Monday, January 21, 2013

Last Call

The speech was amazing.  On Martin Luther King Day, the nation's first African-American president made the progressive case for government.



We, the people, still believe that every citizen deserves a basic measure of security and dignity.  We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit.  But we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future.  For we remember the lessons of our past, when twilight years were spent in poverty, and parents of a child with a disability had nowhere to turn.  We do not believe that in this country, freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few.  We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, any one of us, at any time, may face a job loss, or a sudden illness, or a home swept away in a terrible storm. The commitments we make to each other - through Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security - these things do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us.  They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.

We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity.  We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.  Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.  The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult.  But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it.  We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries - we must claim its promise.  That is how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure - our forests and waterways; our croplands and snowcapped peaks.  That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God.  That's what will lend meaning to the creed our fathers once declared.


And Chuck Pierce with the best reaction to it.


The speech was a bold refutation of almost everything the Republican party has stood for over the past 40 years. It was a loud — and, for this president, damned near derisive — denouncement of all the mindless, reactionary bunkum that the Republicans have come to stand for in 2013; you could hear the sound of the punch he landed on the subject of global warming halfway to Annapolis. But the meat of the speech was a brave assertion of the power of government, not as an alien entity, but as an instrument of the collective will and desires of a self-governing people. 
We are not free because we are individuals, the president told them, daring them to hold two ideas in their heads at a time without their brains leaking out of their ears. We are free because, as individuals we work together in the creative act of self-government to produce a viable political commonwealth in which that freedom can thrive and prosper, and the primary instrument of that commonwealth is the government we devise out of it. That government must be allowed to function. That government must be allowed to operate for this freedom to be generally achieved.
We will wait and see, of course, what happens once the scaffolding and the bunting comes down, bearing in mind always the scriptural caution about faith without works being dead. But, for an afternoon, anyway, a Democratic president reclaimed the language of freedom from those for whom it means merely lower taxes and more guns. He reclaimed government as a manifestation of a country's aspirations, and not as an anchor on its progress. And he refuted, with precision and neatly camouflaged contempt, many of the most destructive ideas that have poisoned out politics for nearly four decades now. He did nothing less than redefine patriotism in a progressive way. That is already bothering  all of the right people. This, I tell you, is what gives me hope.

Amen to all of that.  Game is on now.  The President dropped a huge marker here.  He won.  And he's acting like it.

On The Next Night Court...

It's funny how in the blink of an eye, law-and-order minded wingers have gone from screaming about the need for mandatory sentencing, three strikes laws, and giving prosecutors the power to actually deal with those who break the law, to now that firearm legislation is the question of the day, yelling that America's various district attorneys and prosecutors are power-hungry pocket dictators.  Col. Mustard references Instadoofus:

Though extensive due process protections apply to the investigation of crimes, and to criminal trials, perhaps the most important part of the criminal process — the decision whether to charge a defendant, and with what — is almost entirely discretionary. Given the plethora of criminal laws and regulations in today’s society, this due process gap allows prosecutors to charge almost anyone they take a deep interest in. This Essay discusses the problem in the context of recent prosecutorial controversies involving the cases of Aaron Swartz and David Gregory, and offers some suggested remedies, along with a call for further discussion.

What follows is six pages of somnolent paranoia (itself quite a feat) that boils down to "Gubment is going to use prosecutors to steal your soul" followed by "let's do everything we can to make sure the broken criminal justice system is shattered to pieces so we can blame liberals and government, and then privatize the whole deal."

The whole thing is an exercise in Reynolds's usual glibertarian nonsense, where because government cannot be perfect, we have to scrap it in favor of free market everything.  Please note that most prosecutors are government employees, and trial lawyers are of course hired guns, so of course prosecutors are now the epitome of evil, with lots of hand-wringing over Jason Swartz and David Gregory.

Reynolds actually uses the words "skin in the game" and "loser pays" in his kit bag of snake oil remedies, which tells you just how much thought he's put into it.  We've gotten to the point where "Prosecutors should only bring cases they are sure to win or they'll be wasting taxpayer dollars!" as the solution to criminalization.

Where were these guys when New Jack City era drug laws in the 90's thought every black guy in the system was Nino Brown and the mass incarceration of minorities began in earnest?  Prosecutorial discretion was never a problem until the issue of actually enforcing gun regulations on the books became an issue, and especially wasn't an issue until President Obama proposed background checks and enforcing them.

Funny how that works.



An Old Gun Fighter Speaks

Doug Mataconis makes the case that Democrats should at least heed Big Dog's advice and keep in mind that pissing off the bitter clingers isn't going to help get anything passed.

If there’s any Democrat in the United States who has experience in taking on America’s gun owners and the Second Amendment, it’s Bill Clinton. Mere weeks before the 1994 Presidential Election, the United States Congress passed, and Clinton signed, a controversial Assault Weapons Ban. Indeed, while the conventional wisdom continues to hold that the primary motivation behind the massive Republican victories in the 1994 Congressional Elections was due in large part to the President’s failed effort at health care reform, many political observers have contended for years that it was the Administration’s push on the Assault Weapons Ban, and the political backlash that it unleashed from the National Rifle Association and other groups, that played the most significant role in the tidal wave that handed control of both Houses of Congress to the Republican Party.

I'm going to have to say that I disagree with that.  I still think "HillaryCare" did it, not to mention the House Post Office scandal.  The Dems were headed to defeat long before the Violent Crime Control and Prevention Act passed.  Let's remember that the bill passed the House with a number of Republicans you might recognize:  John Kasich, Jon Kyl, Illena Ros-Lehtinen, Olympia Snowe, 46 of them in all.  In the Senate, seven Republican broke ranks, including Arlen Specter and Nancy Kessebaum, as well as Linc Chafee.  Too many Republicans signed up for the bill for it to be the reason why the Dems were wiped out.

As far as Clinton's advice goes, Doug's take:

Clinton injects a little bit of political reality into the post-Newtown gun control conversation. The “gun culture” of which many gun control activists so derisively speak isn’t just limited to the South. It’s a strong force in the Midwest, especially among hunters, and in the west. Indeed, even in California there area millions of people who own guns and who would resist any effort to take those guns away. We live in a nation were that are nearly as many firearms in the open market as there are people. That suggests the very simply idea that draconian gun control laws are, for the most part, not going to succeed in taking significant action to restrict Second Amendment rights because of the legislative power that the so-called “gun lobby” can bring to bear. Results will vary from state to state, of course, but nationally it seems fairly clear to me that America’s gun owners and those of us, such as myself, who still support the right of American citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights, remain a force to be reckoned with. As Bill Clinton told his fellow Democrats, that’s something the advocates of further gun control ought to keep in mind.

Except for the fact that what President Obama has proposed isn't at all "significant action to restrict the Second Amendment."  It's being called that, and in fact has been called that for four years when President Obama was actually making it easier to obtain weapons, so much so that the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence rated him an across-the-board "F".   Much like "Obama is weak on immigration enforcement and national security" when the facts were completely the opposite, the notion that Obama is a gun grabber is complete nonsense.

If somebody can show me where President Obama is proposing to take guns away from people who already lawfully own them, that's different.  He has done nothing of the sort.

StupidiNews, MLK Day Edition!

Sunday, January 20, 2013

Last Call

Yes America, Republicans think you are this stupid.

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said Sunday that he does not believe President Obama’s gun-control proposals will be brought to the Senate floor for a vote.

Speaking on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Barrasso said election worries among Democrats will sideline legislation that could restrict gun ownership.

Obama has called on Congress to institute universal background checks for all gun sales as well as bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, among other items.


“I don’t think Sen. Harry Reid [D-Nev.] even brings it to the Senate floor because he has six Democrats up for election in two years in states where the president received fewer than 42 percent of the votes,” Barrasso said. “He doesn’t want his Democrats to have to choose between their own constituents and the president’s positions.”

Don't blame us when gun laws fail, blame Red State Blue Dog Dems!   Nice try, Tom.  But America knows who to blame for constant, near total opposition:  Republicans.

President Obama knows what he's doing here:  the will of the American people.

Have We Turned The Corner?

Bill McBride over at Calculated Risk argues that the economy will get better, or better enough anyway that President Obama will be able to take serious credit for reducing the deficit:




And another key graph on the US deficit. As we've been discussing, the US deficit as a percent of GDP has been declining, and will probably decline to around 3% in fiscal 2015.

This graph shows the actual (purple) budget deficit each year as a percent of GDP, and an estimate for the next three years based on current policy (Jan Hatzius at Goldman Sachs estimates the deficit will 3% of GDP in 2015).  Note: With 7.8% unemployment, there is a strong argument for less deficit reduction in the short term, but that doesn't seem to be getting any traction.
 
Now there are a lot of if's here.  And the big screaming question is "Why aren't we doing what we can to lower the unemployment rate?"  And of course, the big screaming answer is "Republicans refuse to allow anything to be done."

But President Obama is reducing the deficit.  It's dropping and continuing to drop.

Blaming The Victim Again

Ezra Klein comes up with a pretty good observation:  Moderate Republicans have A) accepted that the right wing of the party is increasingly awful, and B) it's all President Obama's fault.

The logic here is weirdly impeccable. The Republican Party’s dilemma is that House Republicans keeps taking all kinds of unreasonable and unpopular positions. If Obama weren’t president, the House Republicans wouldn’t be taking so many unreasonable and unpopular positions. But since Obama is president, and since he does need to work with House Republicans, he is highlighting their unreasonable and unpopular opinions in a bid to make them change their minds, which is making House Republicans look even worse. And so it’s ultimately Obama’s fault that House Republicans are, say, threatening to breach the debt ceiling if they don’t get their way on spending cuts. After all, if Mitt Romney had won the election, the debt ceiling wouldn’t even be a question!

My colleague Michael Gerson wrote one of the earliest versions of this column. As he put it, Obama “knows that Republicans are forced by the momentum of their ideology to take positions on spending that he can easily demagogue.” So he has, in a bid to “break his opponents,” decided to “force the GOP to surrender on the debt limit, with nothing in return” and to “require Republicans to accept new taxes in exchange for any real spending reductions.”

In other words, it's just not fair that President Obama is hitting home runs off such juicy hanging fastballs the GOP nutjobs keep tossing over the plate.  If President Obama really cared about bipartisanship, he'd surrender completely to the Republicans and stop making them look bad.  Sure.  And if college co-eds would stop wearing outfits like that...you get the picture.  This is outright victim blaming, period.

Jon Chait comes up with a similar observation on the latest idiocy from David Brooks.

What Obama should be doing in response, Brooks argues, is push for policies that provoke no opposition even from the craziest of the Republicans: “We could do some education reform, expand visa laws to admit more high-skill workers, encourage responsible drilling for natural gas, maybe establish an infrastructure bank.” Brooks argues that these issues would be uncontroversial enough to “erode partisan orthodoxies and get back into the habit of passing laws together.” Then, maybe we could pass some laws under a future president.

Note that solving actual problems is besides the point here. Brooks is almost explicit about this. He begins with the need for initiatives that he thinks will lead to happiness and comity between the parties in Washington, and then comes up with policies that might fit the bill...

Here's the reality.  Short of resigning from the Presidency along with Joe Biden and then putting John Boehner in the White House, there is nothing that President Obama can do that will make the Republicans like him.  And if the Republicans get their way, pretty much every law in the last four years gets thrown out.  "Just humor the lunatics" is not a viable governing strategy.  "Getting rid of the lunatics" is.

We need to remember that in 2014.

Saturday, January 19, 2013

Last Call

So, how did those Gun Appreciation Day rallies across the country go, anyway?

If the gun advocates behind this year’s inaugural Gun Appreciation Day had hoped to use the day’s festivities to build support for their anti-regulation platform, they are going to have to wait another year.

Emergency personnel had to be called to the scene of the Dixie Gun and Knife Show in Raleigh, North Carolina after a gun accidentally discharged and shot two people at the show’s safety check-in booth just after 1 pm. Both victims were transported to an area hospital, and the Raleigh Fire Department announced that the show would be closed for the rest of the day.

Responsible!

Two similar incidents occurred at entirely separate gun shows in the Midwest, one in the Cleveland suburb of Medina, Ohio and the other at the state fairgrounds in Indianapolis, Indiana. In Ohio, the local ABC affiliate reports that one individual was brought to a hospital by EMS, and in Indiana Channel 8 WISH says that an individual shot himself in the hand while trying to reload his gun in the show parking lot. That brings the tally to 4 victims of gun violence so far at three different gun shows during the country’s first Gun Appreciation Day.  

Super responsible!

CNN is reporting that three people were injured at the gun show in Raleigh, not two as originally reported. All were victims of a shotgun that fired while the owner was removing it from a case.

You get the picture.  So at least five people were injured at three separate WOOHOO GUNS ARE AWESOME rallies.  And let's remember, these were organized specifically to counter that awful, heartless National Day of Service for Dr. King's birthday that wingers despise so much.

Go figure.

The Kroog Versus Humble Pie

Given the complete surrender on the debt ceiling by the House GOP this weekend (via Greg Sargent)...

Big news. Eric Cantor has just made it official: The GOP leadership is prepared to agree to a three month debt ceiling hike. This is a major de-escalation of the crazy and effectively means Republicans have all but taken the threat of default off the table completely.

First, the key bit from Cantor’s statement:
We must pay our bills and responsibly budget for our future. Next week, we will authorize a three month temporary debt limit increase to give the Senate and House time to pass a budget. Furthermore, if the Senate or House fails to pass a budget in that time, Members of Congress will not be paid by the American people for failing to do their job. No budget, no pay.
Here’s why this matters: This increases the debt ceiling to authorize borrowing to pay the country’s bills well into April. That punts the debt limit deadline until after the deadline for funding for the government to run out, which is on March 27th. In other words, Republicans will now use the threat of a government shutdown along with the coming expiration of the sequester to extract the spending cuts it wants. Presuming this all gets resolved by then, or soon after, it means the threat of default is no longer a factor. This will all but certainly get resolved in advance of this three month deadline, and a long term debt limit hike will get attached to that agreement.

It's good to know that Paul Krugman will admit when he was wrong about the President.

When you’re wrong, you’re wrong. I thought that by ruling out any way to bypass the debt limit, the White House was setting itself up, at least potentially, for an ignominious cave-in. But it appears that the strategy has worked, and it’s the Republicans giving up. I’m happy to concede that the president and team called this one right.

Yeah, well, us amateur pundits kinda knew this was going to happen.

The key point to remember here is that Obama achieves his main goals simply by surviving. Above all, health reform gets implemented, and probably becomes irreversible.

That's been the case for two years now, Kroog.  Pay attention.

StupidiNews, Inauguration Weekend Edition!


Also, sorry for the lack of posts last night.  I had to replace a hard drive that melted down and restore data from my weekly backups.  That took most of last night and this morning.  I'm back now, and I'm sure you're all just thrilled.

Friday, January 18, 2013

Gonna Sing The Doom Song Now

Greg Sargent does not believe that the House and Senate GOP can stand up to the overwhelming agreement among American voters that universal background checks are needed for purchasing firearms:

Every member of Congress, Democrat and Republican, needs to be asked this question: Do you believe people should be able to buy guns in America without undergoing a background check designed to prevent criminals and the mentally ill from getting their hands on lethal weapons that can ultimately be used in crimes and mass killings?
In one sense, this is arguably the most important question at the heart of the gun debate. But it’s being obscured by the widespread media focus on the assault weapons ban. To read many accounts is to come away believing that the assault ban is the centerpiece of Obama’s package of initiatives — and that because the ban faces a tough road in Congress, Obama’s whole proposal is doooooomed.

OK, I'll bite.  Why not, Greg?

There’s a lot of chatter to the effect that the House GOP leadership won’t allow a vote on any of Obama’s proposals. In the case of background checks, however, historical precedent suggests the contrary. In the wake of the Columbine massacre in the late 1990s, public pressure — mobilized by then-President Bill Clinton — forced the GOP controlled House and Senate to allow votes on requiring background checks for all gun show sales and other gun provisions. Though Republicans were hostile to the bill, they ultimately relented and allowed votes on it. It passed the Senate but failed in the House, but that doesn’t mean it would fail this time. The point is that public anger in the wake of horrific massacres has been known to break the GOP’s determination to block votes on gun regulations — particularly one as rational as improving the background check system.

Clinton's push for background checks still failed.  This was back when Republicans were slightly less clinically insane than they are now (or at best, equally so.)  What actually makes you think the outcome's going to be any different?  The NRA is going to back down in shame after going after Obama's daughters and screaming that the next step will be confiscation of firearms and an open, bloody civil war?  They'll somehow throw their hands up after 4 years of HE'S COMING FOR YOUR GUNS and BUY MORE GUNS NOW BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE and say "Well gosh, you're right, we went too far" and surrender?  That the GOP after endlessly demagoguing the point and basically vowing to kill everything this President has announced so far since the election, will suddenly see reason?
Seems totally legit, bro.  Look, it's one thing for the Powers That Be over on Wall Street to tap the GOP on the shoulder and say "Knock it off on the debt ceiling, guys."  It's another thing entirely for the NRA to tap the GOP on the shoulder and say "Argle Bargle Bloogity Confiscation!" and stuff.
So yeah, if the GOP was worried about backlash from the public with the way they've gerrymandered everything, I haven't seen any evidence.  We're talking about a bunch of clods who didn't ever feel the need to have a vote on the American Jobs Act.  I'd love to be happily surprised on this.  But betting against the GOP doing the inconceivably evil and stupid thing in 2013 is for suckers, full stop.

StupidiNews!

Thursday, January 17, 2013

Last Call: And It Continues In Earnest, Part 5

And the Obama Derangement kicks up another very serious notch, as Mississippi Republican Gov. Phil Bryant and a couple dozen GOP state lawmakers held a press conference just after President Obama's announcement of several executive action involving gun control to say that the state really doesn't give a damn about this whole union thing, and will simply refuse to enforce federal regulations the Governor doesn't like.

Leading the charge to ignore new federal regulations is Mississippi, where the state’s Republican governor and state House speaker took to the mics right after Obama finished announcing his plans and pledged to ensure the ones they don’t like don’t take effect in the state.

The Constitution is clear that such an effort would be illegal. Nevertheless, the Mississippi leaders say they have a plan.

From the Jackson Clarion-Ledger:
Gov. Phil Bryant and House Speaker Philip Gunn said they would block any federal measures limiting the right to bear and possess arms from being enforced in Mississippi. … State Rep. Chris Brown, R-Aberdeen, said he is drafting legislation to say that firearms manufactured in Mississippi would fall under state law and wouldn’t be subjected to federal regulations.
Earlier in the day, Bryant made his intentions known in a letter posted online. Bryant wrote that Mississippi lawmakers should be read to block any Obama executive actions that infringe on the right to bear arms. Once the list of Obama’s executive actions were announced, Bryant held a press conference in the capitol to say they don’t all bother him. “He isn’t opposed to background checks and enforcing laws already on the books, but he doesn’t believe in limiting the type of guns or ammunition a person can possess,” according to the Clarion-Ledger.

“When it’s for self protection, you need as much firepower as needed to protect your family,” he said.

Two issues here, the Governor's nullification of executive orders, and the argument that any guns or ammo made in the state aren't subject to any federal regulations.  Either one of those would be laughed out of the Supreme Court.  The much larger problem is we have a sitting state Governor and over two dozen legislators saying they reserve the right to ignore the federal government.

The last time that happened, it didn't work out so well for the country.

This has now gone beyond mere bluster if Bryant goes through with this:  it's open rebellion of a state government against the federal.

Welcome to Obama's second term, folks.

Use As Directed

To all the "guns don't kill people" out there:  yes, they do.  And they kill people right here in Kentucky.

A 12-year-old girl was fighting for her life at a Lexington hospital Wednesday after a shooting that killed her father and a cousin Tuesday in a parking lot at Hazard Community and Technical College.

Killed were Caitlin Cornett, 20, who was living in Letcher County, and her uncle Jackie "Doug" Cornett, 53, of the Perry County community of Happy, Hazard Assistant Police Chief Joe Engle said.

Jackie Cornett's daughter, Taylor Cornett, a sixth-grader at R.W. Combs Elementary School in Perry County, was in critical condition at University of Kentucky Chandler Hospital, hospital spokeswoman Julie Phillips said.

Hazard police charged Dalton Stidham, 21, Caitlin Cornett's former boyfriend, with two counts of murder, one related to domestic violence, and one count of attempted murder. Stidham turned himself in to Kentucky State Police after the shooting.

So where'd he get the firearm?  Two hours earlier.

Kenny Woods, a Baptist minister who owns H & K Gun & Pawn Shop in Perry County, said in a telephone interview Wednesday that Stidham bought the gun legally at his shop about 1 p.m. Tuesday.

"He cleared a background check without even a delay," Woods said. "Everything was fine with him."

Sure.  And then the guy supposedly takes the gun he just bought, offs his ex-girlfriend, offs her father, and puts another round in a 12-year old girl just because she was there.   I know.  "Unfortunate cost of the freedom that the Second Amendment provides the rest of us," right?  Two dead, one in critical condition, that gun "sure solved that problem with that stupid bitch who dumped him", right?  He bought the gun just a neatly as you please, "proves background checks don't work," right?

Please continue to justify to yourself how the problem has nothing to do with the tens of millions of firearms in the country, and has everything to do with everything other than the tens of millions of firearms in this country, you know?

Guns.  Used as directed.

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2013/01/16/2478339/12-year-old-critical-after-hazard.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2013/01/16/2478339/12-year-old-critical-after-hazard.html#storylink=cpy

RIP, Dearest Abby

MINNEAPOLIS — Pauline Friedman Phillips, who under the name of Abigail Van Buren, wrote the long-running “Dear Abby” advice column that was followed by millions of newspaper readers throughout the world, has died. She was 94.

Phillips was always in competition with her twin sister, the famous Ann Landers (Esther Lederer), but the two women brought advice columns to the attention of the general population.  They may not have been the first, or the only, but they were the best.  Their styles were different but that also let them cover wider topics.

Phillip's daughter had taken over the column years ago when Pauline was officially diagnosed with Alzheimer's.  Though sources conflict, the rumor is that Phillips and her famous sister buried the hatchet after years of arguing.  Ann Landers eventually handed the column down to her daughter before she died in 2002.  Jeanne Phillips is better known as Dear Margo now.  The fact that just about everyone alive, old or young, knows the phrase "Dear Abby" is a testament to how many people this family of helpful authors have reached.

Rest in peace, dear lady.  You most certainly earned it.
Related Posts with Thumbnails