The Commentariat -- Feb. 12, 2015
Internal links removed.
Peter Baker of the New York Times: "President Obama formally asked Congress on Wednesday to authorize a three-year military campaign against the Islamic State that would avoid a large-scale invasion and occupation. The offensive could include limited ground operations to hunt down enemy leaders or rescue American personnel from the Sunni militants. A proposal sent by the White House to Capitol Hill on Wednesday would formally give the president the power to continue the airstrikes he has been conducting since last fall against the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, as well as 'associated persons or forces.' The measure would set limits that were never imposed during the wars of the last decade in Afghanistan and Iraq by expiring in three years and withholding permission for 'enduring offensive ground combat operations'":
... Justin Sink & Kristina Wong of the Hill: "President Obama's request that Congress authorize military action against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) met with skepticism from both parties on Wednesday, raising questions about Capitol Hill's ability to pass a war measure. The divide is largely centered on language prohibiting the use of 'enduring offensive ground combat operations' against ISIS. Democrat say this does too little to limit the White House from committing ground troops to the fight, while Republicans say the restrictions could handcuff the military." ...
... John Cassidy of the New Yorker: "For months now, it has been clear that the United States and its allies are gearing up for an all-out military assault on the jihadi fighters who have occupied large swaths of Syria and Iraq, including Mosul.... On the basis of the Constitution and the subsequent laws governing the declaration of war, it's clear that, before the executive branch can launch any large-scale military action, Congress must grant its approval.... Despite the Administration's use of the word 'limited,' the resolution [Obama proposed the Congress] is a broad one.... If this resolution doesn't amount to granting the President a free hand, it comes close." ...
... Bruce Ackerman, in a New York Times op-ed: "On the surface, this looks like a welcome recognition of Congress's ultimate authority in matters of war and peace. But unless the resolution put forward by the White House is amended, it will have the opposite effect. Congressional support will amount to the ringing endorsement of unlimited presidential war making.... For political cover, Mr. Obama now wants Congress to grant him new authority, and yet he opposes repeal of the 2001 authorization in exchange for that new authority.... [Congress] ... should insist on the repeal of the 2001 resolution and an explicit repudiation of the 'associated forces' doctrine." ...
... ISIS Is Hillary's Fault. Ben Kamisar of the Hill: "Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Wednesday accused former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of helping to spur unrest in the Middle East that led to the current battle against militants from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. 'One of the people I blame for a lot of this, frankly, is Hillary Clinton,' he said on Fox News...." CW: Really? Explain that, Randy. Okay, here goes: "'The disaster that is Libya is now a breeding ground for terrorists and also a breeding ground for armament. I really do blame Hillary Clinton's war in Libya for creating a lot of the chaos that is now spreading throughout the Middle East." CW: "All roads lead to Benghaaazi."
Coral Davenport of the New York Times: "The House on Wednesday passed a bill approving construction of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline, setting up a clash with President Obama, who has vowed to veto the measure. The bill, which passed the Senate last month, headed to Mr. Obama's desk Wednesday night.... The Keystone bill passed the House on a vote of 270-152. Twenty-nine Democrats voted with Republicans in favor of the bill. While the measure drew bipartisan support, it is not expected to draw the two-thirds majority necessary to override a veto." ...
... As Victoria D. noted in yesterday's Comments, Speaker Boehner has a sad on: "Instead of listening to the people, the president is standing with a bunch of left-fringe extremists and anarchists. The president needs to listen to the American people and say 'yes, let's build the Keystone pipeline.'"
... CW: Actually. No, Orange Man. Ben Geman of the National Journal, Jan. 20, 2015: "An NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey released Tuesday shows that 41 percent favor construction of the pipeline to bring crude oil from Canadian oil sands to Gulf Coast refineries, while 20 percent oppose it and 37 percent did not know enough to weigh in. An ABC News/Washington Post poll unveiled Monday, meanwhile, asked whether Congress should pass legislation approving the project or wait until the Obama administration completes its review. Sixty-one percent favored completing the review before deciding, while 34 percent backed authorizing construction now. The question was not a gauge of support for the project itself. Instead, it was about process, asking whether Keystone should be approved right now or whether the administration's review to determine if it's in the 'national interest' should proceed."
Scott Wong of the Hill: "Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) offered a blunt message for Senate Democrats in the standoff over Homeland Security funding, urging them to 'get off their ass' and pass a bill. The Speaker's rare flash of anger came Wednesday, as he blamed Democrats for repeatedly blocking a House-passed bill that would both stave off a Department of Homeland Security shutdown at the end of the month and gut President Obama's executive actions on immigration. Democrats are unified in their efforts to preserve Obama's immigration actions, which shield millions of illegal immigrants from deportation":
... Sean Sullivan & Ed O'Keefe of the Washington Post: "The Republican honeymoon is over on Capitol Hill. Just a month into their taking full control of Congress, Republican leaders in the House and Senate are at odds over how to avoid shutting down the Department of Homeland Security as part of an immigration fight with the Obama administration.... Senate Republican leaders argue that, after three failed attempts, they cannot win approval of a House-passed DHS funding bill that challenges President Obama's executive actions on immigration, because of Democratic resistance. The House Republican position is that the Senate GOP should keep trying.... Boehner's ['get off their ass'] comments seemed to be a direct response to McConnell's statement Tuesday that it was 'clear we can't go forward in the Senate' with the current DHS bill." ...
... Sahil Kapur of TPM: "Republican Sen. Mark Kirk said Wednesday that his party made a mistake by picking a fight over President Barack Obama's immigration actions, and said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) should bring up a 'clean' bill to keep the Department of Homeland Security funded. 'I generally agree with the Democratic position here. I think we should have never fought this battle on DHS funding,' the Illinois senator said in the Capitol. 'I think it's the wrong battle for us at the wrong time.'" ...
... Rebecca Shabad of the Hill: Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.) "said Wednesday that a 'clean' bill funding the Department of Homeland Security [-- that is, one that doesn't contain amendments, like the one to defund immigration reform --] would be better politically than passing a short-term continuing resolution (CR) funding the agency.... Both chambers are slated to leave Washington on Friday for a five-day recess next week. When they return the following week, they'll only have five days to resolve the issue before the Feb. 27 deadline." Shabad describes Dent as "a centrist" who is "close to GOP leadership." What had Boehner so exercised Wednesday was probably his recognition -- thanks to Dent & others -- that McConnell is going to win this round & the House will have to pass a DHS funding bill with Democratic support. Wouldn't that be awful?
Zeke Miller of Time: "President Barack Obama maintained in a new interview that he 'evolved' on gay marriage, despite a top aide's assertion in a new book that he was 'bullshitting' in 2008 when he opposed the unions. Obama told BuzzFeed that longtime political guru David Axelrod didn't accurately characterize his position when Axelrod wrote in his new book that Obama shifted on the issue for political gains. But the President proved unable to explain why he moved away from supporting the unions despite supporting them as a state Senate candidate in 1996." ...
... Ben Smith of BuzzFeed covers various remarks President Obama made during the interview in this story, which includes video clips. The transcript of the full interview is here. ...
... Capitalism Is Awesome, Ctd. Sarah Ferris of the Hill: "Staples is firing back at President Obama after he accused the company of trying to shirk certain responsibilities of his signature healthcare law. Obama blasted the office supply giant in an interview with BuzzFeed after the news outlet reported that Staples had threatened to fire workers who clocked more than 25 hours a week. The restrictions on hours, according to BuzzFeed, were an attempt to avoid fees under the Affordable Care Act." But a Staples spokesperson said BuzzFeed & Obama got it wrong; in fact, Staples has been short-shifting employees for a decade. CW: "We've been shafting ou employees for a decade" is not all that great a defense AND, as BuzzFeed reported, "Staples CEO Ronald Sargent brought home $10.8 million in total compensation in the year that ended last Feb. 1. The company reported $707 million in profits."
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg Business: "Americans are prepared to accept a U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, pointing to what she described as a sweeping change in attitudes toward gays. In an interview Wednesday in the court's oak-paneled east conference room, Ginsburg also said President Barack Obama's health-care law, which is under attack in a case before the Supreme Court next month, will be a central part of his legacy."
Sarah Ferris: "Signups for ObamaCare are surging in southern states, with increases of nearly 100 percent in some states compared to last year, federal health officials said Wednesday. Texas, Louisiana, South Carolina and Mississippi have each seen 80 percent more signups compared to last year, Deputy Administrator Andy Slavitt said." CW: The new enrollees get no benefits from the Medicaid expansion because none of these states has accepted it.
Brian Beutler writes an entertaining piece on various cranks & Hacks associated with King v. Burwell: "The Supreme Court case ... is nested in a fictional history of Congressional intent.... But its credibility sustained a further hit this week, when reports in the Wall Street Journal and Mother Jones revealed damaging information about at least three, and possibly all four, of the King vs. Burwell petitioners. First, that they joined the case out of ideological resentment, antipathy to Obama, or basic misinformation, rather than legitimate injury; and second, more troublingly, that they aren't actually eligible for supposedly unlawful subsidies, and thus lack standing to challenge them in court. These aren't people conservatives can present as sympathetic heroes.... They're zealots and eccentrics who signed on despite the fact that the law hasn't harmed them in any tangible way." The lawyers who cooked up the case are worse. ...
... ** Even more entertaining: Gail Collins writes a short introduction to the lovely plaintiffs & otherwise gets us up-to-date on the Big Case in one short column. She concludes, "Obamacare is terrific. You can tell by looking at the people who are against it."
Keith Laing of the Hill: "The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is calling for a nationwide audit of public transit systems that operate trains in tunnels after a recent fatal smoke incident on the Washington, D.C. Metrorail system. NTSB Chairman Christopher Hart said the D.C. Metro incident, which involved passengers being trapped on a smoke-filled train, shows problems may exist with similar transit systems across the country."
Megan Wilson of the Hill: "A rare open Federal Election Commission meeting on Wednesday attempted to placate the competing concerns of campaign finance activists. But at the end of the day-long hearing and comments from 30 witnesses, the commission was likely as deadlocked as ever on how to increase disclosure rules around so-called 'dark money' and whether funding behind Internet advertisements should be reported." ...
... Nice reporting, Megan. But Dana Milbank lets us know how the hearing really went.
Annals of "Journalism," Ctd. Frank Rich & his interlocutor devote this week's entire Q&A to the Brian Williams/NBC News fiasco. ...
... Emily Steel of the New York Times has the tick-tock of Brian's Bad Week. ...
... Manuel Roig-Franzia, et al., of the Washington Post: "Senior NBC officials seriously considered firing anchor Brian Williams because he lied to his viewers about riding in a military helicopter hit by a rocket-propelled grenade during the Iraq war, according to a top network official. The ultimate decision to suspend Williams for six months was made after an internal investigation unearthed other 'instances of exaggeration.'... During those talks, Williams failed to secure a promise that he can return to the anchor chair...." The reporters do a good job of reconstructing how & why Williams was suspended. ...
... CW: One thing you can figure out from reading the WashPo piece is that NBC News didn't outright fire Williams because if they had, they would have lost control over him. With the suspension, "Williams is not allowed to make appearances without the approval of people at the network." For Williams, then, the suspension is kinda worse than being fired. ...
... Ken Auletta of the New Yorker blames it on Brokaw. ...
... David Carr of the New York Times: "[Jon] Stewart will leave his desk as arguably the most trusted man in news. And Mr. Williams will find his way back to his desk only if he figures out a way to regain the trust he has squandered. Mr. Williams is now all but locked in his own home -- he might as well have an ankle monitor on."
Presidential Race
Chris Hepp, et al., of the Philadelphia Inquirer: "Philadelphia has been selected to host the 2016 Democratic National Convention, DNC chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz announced this morning.The city beat out Columbus, Ohio, and Brooklyn, for the event, which will take place the week of July 25, 2016."
Steve Peoples of the AP: "A potential candidate no more, Mitt Romney is charting an aggressive course to help shape the Republican presidential field in 2016.... Aides suggest he is in a unique position to shape the 2016 debate, maintaining a regular presence on the speaking circuit and in national media, speaking on issues such as foreign policy, immigration and the minimum wage."
Ignorance Abroad. David Ferguson of the Raw Story: "In an appearance at Chatham House, the British international affairs think tank in London, Wisconsin's Gov. Scott Walker (R) declined to answer whether or not he believes in the scientific theory of evolution. According to Talking Points Memo, the Tea Party favorite and Koch Brothers beneficiary replied, 'I'm going to punt on that one.'" CW: Maybe a prominent think tank is not the best place to admit you can't think. ...
... Jason Stein & Patrick Marley of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: "In a speech short on policy and long on restraint, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker addressed Great Britain's most prominent think tank Wednesday, avoiding questions on foreign affairs and evolution.... The Republican governor sought to bolster his foreign policy credentials ahead of his likely presidential run even as he evaded question after question on international affairs. In his last response, Walker ducked a question and follow-up from his interviewer about whether he believed in evolution.... The event's moderator, Justin Webb of BBC Radio 4, responded by saying he believed any British politician would answer by readily accepting evolution." CW: ALSO too, maybe an international affairs think tank is not the best place to demonstrate you knowing nothing about international affairs. Such a performance might not "bolster his foreign policy credentials." ...
... David Knowles of Bloomberg Politics: "While 99.85% of American earth and life scientists believe the theory of evolution to be bedrock fact, 42% of the general public surveyed in a 2014 Gallup poll said they believed that human beings arrived on the earth in their present form.... A 2014 Pew Research Center poll found that the number of Republicans who believe in evolution has gone down over the past five years, with 43 percent now saying that human beings have evolved, down from 54 percent when the same poll was given in 2009." Knowles runs down the views expressed by some other GOP candidates.
Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times: "Baton Rouge, La., is about to lose one of its crucial hospital emergency rooms, and the reason is clear: The administration of Gov. Bobby Jindal has refused to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, and won't put up any other money to keep the facility open. Because of the scheduled closure of the ER of Baton Rouge General Medical Center-Mid City, patients needing emergency treatment will have to travel as much as 30 minutes longer to reach the nearest ERs."
Beyond the Beltway
Sarah Kaplan of the Washington Post: "Craig Stephen Hicks was feared by his neighbors. He obsessed over parking spaces and always appeared angry. He used to watch a movie ["Falling Down"] about a man who goes on a shooting rampage over and over again. His ex-wife said he found the film hilarious. And just after 5 p.m. Tuesday, Hicks went to his neighbors' apartment and shot the three people inside, authorities say." ...
... Kevin Sullivan, et al., of the Washington Post: "A sudden, shocking spasm of violence near campus of the University of North Carolina here was followed quickly by alarm and debate about why three Muslims were allegedly gunned down by a neighbor and what role, if any, religion may have played. Police on Wednesday said that initial indications suggested the shooting stemmed from 'an ongoing neighbor dispute over parking,' an assertion that was echoed by the suspected shooter's wife. But relatives of the victims insisted that the incident should be viewed as a hate crime, while the fact that three Muslims were killed in a single shooting drew international attention to a relatively quiet college town." ...
... Steve M.: "Right-wingers are cherry-picking [American terrorist Craig] Hicks's now-blocked Facebook page in order to depict him as a lefty.... But the Daily Dot paints a somewhat different picture of Hicks: 'Under "political views," Hicks expressed libertarian leanings, writing, "I don't care about parties, just each individual and the rights of such in the Constitution! Some call me a gun toting Liberal, others call me an open-minded Conservative."'... Whether or not this was a hate crime, it almost certainly a crime that arose out of an American man's sense that he has the absolute right to resolve any and all disputes by pointing a gun at people."
Laura Gunderson of the Oregonian: "Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber [D] decided to resign Tuesday but then changed his mind, insisting Wednesday afternoon that he's staying.... The governor decided to pull back from resigning - set for Thursday or Friday -- after meeting with his attorney, Portland lawyer Jim McDermott, and his fiancée, Cylvia Hayes. Hayes' role in his administration has been the source of much of his troubles."
Bothered by Bodies. AP: "A Montana lawmaker is seeking to strengthen the state's indecent exposure law, stopping just short of his wish to outlaw yoga pants. Rep. David Moore on Tuesday introduced House Bill 365 in the House Judiciary Committee in response to a group of naked bicyclists who rolled through Missoula in August. The proposal would expand indecent exposure law to include any nipple exposure, including men's, and any garment that 'gives the appearance or simulates' a person's buttocks, genitals, pelvic area or female nipple. The Republican from Missoula said tight-fitting beige clothing could be considered indecent exposure under his proposal. ;Yoga pants should be illegal in public anyway,' Moore said after the hearing."
News Ledes
New York Times: "David Carr, who wrote about media as it intersects with business, culture and government in his Media Equation column for The New York Times, died at the office on Thursday. He was 58." ...
... Politico publishes Times executive editor Dean Baquet's memo to staff on Carr's death.
Los Angeles Times: "Two former models on Thursday became the latest to accuse comedian Bill Cosby of sexual misconduct. Flanked by their attorney Gloria Allred, Lise-Lotte Lublin and Linda Brown told reporters that they were young models at the time Cosby is accused of drugging them in hotel rooms. Brown said Cosby sexually assaulted her."
New York Times: "An Egyptian court on Thursday ordered the release of two journalists jailed here for more than a year on charges of broadcasting false news in a conspiracy with the Muslim Brotherhood, evidently moving to try to end international criticism over the case.... Both journalists, Mohamed Fadel Fahmy and Baher Mohamed, were working for the English-language channel of the Qatar-owned broadcaster Al Jazeera when they were arrested at the end of 2013.... The courtroom was packed with journalists and erupted in applause. A third journalist arrested with them, Peter Greste, an Australian, was released about two weeks ago under a presidential decree allowing the deportation of foreigners convicted of crimes here."
AP: "The Islamic State group published what it described as an interview with the widow of the French gunman who attacked a kosher supermarket and a police officer in Paris last month, claiming for the first time that she was among extremist fighters. The text interviews in French and English, published Wednesday and Thursday, did not directly name Hayat Boumeddiene or show images of her, instead identifying her only as the wife of Amedy Coulibaly, or Umm Basur al-Muhajirah. She is considered key to the investigation into the attacks in Paris, which left 20 people dead including the gunmen, although she left France just beforehand."
New York Times: A new cease-fire and an overall compact to end the war in eastern Ukraine was announced [in Minsk] on Thursday by the leaders of France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine after marathon overnight bargaining that threatened to derail the attempt. Even as the agreement was announced, it appeared fragile, with officials on all sides saying that there was more work to be done."
WABC has more on the crash that killed CBS newsman Bob Simon. See also yesterday's Ledes.
Share Article
Reader Comments (18)
It is hard to be sure about the motive in the killing of the three Muslim students. I understand how the world Muslim community views it. The problem is they don't understand that shooting three people to death over a parking spot is just a typical day in America.
P.S. I think this was at least in part a hate crime.
As part of the 99.85. of all of the delusional human states, this one really scares me. I am sure that to some extent it is just a lack of knowledge. This is the American education system. But that is just a piece. The major cause is a demand for ignorance. The very idea that humans can ignore reality and live in Neverland is the basis of most of our problems. Apparently the intelligent designer created a special method of human ignorance.
My thoughts exactly, Marvin. I find it alarming that the percentage of ignorance has leaped up since 2009 which explains in part how these looney politicians get voted into Congress and in governor seats. Are these the same folks who believe in life ever lasting?
It doesn't bode well for some of our representatives to cross the waters and venture into (apparently) the saner territory of Great Britain. Romney made a fool of himself as has Scott Walker. "I'll punt on that," is not only stupid, it's embarrassing.
If the King vs Burwell petitioners are so wanting why is the S.C. even taking that up? I thought they, those supreme beings, were pretty picky when they decided which cases they would hear.
A hate crime? A man who shoots three Muslims in the head for a parking dispute is either crazy nuts or he hates Muslims. All three of these victims were upstanding individuals on their way to add to this country's best. When I watched this murderer amble into the courtroom I wanted to dive into my TV and spit in his face. A throughly despicable human being.
Does anyone else find it hie-larious that Sleepy John, aka Orange Man, aka Cheeto Man, aka Barely Speaker Again, after six years of doing nothing more strenuous than hoisting himself onto a bar stool is now screeching for Democrats to "get off their asses"?
Confederate screamers are at it again, calling for shutdown if the president and Democrats don't "compromise". Forgive me, wingnuts, but bowing to demands like "shutdown" isn't compromise, it's blackmail. Here's a dictionary. And here's a copy of the Constitution. Now go to your rooms and study both.
Every hour of every day it's evident (it has been so for years, but now they're officially in charge) that these people don't have the slightest idea what real politics and governance are about. They are foot stamping children who believe if they hold their breath until they turn blue, or yell loudly enough, or threaten to take their ball and go home, that they'll get their way.
Just because they dress appropriately, suits and ties, pantsuits, nice dresses and camo shoes, doesn't mean they're civilized or know shit from Shinola about how to run a country.
The vast majority of them are ignorant even about American history, the rule of law, and basic principles of governance. They think they can say something and it becomes true because they've said it. They think they can lay down the law, never give an inch, and get everything they want.
They are infants.
So maybe Boehner should get his ass off the bar stool and do some real work for a change.
Hie-larious.
Full agreement on what Marvin and PD are saying, regarding the right-wing morons who beset us and try everyone's patience on a daily basis.
Not long ago, I wondered (purely as a casual exercise--not expecting anything to change much) why one of our two political parties has become so overrun with lunatics. Everything they do is half-cocked. They never think things through and so make ridiculous demands that too often end up as egg on their faces. But they also impose terrible stresses on the body politic. They promote ignorance and hatred. Even the so-called best of them, those who currently darken the wash cloths at the Supreme Court, support ignorance and ideological fealty over what is meet and just.
Example number one is the latest challenge to the ACA. Instead of a solid case based on serious flaws in the law that has caused real and demonstrable damage or hardship, Obama haters drag in stars from some TLC wingnut reality show sent over from central casting to represent prototypical teabagging ignoramuses.
AND it would be a pleasant surprise if any of them had actual standing to bring the case. The the lack of standing hasn't seemed to bother the wingers on the court, although it should. I seem to recall Scalia has turned thumbs down on some pretty serious cases, Clapper v Amnesty International, regarding warrantless surveillance, and Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife, regarding environmental protection, because, in his opinion, the litigants had no standing. As Scalia might say, "No tickee, no laundry."
But the cast of Duck Dynasty who haven't even been affected by the ACA deserve standing? They get a pass because the schemers on the court see another way to get out the knives and go to work on a program that sets their ideological teeth on edge. Poor people getting healthcare!! Unthinkable. So ideological opportunity trumps standing.
Kooks, con-men, crooks, and begrudgers. These are the primary keepers of the Confederate flame today. I'd like to say the Republican Party, but there really is no more Republican Party. It exists only as a name.
They are the Party of Idiots, Haters, and Schemers.
On compromise.
Earlier in the week, I forget where now, but it really doesn't matter, it could have been ABC, NBC, NPR, the Sacramento Bee, or the Housatonic Hatchet, I heard a reporter ask a White House official for about the 756,000 time "But can't the president compromise with Republicans on this thing?" This "thing" being the ACA.
The official to my surprise and pleasant shock said "No". "Compromise" means no more Affordable Care Act. The thing was built on the premise that certain of the insured would be subsidized. That's the only way it works. And everyone has understood this from the get go."
Which is also why Republicans cannot come up with a viable alternative plan, at least not one that works.
I am so fucking tired of listening to all these calls for compromise and whining questions from the media about it, as if the president hadn't already watered the thing down enough to suit the Confederate Haters. But it's a one way street. I have yet to hear anyone ask Boehner or McConnell why they can't compromise. On anything. Ever.
Here's what "compromise" means to wingers, and I'm sorry to use a Bill Cosby bit to illustrate it, but it's still a good one.
The bit involves the coin toss at the beginning of football games. The premise is, what might happen if you had a coin toss before wars. Go to the American Revolution.
"Okay, cap'n of the British, meet the cap'n of the Americans; call the toss, Brits. British call heads, it's tails. Americans, what you want to do? Okay, the Americans say them and their boys get to wear any color clothes they want, shoot from behind trees and rocks, and everywhere. Say that your boys got to wear red and march in a straight line."
And that's what constitutes compromise for wingnuts. So no more talk of compromise, please, assholes.
Brian Williams can look to Bob Simon for an example of a correspondent who didn't lie about what he did.
Re: Keystone. Nice to see Boehner follow the Koch script!
Interesting conversation with a writer this morning on NPR:
http://www.npr.org/2015/02/12/385646951/vollmann-writes-about-fukushima-s-quiet-horror-in-harper-s-magazine
Hearing him describe the seemingly harmless empty places in the Fukushima Red Zone made me think about sending a bunch of our "I am not a scientist" folks over there to see what their "guts" tell them about what is safe and what is not safe. I gathered that substantial metal objects like manhole covers and drainage grates are especially toxic, something I wouldn't have thought of.
I wonder: Would they listen to scientists and act on those recommendations if their near-term lives depended on it? Or would they wander around for days, enjoying the peacefulness?
@Akhilleus: I am struck by the contrast between the King v. Burwell plaintiffs & Edie Windsor, the complainant in the case in which the Supremes overturned DOMA. Besides being a lovely woman, Windsor had a real case: the government would not allow her to claim the federal estate tax exemption when her wife Thea Spyer (whom Windsor had married in Canada & with whom she had lived for decades) died & left her estate to Windsor. This cost Windsor more than $350K. That is, she had a real financial loss besides the emotional damage of not being recognized as Spyer's wife.
Plaintiffs don't have to be sympathetic characters, of course. The courts have decided many Constitutional & statutory cases in favor of some pretty awful characters. Ernesto Miranda, for instance, the litigant in the case that guaranteed us Miranda rights, was a real creep.
However, they do have to suffer a real loss in order to have standing. It appears none of the plaintiffs in King is hurt by the law. (Of course there are people living in states that haven't set up their own exchanges who actually do have to "suffer" by paying the penalty for not getting coverage, but it appears the lawyers for the plaintiffs couldn't find any suckers who would be more sympathetic than this quarter of losers & lamebrains (no disrespect intended.) Ergo, I hope this case isn't decided base solely on these particular plaintiffs' dicey claims. Because if that's how it works out, you can bet "their" lawyers (one plaintiff claims she's never met any of the lawyers on the case) will be back with some different plaintiffs.
Still, I'll be interested to hear if these plaintiffs' lack of standing comes up in oral arguments. I think the government should at least mention it as further evidence the case is a sham.
Marie
Marie,
Absolutely they should mention it. If I were Don Verrilli or whoever will be arguing the case for the government, I would want the issue of standing to be addressed post-haste. I'm sure Scalia would see that as impertinent and might be likely, after a few well crafted barbs and some nasty innuendo, to try to glide right over it, but hopefully the Supremes who aren't already in the tank might take up the question and not let it die. Legal dictionaries agree with your interpretation of standing:
"The Supreme Court has developed an elaborate body of principles defining the nature and scope of standing. Basically, a plaintiff must have suffered some direct or substantial injury or be likely to suffer such an injury if a particular wrong is not redressed. A defendant must be the party responsible for perpetrating the alleged legal wrong."
The issue of standing has been used quite often in the past to stop certain groups from challenging laws, especially, by the current court, when it involves class action suits that would aid workers, or support claims of environmental damage. To use the concept of standing to maintain a status quo Confederates find appealing but then to toss aside the notion of standing when it might impede the Court's ability to tear up a law many on their side find objectionable, purely because of its provenance, would (will?) clearly demonstrate that this court is purely a political--at least the dark side of the court--hack operation which hands down decisions based on partisan loyalties and has no real interest in law or justice, and certainly no interest in precedence and principle.
The fact that this bullshit suit has gotten this far is already evidence of the hackery at the core of the Roberts agenda. As you say, you don't have to like the litigants for the case to have merit and standing, but I'm pretty sure Mr. Miranda knew what was going on and what was at stake, unlike some of the King v Burwell clowns.
Moron Alert, Moron Alert. Everyone wearing tinfoil hats, please proceed straight to the Fox Bunkers.
Is Andrea Tantaros really the stupidest person on Fox? And by that I mean in the entire television medium? She's, by god, giving it her best shot if she's not.
She can pack more stupid into one sentence than I would ever have thought possible. She makes George W. Bush sound like a reasonably smart person.
So the other night, she is able, in a couple of sentences to include "climate change is a hoax" which is true because "science doesn't work" and because it doesn't work, scientists and Obama (have to get him in there, right?) "steal our freedoms" by making us "stay inside when it snows". Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, and....and....ahhh....Obama hates us because he believes climate change, which isn't real and based on science that isn't real because freedom, or something, "is worse than terrorism!!" Can you believe it? Not only does he steal our freedoms and make us stay inside when it snows because climate change isn't real, he thinks terrorists are okay because they're not as bad as climate stuff which isn't even real."
Ho-Lee shit, Batman.
But then you have to recall that this is the idiot who was yelling about vaccinations being dangerous, about how the United States is "awesome" so torture away, about drunk girls deserving to be raped because responsibility, and besides, what are those drunk frat boys supposed to do? Huh? And leave us not forget that because Ray Rice punched his wife in an elevator in a casino, it was all Obama's fault.
In any sane universe, this person would be sitting at the end of a dive bar, nursing her sixth Appletini, not having showered in a week, yelling to the bartender and other patrons about how she knows no one really landed on the moon. Instead, Fox gives her a show on television.
Honestly, people like Tantaros make me feel like this guy.
Murdoch and Ailes have a lot to answer for.
So why are Republicans in denial about everything? What does government have to do with climate change, vaccinations or whatever?
Well here is my take. The "Republican Party" is a vast criminal enterprise. It consists of a group of greedy hucksters with only one interest, the same as the Mafia, make money. This includes the politicians, most of which belong in jail for accepting bribes. They make their money by fraudulently promoting ideas that have nothing to really do with government structure and concept as they claim. Rather they have found a vast vulnerable entity that has just one problem to exploit. Fear. And the principle fear, controlled by religion and its related activities, is death. And the "Republicans" play the game of fear by denial. 'Everybody except you has it wrong.' Virtually every other country, culture, belief, idea is wrong.
So if you vote for us we will make sure that we support your belief that only you know the truth. And we will blame the liberals for our theft of your money.
@Marvin Schwalb. An excellent analogy. Unfortunately, it's not a fact because the criminals -- including those on the Supreme Court -- have legalized their criminality; ergo, they're not actual criminals, just a gang of low-life wise guys going around threatening the gullible that Muslims, black people, illegal immigrants, Democrats of every shade, etc., with be back to do them irreparable harm.
@Akhilleus: As for Tantaros, she sounds like a 13-year-old who's been grounded & is lashing out at her Mom. Nothing has to make sense; she can't get what she wants, that is beyond egregious, so she throws the kitchen sink at Mom.
Whether it's Tantaros or the 13-year-old, you have an adolescent shouting, "You're not the boss of me!" "Tantaros pursued graduate studies* at the Sorbonne" (or she's a graduate of the Sorbonne. We'll leave it to the MSM to fact-check that the way they did Brian Williams).
Marie
Marie, your right, the Supreme Court has declared political bribery a legal activity in America. Let's hope that someday another court will change the game. And the key piece to make it happen is to get all of America out to vote. My greatest frustration is the the clear majority is on the correct (I was about to say 'right' side but I may never use that word again) side. Our greatest problem is a lack of responsibility.
BTW because of global warming we are about to freeze our ass off in the next few days.
I think Li'l Randy left a few important items off his "Things to Blame on Hillary" list.
How 'bout 2am infomercials? Missing socks from the dryer, unpopped kernels at the bottom of movie popcorn bags, that funny smell from something in the freezer which you can never seem to locate, radio DJ's who talk over half the song, the designated hitter, the neighbor's dog who insists on leaving a morning present in your driveway, restaurant chili from a can, juice from concentrate, emoticons from anyone, people who don't know the difference between it's and its, the drop in cold water pressure in the shower when your spouse flushes the toilet, and the snow on the side of the road that turns that yucky shade of carbon black after a week or so.
If you're gonna make shit up Buddha Boy, might as well make it interesting.
In the Guardian another cop shooting. Police in Georgia responding to a 911 call were greeted at the door by a man stupid enough to be holding a gun. The police responded with the typical "drop-bang-your-bang-gun-bang-bang-bang". The gun was empty but real. Kevin Davis, paralyzed by a bullet in the spine, was taken to hospital in Atlanta. There he was handcuffed to his bed. His family was denied access to the dying Mr Davis until after his death when they were told "you can have him now".
18 months ago the University of Guelph released the results of a study they did testing with DNA the claimed contents of 44 naturopathic drugs available in stores across north america. 60% of the samples were contaminated with things like powdered rice or wheat. Some containers held no drugs just powdered rice and weeds. One contained none of the drug on the label but instead another, dangerous herb. New York state is acting. Canadian governments under consumer pressure, are pondering.
@Marie,
I thought Andrea went to the Louvre.