Vimeo of the Day: "Ancients"

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Here's a glorious time-lapse video by Nicholas Buer:

This film follows the ancient cycle of sunset, to night, to sunrise. A continuous loop of perpetual movement that has been unbroken since the dawn of time, and the only true constant in our lives.

I shot this film over 12 days around the San Pedro de Atacama region of Northern Chile. San Pedro is an oasis town in the Atacama and sits at an altitude of 2600m. The town is a great base to explore the fascinating landscapes that surround it, and everything just goes up and up.

The Atacama is well-known for what are arguably the cleanest, darkest skies on Earth. The dry air adds an extra transparency and this coupled with the altitude creates a night sky like no other. I visited at a time when Venus was situated quite close to the centre of the Milky Way; an astronomical event that only takes place every 8 years or so. I also timed my visit with the Autumn equinox which is a good time of year to capture Zodiacal light; the celestial phenomenon caused by sunlight scattering interplanetary space dust in the Zodiacal cloud. It stretches across the ecliptic and glows for a short while after sunset like a UFO beam and I was lucky enough to witness this every night I stepped out into the dark.

Quite stunning. Enjoy!

Ancients from Nicholas Buer on Vimeo.

On the Hustings

(Naked Politics): "FL's Brian Ballard, top Romney fundraiser, dumps on 'horrific' Chris Christie before FL visit"

(Washington Post): "‘MITT’ documentary offers rare, intimate look at Mitt Romney’s six-year quest for presidency"

(Politico): "GOP free-for-all for Coburn seat?"

(New York Times): "Pennsylvania voter ID law struck down as judge cites burden on citizens"

(Real Clear Politics): "How seriously should we take Ed Gillespie?"

Vladimir Putin reassures the world about Russia's acceptance of gays at Sochi by stereotyping gays as pedophiles

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Here's what Putin said when asked about Russia's view of gays in light of the upcoming Winter Olympics in Sochi, the implication being that gays might not be welcome given Russia's anti-gay laws:

One can feel calm and at ease. Just leave kids alone, please.

In other words, gays are pedophiles, but it'll be fine for them at Sochi if they don't molest children.

What an awesome guy. What an awesome country.

Remind me again why we're sending our athletes there, and why it's such a great idea for us to be contributing to the national self-glorification that comes with hosting the Olympics?

Although, since it's happening regardless, New York magazine has a great idea: "For every boneheaded statement Putin makes over the next few weeks, President Obama should add another last-minute gay member to the U.S. delegation."

Yup, stick it to the bigots.

A.M. Headlines

(Glenn Greenwald): "Obama's NSA 'reforms' are little more than a PR attempt to mollify the public"

(Steve Kornacki): "Christie camp held Sandy relief money hostage, mayor alleges"

(News Channel 5): "Judge strikes down North Carolina ultrasound abortion law"

(San Jose Mercury): "Brown declares California drought emergency"

(New York Times): "After leaving office, Bloomberg is more hands-on at old company"

Vienna Teng: "Blue Caravan"

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Here's the always amazing Vienna Teng, whom I just adore, performing "Blue Caravan," off her 2006 album Dreaming Through the Noise (her best, in my view), at The Vanguard in Tulsa, Oklahoma, on December 7 of last year.

It's a beautiful song. Enjoy!

Obama proposes NSA reforms to protect and perpetuate the surveillance state

By Michael J.W. Stickings

By now, you probably know that President Obama gave a major speech today in which he called for reforms to NSA surveillance:

President Obama, acknowledging that high-tech surveillance poses a threat to civil liberties, announced significant changes Friday to the way the government collects and uses telephone records, but left in place many other pillars of the nation’s intelligence programs.

Responding to the clamor over sensational disclosures about the National Security Agency's spying practices, Mr. Obama said he would restrict the ability of intelligence agencies to gain access to phone records, and would ultimately move that data out of the hands of the government.

But in a speech at the Justice Department that seemed more calculated to reassure audiences at home and abroad than to force radical change, Mr. Obama defended the need for the broad surveillance net assembled by the N.S.A. And he turned to Congress and the intelligence agencies themselves to work out the details of any changes.

Yes, fine, the president is trying to strike a middle ground between enthusiasts of a mostly unregulated surveillance state and those calling for a significant rollback of surveillance so as to protect civil liberties, but for the most part his speech put him firmly on the side of the former. He will make it more difficult for the NSA to access data, but he has no intention of stopping it from doing what it's doing, and in that sense he is merely trying to ensure that surveillance continues in more or less exactly the same way it has been conducted up to now.

And indeed, he's really only doing this because Edward Snowden, whom I consider a hero, blew the lid off what the NSA is doing and aroused both public and political opposition to the surveillance state. If it hadn't been for Snowden, this wouldn't be happening -- people would still be in the dark, nothing would have changed, and we wouldn't even be getting these mostly superfluous "reforms."

Read more »

On the Hustings

(The Oklahoman): "Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn will resign at end of congressional session"

(The Hill): "Ed Gillespie announces Va. Senate run"

(Roll Call): "Senate GOP more optimistic about midterms"

(The Hill): "Giffords’s gun group ready to fight for vulnerable Democrats"

(National Journal): "10 super PACs you've never heard of that will make news in 2014"

The Benghazi report

By Mustang Bobby

The Senate Intelligence Committee released their report on the attack on Benghazi. They criticized everyone, including the State Department, the CIA, and the Defense Department, basically saying that Libya was a post-revolutionary mess.

The Republicans are seizing on the conclusion that the attacks were “preventable,” crowing over this as if this seals the end of Hillary Clinton’s hopes for the White House in 2016 because she was the Secretary of State at the time.

I’m no military strategist or anything of the sort, but haven’t we all learned that just about every surprise attack in the history of modern warfare was “preventable”? Didn’t we have clues to the Japanese intentions on Pearl Harbor in 1941, or the Vietcong’s plans for Tet in 1968? Oh, and what about the memo to President Bush in August 2001 that noted “bin Laden determined to strike within U.S.”? Yes, hindsight is great if you’re focusing on someone else’s hind end.

I’m not trying to pull a Benghazi deflection on the Benghazi report; if the attack was preventable and people didn’t do their jobs, then they should be held accountable. And as Bryan at Why Now? points out, there’s also the role that Congress played in not providing adequate funding for the security at the embassy. But then since this report came from the Senate, they are, by necessity, blameless in all of this.

This report will now, as Charlie Pierce notes, deteriorate into a political skunk fight between the bug-eyed on the right (Gohmert, Bachmann, and Steve King), and the infantile obsession the Villagers have for the freak show that heralds a presidential campaign. And none of that is preventable.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

A.M. Headlines

(CBS News): "Obama expected to leave major NSA reforms to Congress and the courts"

(The Week): "Obama's NSA reform trap, and how he'll try to escape"

(Star Ledger): "Chris Christie bridge scandal: 20 subpoenas issued, governor hires attorney"

(The Hill): "Obama to Dems: Boehner will pass immigration reform in 2014"

(NBC News): "White House enlists sports stars in Obamacare push"

A.M. Headlines

(First Read): "Christie cruising through bridge scandal (so far)"

(The Hill): "Armed Services Chairman McKeon retiring"

(Politico): "Inside the House GOP's immigration push"

(Washington Post): "Lawmakers seek to stymie plan to shift control of drone campaign from CIA to Pentagon"

(Roll Call): "House passes $1.1 trillion omnibus"

Bruce Springsteen and Jimmy Fallon: "Gov. Christie Traffic Jam"

By Michael J.W. Stickings

You've seen this already, right? It's hilarious, it's poignant, and it's awesome. And I don't just say that because I love Bruce Springsteen.

This duet with Jimmy Fallon (who continues to grow on me), a parody of "Born to Run" aimed at the bullying governor of New Jersey, is brilliantly creative. And what it makes it all the more effective is that Christie considers himself, and I suppose is, a Springsteen superfan, so much so that it meant the world to him when he finally met Springsteen (thanks to President Obama), when they hugged and Springsteen called him a friend, during the Hurricane Sandy aftermath last year -- yes, so much so that Christie says he wept afterwards. (I get that. I'm not sure how I'd react if I ever met, say, David Gilmour or Roger Waters, or Springsteen for that matter, but it would be similar.)

But of course politically and personally the two men are vastly different. Christie is anti-union. He's close to Wall Street and very much its champion. He opposes marriage equality. He's one of the more sober Republicans but a Republican nonetheless. And it's like he's a Springsteen superfan who doesn't get what Springsteen is all about. I mean, has he ever paid attention to the lyrics? What does he make of, say, "The Ghost of Tom Joad"? Or "Death to My Hometown"? Or anything on Nebraska? Or even "Born in the U.S.A."? Or, or, or... Seriously, does he just not get it? How do you call yourself a huge Springsteen fan and still be... Chris Christie?

Anyway, like I said, this is brilliant, personal parody and political satire of the highest order, directed at a most deserving target. So much for that "friendship," which was never much of anything anyway.

Chacun a son vie

By Carl 

Here is the difference between the U.S. and France in a nutshell:

French President Francois Hollande has said he is experiencing a "difficult moment" in his private life, following claims of an affair with an actress. 

But he refused to answer questions over the report, saying "private matters should be dealt with privately". 

Mr Hollande was speaking at his first news conference since the allegations in the magazine Closer last week. 

He said he would clarify whether Valerie Trierweiler was still first lady before a February trip to the US. 

Can you imagine if Bill Clinton had said that as president? He did say something similar – while still denying the allegations of an affair with Gennifer Flowers – as a candidate but that was when he was barely a blip on the primary calendar in 1992.  

The stereotype of a successful Frenchman having at least one mistress in a pied-à-terre overlooking the Seine is legendary, and mostly accepted by the French with good humor. After all, this is a nation with a long history of monarchs and nobility with legendary prowess at bedding women, most notably the exploits of Casanova. 

Read more »

Progressive Music Classics: "Punk Prayer" by Pussy Riot

By Marc McDonald

(Ed. note: Here's another installment of Marc's ongoing series. For the full series, check out his site. I would just note that I like Green Day a lot more than he does. Agree to disagree, Marc? (I do agree about Kiss, by the way.) -- MJWS)


I have to laugh when I hear bands like Green Day described as "punk." Green Day is about as "punk" as a cup of Starbucks coffee. Green Day wouldn't know real "punk" if it walked up to them and grabbed them by the balls. (Not that corporate cowards like Green Day have any balls in the first place).

In any case, Russia's Pussy Riot has more balls than the entire U.S. corporate recording industry.

Real punk has always been about challenging the system. The Sex Pistols (at least in their first incarnation) challenged the British monarchy and paid the price. It brought the full weight of British officialdom and right-wing tabloid outrage down on their heads. Johnny Rotten was even knifed in the streets by royalty-supporting goons.

Here in the States, the Dead Kennedys also faced challenges that brought about the disintegration of the band. The artwork for their 1985 album, Frankenchrist had leader singer Jello Biafra facing obscenity charges.

However, even these challenges to the system fade into insignificance when compared to the provocations of what may well be the bravest band in the world today, Pussy Riot.

Read more »

On the Hustings

(Los Angeles Times): "Obama's visit to North Carolina may be awkward for Democratic senator"

(New York Times): "Ads attacking on health law stagger outspent Democrats"

(Quinnipiac): "New Jersey Gov's bully-meter is down, Quinnipiac University poll finds; Voters believe he wasn't involved in Bridgegate"

(Roll Call): "Super PAC, outside spending chiefs make big bucks"

(Real Clear Politics): "'Six-year itch' could fortify GOP grip"

Stupidest Shithole in America: Evergreen, Alabama

By Michael J.W. Stickings

There are many, many shitholes all across America -- like Nelson, Georgia; Mississippi; Dietrich, Idaho; Burkesville, Kentucky; Pickens County, South Carolina; and Henderson, Texas.

We're adding this place to the list, but obviously it's white Republicans who are to blame:

A federal judge in Alabama on Monday reinstated federal oversight over the voting practices of a city there, in what election law specialists said was the first such move since the Supreme Court struck down part of the Voting Rights Act in June.

Judge Callie V. S. Granade, of Federal District Court in Mobile, used a mechanism in the law that the Supreme Court had left untouched, Section 3, which allows jurisdictions that have intentionally discriminated against minority voters to be "bailed in" to the oversight requirements.

Relying on Section 3, Judge Granade ordered the city, Evergreen, to submit some changes in voting procedures to the Department of Justice or a federal court for review before they can go into effect.

So what's the problem?

Evergreen, an enclave of 3,900 people between Mobile and Montgomery, has a troubled history and has in recent years been found to have improperly excluded minority voters from its rolls and redrawn its district lines to concentrate black voters, who are in the majority, into just two of the five districts, limiting black voting power.

Maybe it's a nice place otherwise. I don't know. I have a lot of family in Alabama, which was home to one of my grandfathers, I've been down there a few times, and it's not all bad (anymore). But clearly its long history of racism, including institutionalized, government-sanctioned racism, continues, and Evergreen, other municipalities, and the state itself must be held accountable for what they're doing to disenfranchise and disempower blacks. And if it takes the federal government to step in, as it must, to fix the problem, so be it.

You know, because of the Civil War and pretty much the entire course of American history since then.

A.M. Headlines

(New York Times): "N.S.A. devises radio pathway into computers"

(The Hill): "Court nixes Obama's net neutrality"

(C/Net): "Why you should care about Net neutrality (FAQ)"

(Washington Post): "Christie faces speculation about aides’ real motives in New Jersey bridge scandal"

(Washington Post): "Lawmakers unveil massive $1.1 trillion spending bill in bipartisan compromise"

Federal judge rules Oklahoma's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional

By Michael J.W. Stickings

This is happening -- in Utah, now in Oklahoma. Federal courts are weighing in on state laws that are inherently discriminatory, and what they're finding is that those laws ought to be struck down, that in essence those laws are profoundly un-American: 

U.S. Senior District Judge Terence Kern ruled Tuesday that Oklahoma's ban on marriage equality is unconstitutional.

The ruling is stayed pending appeal, meaning marriages will not occur immediately in Oklahoma.

In striking down Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage, U.S. District Judge Terrence Kern described it as "an arbitrary, irrational exclusion of just one class of Oklahoma citizens from a governmental benefit."

"Equal protection is at the very heart of our legal system and central to our consent to be governed," Kern's 68-page decision says. "It is not a scarce commodity to be meted out begrudgingly or in short portions. Therefore, the majority view in Oklahoma must give way to individual constitutional rights." 

Republican Gov. Mary Fallin points out that the ban was passed in 2004 with 75 percent popular support, but of course majority rule does not supersede Americans' foundational rights. (Slavery was once a popular thing, too, remember.) Perhaps Fallin and her fellow bigoted Republicans ought to read the Constitution they claim to hold in such high esteem. (It's also rather hypocritical to be so democratic when it suits their far-right agenda.)

I still think it's important for democratically-elected legislatures to legalize same-sex marriage and thereby to put a democratic stamp on marriage equality. But there's also a role for the courts to play alongside legislatures, and it's good to see federal judges like Kern taking a firm stand against what is nothing other than blatant discrimination that treats gays and lesbians like lesser citizens, if citizens at all.

SCOTUS overstepping?

By Carl

That’s what I think in light of the flapdoodle at SCOTUS over recess appointments:

WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court seemed inclined to rein in the president's power to make "recess appointments" when the Senate is out of town, as justices on Monday suggested the practice under both parties had exceeded constitutional limits.

The Constitution grants the president power "to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate," allowing appointees to serve temporarily without confirmation—including some whose prospects for Senate approval were unlikely.

But justices of all ideological stripes suggested Monday that a tool intended to keep the government running during the republic's early days had morphed over the centuries into a weapon to be wielded in power struggles between Congress and the White House.

There’s a bit of historical perspective to be put in place here: When the Constitution was written, it was rare for Congress to break, but when they did, it was for long periods of time.

After all, even a horseback ride along the east coast to Maine or South Carolina was a substantial investment of time, and Congress was not considered the primary source of a representative’s income back then.

Recess appointments made sense then: a president often couldn’t wait the month or so for the Senate to return.

The prevailing opinion is that the Senate is much more “reachable,” much more available to consider appointments now, despite the fact they work less than half a year.

Ah, but the prevailing opinion is not important here, because the counterargument is that the Senate used to rubber stamp appointments unless there was a genuine reason to delay or even turn down a nominee. That’s no longer the case.

SCOTUS, I think, is overstepping its jurisdiction here, because in truth the only way to remedy the recess appointment concern is to overhaul the entire Senate “advise and consent” process, something justices should be loathe to do.

This power is written into the Constitution. If you’re going to claim to be a strict constructionist, you want to leave this alone.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

On the Hustings

(Charlie Cook): "Is getting Christie's last pound of flesh the best use of state resources?"

(Politico): "Veteran Democrat George Miller to retire"

(Roll Call): "First potential Miller successor announces candidacy"

(Real Clear Politics): "Anti-Obama mood hurts Dems in Arkansas Senate race"

(The Hill): "Hagan won't join Obama in North Carolina"

Today is the day for a new Bruce Springsteen album

By Michael J.W. Stickings

High Hopes, Bruce Springsteen's 18th studio album, comes out today. Am I excited? Yup, crazy excited. Why? Five reasons:

1) It features a lot of Tom Morello and that wicked guitar-playing.

2) It's an E Street record that amazingly includes contributions from Clarence "Big Man" Clemons and Danny Federici, both of whom have sadly passed away.

3) It includes new studio versions of two of my favorite Springsteen songs ever, "The Ghost of Tom Joad" and "American Skin (41 Shots)."

4) The last song on the last Pink Floyd album was called "High Hopes." Springsteen's High Hopes includes a song called "The Wall." Call me crazy for reading into that, but it's allowing me to connect two of my musical loves.

5) It may be mostly a collection of older songs he's been performing live for a long time, but it's a new Springsteen album!!!!! And I love Bruce Springsteen!!!!!

So, without further ado:


And while we're at it, because there's pretty much never a bad time to play some Springsteen, like this one, another of his very best:

Behind the Ad: Did Chris Christie use Sandy funds for political gain?

By Richard K. Barry

Who: New Jersey.

Where: New Jersey.

What's going on: This is simple and interesting. Following Superstorm Sandy, one company bid $2.5 million to produce an upbeat ad promoting New Jersey as it recovered from the devastation.  They lost to a company that bid $4.7 million. According to Reuters, the losing bid may have failed because its proposed ad did not feature Gov. Christie:

Sigma Group's $2.5 million bid lost out to a $4.7 million bid by MWW of East Rutherford, New Jersey, for a campaign that featured Christie and his family proclaiming the state is "stronger than the storm."

[...]

While well-received at the time, the ad campaign has become a headache for Christie. Already enmeshed in a scandal over snarled traffic at the George Washington Bridge, Christie is being audited by the Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to determine if Sandy funds were misappropriated to put him in the spotlight during an election year, an agency spokesman said.

Not surprisingly, a Christie spokesman said that he was confident "any review will show that the ads were a key part in helping New Jersey get back on its feet after being struck by the worst storm in state history."

L'Etat, c'est moi, eh Chris?

A.M. Headlines

(Washington Post): "After the bridge scandal, a test for Chris Christie"

(New York Times): "Governor hopes speech will obscure a scandal"

(SCOTUSblog): "Argument recap: An uneasy day for presidential power"

(Washington Post): "Reid, Boehner face showdowns on unemployment benefits, farm bill"

(The Hill): "President’s goal for NSA reform — no more Edward Snowdens"

P.M. Headlines

(Reuters): "Youth participation low in early Obamacare enrolment"

(Pew Research): "Christie story attracts little public interest"

(New York Times): "Justices voice doubts on Obama recess appointments"

(New York Times): "Supreme Court won’t hear Arizona appeal on abortion ban"

(The Hill): "Obama downplays Robert Gates's memoir"

On the Hustings

(Politico): "Alex Sink rises to top in Florida special election"

(Huffington Post): "How Fox News chief Roger Ailes tried to win Republicans the White House"

(Washington Post): "Christie’s bridge scandal and the muddled search for a GOP nominee"

(New York Times): "A national strategy funds state political monopolies"

(Atlanta Journal-Constitution): "Polling favors Deal at this stage"

Raising deflector shields

By Mustang Bobby

You had to know that this would be the GOP response to the New Jersey bridge story:

In an interview on Meet the Press, [RNC Chair Reince] Priebus argued that Americans would forgive Christie after his administration closed part of the busiest bridge to hurt his opponents because “we all make mistakes.”

“They’re forgiving when you take ownership, you take corrective action. And that’s what Chris Christie showed,” the chairman explained. “He stood there for 111 minutes in an open dialog with the press. Now, only if Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would give us 111 seconds of that, would we find out some of what we want to find out about Obamacare, Benghazi, the IRS. I mean, Chris Christie has been totally open here.”

Translation: “Oh, look! Benghazi! IRS! A kitty!”

That was a little too much even for David Gregory.

“There’s some deflection going on here, and I respect your position,” Gregory observed.

Very observant, David. Now get up off your knees and do the job of a journalist.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

A.M. Headlines

(Roll Call): "A balance of powers case with Senate GOP power in the balance"

(CNN Politics): "Feds investigating Christie's use of Sandy relief funds"

(Politico): "The GOP’s tarnished golden boys"

(Reuters): "Obamacare may get sick if young Americans don't sign up"

(The Hill): "Hillary’s hit list"

A.M. Headlines

(BBC News): "Ariel Sharon's deputy: 'We will remember him as a warrior'"

(The Hill): "Christie scandal: 5 things we don't know"

(The Hill): "Democrats plead with Obama to abandon Social Security cut"

(Roll Call): "GOP turns to courts to take on Obama"

(Washington Post): "Obama taps Stanley Fischer, Lael Brainard for Fed posts"