinous body is just slightly more dense than water, and it spends its life "bobbing around" in the depths.

It feeds on crabs and lobsters and so suffers a significant threat from fishing trawlers. Although it is inedible itself, it gets caught up in the nets.

On the Hustings

Mike Michaud

(State and Capitol): "Mike Michaud still leads 2014 gubernatorial race in newest early poll [Maine]"

(Politicker): "Bill Thompson says he’s staying in the race as pressure mounts [New York City]"

(Roll Call): "This cycle’s top 8 most fascinating recruits (so far)"

(The Hill): "Potential Alaska Senate candidate quits current job"

(Politico): "In Alaska, fears of a GOP Senate civil war"

(Roll Call): "Conservative preacher joins North Carolina Senate primary"

Republicans' "Destroy Obamacare" campaign continues with relentless ideological abandon

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Yes, Republicans are still doing everything they can to destroy Obamacare and take access to health insurance away from tens of millions of Americans:

The House has passed legislation aimed at preventing people from receiving health insurance subsidies under ObamaCare until a better system is put in place to verify who is eligible for those subsidies.

Members passed the No Subsidies Without Verification Act, H.R. 2775, in a 235-191 vote that saw support from five Democrats.

But like dozens of other bills from the House meant to tweak or repeal ObamaCare, this one also seems likely to go nowhere in the Senate. The White House has said the bill is unnecessary, and President Obama would veto it if it were presented for his signature.

The bill from Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.) is a response to a July regulation issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). That rule gives state-run health insurance exchanges some flexibility when examining whether people are qualified for insurance subsidies, which are tax credits that can be used right away to buy insurance.

It's a minor matter and a moot point. (Read the full article for the details.) Basically, Republicans are claiming that this flexibility opens the door to abuse and fraud: applicants lying about low income so as to qualify and some slipping through the cracks due to insufficient initial checks. But the reality is that everyone would eventually be checked for eligibility and that the IRS could retroactively claw back the subsidies. What's more, the rule only applies to a small number of applicants in any event.

But this isn't really about this one rule, nor even about abuse and fraud generally. It's about using any and all means to block implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Republicans, particularly in the House, are throwing everything they can at it hoping that something ultimately brings it down.

They lost the issue, they lost the vote, public opinion is against them, and Obamacare is becoming the law of the land and an essential part of the social fabric, but as usual Republicans have their extreme right-wing agenda that for them comes before all else, including country and of course the lives and well-being of most Americans, and they'll do whatever it takes, stopping at nothing, to get their way.

A.M. Headlines

(New York Times): "The story behind the Putin op-ed article in the Times"

(The New Republic): "Here's what went unmentioned in Putin's New York Times op-ed"

(CNN): "Day 2: U.S. and Russia negotiate over Syrian chemical weapons"

(The Hill): "House votes 235-191 to stop ObamaCare's insurance subsidies"

(Daily Beast): "The rise of the new new left"

Voyager's long journey into interstellar space

By Michael J.W. Stickings

NASA launched its Voyager 1 spacecraft on September 5, 1977, the year both Star Wars and Close Encounters of the Third Kind amazed moviegoers on the silver screen. Today, a little over 36 years later, NASA confirmed that the 1,590-pound probe recently left our solar system and entered what is known as interstellar space, the first spacecraft ever to do so:

By today's standards, the spacecraft's technology is laughable: it carries an 8-track tape recorder and computers with one-240,000th the memory of a low-end iPhone. When it left Earth 36 years ago, it was designed as a four-year mission to Saturn, and everything after that was gravy.

*****

Even among planetary scientists, who tend to dream large, the idea that something they built could travel beyond the Sun's empire and keep grinding away is impressive. Plenty of telescopes gaze at the far parts of the Milky Way, but Voyager 1 can now touch and feel the cold, unexplored region in between the stars and send back detailed dispatches about conditions there. It takes 17 hours and 22 minutes for Voyager's signals to reach NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory here...

The lonely probe, which is 11.7 billion miles from Earth and hurtling away at 38,000 miles per hour, has long been on the cusp, treading a boundary between the bubble of hot, energetic particles around the solar system and the dark region beyond. There, in interstellar space, the plasma, or ionized gas, is noticeably denser.

*****

At a news conference on Thursday, NASA scientists were a bit vague about what they hope to get from Voyager 1 from now on. The answer, to some extent, depends on what instruments continue to function as the power supply dwindles. [NASA Voyager expert] Dr. [Edward] Stone expects Voyager 1 to keep sending back data — with a 23-watt transmitter, about the equivalent of a refrigerator light bulb — until roughly 2025.

One hope is that Voyager 1's position will allow scientists to more accurately study galactic cosmic rays, which are high-energy particles that originate outside the solar system. They would use the information to make judgments about what interstellar space is like at even greater distances from Earth.

In its heyday, Voyager 1 pumped out never-before-seen images of Jupiter and Saturn. But it stopped sending home pictures in 1990, to conserve energy and because there was no longer much to see. A companion spacecraft, Voyager 2, also launched in 1977, has stopped sending back images as well. Voyager 2 is moving in a different direction but is also expected to exit the solar system.

Eventually, NASA said, the Voyagers will pass other stars, coasting and drifting and being pulled by gravity. The next big encounter for Voyager 1, in around 40,000 years, is expected to be a dwarf star dispassionately known as AC+793888 in the constellation of Camelopardalis.

Amazing. Truly amazing.

Maybe one day someone, or something, will find this humble little creature and bring him home. Either way, whatever its future, Voyager is at the very forefront, literally, of our exploration of space, our first ambassador into the known and unknown that lies beyond our relatively tiny solar home.

P.M. Headlines

(New York Times): "Boehner seeks to pull Obama into debt ceiling talks"

(First Read): "No clear path in Congress to avoiding shutdown"

(Washington Post): "U.S. weapons reaching Syrian rebels"

(Washington Examiner): "House GOP: United against Obama on Syria, divided on everything else"

(CBS News): "Voyager 1 finally crosses into interstellar space"

A sad political truth

By Richard K. Barry

I'm currently working my way through Rick Perlstein's brilliant "Nixonland." In a section I just finished, Perlstein writes about a discussion paper prepared by a young Nixon staffer prior to the 1968 election. The staffer was Kevin Phillips, who is still around as a writer and commentator on politics, economics, and history.  The document he prepared was entitled, "Middle America and the Emerging Republican Majority." He later wrote a well regarded book with the title drawn for the earlier paper. 

One nugget from the document, as boiled down by Perlstein,  is that "elections are won by focusing people's resentments."

It sounds simple and obvious, but it's also a thought worth slowing down to ponder. It is, I would suggest, as sad as it is true.

The only saving grace I can offer is that it is, happily, only a part of the truth. The sometimes larger part is that people often vote for the positive change they would like to see. But any politician who fails to understand the significance of resentment in the total equation is unlikely to win very often. 

Private parts

By Carl
As you might have heard, this week, Apple introduced the new iPhone lines. These included the iPhone 5S.

The 5S includes a marvelous piece of gadgetry that can secure your phone with the use of a fingerprint. This is a step wayyyyy up from the current four digit password, which most people don’t even utilize (probably because it’s a major hassle.)

But…

In a day and age of NSA surveillance, is this something we really want? Worse, in a day and age of NSA surveillance, we have to make a decision with regards to any security measures we take with regards to anything, full stop.

It’s not an inconceivable conceit to believe that the NSA could hijack your phone, scan at least one fingerprint, and determine if, in fact, you’re a terrorist (or soon, no doubt, a criminal.) Think about it: monitor your touch screen, scan your fingerprint (or just sift it out of the database of information stored there through the backdoor) and take your picture secretly using your phone’s camera.

Read more »

What kept Anthony Weiner in the New York City mayoralty race till the end?

By Richard K. Barry

After the newer allegations about the creative things Anthony Weiner does on his computer, it seemed unbelievable that he would stay in the New York mayoralty race until the bitter end. As for myself, I didn't care that much about his hobby as long as it was with consenting adults. But after he got caught the first time it seemed politically insane to keep on doing what he was doing given that he obviously wanted to resurrect his political career. In other words, I have always been more concerned about his political judgement than his leisure time activities.

So, predictably, he came in dead last in the Democratic primary with about 5 percent of the vote. Why would he subject himself to such humiliation? Polls can be wrong at times, but there is no way he wasn't going to be humiliated. There is just no sense in this man's thought processes.

And the final scene, in which he gives a reporter from WNBC the finger on election night, says it all. I used to love the way he gave as good as he got on Fox News interviews, but there is something wrong with this fellow. Even considering the totally screwed up world that is politics in America today, Mr. Weiner needs to find another line of work. 

On the Hustings

(Public Policy Polling): "Pay raises drive McCrory's numbers down further"

(Roll Call): "DCCC taking sides in 2014 primaries"

(MLive): "Poll: Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder tops Mark Schauer; Gary Peters and Terri Lynn Land in dead heat"

(Newsweek): "Bill de who?"

(The Hill): "McConnell foe expected to get boost from liberal Hollywood donors"

Hordes of people rally for Benghazi

By Mustang Bobby

If by “hordes” you mean practically nobody who showed up at the Capitol yesterday to demand the truth about the attack a year ago.

The “Justice for Benghazi” rally was meant to be a joint effort between the Patriots4America and Special Operations Speak — two groups that have for months now been hammering establishment Republicans for what they see as not enough action to unveil what really happened in Benghazi, Libya last year. Special Operations Speak was behind a series of ads and petitions demanding that Speaker of the House John Boehner appoint a special committee to investigate the Obama administration cover-up of the attack and the deaths of four Americans including Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens. According to organizers, as many as 5,000 people were expected to show up on the Hill and make their voices heard.

At the 12:30 PM start time for the rally, though, there wasn’t very much rallying going on. Instead, there were only a handful of people gathered near the open lawn that was meant to be barely containing thousands of supporters. Many of them were hiding from the ninety-five degree weather in the shade, jostling to have their picture taken with former Rep. Alan West (R-FL) who was there for an earlier event. Several of those milling about lamented that technical difficulties had prevented the organizers from setting up their audio equipment until the time when the protest was supposed to begin.

Hey, let’s go see if they have Amelia Earhart’s lunchbox over at the Smithsonian.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Didn't see this coming. Oh, wait. Yes I did

By Richard K. Barry

Part of the problem with blogging is that after a while you feel you're saying the same thing over and over again. Then we remember that most people don't pay much attention so by the time something is said or reported a thousand times, a few people actually start to pay attention. 

Here are some non-shocking facts as reported by Teagan Goddard at Roll Call. And there's a pretty picture just in case words aren't your thing:

You got it? In 2012 the top 10 percent of earners took home more than half the country's total income, and their share is trending up.

That seems fair. I mean if they "earned it" they must "deserve it." Who can argue with logic like that?

A.M. Headlines

(Vladimir V. Putin): "A plea for caution from Russia: What Putin has to say to Americans about Syria"

(National Journal): "Obamacare opponents’ shouts for defunding largely ignored on Capitol Hill"

(CNN): "Poll: Who would get blamed for government shutdown?"

(New York Times): "Democrats press Thompson to forsake a runoff"

(AP): "Diplomats move on 2 fronts on Syria weapons"

P.M. Headlines

(CNN): "All eyes turn to U.S.-Russia talks; UN could get chem weapons report next week"

(Politico): "Obama's zig and zag"

(Washington Post): "House Republican leaders delay vote on new budget bill until next week"

(Public Policy Polling): "Reflecting on the Colorado recalls"

(Christian Science Monitor): "40 years later, Chile struggles with legacy of Pinochet coup"

(USA Today): "9/11 anniversary a time of remembrance, reflection"

Hypocrisy, Obama, and war

By Frank Moraes

Steve Benen rightly points out that there is a great deal of hypocrisy on the right regarding Syria. He quotes Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Steve Israel as saying, "Does anyone truly believe that if Mitt Romney had been elected president and had asked House Republicans for exactly what President Obama is asking, that House Republicans would oppose it to the extent that they're opposed to what President Obama wants? The level of hypocrisy is what amazes me." Benen notes that it really isn't true that the Democrats are hypocrites in the opposite direction. When Bush Jr was in power, Congressional Democrats were really terrible when it came to issues of war and surveillance. And now, they are really terrible when it comes to issues of war and surveillance.

I think that the situation is far worse with the Republican base. These are people who are now and forever more for war whenever and wherever they can find it. And now that Charles Krauthammer is telling them that this is a Bad War, they are all falling in line. It isn't so much that the Republican base is hypocritical as that it is made up of a bunch of sheep who would gladly line up for castration if Fox News told them to. You can see this in a recent poll that found that 40% of Republican voters were against attacking Syria just two weeks ago and now 70% are against it.

The Democratic base is not as reliably anti-war as the Republican base is pro-war. But it is pretty reliable. It also seems that Democratic voters are less easily led. Two weeks ago 48% were against it and now 53% are against it.


Read more »

Remember the Raisin!

By Capt. Fogg

The people who like to manipulate us by creating and preserving anger, like to give us slogans. Remember the Maine, Remember the Alamo, Remember Pearl Harbor, Remember the Raisin! Never Forget!!

All these things are inevitably forgotten despite the slogan advertising campaigns and sooner or later we'll get tired of remembering 9/11. Sloganeers will get tired of milking the faded fear and self-pity and choreographed mourning. The people who were born too late to remember it will eventually need to be told to remember something else that some party needs to cultivate anger about, so as to pass some kind of horror like the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 or the Patriot Act. 9/11 will be forgotten by most everyone but historians and those who remember will remember it in context of the things we did and the laws we passed and the freedom we gave up while we were whipped into a passion.

Think calls to 'always remember' are genuine and untainted by politics? Wonder why we shouted Remember Hoover! in 1936 but nobody remembers to Remember Bush? Remember Katrina and at least 1800 fatalities? Why not? We spent billions and billions on a the Largest government agency in history and abridged the Bill of Rights in 2001, but we didn't do a damned thing to improve reactions to natural disasters which you can be sure will occur more often than a repeat of 9/11.

I suspect that calls to remember are calls to preserve a mental state in which we can be manipulated, tricked and sold some unsavory product. Stay angry, stay afraid and obey.

(Cross posted at Human Voices.)

On the Hustings

(Denver Post): "Colorado Senate President John Morse, state Sen. Angela Giron ousted"

(The Hill): "Top Democrat predicts Syria crisis off the political radar by 2014"

(First Read): ""McAuliffe works to shed grip-and-grin rap in Virginia race"

(Roll Call): "The cheap seats: Senate majority determined in inexpensive states"

(The Hill): "Poll: Hagan leads North Carolina challengers by double digits"

Hold that thought

By Mustang Bobby

President Obama’s speech last night on the possible attack on Syria was couched in moral terms, basically saying that the last thing he wanted to do was send missiles flying into Damascus, but he believed that America and America alone had both the obligation and authority to do so. As such, he portrayed us as both reluctant — reminding us that he campaigned as the anti-war candidate in 2008 — but devastating: “America doesn’t do pinpricks.”

The whole speech became more a discussion of possibilities rather than necessities thanks to the news that was breaking all day: there might be an agreement brokered by Russia for Syria to get rid of its stockpile of chemical weapons and for Syria to sign on to the convention that banned such weapons. The diplomacy is still going on, and while we don’t yet have a celebratory signing ceremony planned on the White House lawn, things look a lot more hopeful than they did a week ago. And the fact that he delivered the speech from the East Room rather than the Oval Office was encouraging: presidents never deliver bad news from the East Room.

Congress heaved a huge sigh of relief. With the diplomacy underway, the hot potato the president handed them last week cooled off: the vote on the resolution has been postponed pending the outcome of the talks. Now they no longer have to put up or shut up. It also gaveSenate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) the all-clear to finally say something about Syria — he’d been holding back because his instinctive rah-rah for war was being outweighed by his instinct for survival in his Senate race. The Tea Party is vehemently against the idea of an attack because The Black Guy is for it, and Mr. McConnell faces a primary challenge back home. Now he can be true to his pandering, and he unloaded on the president, going Rand Paul on him and sounding like the true toady to the nutsery that he has to be to stay alive politically.

Read more »

A.M. Headlines

(New York Times): "Obama's remarks on Syria"

(Ezra Klein): "The White House may really be about to win on Syria"

(Politico): "De Blasio leads in N.Y.C. exit polls"

(New York Times): "Stringer defeats Spitzer in comptroller primary"

(USA Today): "Humberto is first hurricane of 2013 season"

P.M. Headlines

(USA Today): "Obama to address nation on Syria, pursues U.N. deal"

(AP): "Syria says it accepted Russia's weapons proposal"

(New York Times): "Russian proposal could offer Obama escape from bind"

(Time Magazine): "Colorado civil war"

(The American Prospect): "A true liberal mayor at last?"

Sochi agonists

By Carl

 I’m on the fence about boycotting the Sochi Olympics next year over the LGBT punishments handed out by Vladimir Putin and the Russian government.

I can certainly see the point of making a boycott, withdrawing our athletes over treating anyone as subhuman – altho it’s interesting that many of the people rallying for a boycott oppose intervention in Syria over a far worse human rights abuse…one of the reasons I’m on the fence here, because I’m on the fence there, too.

 Still, something about it all bothered me, and then I happened to catch this on the new ESPN show, “Olbermann,” the new home of an old friend of the blog, Keith Olbermann.

 Watch Johnny Weir speak passionately on not boycotting and then tell me if I’m wrong that his point about Jesse Owens isn’t one of the most powerful statements made about this issue, altho Keith Olbermann made a great point about Marty Glickman at those same Games.

(Cross-posted at Simply Left Behind.)

On the Hustings

(New York Times): "Long, stormy mayoral primary hurtles to finish"

(DCCC): "DCCC announces nine additions to Jumpstart program for top tier candidates"

(The Hill): "Teachers' union launching ads for McAuliffe in Virginia"

(Washington Post): "Veteran Democratic strategist says he’s pulling for Cuccinelli in Virginia governor’s race"

(Roll Call): "McConnell primary challenger vows 'expensive race'"

Running with nothing

By Mustang Bobby

Rick Scott is one of the more unpopular political figures in the country, but he’ll probably get re-elected.

When Rick Scott won a bruising battle for Florida’s governorship three years ago, he inherited an economy in disarray. He ostracized allies with his stubborn streak, emboldened foes through his slash-and-burn budgeting and was dubbed by pollsters “America’s least popular governor.”

It’s still a political eternity until the Republican former health-care CEO stands before voters again. But the crosswinds have shifted in ways that make his re-election in 2014 much less of a long shot than Tallahassee prognosticators once expected.

With former Gov. Charlie Crist planning to jump into the governor’s race this fall, national liberal groups and allies of President Obama — eager to build on Obama’s two statewide victories — are expected to pour massive resources into the formerGOP star’s coffers.

But Democrats are stuck in a fundraising holding pattern while they wait, as other potential entrants such as former state Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink sit on the sidelines.

“It’s a problem. Time’s a-wasting,” said Sink, who narrowly lost to Scott in 2010 and says she’ll decide on a rematch “soon.”

“By this time four years ago, I probably had $2 [million] or $3 million already.”

Crist, meanwhile, isn’t hurrying his decision. “A decision needs to be made before the end of the year,” he said. “Everybody has their own timeline, and we should all respect that. It’s a very personal decision.”

Meanwhile, there are growing signs that Scott — an unknown in Florida until his $100 million campaign drowned out primary- and general-election challengers in 2010 — will be a formidable contender next year. 

Read more »

Florida arrests all...except for murder

By Frank Moraes

George Zimmerman was arrested on some domestic assault charge. Whatever. I've always felt he was kind of an idiot. But I was very interested in what the Lake Mary police spokesman Zach Hudson said about Zimmerman's detention. "Anytime we have anybody suspected of doing anything, we place them in investigative detention until a complete investigation has been done." What a difference 5 miles makes!

You see, when Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin, he was in Sanford, Florida. That's 5 whole miles away. Apparently, in Sanford, anytime they have anybody suspected of doing anything other than murder, they place them in investigative detention. What's more, in Sanford, they do criminal background checks on the victims, not the perpetrators. But mostly, they just assume that if you killed someone, he must have had it coming.

I'm glad to see that in Lake Mary they take policing more seriously. Or do they? After all, George Zimmerman didn't kill anyone this time. Maybe if he had stood his ground against his wife and killed her, he wouldn't be in jail. "She was banging my head against the colander and I felt threatened!" We won't know until George Zimmerman kills again. Check back here for updates!

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

A.M. Headlines

(Washington Post): "France to push Russian proposal on Syrian chemical weapons at U.N. Security Council"

(ABC News): "Obama: Strike 'absolutely' on hold if Syria abandons chemical weapons"

(The Jerusalem Post): "What is Israel's interest in Syria"

(Reuters): "Futures climb on rosy China data, easing Syria fears"

(Fox News): "4 men convicted in fatal Delhi gang rape of student"

P.M. Headlines

(The Guardian): "John Kerry gives Syria week to hand over chemical weapons or face attack"

(USA Today): "Strike to degrade Syrian forces would still be limited"

(Politico): "The party of hawks turns dovish on Syria"

(CBC News): "George Zimmerman's wife won't press charges despite 911 call"

(CNN): "The president and the pipeline"

Thoughts on Syria

By Carl

A couple of ruminations came up in my head over the weekend when I contemplated the latest from Syria:

1) Do you think that the corporatists are screaming bloody murder that their chosen  party, Republicans, are not falling in line like the sheeple they are?

2) Is part of the reason Teabaggers aren’t falling in line to get a pound of flesh out of Assad because they’d finally have to acknowledge that global warming is a real threat to the world and by extension, us? Assad has been diverting water from the rural communities (and farms) to the cities to help ease the thirst of not only the permanent urban citizenry, but also the massive influx of refugees from those self-same rural communities ravaged by drought. As he’s moved closer to the city to divert water – notably, the suburbs – the civil unrest has gotten worse.

3) Would this conflict even be discussed if some bonehead President hadn’t gotten us engulfed (pun intended) in a war of choice that last more than a decade? After all, President Clinton managed to gather a coalition of NATO and other allies, including Russia, to get on board to seek first diplomatic means and then military solutions to the ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia. One presumes that had we not become a truly evil nation in the past twenty years, we’d have the moral authority now to ask again.

4) I’m not sure Assad understands the Iraq war, however. Is he trying to rally his allies by playing the martyr card? Is it possible he’s telling the truth, as Hussein did?

5) Loren Thompson has a point: If Obama fails to garner the votes to authorize retaliation, he actually wins in the long run, domestically. And I think the US gains a measure of credibility back, too. For 213 of our 236+ years of existence, the United States has been at war with somebody. It’s really long past time to call us “warmongers”. The last time we were not at war? Dec. 6, 1941 (if you include the Cold War. If not, you need only look to Jimmy Carter’s administration.)

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Reining them in

By Mustang Bobby

Putting aside the pros and cons of attacking Syria, a lot of people — and by that I mean the various and sun-dried pundits inside the Beltway — seem to be worried about what it will mean for the future of the presidency of Barack Obama and anyone else who should come after.

Frankly, it’s a silly argument to make, especially if you think that political considerations have always been in the mix when an administration decides to go to war, and this administration is no different. More’s the pity; there’s not a lot of attention paid to the actual consequences of unloading the 82nd Airborne on a country or the aftereffects on the soldiers and the families. But that’s usually left to the next guy.

At any rate, there’s a lot of faux hand-wringing over what a No vote will do for the image of President Obama. E.J. Dionne has gone so far as to say it will “incapacitate the president for three long years.” But if history is any guide, presidents who have lost votes on key issues in Congress have lived to fight another day and done pretty well after. Bill Clinton survived impeachment, and even George W. Bush managed to eke out a second term after his attempt to turn Social Security over to Wall Street died a quick and merciless death. And those guys had it easy compared to what President Obama has faced from a Republican Party that has objected to everything he’s done and threatened impeachment over his choice of breakfast cereal.

Read more »

On the Hustings

(Public Policy Polling): "de Blasio on verge of avoiding runoff"

(The Hill): "Senate primary challengers target GOP incumbents on Syria strikes"

(Fox News): "Early turnout strong in Colorado recall effort on gun-control legislation"

(Real Clear Politics): "Senate election polls"

(Washington Post): "Is Berger hinting at U.S. Senate bid?"

Two-state solution unlikely anytime soon

By Frank Moraes

I'm very interested in the Israel-Palestine conflict, but it is such a mess that I rarely hazard an opinion about it. So I was very interested to see an article this morning in Al Jazeera America, Analysis: Israelis Not Ready for Two-State Solution. It is by an Israeli journalist, Dimi Reider, and it is calm—and sad.

His analysis is that the Israeli people are not ready for a two state solution to the conflict. They claim to be for one, but this is mostly just theoretical well wishing. When asked about things like land swaps, which would be necessary for any deal, they disagree. What's more, public opinion goes down the more an actual plan comes into focus. So it really comes down to the fact that the Israeli people would like peace, but they really aren't willing sacrifice anything to get it.

Even worse, Palestinian attacks on Israelis end up hurting the poor almost exclusively, "those who would use public transport and shop in outdoor markets." Thus, the power elite have no reason to want a settlement to the crisis and the poor are angry about the bombings and so become more nationalistic.

The situation on the Palestinian side is far worse. They have largely learned that violence only makes their lives harder. So Palestinian nonviolent protest—never a minor form of political involvement (not that you would know it fromwestern press coverage)—has greatly expanded in recent years. But this puts them in a Catch-22 situation. If they engage in violence, it will make things worse and will not lead to a negotiated settlement. But if they do not engage in violence, there will be no pressure on the Israeli government to do anything and so it will not lead to a negotiated settlement.

Read more »

A.M. Headlines

(CBS News): "Bashar Assad tells Charlie Rose U.S. should "expect every action" in response to Syria strikes"

(Reuters): "Kerry: Syrian handover of all chemical arms could prevent attack"

(Washington Post): "Kerry says Saudi Arabia has agreed to support military strike against Syria"

(CNN): "Poll: Public against Syria strike resolution"

(Politico): "Clinton will speak on Syria"

(The Hill): "Fears of wounding Obama weigh heavily on Democrats ahead of vote"

Listening to Now: Bruno Mars, your Super Bowl 2014 entertainment

By Richard K. Barry

Keeping with today's football theme here at The Reaction, I'm pleased to pass on, courtesy of the Hollywood Reporter, that Bruno Mars will play the Pepsi Super Bowl XLVIII Halftime Show on Feb. 2, 2014. (Hooray!!!)

And, as you may know, it's a big deal:

The Super Bowl is traditionally the most-watched U.S. television event every year, but the Halftime Show often scores higher ratings than the game itself. Madonna's 2012 performance currently ranks as the most-watched event in U.S. television history, with over 114 million viewers tuning in. Beyonce's 2013 performance, the first Halftime sponsored by Pepsi, attracted 110.5 million.

The first time I heard this tune I thought it was The Police, or a tribute band. Anyway, I like Bruno. 

P.M. Headlines

(Sydney Morning Herald): "Kerry: Arab League agrees Syria crossed 'global red line'"

(Washington Post): "Obama administration had restrictions on NSA reversed in 2011"

(Spiegel Online): "NSA can spy on smart phone data"

(CNN): "Rand Paul lays out demands ahead of potential Syria filibuster"

(USA Today): "NAACP chief Ben Jealous to resign, cites family reasons"

Gov. Christie doesn't understand loyalty

By Richard K. Barry

The NFL Network interviewed New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie this week on a range of topics. One was the frequently heard complaint that both the Giants and the Jets play at MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey but are still identified as New York teams. There was also talk about Super Bowl XLVIII that will take place at MetLife Stadium on Feb. 2, 2014. Everyone is treating it like it is taking place in New York. I even see that the organizers call themselves the NY/NJ Host Committee. This all seems to annoy Christie.

Yes, I remember when the Giants made the move to the Garden State, but no head of marketing was ever going to call them the New Jersey Giants. It wasn't going to happen. As a New Yorker, I was good with that.

But the thing that pissed me off about the interview with Christie was his proud declaration as a Dallas Cowboys' fan.

He explains himself this way:

"I'm a Dallas Cowboys fan," the governor told NFL Network in a segment that aired Sunday morning. "I saw Roger Staubach play for the first time, and this was 1971, and I became a huge Staubach fan. And as a result, a Cowboys fan, and I've been one ever since."

How do Christie's constituents feel about that development? Exactly as you might expect.

"Oh, they hate it," Christie said. "Giants fans, obviously, are more hateful of my rooting interests, but, you know, I told them right from the beginning when I was running in 2009. You get asked those kind of questions and I didn't try to hide it. I'm a Cowboys fan, I'm proud of it, and you got to be true to the team you've been rooting for your whole life."

And he said more. He talked about why he wasn't a Giants' fan in the 60s and 70s. The answer: Because the Giants sucked back then, and boy did they ever (who could forget the 1966 1-12-1 season?). 

I'm a few years older then Gov. Christie so I became a Giants' fan just in time to completely miss their championship runs in the 50's and early 60s. Still, I suffered through the later 60s, all of the 70s, and the early 80s because I'm a New Yorker and that's what you do when you're from a place.

Chris Christie turned his back on his home town team to root for their arch rival because the enemy had a better team.

No wonder Republicans question his loyalty. I would to. 

On the Hustings

(National Journal): "Why this New York mayoral election is unlike any in decades"

(The Hill): "Weiner not ready to call it quits"

(Arkansas Business): "Syria role unclear in Arkansas Senate race between Pryor and Cotton"

(Washington Post): "Legislative session will matter in race for Hagan’s Senate seat"

(Courier-Journal): "Mitch McConnell, Alison Lundergan Grimes have gender gaps to cross"

President Pete King?

By Richard K. Barry

No, not this one.

Looks like Rep. Pete King (R-NY) is going to be running for the GOP nomination for the presidency in 2016, or so he says. According to the New York Daily News, commenting on his recent trip to New Hampshire:

King, making his second of four scheduled visits to the state in the summer and fall, told a New Hampshire radio station Friday that he’s there “because right now I'm running for President.”

Well, that's a pretty clear statement, and although King is by no means the best known of potential Republican contenders, he is, as of now, the first.

The Daily News also notes that King's lack of name recognition could be a problem as one local in New Hampshire commented that the only Pete King he knew was a football analyst.