Ray Manzarek of the Doors (1939-2013)

By Richard K. Barry

Ray Manzarek was the keyboardist for the The Doors. He was also a founding member of the group. He died earlier this afternoon after a long battle with bile duct cancer. He was 74 years old.

CBC News:

Manzarek founded The Doors after meeting then-poet Jim Morrison in California. The band went on to become one of the most successful rock 'n' roll acts to emerge from the 1960s and continues to resonate with fans decades after Morrison's death brought an effective end to the band.

The Doors were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Manzarek is among the most notable keyboard players in rock history. His lead-instrument work with the band at a time when the guitar often dominated added a distinct end-times flavor that matched Morrison's often out there imagery and persona.

The group is best known for hits like L.A.Woman, Break On Through to the Other Side, The End and Light My Fire — a song particularly coloured by his keyboard work — and came to symbolize the decadence of Los Angeles as the counterculture grew in the U.S.

P.M. Headlines

(Politico): "Clintons to stay out of N.Y.C. race"

(CNN): "CNN Poll: Tea Party gets boost from IRS controversy"

(Politico): "Senior W.H. staff knew of IRS investigation, did not tell Obama"

(New  York Times): "How to legalize pot"

(Reuters): "Monster tornado flattens suburb of Oklahoma City"

Happy Victoria Day!

By Richard K. Barry

Today is Victoria Day in Canada (celebrated on the last Monday before May 25th).  It is also considered the unofficial beginning of Summer and is not dissimilar to Memorial Day in the U.S. in that respect. 

As a transplanted American it has taken me years to get used to these Canadian holidays, but I think I have the hang of it. This day is in honour of Queen Victoria's birthday. There is still a lot of that royal stuff up here, which can be hard on my radical democratic sensibilities, so don't get me started. 

It is also a day away from blogging for the most part. See you tomorrow. 

GIN!

By Carl

Here’s the thing: the best strategy for Republicans is to just let it go:

WASHINGTON — The scandals dogging President Barack Obama are a political gift to Republicans, who could use some good luck after recent election losses. It’s not clear, however, how Republicans can best capitalize on Democrats’ woes, legislatively or politically.

Last November’s election dynamics complicate the picture on both fronts. Republican leaders are urging a bit of restraint in exploiting the White House’s new weaknesses.

Taken together, Republicans say, these three controversies portray a rapaciously political and inept administration. That could be a powerful message in next year’s congressional and gubernatorial elections, and perhaps in the 2016 presidential race.

[…]

[Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla, a close ally of House Speaker John Boehner], however, said Boehner and other party leaders are keenly aware that Republicans can overdo their attacks, and even build sympathy for Obama, if their criticisms appear nakedly political or not supported by facts.

“We’ve actually had a lot of discussions about that,” Cole said.

Since the “scandals,” however factually based one of them actually is, are pretty much made up of spit and chewing gum, there’s not a lot of worry that Republicans, Inc won’t overplay their hands. They will and spectacularly. 

Read more »

Styx: "The Best of Times" (from the great Paradise Theater)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Okay, let's head back through the mists of time...

Say what you want about Styx, when they were good, like at the height of their powers from 1977 to 1983, they were... really pretty good.

Oh, they're still around, sadly minus Dennis DeYoung, but those were the glory years, culminating in 1983's Kilroy Was Here, which featured "Mr. Roboto" and "Don't Let It End."

The Grand Illusion (1977), with "Don't Sail Away," was fine, as were Pieces of Eight (1978), with "Renegade" (played to much fanfare in the second half of Pittsburgh Steelers home games to rally the defense -- always an amazing thing, as I can attest), and Cornerstone (1979), with "Babe," but to me Styx hit its peak with 1981's Paradise Theater, truly a great album, the band's chemistry shining and each individual songwriter (DeYoung, Tommy Shaw, James Young) contributing his particular voice to the enterprise. It really is quite fantastic, even if it's also very much a product of its time, mature, adult-oriented soft rock of the early '80s.

To me -- and this is one of the first albums I can remember liking, back when I was first becoming a fan of pop music as a pre-teen) -- the best part of the album has always been the end of "Half-Penny, Two-Penny," a potent critique of American capitalism, and "A.D. 1958," the last two songs on the album before the short outro, "State Street Sadie," but there's no denying that the melancholy "The Best of Times," the moving end of Side 1, is among the best songs of the band's long career.

Seriously, go back and listen to this whole album. Discover, or rediscover, what Styx was all about. There's a lot to like.

And watch this, the music video for "The Best of Times," also very much a product of its time, for better and for worse:

Loan Harry Reid your testicles

By Frank Moraes 

(Ed. note: Frank's second open letter to Sen. Boxer is here. -- MJWS)

At The Washington Post, two writers I admire, Greg Sargent and Jonathan Bernstein, are excited about the prospect of filibuster reform. First, Sargent broke the news that Harry Reid plans to go for the "nuclear option" in July if the Republicans filibuster three upcoming nominees: "Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; Thomas Perez as secretary of labor; and Gina McCarthy to head the Environmental Protection Agency." And then Bernstein argued that Reid was playing this just right by giving the Republicans a warning and an opportunity to reform themselves.

The problem, of course, is: really?! Are we really supposed to believe that (1) Republicans will respond to what they should rightly assume is an empty threat? And is it at all credible that (2) Reid will in fact do anything this time other than shake hands with Mitch McConnell? However, it is possible that I'm being unfair to the Majority Leader. According to Bernstein, Reid is constrained because (he doesn't put it this way) he is the leader of a bunch of wimps who wouldn't go to the bathroom without asking permission from the Republicans. And there is likely something to that. But if it is the case that Reid doesn't have the support of his caucus, then why is he saying anything at all?

Another problem is that we really don't know what Reid means by his test case of three nominations. The truth is that the Republicans filibuster every nominee. I know that some nominees do get through, but that is only because some Republicans vote for cloture. Let's be really clear here: Senate Republicans require 60 votes for every nominee. Requiring 60 senators before a vote can be cast is a filibuster. If they get the 60 senators, it was an unsuccessful filibuster; but it was still a filibuster.

So the question is, will Harry Reid launch the "nuclear option" if Republicans unsuccessfully filibuster these three nominees? Because they will filibuster them. And even worse, what if only one or two of the nominees are successfully filibustered? We don't know. But I have a hunch: Reid will declare victory and slink away. I would love to be proven wrong.

Read more »

Craziest Republican of the Day: E.W. Jackson

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Virginia may be turning blue, but its Republican Party -- the party of Gov. Bob McDonnell and Lt. Gov. Ken Cuccinelli -- is getting redder and redder.

And crazier and crazier, perhaps because it knows deep down that it's losing the state.

You'll recall that McDonnell, among other things, reinstituted state discrimination against gays and lesbians as well as Confederate History Month in Virginia, while Cuccinelli, who is now running for governor, worries about exposed boobs and blow jobs and otherwise pushed an even more extremist agenda.

Well, apparently that's not crazy enough for Virginia Republicans, who yesterday nominated E.W. Jackson, a far-right minister, to be Cuccinelli's successor. And just how crazy is Jackson?

Jackson also maintained a now defunct blog on his site, where he argued in one post that President Obama saw the world "from a Muslim perspective."

Obama clearly has Muslim sensibilities. He sees the world and Israel from a Muslim perspective. His construct of "The Muslim World" is unique in modern diplomacy. It is said that only The Muslim Brotherhood and other radical elements of the religion use that concept. It is a call to unify Muslims around the world...

Those who are paying attention and thinking about these issues do not find it unreasonable to consider that President Obama is influenced by a strain of anti-Semitism picked up from the black community, his leftist friends and colleagues, his Muslim associations and his long period of mentorship under Jeremiah Wright. If this conclusion is accurate, Israel has some dark days ahead. For the first time in her history, she may find the President of the United States siding with her enemies.

Um, what?

Read more »

Relentless Republican outrage and the fake scandals that failed to bring down Barack Obama

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Another fake scandal.

It wasn't really such a bad week for President Obama, just a bad week for President Obama according to a Beltway media establishment desperately looking for some excitement and more than willing to go right along with the ongoing Republican assault on everything the president does.

The point is, while it was a week of annoying scandalmongering, and surely incredibly annoying to the White House, what really happened is that the Republicans pushing the scandals along with their media enablers were finally exposed as a bunch of frauds. Consider:

Benghazi: This has long been over, but Republicans won't let it rest. They thought they had a smoking gun in leaked White House e-mails that suggested political interference in post-attack talking points, but the story, after the White House released the full e-mails, is now rightly about how Republicans altered those e-mails and how ABC News was played and/or in on it. End result: Republicans look bad.

IRS: Conservatives freaked out and Republicans ultimately blew their load. The IRS could and should have handled their investigation of Tea Party groups with greater care, but there's no scandal. Obama didn't order any sort of Nixonian investigation of his enemies and the IRS invesigates the tax-exempt claims of groups across the spectrum. End result: Obama found a scapegoat in the IRS commissioner, which is a shame, but it's clear the IRS did nothing fundamentally wrong. Republicans don't look bad as much as they look hypocritical.

AP: The federal government's subpoenaing of the media organization's phone records may be the only real scandal here, and initially the Beltway media were up in arms, but there's no one really driving this one other than Obama's critics on the civil libertarian left (e.g., Glenn Greenwald, and I tend to agree with them). Everyone knows that this sort of thing has gone on for a long time (Patriot Act, anyone?) and everyone knows that Obama has maintained much of the Bush-Cheney national security state. And Republicans have no interest in defending the media from the left. They're not saying anything because they agree with the Justice Department. End result: Obama and Holder deserve criticism, but this one's done.

Oh, but Republicans are as desperate as ever to try to bring down the president (as well as the person they see as their likely nemesis in 2016, Hillary Clinton). Indeed, what this week proved is not that the president is being brought down by scandal (given that these are faux scandals pushed by Republicans and sensationalized by their media enablers) but that Republicans have nothing but obstructionism and outrage to hurl in his direction. His approval numbers are fine, Obamacare is becoming the law of the land, and while they've successfully blocked him in Congress (e.g., voting down the extremly popular Manchin-Toomey background check gun bill) their electoral prospects remain dim. They tried for four years to tear him down. This is just more of the same. It's all they've got.

Read more »

Anathema: "A Natural Disaster"

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Back in January, I blogged about the great British post-prog band Anathema, writing that their most recent album, Weather Systems, was one of the very best (if not the best) of 2012.

Here they are performing "A Natural Disaster," the title track off their 2003 album, at the Palladium in Cologne, Germany, on December 4, 2007.

(Yes, Lee Douglas, who sang the lead on this song on the album and has since become a full-fledged member of the band, is awesome.)

Vive la France! Down with Texas!

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Progress is on the march. In countries like Portugal and, of course, France:

France's president has signed into law a controversial bill making the country the ninth in Europe, and 14th globally, to legalise gay marriage.

On Friday, the Constitutional Council rejected a challenge by the right-wing opposition, clearing the way for Francois Hollande to sign the bill.

He said: "I have taken [the decision]; now it is time to respect the law of the Republic."

It wasn't easy:

Mr Hollande and his ruling Socialist Party have made the legislation their flagship social reform since being elected a year ago.

After a tortured debate, the same-sex marriage and adoption bill was adopted by France's Senate and National Assembly last month.

The bill was quickly challenged on constitutional grounds by the main right-wing opposition UMP party of former president Nicolas Sarkozy.

But the Constitutional Council ruled on Friday that same-sex marriage "did not run contrary to any constitutional principles," and that it did not infringe on "basic rights or liberties or national sovereignty".

Indeed, while France is a generally progressive country (e.g., on health care), the right is still very strong, with conservatives well to the right of Sarkozy, and issues like gay rights and immigration prove to be deeply divisive.

Still, it's done, a victory for liberty and equality (and, for that matter, fraternity), and that's more than you can say about the U.S., which includes retrograde states like Texas:

A Republican Texas Judge has ordered a lesbian couple to live apart or give up custody of their children. According to Think Progress, Judge John Roach of McKinney, Texas has given Page Price 30 days to move out of the home she shares with Carolyn Compton and Compton's two children from a previous marriage because he does not approve of Compton and Price's "lifestyle."

Roach has placed a "morality clause" in Compton's divorce papers, which forbids Compton from having anyone she is not related to "by blood or marriage" in her home past 9:00 p.m. if the children are present. Same sex marriage is illegal in Texas, so by law, Compton cannot live with Price if she wishes to retain custody of her children.

That's not Saudi Arabia, that's Texas. And that's right, this bigot of a judge, reinforcing the bigotry of that state, is denying this woman her liberty and her equality (and, for that matter, her fraternity).

Truly, utterly shameful.

Affinity bias and the White House scandals

By Frank Moraes 

I've been thinking a lot about why so many journalists I follow went so wrong on the supposed White House Scandals this week. I think it has a lot to do with affinity bias. And that does not speak well for the state of journalism.

A lot of people wonder why, for example, conservatives often hold opinions that are just wrong. Throughout the Bush administration, Fox News viewers were systematically misinformed about important issues. Why was that? It's quite simple: they trusted Fox News. And that is not only acceptable, it is necessary. We can't independently become experts on every issue we hear about. So we find people who we trust as experts and believe what they say.

Of course, it pays to be selective. Anyone who gets their information from cable news is cruising for a bruising. In general, I think that MSNBC is a lot better than Fox News. But that isn't always case. I think Fox News has done a better job under Obama than they did under Bush. It's all been pretty bad, though. MSNBC has done better generally, but I think they were soft on Obama during the campaign. At times they act as apologists for the Obama Administration -- especially certain shows. Regardless, I think that MSNBC does a better job of informing liberals than Fox News does informing conservatives. Of course, the best conservative print publications are better. Ramesh Ponnuru of the National Review and Josh Barro of Bloomberg View are both fact based. I wish a lot more conservatives got their news from people like them.

There really is a difference between what liberals and conservatives think about things even when they are working off the same set of facts. And that should be enough. But instead, generally conservatives get different facts than liberals do. I think this is about 90% the fault of conservative media, but it hardly matters. My point is that we've got to trust someone.

I've worked very hard to find people who I feel I can trust -- people who will not knowingly deceive me and will admit when they are wrong. I still feel very dependent on these people. But not always. For example, most of them went crazy this last week. They acted as though there was something to all these scandals. There were damned few people like me who were pushing back against this. And my question is: why?

Read more »

Death, Teapot Dome, and Benghazi, Cuba

By Frank Moraes 

According to Public Policy Polling (pdf), 74% of Republicans think that the Benghazi scandal is worse than Watergate. But I wonder: do these people even know what Watergate was about? That scandal has come to be a blanket term for a whole lot of presidential malfeasance. The Watergate break-in was just the loose thread that once pulled unraveled the whole shirt. But we can't know what these Republicans think about Watergate because they weren't asked. They were, however, asked if Benghazi was worse than Iran Contra and only 70% thought it was. And even more interesting, 74% think Benghazi is worse than the Teapot Dome scandal.

(Note: the worst thing about the Benghazi "scandal" is that it has forced me to learn to spell it! Look people: I have a hard enough time keeping the spelling of all the really useful words in my mind. There's only so much space. I blame the Republicans.)

What are we to make of these numbers? I think it's pretty simple: Republicans don't like Obama. Because let's face it, I doubt that 5% of Republicans have even heard of Teapot Dome and 1% know what it was. I suspect if you asked Republicans if Benghazi was worse than Judas betraying Jesus for 30 pieces of silver, they would say, "Yes!" I even know their argument: only one person died in Jerusalem whereas four people died in Benghazi! Okay, maybe they wouldn't say that because most of them are Christians, but it does make as much sense as the argument, "No one died as a result of Watergate!" (Interestingly, the whole Benghazi "scandal" has been about what the White House said about Benghazi after the attack: the controversy is the "talking points." No on died as a result of the talking points either, but that isn't mentioned.)

If you think I am overstating the ignorance of the Republicans, just check out another part of the poll. PPP asked the "worse than Watergate" respondents where Benghazi was. Of them, 39% didn't know. Here's what they said:

• 10% Egypt (Close!)
• 9% Iran (Only 1,500 miles off!)
• 6% Cuba (6,000 miles!)
• 5% Syria (1,000 miles)
• 4% Iraq (1,000 miles)
• 1% North Korea (5,600 miles!)
• 1% Liberia (2,600 miles, but it does sound the same)
• 4% Didn't know (Good answer!)

(I got the distances from this great tool: Distance From To. Check it out!)

Read more »

Progressive Portugal

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Portugal has had a long and complicated political history. In the last century, it was ruled by a brutal right-wing dictatorship from 1926 to 1974. The non-violent Carnation Revolution (or "25 April") of 1974 put an end to that tyranny, and the country held its first democratic election in 50 years a year later. But there was little stability in those early years of democracy, the country swinging back and forth from left to right, a new constitution adopted in 1976 and then revised in 1982 and 1989. And yet, through it all, stable and legitimate parliamentary democracy took hold. Looking at it now, from our current vantage point, it all seems quite remarkable. After decades and deades of oppression and terror, Portugal was able to build a healthy, sustainable democracy without all that much turmoil and bloodshed.

What is also remarkable is that this mostly Roman Catholic country that little to no experience with, nor appreciation for, diversity, a country with a long history of repression and exclusion, and worse, has become a beacon for progressive values. Maybe that can happen when you've been through what Portugal went though, and when you can start anew in a more progressive time, but it is remarkable nonetheless.

And one of the areas where it is most progressive is gay rights:

Portugal has offered marriage equality to same-sex couples since 2010, but until now had not allowed those couple to adopt each other's children. Today, the Portuguese Parliament passed a bill 99-94 to allow adoption, ending the discrepancy in what it means for same-sex couples to be married. Portugal is one of the few countries in the world that bans discrimination based on sexual orientation in its constitution.

Again: Catholic country, long history of brutal tyranny, relatively new democracy.

And it puts the United States, supposedly, we are constantly told, the greatest country ever, a beacon of liberty, to shame.

You deserve our admiration, Portugal, and our praise.

(image: a flag for a more inclusive Portugal)

Scandal?!

By Frank Moraes

This morning, Jonathan Chait reported, The Strange Creation of the Obama Scandals. And Glenn Greenward reported, The Major Sea Change in Media Discussions of Obama and Civil Liberties. Indeed, Obama does seem to be experiencing a perfect storm of bad sandal-like news. And most of the coverage of it is horrible.

It isn't as though all of these controversies don't tell us a whole lot about modern America. It is just that what they tell us is not playing much of a role in the coverage. Instead of looking at what is wrong with how this country is run, we get stories straight out of bad TV westerns. Obama wearing a black cowboy hat moseys into town and grabs an innocent woman. Suddenly, Rand Paul wearing a white cowboy hat rushes out into the street. "Take your hands off her!" Paul yells at him. And on and on. There's a bad guy in town and that bad guy is the president who is responsible for everything.

You all know me: I'm not a big fan of the president's. But he is not the bad guy in all of this. He certainly is one of the bad guys in an evil system that proudly rewards villainy. But he doesn't stand out in what is really going on and this is most definitely not a story of good versus evil.

Consider scandal number one: Benghazi. There is an important issue here. People in our foreign embassies should not be murdered. Were their problems with that particular embassy or our embassies generally? I'd like to know. I'm sure the American people would like to know. But that's not what the scandal is all about. It is about how the administration talked about the attack on the Sunday news shows after it happened.


Read more »

Midterm Madness: California's 36th Congressional District

By Richard K. Barry

(Charlie Cook is currently calling eight House races toss-ups for 2014. Seven of these are held by Democrats and only one by a Republican. Let's look at the California 36th.)

The California 36th is represented by Democrat Raul Ruiz. He won it against redistricted incumbent Mary Bomo Mack in 2012 by a margin of 52.9 percent to 47.1 percent. 

Obama beat Romney in the district 50.7 percent to 47.5 percent. 

According to Charlie Cook, rapid immigration of Hispanic and wealthy liberal voters in areas of this district made what had historically been a safe GOP seat a battleground district in 2012. 

Also important was the fact that Republican incumbent Mary Bono Mack was helping her husband run for the U.S. Senate in Florida and perhaps didn't pay enough attention to getting herself reelected.

The midterm dynamic is in play in 2014 and it may be a struggle for Ruiz to keep the seat without the lustre of the top of the ticket driving supportive turnout, which is what puts this in the toss up column for Cook. 

Ruiz is a part of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's Frontline Program, which is designed to help at risk incumbents, so they understand too. 

A name that comes up as a potential GOP challenger is Assemblyman Brian Nestande who, according to press reports, already has a campaign committee to run for the 36th CD. He hasn't declared but seems likely to run. 

Whoever gets the GOP nomination will probably work harder than Mary Bono Mack who has said she is done with politics.

The district's voter registration is almost equally divided and, as in 2012, both parties will focus serious effort here. 

(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

John Edwards resurfaces

By Richard K. Barry

I doubt it has much to do with electoral politics, but The Washington Post reported yesterday that John Edwards has reactivated his law license and is getting ready to hit the speakers circuit. 

It does make you wonder what with Mark Sanford reviving his political career and Anthony Weiner trying to do the same, could someone ever come back from what Edwards did? You would have to say no, but times change, and he is merely 60 years old. 

Edwards has remained largely out of public view since his May 2012 acquittal on one charge of campaign finance fraud. A judge declared a mistrial on five other criminal counts after jurors couldn’t agree if Edwards illegally used campaign money to hide his pregnant mistress as he ran for president in 2008.

I don't think there is much doubt about his talent, and those who know talk about his abilities as a trial lawyer, so perhaps getting back to that is what he should do.  

To refresh your memory:

The six-week-long trial recounted the most intimate details of Edwards’ affair with former campaign videographer Rielle Hunter, with whom the then-married presidential candidate fathered a daughter. At the time, Edwards’ wife Elizabeth was batting cancer; she died in late 2010.

At issue in the criminal case was about $1 million in unreported funds secretly provided by two wealthy campaign donors used to care for Hunter during her pregnancy, moving her across the country on private jets between a series of luxury resorts and homes.

For a while back in 2008 a lot of progressives were excited by John Edwards' statements and his more progressive political stands. While Obama and Clinton fought over center-left terrain, Edwards sounded more like someone who understood what it actually meant to be on the left. 

Too bad. 

(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

P.M. Headlines

Thomas Perez

(USA Today): "Second IRS official resigns after scandal"

(Fox News): "15 killed, including 6 Americans, after bomb hits US convoy on Afghanistan"

(Reuters): "US House lawmakers in last-ditch bid to save immigration bill"

(New York Times): "Onset of woes casts pall over Obama's policy aspirations"

(Politico): "Senate panel OKs Perez nomination for Labor Secretary"

(Ezra Klein): "The scandals are falling apart"

Behind the Ad: House Republicans go all "Arrested Development" on ObamaCare

By Richard K. Barry

Who: The House Republican Conference

Where: Web ad

What's going on: In a spoof of the opening credits of the cable TV show "Arrested Development," House Republicans are claiming all sorts of destruction in a new ad as a result of ObamaCare. Of course, once again, Republicans are going after a full repeal of the president's healthcare law very shortly so it's a timely piece.

We've heard these lines before, but cleverness should be acknowledged and this is kind of fun. 



(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

Where the hell are they shopping?

By Carl

Wal-Mart reported earnings yesterday, and it’s a bit eye-opening. If I was an investor¹, I’d be very worried:

Walmart, the world’s biggest retailer by sales, reported an unexpected drop in US sales that pointed to pressure on low-income consumers and sent its shares falling.

The discount chain said on Thursday that its US like-for-like sales in the 13 weeks to April 26 declined by 1.4 per cent. It had previously told investors that it expected sales to be “around flat”.

The company blamed the fall on delayed tax refunds from last year for consumers, a rise in the payroll tax rate this year, lower-than-expected food inflation, and bad weather.

Here’s the thing: the stock market is booming. China is suffering. The US economy is gaining momentum, which only happens when consumers go out and buy, regardless of when they get their tax refunds. So someone is selling to them. And if not Wal-Mart, the bastion of low prices and good selection (despite their irresponsible business practices and outright piratical scavenging of local retailers) then where?

When the economy is in the doldrums, and for what we know at this point in time, it still is, Wal-Mart is where people shop. It’s essentially one giant mall of discount prices on, well, not quality merchandise but certainly “better than a yard sale” stuff. People are still hurting out there, even though the worst of it appears to be over. The jobless numbers are still high and personal income is still declining when adjusted for inflation.

Wal-Mart should be selling like it’s ice cream on a hot summer’s day. And yet…

Now, I don’t have a problem with mass merchants, per se. I loved Sears and K-Mart for things like tools and household goods. I can’t help but to indulge in the slightest bit of schadenfreude when it comes to Wal-Mart. My few experiences with shopping in one have left a bad taste in my mouth. The stores are too large, the merchandise is pretty hard to sort through, and well, there’s the people who shop there.

Don’t cry too much for Wal-Mart: despite the drop in sales, they earned more money than they did for the same period last year, so they must be ripping consumers off harder.

------------------
¹ Full disclosure: my daughter owns one share, so I can keep abreast of corporate news and so I can vote against the Walton family.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind)

Get your own damn breadline

By Richard K. Barry

In a piece yesterday at Daily Kos on potential cuts to Food Stamp programs, this photo was posted with the caption "The U.S. Congress Sees Nothing Wrong With This Picture." Well, they may not, but I do. It's a picture of the Yonge Street Mission in Toronto, which started its work helping the needy in 1896. Toronto, as you may know, is not in the United States, and while Canada has its own problems with poverty, I don't expect the U.S. Congress to be all that worried about them.

(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

A.M. Headlines

(Politico): "Obama tries to stop the bleeding"

(The Guardian): "Syria condemned in UN vote but doubts grow about backing rebels"

(New York Times): "Acting chief of I.R.S. forced out over Tea Party targeting"

(The Hill): "Sanford thanks 'god of second chances' at House swearing-in ceremony"

(Reuters): "Tornadoes rip through Texas, killing six"

P.M. Headlines

(ABC News): "'Ineffective management' at IRS to blame for Tea Party targeting, report finds"

(CNN Politics): "Holder criticizes longtime foe at committee hearing"

(Bloomberg): "IRS sent same letter to Democrats that fed Tea Party row"

(New York Times): "White House pushes for media shield law"

(CNN): "White House releases 100 pages of Benghazi emails"

Midterm Madness: Arizona's 1st Congressional District

By Richard K. Barry

(Charlie Cook is currently calling eight House races toss-ups for 2014. Seven of these are held by Democrats and only one by a Republican. Let's look at these races, starting with the Arizona 1st.)

Republican Paul Gosar represented this district going into the 2012 election. Due to redistricting, however, which made it slightly less friendly to the GOP, he chose to run in the Arizona 4th. Without an incumbent in 2012 the seat was considered a toss-up. Democrat Ann Kirkpatrick, who held the Arizona 1st from 2009 to 2011, ran against Republican Jonathan Paton. 

Kirkpatrick won the election on Nov. 6, 2012 with 48.8 percent of the vote compared to Paton's 45.1 percent. A Libertarian candidate Kim Allen got 6.1 percent. 

For 2014, Kirkpatrick is listed as one of seven early targets by the National Republican Congressional Committee, due to the fact that the district is among the seven most Republican districts currently held by Democrats. 

In 2012, Romney received 50 percent of the vote compared to Obama's 48 percent in the district.

From the Democratic side Kirkpatrick is a member of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's Frontline Program, which helps the most vulnerable incumbents. 

Kirkpatrick lost in a midterm election in 2010 and will likely be vulnerable again in the midterm in 2014. Charlie Cook notes that she benefited from a high Native American turnout in 2012 and a decent Hispanic turnout, and a relatively weak opponent in state Sen. Jonathan Paton. 

Although Kirkpatrick won by almost 4 percent, a Libertarian candidate got 6 percent, which could well have been the difference between winning and losing, though direct transfers from one candidate to another are not a given. 


Read more »

Budget deficits? What budget deficits?

By Carl

NOW can we start spending some money to fix the nation?

Since the recession ended four years ago, the federal budget deficit has topped $1 trillion every year. But now the government's annual deficit is shrinking far faster than anyone in Washington expected, and perhaps even faster than many economists think is advisable for the health of the economy.

That is the thrust of a new report released Tuesday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, estimating that the deficit for this fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30, will fall to about $642 billion, or 4 percent of the nation's annual economic output, about $200 billion lower than the agency estimated just three months ago.

The agency forecast that the deficit, which topped 10 percent of gross domestic product in 2009, could shrink to as little as 2.1 percent of gross domestic product by 2015 — a level that most analysts say would be easily sustainable over the long run — before beginning to climb gradually through the rest of the decade.

That’s pretty remarkable. The deficit hasn’t been this low since Fiscal Year 2007, which was also Bush’s lowest deficit, half a trillion dollars.

You read that correctly: Bush’s deficits never once were below $500 billion (Clinton’s last budget did run a deficit of $100 billion, which slopped over into Bush’s first year in office.)

So much for tax cuts stimulating the economy. So much, moreover, for the silly sham that budget deficits are killing us.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind)

Behind the Ad: Progressive group targets Karl Rove

By Richard K. Barry

Who: The Bridge Project.

Where: Web ad.

What's going on: Karl Rove is already attacking Hillary Clinton over Benghazi even though she hasn't declared her candidacy for 2016, and the premise of his attack is absurd. Enter the Bridge Project, which is giving as good as Hillary gets by going after Rove as one of the slimiest operatives in the history of politics.


(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

A.M. Headlines

(ABC 10 News): "Lawmakers outraged over another military sex case"

(New York Times): "Management flaws at IRS cited in Tea Party scrutiny"

(Salon): "Who doctored a White House email?"

(The Hill): "Carney: Obama believes the press 'needs to be unfettered'"

(Stuart Rothenberg): "Obama's new political reality is bad news for Dems in 2014"

P.M. Headlines

(CNN): "Obama struggles with rocky start to second term"

(Reuters): "US attorney general says he didn't make AP phone record decision"

(Jake Tapper): "CNN exclusive: White House email contradicts Benghazi leaks"

(TPM): "Understanding the politics of the IRS scandal"

(Angelina Jolie): "My medical choice"

Blogging and tweeting in a time of fake scandal, media hyperbole, and Republican insanity

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I've been without home Internet access the past few days, hence my lack of blogging. It's now back up and running, and so I'll be getting back to it later today.

I have, however, been tweeting a lot from my phone, tweeting being easier than blogging. Highlights include celebrating the Maple Leafs' crushing loss last night and coming under assault from typically delusional teabagging wingnuts over Benghazi and the IRS (and, of course, pushing back with reality and the facts on my side).

You can find me on Twitter @mjwstickings, and I also have a Twitter widget with my updated feed over on the right sidebar of this site.

Anyway, thanks as always to Richard for taking care of things, even more so than usual. He's a fine, fine editor, and a great partner in this blogging endeavor of ours.

We'll have more from the team throughout the day. I'll be back with new posts later.

I hope you're all having a nice day.

**********

Oh, by the way, did you hear that a White House e-mail from then-Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes, obtained by CNN, contradicts recent media reports that suggested the White House was possibly involved in a nefarious plot regarding the Benghazi talking points?

I expect a full and unambiguous apology from media outlets, like ABC News, that breathlessly reported on the leaks in a way that enthusiastically heaped blame on the White House, as well as from all others, mostly Republican, who jumped on that bandwagon of lies.

Cue "The Sound of Silence" by Simon & Garfunkel:

And the people bowed and prayed
To the neon god they made

Out of my comfort zone

By Carl

Well, writing about boobies is not out of my comfort zone, but writing about celebrities is:

Angelina Jolie has made a tough decision that will forever change her life. The 37-year-old actress reveals that she underwent a double mastectomy in an attempt to reduce the odds that she will get breast cancer. In a New York Times column that came out Tuesday, Jolie admits that she had the surgery back in February and the last of the follow-up procedures done in April.

Jolie decided to get the surgery done because she had a high risk of getting breast cancer. "My chances of developing breast cancer have dropped from 87 percent to under 5 percent," Jolie writes. "I can tell my children that they don’t need to fear they will lose me to breast cancer." Doctors also told her that she has a 50 percent chance of getting ovarian cancer.

Jolie's partner and the father to their six children has been extremely supportive throughout the experience. "I am fortunate to have a partner, Brad Pitt, who is so loving and supportive," she says. "Brad was at the Pink Lotus Breast Center, where I was treated, for every minute of the surgeries."

Read more »

Of polar bears and patents

By Frank Moraes

The USA Today reported earlier this evening, Cute Kali: Orphaned Polar Bear Cub Prepares for Move. It told the story of the preparations to move young bear to the Buffalo Zoo. And yes, it is cute as a button. All mammals are cute before they get big enough to eat you. But there was something about the article that really caught my attention. It reported, "The bear's mother was killed March 12 by a subsistence hunter near Point Lay, an Inupiat Eskimo whaling community 300 miles southwest of Barrow and 700 miles northwest of Anchorage."

Where is the outrage? After all, polar bears are threatened. But there is no outrage because it would be really stupid to be outraged about a practice of the native people who have hunted the bears for generations. They aren't the reason that polar bears are threatened. There are lots of reasons to be concerned about the survival of the species and none of them are Eskimo hunting.

But this raises an important question: why can we be reasonable about the causes of polar bear population degradation but we can't be reasonable about economic matters? In particular: patents. It has long bothered me how patents reward innovation in a highly unjust and even random way. The Wright Brothers, for example, got a ridiculously high fraction of the rewards for work that they shared with many others who got less and in many cases nothing.

My point here is that we see that a subsistence hunter is but one small part of the forces that are causing polar bear populations to decrease, even though that hunter is the only cause of the death of that one polar bear. But we don't see (or regardless, don't care) that economic progress is also a large scale phenomenon that involves a whole society. Bill Gates probably does deserve to be well rewarded for his work. But there is no way that he is worth even 1% of the rewards that he's received.

Advances (scientific, artistic, business) are the results of a highly complicated social system. But we have settled on an economic system that doesn't come close to rewarding people in a just way. In fact, well over half of our politicians worship our broken system as though it were not only good but perfect. We need to start distinguishing the bears from the species. Or else we will all go extinct.

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Why Minnesota matters

By Mustang Bobby

Ten other states and the District of Columbia have already passed marriage equality, and yesterday Minnesota made it twelve. I congratulate those other states, but to me Minnesota matters a little more than Massachusetts, Vermont, Rhode Island, and the rest.

It’s for several reasons, all of them personal. My father was born and raised in Minneapolis, and that’s where my grandparents are buried. I went to grad school at the University of Minnesota in the Twin Cities, that’s where my first play was produced, and that’s where I was living when I came out to my friends and family and had my first significant relationship with another man. So that’s why I was especially glad to see that it rejected the marriage-for-straights-only amendment last fall and very, very happy to see them pass the marriage equality law yesterday afternoon. So far, of all the many places I’ve lived since leaving home, Minnesota is the only state where now I can get married to the man I love if I so choose (and assuming I have found him).

I think it says a great deal about the people of Minnesota and the strength of character they embody (and that I hope I inherited from my ancestral roots there) that they took on this issue and passed it not out of a sense of being radical or ground-breaking or even pro-gay and anti-family. They did it, it seems, out the of basic goodness and fairness that Minnesotans have shown for generations.

Now if we could get some of that Minnesota Nice to spread to the other remaining states, including Florida.

Here’s the floor speech yesterday by the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Scott Dibble of Minneapolis. He pretty much sums it all up.



(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

A.M. Headlines

(Philadelphia Inquirer): "Gov't obtains wide AP phone records in probe"

(Politico): "Journalists fume over DOJ raid on AP"

(Washington Post): "IRS officials in Washington were involved in targeting of conservative groups"

(New York Times): "Uneven I.R.S. scrutiny seen in political spending by big tax-exempt groups"

(USA Today): "Gosnell abortion trial moves to next phase"