When The Abyss Keeps Staring Back At You, Everything's An Abyss

First, the actual story, and it's an important one:  As part of UN Human Rights Day this weekend, Occupy movement protesters made "Occupy the Voting Booth" a top priority, and today Attorney General Eric Holder will give a major speech on voting rights at the Lyndon Johnson Presidential Library in Texas.  Ari Berman:

Holder’s speech could not come at a more critical time. Over the last year we’ve witnessed an unprecedented GOP war on voting, with a dozen Republican governors and state legislators passing laws to restrict voter registration drives, require birth certificates to register to vote, curtail early voting, mandate government-issued photo IDs to cast a ballot and disenfranchise ex-felons who’ve served their time. The Brennan Center for Justice has estimated that “these new laws could make it significantly harder for more than 5 million eligible voters to cast ballots in 2012,” and notes that “these new restrictions fall most heavily on young, minority and low-income voters, as well as on voters with disabilities.”

The story of GOP voter suppression continues to be the major headline in 2011 and that will continue into 2012.  If there is one demonstrable difference between the two parties, it's that Democrats want as many eligible people to be registered to vote as possible, and that the Republicans want to restrict voting to as few people as possible.  Period.

The wingers immediately come up with nonsense like this to attack that truth.

The Democrats will use their constituent organizations to whip up a frenzy of opposition to “voter suppression,” while DOJ launches, or threatens to launch, legal challenges to selected state statutes. This will energize the Democrats’ base by pretending that Republicans are trying to disenfranchise voters. It also may succeed in increasing the illegal votes that Democrats rely on at the margins of close elections.

Democrats want felons to vote, because an overwhelming majority of them will vote Democratic. They want illegal aliens to vote for the same reason. And they want loyal Democrats to vote more than once where they are able to do so. Where there is no voter security, these abuses will increase. So, either through legal rulings or through intimidation, the Democrats want to disable the states from protecting the integrity of the ballot box. It appears that Obama’s politicized Department of Justice will be in the forefront of this effort.

This is such rabid idiocy as to deserve open scorn.  John Hinderaker here is openly accusing the President, the Attorney General, and the Democratic Party of massive voter fraud, and he has no proof whatsoever, he just assumes it to be true because it has to be, else how did we end up with a black President?  What is true is that Republicans tend to win in general elections when turnout is low, and Republicans want to keep turnout as low as possible among the poor and working class, those of us who don't have the luxury of being able to take time off to vote on a Tuesday and miss work.

If you disenfranchise the poor and urban voters, you affect Democratic voter turnout.  It really is that simple, and that's why Republicans want to make it as difficult as possible, so they win.  Instead of admitting that, we get that it must be "the politicized Obama Justice Department orchestrating massive voter fraud!"

Which one makes more sense to you, Republicans going out of their way to add hurdles to voting in multiple states so that they can lower turnout among the poor and college students by needlessly passing Voter ID laws that wouldn't actually prevent voter fraud but would actually prevent eligible people from voting, or Hinderaker's ACORN BLARGLE BLOOGITY BLOO BLAH here?

The fact is, the reason Hinderaker doesn't have proof of his insane accusations is that the "voter fraud" that Republicans are fighting doesn't exist.  In his eyes, the only fraud out there is poor people, minorities, young people, and the elderly being allowed to vote for Democrats.

And Republicans are making every effort to "correct" that fraud in state after state.

Million Dollar (Cry) Baby

As a GOP one percenter, how much would you pay to get rid of Newt Gingrich if you were convinced his nomination as the Republican candidate for President guaranteed a second term for President Obama?



If you're Michael Savage, the particular price tag for putting Mitt back in his crib is a cool million bucks of his own filthy lucre as he announced on his radio show his intent to buy off Gingrich.

“Newt Gingrich is unelectable,” Savage continued in his screed. “Mitt Romney is the only candidiate with a chance of defeating Barack Obama…therefore, I am offering Newt Gingrich $1 million dollars to drop out of the presidential race for the sake of the nation.”

Savage added that Gingrich “will come off badly compared to Obama” in the debates and he would “look like nothing more than what he is: a fat, old, white man. If Newt Gingrich really loves this country as much as he says he does, if he really wants what is best for America, he will set his ego aside, call me, and accept my offer. His continued candidacy spells nothing but ruin for conservatives, Republicans and all true American patriots. One million dollars in exchange for preserving the nation, Newt. I say take the money and don’t run.”

Yeah Mike, because the condescending blue blood former CEO with the charisma of a frozen Vienna sausage who made a fortune buying companies in order to lay thousands of people off will look so much better against President Obama in the general than Newt Gingrich.

Savage should take that million and buy himself a clue with all the added features.

Don't Bite The Hand That... Well, You Know

Okay, the title made me laugh.  But this is a serious story for a few reasons.  Normally, I wouldn't dive into a married couple's issue like this but since they went public I figure it's all up for grabs.

A former top Alabama official who campaigned against gay marriage in his failed bid for governor has donated sperm to several lesbian couples in New Zealand while doing earthquake-recovery work, according to The New Zealand Herald. His wife described the news as "the utmost of betrayal."

Bill Johnson, 52, who describes himself as a conservative Christian, used an online alias to meet women wanting to get pregnant, the paper says. He said he could not have biological children with his wife, Kathy, who had a hysterectomy before they married in 2004. She has three children from a previous relationship.

There's a lot more going on. His wife didn't know he was doing this, and he says he believes she knew he would continue donating. It's hard to imagine a miscommunication like that, but I digress. His wife is pissed and doesn't even pretend to be flexible on the matter.

"My heart is broken. I told Bill when I talked to him this morning after receiving your call that I simply can't talk. I can't even breathe.

"I have no idea what life holds for us in the coming days."

"He knows I am shocked and deeply hurt and even angry. It's not something a wife ever wants to experience. It's very personal and very tragic and we'll have to work through this as a family.

"I just can't believe this could be true. I don't believe he would put the reputation he has earned at risk by acting in such an irresponsible, selfish manner."

Well now, wait a minute now. Someone with that stance probably didn't misunderstand or fail to clarify her feelings on the subject. You don't do something like this without the full consent of your spouse, period. He has opened their family up to legal, ethical and financial peril and it sounds like he at the very least pushed the boundaries of what is preferred from donor parents. It's actually a cool thing to do, when your own partner is comfortable with it and has been in on the process. It's a really crappy thing to blindside someone with and then ask how they feel. They feel lied to and violated, and the fact that (hopefully) happy healthy babies are now with parents who really want them won't diminish the betrayal.

Now knowing what the future holds says enough.  Happy babies, lying jackass, I'm so conflicted about how to tag this one.

Tis The Season To Be Thoughtful

Holidays.  Christmas cheer.  Dinner with family and friends.  These are all things to look forward to, and most of us get into the holiday season with an exhausted good cheer that carries us through, even events we don't enjoy.  Not to be a Scrooge, but now is also the time to realize holidays aren't pleasant for everyone, and we may be causing someone grief through well-intended actions.  A few articles have come out about this, giving tips on dealing with loneliness and how much families can vary in how they celebrate Christmas.

People may be down for several reasaons.  The economy has taken some of the joy out of shopping.  Not everyone has a family nearby, or a family at all.  They may be marking the "first" of everything after losing a loved one.  Christmas has a way of making one think about their family, and not every family situation is pleasant to think about.  If you miss someone, you seem to miss them extra during this entire season.

What to do? How to help?  There likely isn't a lot to do, just be mindful that someone who doesn't do backflips over Rudolph decorations or nativity scenes isn't a "Scrooge" and shouldn't be pressured to fit in or fake it.  When extending invitations, let everyone be welcome but nobody be pressured.  If you are one of the people who suffers from holiday doldrums, consider volunteering.  It is a great thing, it makes you feel great, and it's also a reminder that the magic of the season still worked and something good came out of it.  For those who are grieving, reaching out to a nursing home or church program can build new and better memories to associate with the holidays.

The Laws Of Unintended Consequences

TPM's Brian Beutler explores the Republican argument against health care reforms Medicaid expansion provision.  Conservatives argue that by declaring that states expand the coverage of Medicaid to 133% of the poverty line, adding millions of people to the program, the federal government is using its financial power to coerce the states to do what Congress wants.

The problem with that argument as Beutler points out is that basically that's what the Hyde Amendment does: a favorite federal provision of conservatives that they want to strengthen to prevent any state from using federal money, such as health care reform funding, to subsidize any insurance plan that would cover abortion or to include those plans in state insurance exchanges.

“When it has suited social conservatives, they’re all for coercion,” says Sara Rosenbaum, a law professor at George Washington University, where she’s also the chair of the Department of Health Policy.

The plaintiffs will ask the Supreme Court to rule narrowly that the Medicaid expansion is an unconstitutional use of Congress powers to tax and spend. If the court follows suit, though, it will invite a flood of challenges to other statutes, many of which conservatives adore, but all of which rely on Congress’ power to impose conditions on money they provide to states.

“It opens a tremendous Pandora’s box of other spending clause statutes that might be considered coercive with no clear limiting principles,” Rosenbaum said. “At what point does something become a coercion.”

Timothy Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University who has been monitoring the health care lawsuits very closely runs through some of these: “Title IX of the Civil Rights Act and national security programs and No Child Left Behind and all kinds of other programs.”

The list is long. It includes requirements that universities receiving federal funds allow the military to recruit on their campuses. And, both Jost and Rosenbaum note, if conservatives get their way, it will also include a stronger version of the so-called Hyde Amendment, which severely restricts the use of federal funds to provide abortions.

“The House of Representatives has been fashioning a very different kind of Hyde amendment … restrictions say that no federal funds go to the insurance program if that coverage offers more than the [federal] minimum for abortions,” Rosenbaum said.

What are the implications here? Several states that help provide abortion coverage with their own funds would have to pare back that funding or drop out of Medicaid. That’s a federal power conservatives are happy to exercise — but one they’d stand to lose if they get their way in the Supreme Court next year.

“If the states were to prevail on the issue of expansion, then the [abortion] mandate would presumably fall,” Rosenbaum said.

On the other hand, if winning the coercion battle meant losing on the Hyde Amendment but also the end of Title IX and the Civil Rights Act, I'm betting Republicans would be more than happy to take that outcome.  I'd have to say they're well aware of the potential tradeoff here.

Iron Flagpole In A Velvet Railgun

My views on Jennifer Rubin, Hackzilla are well-documented at this point, but Jon Chait does that best job yet that I've seen of dismantling her so completely that she's probably not aware at all of the missing bolts.  He discovers that there's actually something that Jennifer Rubin will defend more than Israel, if that's even possible:  Mitt Romney.

If you’re not in on the joke, allow me to explain. Rubin holds extremely right-wing views on Israel, and is highly prone to inflammatory and false charges. Gingrich’s comments on Palestinian nationality fit snugly within Rubin’s worldview – if anything, they are a bit too staid for her taste. Yet here she is denouncing him for his excessive anti-Palestinian bluster! If Gingrich simply quoted Rubin, I wonder if Rubin would denounce him for it.

Aside from demonstrating just how far Rubin is willing to follow the cause of advocating for her candidate of choice, it sheds some light on a controversy that arose last week over the term “Israel-firster,” a term of derision used by some left-wing critics to describe Israel hawks. The term implies that certain Americans, American Jews, place the interests of Israel above those of their own country. Rubin’s reaction to the Gingrich-Palestinian controversy offers a neat refutation of the charge. You can’t find a more passionate Israel hawk than Rubin. She is faced with a choice between her loyalty to the Republican Party and her loyalty to Israeli nationalism. And she sides with the former, clearly showing that her loyalty to the GOP – and, by extension, America – sits above her fidelity to Israel.

You've heard of an iron fist in a velvet glove.  In this case, it was an iron flagpole loaded into a velvet railgun and fired through Jennifer Rubin's front door, and I'm not sure it made any noise greater than a whisper.  If Chait were any drier, you'd have to keep rare manuscripts in him.

Well played, man.  Well played indeed.

StupidiNews!

• Occupy protesters succeeded in disrupting overnight operations at the port of Oakland last night, prompting angry reactions of port officials.
• UK police are reportedly testing man-portable laser weapons that temporarily blind crowds in order to break up protests and riots.
• Newt Gingrich's proposed tax plan would have the wealthiest Americans with a top tax rate of 11.9%, a lower rate than the middle class under his plan.
• EU banks are scrambling to sell South American and profitable Eastern European operations outside the euro zone in order to raise badly needed capital.
• AT&T has convinced the Justice Department not to fast track its anti-trust case against the company while it looks for a graceful way out of its all but dead T-Mobile merger.

Last Call

So here, the Cincy sports world is still talking about Saturday's UC-Xavier men's basket-brawl game at the annual Crosstown Shootout on Saturday, but the issue of race and college sports, especially in basketball, is often overlooked.  ESPN's Myron Medcalf had the same reaction I did to the story:  would the reaction of the college b-ball press and Hamilton County prosecutors have been the same if the athletes who did this were white?

As a 28-year-old African-American, I'm concerned about the backlash that will outlive the incident. Xavier and Cincinnati fed negative stereotypes about the violent nature of young black men that will last long after players serve their suspensions.

They're not true. Most young black men aren't violent. But Saturday's incident and others like it provide ample evidence for those who disagree.

Check the message boards.

Predictably, plenty have feasted on the viral violence involving multiple young black men.

After Cincinnati officials announced the six-game suspension for Yancy Gates on Sunday, I tweeted, "I figured 10 minimum for Gates. 6?"

Here's how one of my followers responded: "Only six? That's pretty soft for a gang beating."

Too often, the negative behaviors of young black men -- more than other groups -- are tied to their race. Their actions are sometimes viewed as cultural, instead of individual. 

Medcalf rightfully goes on to say that as college athletes who have been given an incredible gift and the opportunity to use it to better themselves, that they are being held to a higher standard because of the number of folks out there fully vested in seeing black men fail, and that's basically been the case for a very, very long time.

That in no way excuses their actions.  In fact, it makes Fox Sports Ohio writer Zac Jackson railing against the stiff suspensions given out to several players by both coaches and calling the suspensions "soft" not only totally predictable but nearly impossible to counter without bringing up race, and in a situation like this that's simply going to be a losing argument.

It's an unfortunate reality, made all the more real by our country's current political tensions.  Cooler heads should have prevailed.  They did not.  Maybe I am overly sensitive being a pretty big black man myself.  My father cured me of my temper in youth by sitting me down and explaining to me that as big as I was, if I ever really hurt anyone in anger, that I would not be shown leniency in any way by the system in North Carolina.  I had to be better than that, not for his sake, but for my own.

You're just not allowed to show anger like that as a black man in America.  And the reactions to this fight highlight exactly why.  It's a lesson that has much wider applications for our political times, but that's an argument for a different night.

Zandar's Thought Of The Day

Old Broken Down GOP opinion on debates:  Debates are stupid and meaningless.  Voters only care about whether or not candidates are likeable enough to have a beer with. Dubya and Palin won all their debates just by agreeing to this outdated nerdy nonsense and showing up.  Real presidents don't have time for debates.

New GOP Hotness on debates:  Debates are the most important thing ever and Newt Gingrich will put that uppity empty suit affirmative action hire in his place because he is the smartest Republican alive, just ask Ross Douthat.

It’s easy to see why this kind of myth-making would infuriate Obama’s opponents. And so ever since the 2008 election, the right has embraced a sweeping counternarrative, in which the president’s eloquence is a myth and his brilliance a pure invention. Take away his campaign razzle-dazzle and his media cheering section, this argument goes, and what remains is a droning pedant, out of his depth and tongue-tied without a teleprompter.

This is where Gingrich comes in. Just as Kerry’s candidacy represented an attempt to effectively out-patriot George W. Bush (“You have a war president? We have a war hero!”), the former speaker has skillfully played to the Republican desire for a candidate who can finally outsmart and out-orate Obama. 

Ahh, but Douthat concludes.  The debate stuff really is meaningless...because President Obama really is nothing more than a pathetic affirmative action hire, so we don't need to prove it.

More important for the Republican Party’s purposes, it isn’t 2008 anymore, and conservatives don’t actually need to explode the fantasy of Obama’s eloquence and omnicompetence. The harsh reality of governing has already done that for them. Nobody awaits the president’s speeches with panting anticipation these days, or expects him to slay his opponents with the power of his intellect. Obamamania peaked with the inauguration, and it’s been ebbing ever since. 

See, he's dumb.  Just quote the unemployment rate for an hour and you win.  That's what a real President would do against President Black People Aren't That Smart After All, Huh?

So yes, the Republicans like Ross Douthat are indeed now trying to have it both ways:  debates are meaningless because President Obama has already lost on his record and he's pretty stupid anyway, so it doesn't matter in the end.

Of course, you could have seen that one coming a mile away.

Ten Thousand, Maniacs?

And while I gave my reasons why Mitt Romney's $10k bet gaffe won't hurt him in the primaries, in the general election it would be another story.  The DNC is already all over it with a new ad.



This will be long forgotten, should Mitt survive to make it as the candidate (still not convinced that will happen) but at least the DNC's rapid response people are swinging at the fat pitches over the plate.

Mother Fights To Learn How Son Died

Linda Rowell will not rest until she knows what happened to her son Vincent.

He was 21 years old in September 2009, when he stole a municipal dump truck in Birmingham and drove it west to visit some friends in Mississippi. He was arrested after a late-night police chase through two counties, booked on three felony counts and placed in the Walker County Jail in Jasper, Ala., population 14,000.

Six days later, he was found dead on the floor of his cell.

What Linda Rowell cannot understand, and what no one can explain to her, is why. "There's holes everywhere in this story," she said.

Rowell said she has been suspicious from the start, since she got the late-night call from the Walker County coroner saying that her son was dead.

"He told me that my son died of an enlarged heart," she said. "Then I get the death certificate, and it tells me that he died of an accident."

For more than two years, authorities in Walker County have ignored her repeated requests for information about her son, Rowell said, and have never provided an investigative report into the circumstances of his death.

With the help of a legal team, the information coming out shows inconsistencies and outright conflicting information. What is disturbing is that it has been requested and stalled. This woman has the right to know what happened. If she can bring this to trial then documents will have to be released and investigated, and officials would have to risk perjury because their testimony will be under oath. That alone should discourage anyone with something to hide. Still, what we do know is a young black man died on the floor of his jail cell after a week of pain and begging for medical attention. Anyone within range of this is going to be splattered with guilt.

The injury that ultimately caused Rowell's death was a dinner-plate sized bruise on his hip, which led to massive internal bleeding and the formation of a large blood clot in his abdomen. "The clot broke off and went to his lung and that's what caused him to die," Ward said.

But it is not the injuries that truly haunt Linda Rowell, although she believes they were inflicted deliberately by police, not in any accident. It is the thought that her son's slow and painful death came on the floor of a jail cell, while he begged for help that never arrived.

Despite her repeated inquiries, she said, jail officials will not explain why her son died in his cell, and not in the county hospital, just five minutes down the road.

"They knew he was bleeding and he was hurting," Rowell said. "They walked by him like he was nothing."

But Vincent Rowell's pleas for help were heard by Andy T. Sanford, an inmate in the next cell over, awaiting transfer to state prison after a theft conviction. According to Sanford, Rowell begged for medical care, but was mocked and berated by jail staff. He did not eat for nearly a week, Sanford said, a claim backed by the autopsy, which found his stomach totally empty.

"He said that he needed help. He was scared. He was scared that there was something real bad wrong with him," Sanford said in an interview with Doyle. "You could tell this kid was hurting."

Ward, the medical examiner, agreed that Rowell would have been in significant pain before he died. Timely medical intervention would probably have saved his life, she said.

Those are some pretty damning facts. But without facts of any kind this poor woman has had to imagine what her son suffered before he died. It's time for the truth to come out.

Man Suspected Of Beating Kids... At Parent's Request

IRVINE, Calif. -- An Irvine couple who suspected their 15-year-old son of smoking turned to a man believed to be relied on in their church to violently discipline children, authorities said.

The parents asked Paul Kim, 39, to discipline their son after finding a lighter in his possession, dropping the boy off at Kim's Chino Hills home with permission for the beating, San Bernardino County sheriff's spokesperson Cindy Bachmann said Saturday.

Kim hit the child with a metal pole about a dozen times, causing severe bruising on his legs, according to Bachmann. The pole was about an inch in diameter, investigators said.

It seems several families have had this service from this man. He is suspected of doing this to other kids, because their parents asked him to. If you aren't up to the task of beating your child yourself, I suppose hiring someone would be the logical choice for some idiot out there.

I'm really not happy with how often religious and criminal stupidity cross-reference.

Mitch Turtles Up

My senator, Mitch McConnell, is confident there "will be a deal" to extend the payroll tax cut.  It's a good sign, meaning that yes, President Obama has gotten the better of the GOP again.  The question now is, as always, can the GOP leadership control the Tea Party nutjobs in the House enough to make the deal work?  That's not always a given.

We're going to reach an agreement," McConnell told "Fox News Sunday," noting there is "bipartisan support" for extending the tax cut.

The 4.2 percent payroll tax that workers pay to fund the Social Security retirement system will return to 6.2 percent in January if Congress fails to act. That would raise taxes on 160 million Americans an average of about $1,000 per family.

Democrats have led the charge to extend the tax break, raising pressure on Republicans to join in or face possible voter backlash in next November's congressional elections.

The House of Representatives is set to approve a Republican plan as early as Tuesday to extend the tax cut, tying it to a bid to accelerate approval of TransCanada Corp's Keystone XL pipeline project between the United States and Canada.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid has said the plan would be rejected by his chamber because of the Keystone pipeline provision opposed by President Barack Obama.

Senior congressional aides predict that Reid and the top congressional Republican, House Speaker John Boehner, will soon take the leading in brokering a deal -- just as they did in a budget fight this year to avert a partial government shutdown.

Republicans want that Keystone XL pipeline for their big energy interests.  The President has punted on the deal until after the election, and TransCanada is warning that if the deal's not closed now, they'll walk away.  On the other hand, the Republicans would be far more hurt by raising taxes on the middle class over some oil pipeline nonsense.

And they know it.  This is why Mitch is freely talking about a deal before it's happened.  Details are a killer, however.  Keep in mind also that Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum all oppose extending the payroll tax cut, while Gingrich, Romney, and Ron Paul support it.  We'll see what shapes up this week...oh, and there's more government shutdown fun on the horizon too for this week.  Keep an eye on both stories, they'll move fast.

Turn On The Lights, Watch The Roaches Scatter Part 83

Not sure what's more depressing about this story on Wells Fargo reaching a legal settlement with multiple states for defrauding local and state governments:  that Wells Fargo is this crooked, or that the states need the money so badly they're willing to let Wells Fargo off the hook for chump change.

Wells Fargo & Co. and regulators announced Thursday a $148 million settlement to resolve accusations that Wachovia, which was purchased by Wells, participated in a bid-rigging scheme that hurt state and local governments.


It's the fourth major bank to settle with the consortium of federal agencies and state attorneys general. Bank of America Corp. settled for $137 million last December.

The settlement is also the second Wells Fargo has made on the issue in as many months.

"We're really pleased to resolve the issue," Wells Fargo spokeswoman Dana Obrist said, noting that it involved activity that predated the company's 2008 acquisition of Wachovia.

In a statement, the bank said it "cooperated fully" with the investigation and does not condone illegal activity.

The federal agencies alleged that a group of large banks conspired to defraud local governments and other entities that bought municipal derivatives, which are used to invest money from bond proceeds until they are needed for projects. Bankers coordinated what they would bid on the contracts and in some cases paid kick-backs to one another, investigators said.

A total of $54.5 million will go to towns, school districts and nonprofits around the country as part of the settlement with 26 state attorneys general.

"Rigging the system to prevent fair competition cost taxpayers, local governments and schools millions of dollars," North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper said in a statement. "I'm pleased that we've been able to win money back for those who were harmed here in North Carolina."

Granted, if you're a local government on the brink and have laid off thousands of employees, this money comes at a damn good time and it will make a difference.  On the other hand, there's no way Well Fargo should still be in business after all the nonsense it has engaged in, and they're basically getting a pass while continuing to rake in money from the government.

It's a victory for this battle.  The war was lost long ago.

StupidiNews!

• President Obama will meet with Iraqi PM Nuri al-Maliki today in Washington as drawdowns mean only 6,000 US troops remain in the Middle Eastern country.
• LAPD undercover cops infiltrated Occupy LA last month looking for "terrorists" and surveillance gathered resulted in over 40 arrests.
• Egypt's military rulers will determine the repatriation fate of Adel el Gazzar, a Guantanamo detainee released after eight years with no charges filed against him.
• Surprisingly, the US did move forward with a UN climate change agreement in Durban that included China and India for the first time but the system remains voluntary.
• Open source advocates are accusing Apple of systematically using web patents to block web standards.