Images of the Dark Side: The BBC's Darkside teaser

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Last month, BBC Radio 2 aired a play (with visuals on the website) -- Darkside -- based on Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon, in my view the greatest album of all time. It also released a teaser video that you can watch below:

Legendary playwright Sir Tom Stoppard has penned this drama, which features Bill Nighy, Rufus Sewell and Adrian Scarborough, with the lead roles played by Olivier Award-winning Iwan Rheon (Misfits) and stage actress Amaka Okafor (The Garbage King).

The visuals have been created by Aardman Animations of Wallace and Gromit fame.

I was on vacation and missed the play, but apparently it's going to be aired again this year. I suppose I'm looking forward to it, but I'm also skeptical. Pink Floyd's music speaks to me in ways that touch me deeply, more so than any other music I've ever heard, more so than The Beatles, Porcupine Tree, and Bruce Springsteen. I don't really need, or want, to hear anyone else's "take." However interesting it may be, I would undoubtedly find it lacking, including as a play.

And while there have always been visuals to go along with the music -- I've seen them in concert, which are multimedia events, they've produced videos (of sorts) for many of their songs, and of course The Wall is also a movie (if one not nearly as good as the album) -- the music has always come first, inspiring thoughts and feelings, and images in one's mind, that cannot adequately be captured visually, just as they cannot adequately be captured narratively.

But if this amazing teaser is any indication, it's a worthy and respectful play, and maybe something that can be added to the list of essential artworks about, or inspired by, Pink Floyd.

Enjoy!

P.M. Headlines

(Washington Post): "Declassified document: US narrowly escaped nuclear blast in 1961 H-bomb accident"

(Politico): "Obama calls Boehner, rules out debt negotiations"

(Paul Krugman): "More SNAP judgments"

(Washington Post): "Syria submits further details of chemical weapons to monitoring group"

(Wall Street Journal): "For BlackBerry, consumers aren't the only problem"

The beautiful Costa Concordia

By Frank Moraes

(Ed. note: Originally, this post incorrectly stated that two people died. In actual fact, 32 people died. We regret the error. Also, as you probably know, the ship was recently raised following a massive salvaging operation. I blogged about it, with pics and a video clip, here. -- MJWS)

On 13 January 2012, the cruise ship Costa Concordia hit a rock off Isola del Giglio and basically fell over. It was sad -- mostly because 32 people died. Yesterday, an acquaintance sent me a link to the image above (the link has a higher resolution image).

In a fundamental sense, I have a very immature appreciation for art. I like bright colors. A lot. And in that way, I don't suppose that I'm much different from most toddlers. There is much to like in this picture. The composition is great -- the various elements fit together like blocks. The light on the pole out frame is a nice touch. And the whole thing looks like the mess that one wakes to after a hard night of drinking.

But mostly, I just like the red, blue, and yellow.

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

On the Hustings

(Politico): "Rick Perry's bid to stay relevant for 2016"

(The Roanoke Times): "Roanoke College poll finds Virginia races not generating front runners"

(Tampa Bay Times): "Alex Sink won't run for governor [Florida]"

(AP): "Health law separates potential GOP 2016 contenders"

(Des Moines Register): "Iowa’s Chuck Grassley: I am running for re-election"

Church sign of the day

By Mustang Bobby

Hey, Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-ND):

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

P.M. Headlines

(Voice of America): "US House passes budget bill that defunds health care law"

(New York Times): "House passes spending bill cutting health funds, drawing Obama’s scorn"

(CNN): "Peter King: Ted Cruz is a fraud"

(Washington Post): "In blow to immigration reform, House 'gang of seven’ bill looks dead"

(National Journal): "Inside Boehner's plan to avoid shutdown (and wound Obamacare)"

GOP loses on government shutdown

By Frank Moraes

The Republicans really are divided. But it isn't between the crazy and non-crazy. It is between the nihilists and the extremists. What are normally referred to as the Tea Party are just conservatives who aren't interested in the political process and so want to send "messages." As a result, those who want to, you know, win elections, are pretty upset at what is going on in Washington right now. Bear in mind, these people are not any more interested in what is best for the country than the Tea Party is; they just recognize that explicitly trying to destroy the nation is a really bad marketing campaign for the GOP.

Byron York is a man who I almost never agree with, but he was making a lot of sense yesterday. Over at the Washington Times he wrote, Actually, Senate GOP Can't Filibuster to Defund Obamacare. It's a really good article because it explains some of the ins and outs of congressional process that I have to admit to finding mysterious. He points out that the Republicans do not have the 41 votes they need for a filibuster in the Senate. But it's worse than that. "Cruz & Co" can't even stage an old fashioned talking filibuster.

This morning, the House passed their bill of a continuing resolution (CR) along with defunding Obamacare. But as York points out, Harry Reid can just strip this out of the bill with a simple majority vote:

Then, when the defunding continuing resolution is being considered, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will propose a motion to strike the defunding provision from the continuing resolution. Senate rules allow that to be decided on a simple majority vote. Democrats will vote to strike the defunding portion and set up a final up-or-down vote on the continuing resolution, which at that point will be just a measure to fund the government, including Obamacare. There will be a simple majority vote. The measure will pass.

Read more »

On the Hustings

(Politico): "Hillary all but running"

(Suffolk University News): "Poll shows Connolly separating from pack [Boston mayoralty]"

(Wall Street Journal): "Karl Rove: The GOP's self-defeating 'defunding' strategy"

(The Federalist): "Ken Cuccinelli's window of opportunity"

(The Hill): "Cantor: 2014 could complicate Senate Dems budget plan"

As predictable as the weather

By Mustang Bobby

ThinkProgress notes that the four Colorado Republican House members who demanded federal aid for relief from the flood-stricken Front Range also voted against federal aid for relief for the states hit by Hurricane Sandy last year.

Colorado Republican Reps. Mike Coffman, Cory Gardner, Doug Lamborn, and Scott Tipton joined their delegation in asking the president to send emergency funds to help their constituents combat and recover from the more than 14 inches of rain that have flooded Colorado this month.

All four also signed onto a July 10, 2013 letter from the entire delegation to President Obama asking him for a federal major disaster declaration for summer wildfires. Their request noted that such a declaration would “provide urgently needed resources and support to the state, communities, and especially the families who have been uprooted by these wildfires.”

But back in January, a vote in the House of Representatives provided $50 billion in Sandy relief, yet among those voting against the bill were Coffman, Gardner, Lamborn, and Tipton. Their opposition stemmed, in part, because they we unable to steer some of the Sandy aid to their own state. Though he had himself sought disaster aid after damages from Colorado wildfires in June 2012, Lamborn evenvoted against a smaller $9 billion emergency Sandy relief bill 11 days earlier.

Note the part that says they voted against it not because they’re fiscal conservatives and didn’t want to spend the money. It’s because they couldn’t steer any of the money to Colorado.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

A.M. Headlines

Robert Gates

(New York Times): "House Republicans pass deep cuts in food stamps"

(CNN): "McCain: To think we can repeal Obamacare 'is not rational'

(Washington Post): "Boehner challenges Cruz to ‘pick up mantle’ on Obamacare fight"

(Dave Weigel): "Welcome to the Republican Party’s make-believe fight to defund Obamacare"

(New York Times): "Former defense secretaries criticize Obama on Syria"

P.M. Headlines

(Miami Herald): "Pope warns church must find new balance or fail"

(Statesman): "DeLay appellate lawyer: ‘We won the Super Bowl’"

(CNN): "Congress: Will it be a government shutdown or budget compromise?"

(TPM): "Boehner to Cruz: Time to put up or shut up on defunding Obamacare"

(CBS News): "Obama's second-term slump: Syria and Summers"

Is God speaking through Pope Francis?

By Frank Moraes

I have long had a desire to be a member of a church. Being an atheist, I know that the kingdom of God must be here on earth if it is to be anywhere. It is only through our connections with others and our work for a better world that we can be whole. And I really would like to be part of an organized group to share in that.

Generally, I imagine something very nebulous in its theology but committed to social justice. So I'm surprised to see what's happening in the Catholic Church. Pope Francis is making me feel like God (who I know doesn't exist) really is reaching out to me. Up to now, I've been fairly impressed with him, but I thought a lot of what he said was a little too carefully stated. This morning, however, I read the following from theAssociated Press:

Pope Francis has warned that the Catholic Church's moral structure might "fall like a house of cards" if it doesn't balance its divisive rules about abortion, gays and contraception with the greater need to make it a merciful, more welcoming place for all.

The man is starting to sound like the Dalai Lama! The dogma is still a problem, of course. (It is with the Dalai Lama too.) The Bible does indeed say a lot of vile things. But it isn't clear to me that the church is stuck with these things. Despite what Biblical literalists say (and Catholics are not Biblical literalists), there are things in the Bible that no one accepts today. For example, everyone is against slavery, even though the Bible is pretty keen on it. So the Catholic Church really is capable of changing into the kind of institution that I could support.

Now, I'm not expecting this in my lifetime. But if the Catholic Church is to get to the point where the Sermon on the Mount is its basis rather than Leviticus, it must start with a Pope who prioritizes mercy above dogma about whether embryos have souls. And it looks like this is what Francis is doing. I've long desired a religion that spoke to the needs of modern man. But maybe that isn't really so necessary. Maybe all that is necessary is a reinterpretation of the old religions—one that jettisons the old fearful and bigoted dogma and focuses on enlightenment, community, and mercy.

Francis is the first Pope through whom it seems God just might be speaking—to me.

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

On the Hustings

(Chicago Tribune): Hillary Clinton calls Quinn 'luckiest politician' after Daley drops out"

(National Journal): "Justin Amash will not run for Senate in Michigan"

(The Hill): "Jeb Bush: ObamaCare defunding push 'quite dicey' politically"

(Roll Call): "Recalls haven’t changed Colorado Senate picture — yet"

(Politico): "West Virginia Senate race 2014: Natalie Tennant seeks distance from Obama, coal policy"

Cruzin' along

By Mustang Bobby

Now that the House has been goaded by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) into threatening to shut down the government over Obamacare, he’s telling them that, well, when it gets to the Senate, it’s not going to happen. And now the Tea Partiers in the House who were left holding the bag arepissed.

“(Senate Majority Leader) Harry Reid will no doubt try to strip the defund language from the continuing resolution, and right now he likely has the votes to do so,” Cruz said in the statement.

“At that point, House Republicans must stand firm, hold their ground, and continue to listen to the American people. President Obama has already granted Obamacare exemptions to big corporations and Members of Congress; he should not threaten to shut down the government just to deny those same exemptions to hard-working American families.”

[...]

The reaction from House Republicans and senior GOP leadership aides to Cruz’s latest statement on the matter was swift and angry, both about Cruz’s lack of confidence in a vote and his urging of the House to “stand firm.”

“They said nothing is impossible if you fight hard enough, and the minute the House announces the vote, they give up the fight? It’s crazy,” one senior GOP leadership aide told CNN.

“They should walk the walk,” the aide said, predicting it would backfire on the conservative senators.

Another senior GOP leadership aide took a shot at Cruz declining to say whether he would filibuster the bill, telling CNN, “It is disappointing to see that Wendy Davis has more balls than Ted Cruz,” in reference to the state senate Democrat who filibustered an abortion bill in the Texas legislature over the summer.

So he basically got everyone all riled up to do what he told them, so they did it, and now he’s all “see ya later!” No wonder they feel like they got punk’d.

And yes, Wendy Davis does have more balls, metaphorically speaking.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

A.M. Headlines

(NBC News): "Obama orders security review after DC shooting, Defense Department report"

(NBC News): "Navy Yard reopens as authorities probe shooter's motive, history"

(CNN): "House Republicans question Cruz's ObamaCare-defunding fervor"

(Bloomberg): "Bernanke resets policy by doing nothing as markets soar"

(CNN): "In Pravda, John McCain slams Vladimir Putin"

What's in a name?

By Mustang Bobby

We all know that Obamacare doesn’t poll well with Republicans. But ask them what they think of the Affordable Care Act, and they perk right up.

Republicans like the 2010 health care law better when it’s called by its proper name — the Affordable Care Act — instead of Obamacare, according to a new Fox Newspoll.

Republican support for the law jumped eight percent, from 14 percent for Obamacare to 22 percent for the Affordable Care Act, when pollsters revised the question’s language.

Overall support increased from 34 percent to 39 percent with the change. Democratic support moved one percent; independent support rose four percent.

This is a pretty good example of what Bill Maher calls “blacktracking” — “the act of changing one’s mind because President Obama has agreed with you.”

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

When does it end? When will they ever learn?

By Carl

The DC Navy yard massacre this week has raised a whole raft of questions, everything from mental health issues to calls for more gun control, which of course I see as the larger issue in this and every other case of mass killings by a single gunman.

(A side note: As my good friend Scott Eric Kaufmann puts it, “I feel sorry for them [conservatives]…if it’s a mental health issue, Obamacare could cover it.”)

When will the culture at large ignore the little thumb-sucking babies who populate the gun nut fringe of the right wing of the country and pass sensible gun control? Moreover, when will those diaper-clad nimrods finally recognize the very evil in their midst, the very evil they perpetrate upon the rest of us?

Could these delusional yahoos really be so out of touch, could they be such blood-thirsty bastards, that they would ignore the tens of thousands of innocent dead just for the sake of stroking their barrels and thrusting their bullets deep into a chamber?

If so, could they please get the fuck out of the way of the rest of us, so WE can be safe?

Guns kill. People use guns to kill, because if they stood there and yelled “BANG!,” I don’t think too many people would die (apologies to Eddie Izzard).

Knives kill too, but a) knives have additional uses, where the sole use of a gun is destruction of life, and b) nobody has ever killed dozens in a random mass knife attack.

It’s long past time for the cowardice to end. It’s long past time for the little boys and little girls who walk around afraid of their own shadows to grow the fuck up.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Fox News is destroying democracy

By Frank Moraes

I just watched the end of today's Special Report with Bret Baier. For those not familiar, the show ends with a discussion amongst commentators. The star is Charles Krauthammer. And it is clear why he is such a big deal among conservatives. Compared to the knee jerk Obama haters, he comes off like a fucking sage. Baier himself stays above the fray. This allows him to say, at the end of show, immediately after the commentators, "That's Special Report for this time, please tune us in next time, and in the meantime, more news is on the way—fair, balanced and unafraid."

The other two commentators were Weekly Standard columnist Stephen Hayes and then some blond female commentator. (It's hard to keep them straight onFox News!) What was most evident with them was how they were against whatever Obama did. Most of the segment was about how Obama gave a "political" speech about how we shouldn't shut the government down when the Navy Yard shooting had not worked itself out of media's focus. It was really amazing because there is absolutely no doubt that whatever Obama said or did or did not say or did not do, they would have complained. But not to worry, because it was "fair, balanced, and unafraid."

Read more »

On the Hustings

(Quinnipiac): "Virginia voters dislike McAuliffe less than Cuccinelli"

(Star Telegram): "Wendy Davis to announce gubernatorial decision Oct. 3 [Texas]"

(New York Times): "De Blasio has huge lead over Lhota, poll finds [New York City]"

(Public Policy Polling): "Shaheen, Hassan lead for reelection [New Hampshire]"

(Charlie Cook): "Get ready for the status quo"

Why is Ken Cuccinelli losing the Virginia gubernatorial race?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It's certainly interesting to see that climate change has become a central issue in the much-watched Virginia gubernatorial race between Republican Ken Cuccinelli and Democrat Terry McAuliffe. It has a lot to do with the fact that Virginia has a significant coal industry, of course, but Cuccinelli is also a head-up-his-ass climate change denialist, and that has opened the door for McAuliffe to strike.

One would hope that Virginia voters abhor Cuccinelli's ideological fervor and abject ignorance, and hold him accountable at the polls for this and so many other far-right views, but it's just hard to see the electorate really deciding this race over such a serious public policy matter.

No, I think we know why Cuccinelli, the state's abhorrent attorney general, is behind even against a shifty character like McAuliffe. And no, it's not because Virginia is now a purple state leaning more and more blue.

No, it all comes down to blow jobs, and specifically to Cuccinelli's objection to them.

I mean, most people like blow jobs, right? Surely at least the slightly-less-than-half male part of the electorate to which Cuccinelli himself belongs is nothing if not enthusiastic about them, and surely there are some in the slightly-more-than-half of the other part who at least don't mind them and may even see them as central to their sexual experience, perhaps even as an enjoyable component of it, if not always a necessity no matter how desperately, if not pathetically, the other part pleads for them.

You see, Cuccinelli is the anti-blow job candidate, and really the anti-"sodomy" candidate generally, which means he objects to oral and anal generally. I needn't delve into the enthusiasm that concerns the latter, but the key here is that Cuccinelli objects not just to fellatio but to cunnilingus as well, and that should arouse the indignation of the slightly-more-than-half part of the electorate that finds itself on the receiving end of that act.

Well, and the giving end too. For both. Because, of course, we're talking not just about straight sex but about gay sex as well, and of course the far-right Cuccinelli is hardly a fan of what the gays do, nor of gay rights, nor, one imagines, of the gays themselves, because he's basically a bigot. Anyway, maybe he likes hand jobs or BDSM or something, though we don't know what and what is not, for him, a "crime against nature," but the point is that if you're not doing it like Christian procreationists, presumably with the lights out, in the missionary position, and with a great deal of guilt and shame, you're basically Satan's spawn, and that really cuts down on the fun any straight couple can have and even more of the fun any gay couple can have.

In any event, I'm sure there are any number of important issues that are animating this high-profile race and engaging the electorate, but Cuccinelli's anti-sex agenda has to be the driving force behind his poor showing in the polls, no?*

Because a lot of people really, really, really like blow jobs. Even in Virginia.

(*Okay, fine, probably not. But it should be part of it. Virginians deserve to know just what he wants to do to their sex lives.)

Raising the Costa Concordia

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The Costa Concordia, as you may know, is a cruise ship that ran aground off the coast of Italy in January 2012 and then basically tipped over onto its side. Thirty-two people died.

Twenty months and a massive, still-in-progress salvage operation later, the ship has finally been righted. It is still partially submerged, its right side (the one that was under water for more than 600 days) is discolored, and part of its hull has been crushed by the ship's own weight, but at least it can now be repaired enough for it to be towed to port, likely next year, and scrapped.

Here's a time-lapse video of the "parbuckling" operation:


And here are a few amazing photos from The Atlantic (linked above) -- I recommend checking out the full spread of 38 photos.

Behind the Ad: Carl M. Sciortino and his dad

By Richard K. Barry

Who: The Carl M. Sciortino campaign 

Where: Massachusetts

What's going on: Democratic State Representative Carl M. Sciortino is a candidate for the Democratic nomination in the 2013 special election to succeed Ed Markey as a U.S. Representative for Massachusetts's 5th district. In a new ad, as explained by the Boston Globe, "Sciortino underlines his liberal credentials in a playful back and forth with his father, who doesn’t share his left-of-center views."

It's a very sweet ad.

As for the nomination race:

The other Democrats running in special primary election in the heavily Democratic district are: state Senators Karen Spilka of Ashland and Will Brownsberger of Belmont; Middlesex Sheriff Peter J. Koutoujian of Waltham; Martin Long, an Arlington author; and Stoneham resident Paul John Maisano, who works in the construction industry.

The primary is on October 15th. The general election is set for Dec. 10th.

Two interesting pieces of analysis from Charlie Cook stand out. The first is that there isn't much ideological distance between Democratic candidates with "the nascent five-way primary for Markey's seat looking more stylistic and geographical in nature, with each Democrat working hard to turn out their friends and neighbors in a low-turnout race." The second is that the Democratic primary could end up being a "free-for-all" though the results for the general are unlikely to be in doubt.

And now Carl and his dad:

A.M. Headlines

(New York Daily News): "Washington Navy Yard shooting: Shooter allowed to buy gun despite mental issues, Navy misconduct"

(New York Times): "Suspect’s past fell just short of raising alarm"

(National Review): "House to vote on defunding Obamacare"

(The Hill): Obama: Everybody is wrong to doubt Obamacare"

(Boston Herald): "Elizabeth Warren bounces Larry Summers as stock continues to rise"

P.M. Headlines

(CBS News): "Obama urges Congress to act in wake of mass shooting"

(The Hill): "Reid: I don't have the votes to move gun control legislation"

(New York Times): "Signs of mental illness seen in Navy gunman for decade"

(ABC News): "House, Senate ensnared in health care controversy"

(Jonathan Cohn): "Countdown to shutdown: "Nobody knows how this will end"

Here he is - Mr. America

By Capt. Fogg

Racism?  Just like those liberals to think that "American Values" are racist, says Fox jerk Todd Starnes and after all it was only 'politically correct' judges that enabled a dark skinned American woman of East Indian descent to win the Miss America contest over  someone with real American values like blond hair and big tits. American womanhood as traditionally seen by pageant judges always has been typified by tattooed Army Sergeants, hasn't it?  If that isn't true American womanhood, perhaps those judges will choose a man next.

"Americans were backing Miss Kansas -- but the liberal Miss America judges were not interested in a gun-toting, deer-hunting, military veteran." said Tiny Todd on his Facebook page on Sunday.  Americans -- Americans who can't tell the difference between Indians, Arabs and Muslims but are sure that to be an American; to have American values means TBBT: you're tall and blond and have big tits.

"Americans" (that being Todd) were backing Theresa Vail and I'm sure many were, even though most Americans I would venture have as little interest in this cattle call as I do -- even though tattoos make me cringe even on male Army Sergeants, she was a fine candidate and for all I know a fine person.

If that's what the repulsive troglodyte from the caves of Fox likes, that's his privilege - de gustibus and all that, but for those of us who don't have a problem calling an American citizen, born and raised a 'real' American if they don't have 100% European ancestry; even for those of us who might actually consider an Indian or Chinese or Middle Eastern or, God forbid, African woman attractive and intelligent and talented and worthy to represent 'American Values"  --  for us Nina Davuluri is a fine choice and a real All-American girl.

Smug racist assholes like Starnes and the Network he rode in on don't, needless to say, represent any values, much less American ones I'd respect, or even tolerate -- or even refrain from punishing with extreme prejudice and considerable violence given the chance.  But I've been around long enough to know there isn't anything to be done about convincing these people. No dispassionate analysis, no baseball bat will make these people see non-European people as anything but a threat to their imaginary "values."  As Max Plank once said, the truth does not triumph by making its opponents see the light, but because they eventually die.

So if we're unable to stop hoping for some new America that gives more than lip service to its principles while festering like a cesspool of hate and stupidity and bellicose self-aggrandizement perhaps we should hope and pray that Fox fall into some lake of fire, that the earth opens up and swallows Todd Starnes like the foul and fetid carcass of the loathsome creature he is, so every good and true and righteous person can piss on his grave.

(Cross-posted to Human Voices.)

Bill Daley changes his mind about wanting to be a politician

By Richard K. Barry

This is really quite interesting. Big time Democratic backroom boy Bill Daley has decided that he'd rather not put himself in harms way as a candidate for elected office, potentially as governor of Illinois. The interesting part is that he actually admits the fact, if not exactly in those words.

The exact words were these:

“One of the things I always thought in my career that I wanted to do, I thought I would be able to have that opportunity, I hoped, would be to run for office. And even though you’re around it for a long time, you really don’t get a sense of the enormity of it until you get into it,” Daley told the Tribune.

“But the last six weeks or so have been really tough on me, struggling with this. Is this really me? Is this really what I want to spend my next five to nine years doing? And is this the best thing for me to do at this stage of my life?” he said. “I’ve come to the conclusion that this isn’t the best thing for me.”

Last June, Daley formed an exploratory committee to run for governor, a typical first step. Through his comments and other activities, it was clear he was going to run for the Democratic nomination against unpopular incumbent Pat Quinn. And then he wasn't.

Daley didn't say he was stepping down to spend more time with his family. He isn't claiming health reasons. He hasn't found God (who may or may not be lost). He just decided that he was wrong about wanting to be a politician.

That kind of thing doesn't happen that often. It's a certain kind of life, being a politician, both in the running and in the governing, and it's not for everyone. Bill Daley has been in the game long enough to know what it's like to be in front of the cameras and he decided against it.

There's no shame in knowing yourself, and kudos to him for that.

On the Hustings

William C. Thompson

(New York Times): "For Thompson, a disappointing end to a not-quite-compelling quest"

(Smart Politics): "West Virginia 2014 US Senate race to feature rare matchup"

(Roll Call): "Is the 2014 Senate race recruitment season over?"

(Politico): "Why Ken Cuccinelli is losing the Virginia governor's race"

(Boston Globe): "Martha Coakley launches bid for governor in Massachusetts"

Gun control vs. "gun control"

By Mustang Bobby

Steve M makes the case that while a majority of Americans support specific proposals to prevent gun violence, they don’t like the laws that have been written to enact them. Hence the recall of two state senators in Colorado who backed laws requiring universal background checks and limiting magazine sizes, but the majority of voters in the state support the elements.

Why? It’s because the NRA has been very good at framing the issue as an “us vs. them” — the “us” being Real Muricans and the “them” being the commie pinko hippie fruits from Noo Yawk.

It’s all part of the culture war we’ve been living through for at least half a century. Oh, sure, Americans support universal background checks, and want the likes of Aaron Alexis — previously arrested for more than one gun offense — not to be able to obtain guns effortlessly … but “gun control” is something that comes from liberals and hippies and untrustworthy rootless-cosmopolitan city slickers like Mike Bloomberg. Whereas the NRA (despite being a Beltway lobbying operation) is identified with heartland America, so it’s trustworthy and admired.

Heartlanders don’t reject gun control because of how they feel about gun control proposals. They reject gun control because of who supports it. If we’re for it, it’s absurdly easy for the NRA to tell heartlanders they should be against it.

And that’s why twelve people had to die at the Washington Navy Yard today.

Not only that, the NRA knows it’s an absurdly easy way to both raise money — there will be a Navy Yard-based fundraising letter going out to the NRA membership before the yellow crime-scene tape comes down — and intimidate members of Congress. They will wave the bloody shirt of the Navy Yard and the Colorado recalls, and before the day is out you will be hearing members of Congress tell us it’s “too soon” to be talking about gun control again.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

What's wrong with an Indian-American Miss America?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Nothing. Nothing at all.

(What's wrong with this and other such pageants? A whole lot, but that's another matter.)

New Yorker Nina Davuluri, who won the title on Sunday, is, as you can well imagine if you haven't yet seen her, is a beautiful woman. And apparently a really smart one as well. (I hate these pageants, but at least this one isn't entirely about physical objectification anymore.)

But of course, as you can also well imagine if you haven't seen it already, there are many across the country who don't think Davuluri is quite "American" enough -- you know, American as defined by, say, the KKK. Or Fox News:

It should go without saying that Davuluri, a Syracuse native of Indian descent, is neither Muslim nor an Arab. But according to Fox News Radio host Todd Starnes, the American-born Davuluri doesn't "represent American values," unlike the blonde-haired, blue-eyed contestant from Kansas, Theresa Vail.

This is not to say that Vail isn’t an unprecedented contestant in her own right: she's spent five years in the Kansas Army National Guard and is double-majoring in chemistry and Chinese at Kansas State University. But, according to Starnes on Facebook, she lost because "the liberal Miss America judges were not interested in a gun-toting, deer-hunting, military veteran."

Yes, you see, Davuluri is... different. As in, has a different skin color. And a different name. And all that. For many, she's part of the Other, and that Other is a broad category. Davuluri is Indian, and a Hindu, but the common smear has been that she's an Arab and/or a Muslim, because of course that's often what the Other is seen to be, you know, because 9/11.

The ignorance is blatant, and hardly surprising. It's bigotry, pure and simple, including when some jackass talk radio host couches it as not representing American values. If you're different, you see, you're just not American.

Read more »

A.M. Headlines

(CNN): "Navy Yard shooting: What we know and don't know"

(Star-Telegram): "Navy Yard shooter had at least two gun-related incidents in past"

(Politico): "Dianne Feinstein: Congress ‘shirking’ duty on guns"

(New York Times): "Forensic details in U.N. report point to Assad’s use of gas"

(USA Today): "Summers done in by two sets of critics"

P.M. Headlines

(Washington Post): "At least 13 dead in Navy Yard shooting; possible suspect at large"

(New York Times): Gunman and 12 victims killed in shooting at D.C. Navy Yard"

(New Republic): "This time there really will be a government shutdown: And that's not all bad"

(The Hill): "House GOP moves forward with $40 billion cut to food stamps"

(USA Today): "Miss America Nina Davuluri brushes off racist remarks"

UN says chemical weapons used in Syria

By Frank Moraes

It does now look as though there really was a chemical weapons attack in Syria on 21 August. My skepticism has always been based on the Yellow Rain incident. This involved supposed attacks by the Vietnam and Laos governments against the Hmong who live in the mountains of that region. Something bad clearly happened to those people. But it does not appear to have been a chemical attack, even though everyone was certain at the time.

The problem is that a lot of people are harmed in a lot of different ways when a modern war is underway. And it is indiscriminate. One thing I really hate is how people talk about how we never intentionally kill civilians when we bomb. There is also the ridiculous notion of our "smart bombs" and their accuracy. The truth of the matter is that we don't actively try to kill civilians, but we don't make any concessions for them either. I don't consider our government particularly bad, of course; this is the nature of modern warfare and this is a big reason why we should do everything we can to avoid war.

Read more »

On the Hustings

(Washington Post): At Iowa steak fry, Biden defends Obama, stokes speculation about 2016 candidacy"

(Charlie Cook): "Why Democrats have reason to fear"

(Detroit Free Press): "Poll: Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder jumps ahead of likely Democratic opponent in 2014 race"

(New York Times): "Secret society dips toe in city politics, prompting lawsuit"

(Courier-Journal): "Senate race is mix of politics and national security [Kentucky]"

To the surprise of no one

By Carl

….people who score high on GMATs tend to be less ethical than those who do not.

Maybe I should explain. The GMAT (Graduate Management Admissions Test) is the B-school version of the SAT. The higher you score on it, the more likely it is you can get into a top-notch business school and hock your entire future for a seat at the casino table that may help you pay it off before retirement. As with the SATs and college, there are a lot of other factors in play, but suffice it to say that a high GMAT score, other things being equal, will attract attention from admissions officers.

It does not appear the relationship is causal, but correlative, between a high GMAT score and low ethical standards, however:

Here are three traits that make you more likely to succeed on the GMAT (and how they may affect your business performance):

1. You Don't Like Taking Risks: If you're conservative about taking risks, you're likely to score higher. Researchers found a positive association between "uncertainty avoidance" (what Wadhwa calls "safety first behavior'), and doing well on the test that would seem to discourage entrepreneurial activity.

2. You're Individualistic: Test-takers from more individualistic backgrounds also do better on the GMAT. Individualism has plenty of positive associations in the business community, like more competitive drive, but the self-reliance seen among successful test-takers makes them less likely to adapt their behavior to formal codes of ethics and informal norms around them.

3. You're Less Ethical: Higher GMAT scores are associated with less of a tendency for ethical behavior. Focus on freedom and achievement means high-scorers are more inclined to see their actions as above reproach, explained Goodell.

We can glean from these three traits the typical profile of someone who scores high on the GMAT: he’s – because men tend to score higher – conservative with a libertarian bent, and more likely to engage in unethical behavior than the typical person who takes the test, much less the general population.

This would explain a few facets of American life, don’t you agree?

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

A.M. Headlines

(Bloomberg): "Summers quit Fed quest after Democrats spurned Obama favorite"

(Politico): "With Larry Summers out, what’s next?"

(New York Times): "Brief respite for President, but no Plan B on Syria"

(Pew Research Center): "As health care law proceeds, opposition and uncertainty persist"

(The Hill): "Angry House Republicans demand better communication from leaders"

P.M. Headlines

16th Street Baptist Church
Birmingham, Alabama

(Reuters): "Former Obama aide Summers withdraws from Fed chair consideration"

(Politico): "Dem opposition dooms Larry Summers's Fed candidacy"

(ABC News): "Obama rejects criticism of shifting Syria policy: ‘I’m less concerned about style points’"

(CNBC): "Remember 'Lehman Weekend': Don't let up on reforms"

(The Daily Beast): "50 years later: The Sixteenth Street Baptist Church bombing"

Reading Now: Cornelius Ryan's The Longest Day

By Richard K. Barry

This weekend, for no reason other than that I recently found it on a local used bookstore shelf, I am reading Cornelius Ryan's The Longest Day. It is, of course, the famous history of the Allied landing in Europe on June 6, 1944.  The book was published in 1959. More people are probably familiar with the movie based on it, and of the same name, which came out in 1962. 

Perhaps I protest too much, but I find no contradiction being on the political left and yet fascinated by the history of war. No doubt there are books and films that glorify the endeavour in foolish, jingoistic, obnoxious ways. That sort of thing doesn't much interest me, thank you Sylvester Stallone. But well crafted accounts of women and men functioning under some of the most intense conditions imaginable should be of great interest to anyone concerned about the human condition. 

For example, I've recently been working my way through a collection of Martha Gellhorn's writings and read Steinbeck's Once There Was A War a while ago. But you might say that these are fine accounts by talented writers and not so much in the vein of Hollywood heroism that can be so annoying. Fair enough.

I don't know where you draw the line. Cornelius Ryan once said, "What I write about is not war but the courage of man." That may sound a bit over the top, but The Longest Day is written as a tale of survival, with little reference to the geo-political context and right and wrong. It is, in that way, very similar to The Band of Brothers HBO miniseries produced in the early 2000s, which I enjoyed immensely.

As I say, I may protest too much. Perhaps the line between glorifying war and graphically depicting the experiences of those who have had to endure it is clear enough. Maybe it never is. 

On the Hustings

Martha Coakley

(Boston Globe): "Martha Coakley to announce bid for governor"

(ABC News): "Will Obama stay neutral in 2016?

(The Hill): "Too many Republican hopefuls help Hagan's Senate chances"

(Washington Post): "Rand Paul, 2016 Republican front-runner"

(The Daily Caller): "Pence and The Revolution: Five reasons he might be the 2016 dark horse to watch"