Last Call

How do I know President Obama's nomination of Dr. Jim Yong Kim to head the World Bank is an inspired and awesome choice?  Two reasons.  One, all the smart Puritopian money was depressingly convinced that President Obama was going to fail progressives again because he had to choose Larry Summers for the job.

Second, the right is having a small series of heart attacks.

What will be interesting is how a left-wing physician will run the only aid organization with a decent smattering of free market economists, who have tried, sometimes successfully, to help nations build private insurance-based healthcare systems. My suspicion is that more and more of the competent staff will leave, and the Bank will endorse more centralized medical systems development. I guess it has symmetry that as Obamacare is about to be challenged in the Supreme Court, the president doubles down on his intent to move the rest of the world away from private healthcare.

Now go figure, Fred Hiatt is in love, and Noam Scheiber is convinced that Kim's views will be neutered, and therefore President Obama deserves no credit for his selection:

In Kim’s case, it’s not hard to see how that might put him at odds with the Obama administration, at least when it comes to global health, his area of expertise. Kim’s formative professional experience was co-founding and running the group Partners in Health (PIH), which was dedicated to battling expensive, hard-to-treat diseases like AIDS and tuberculosis in the most forsaken places on the planet. To realize that goal, as Ezra Klein points out, Kim and his more famous PIH co-founder, Paul Farmer, had to wage a years-long battle against the global health establishment, which was generally skeptical of the approach. Suffice it to say, he believes in it pretty deeply.

Problem is, the Obama administration has taken a very different (and, in the post-PIH world, equally controversial) position on global health aid: It has slowed the rate of growth in the money the U.S. government spends fighting AIDS and TB abroad, and instead spent a good deal of money on equally deadly but far easier-to-treat illnesses like pneumonia, diarrhea, and malaria (especially for children).

I doubt a Wolfensohn or Zoellick type would have challenged this approach—such a person probably wouldn’t have spent much time thinking it through before ascending to the World Bank presidency. But in Kim’s case, opposition to the Obama approach is, you know, the foundational principle of his career. Will he dissent from the Obama administration line or pull his punches?

Just...really?   So, President Obama gets pretty much no credit for doing what the left begged him to do, which is "Please pick anyone but Larry Summers!".  They can't even give him credit for that, it was served to him on a short list by others of course, and now Scheiber is wondering if Kim is going to actually be any better than Summers or if Obama will make him "pull his punches."  Christ.

Yeah, and you wonder why I'm mad at the "professional" Left all the damn time.  They got an inspired choice, Obama surprised them pleasantly and the first thing they ask is "Will Obama just ignore him anyway and keep being the worst administration ever?"

Assholes.

Presented For The Assembled

Glenn Greenwald this morning after being on Real Time With Bill Maher last night:

I was on Real Time with Bill Maher last night and the most contentious debate occurred over the claimed power of the Obama administration to target assassinations of American citizens, such as Anwar Awlaki, without due process. Below is the clip of that discussion. One irony is that is was preceded by a discussion of hate crimes prosecutions (in the context of the Trayvon Martin and Tyler Clementi cases) in which both Maher and Andrew Sullivan insisted that Americans have the inviolable right to express even the most hateful and repellent opinions without being punished for it by the state, yet were both supportive of the Awlaki killing.

Yes.  Greenwald went there.  Obama is no better than Zimmerman.



We're done here.

The Order In The Court

Slate's Dahlia Lithwick makes the argument that the conservatives on the Supreme Court may very well be willing and able to strike down the entire health care reform law...but that they won't do it and for an obvious reason:

So that brings us to the really interesting question: Will the Court’s five conservatives strike it down regardless? That’s what we’re really talking about next week and that has almost nothing to do with law and everything to do with optics, politics, and public opinion. That means that Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion in the Raich medicinal marijuana case, and Chief Justice John Roberts’ and Anthony Kennedy’s opinions in Comstock only get us so far. Despite the fact that reading the entrails of those opinions suggest that they’d contribute to an easy fifth, sixth, and seventh vote to uphold the individual mandate as a legitimate exercise of Congressional power, the real question isn’t whether those Justices will be bound by 70 years of precedent or their own prior writings on federal power. The only question is whether they will ignore it all to deprive the Obama of one of his signature accomplishments.

But here's the thing:  Lithwick is betting they won't do it, and the reason is if they do, the court loses the Washington Sensible Centrist tag for good.  And John Roberts expects to be Chief Justice for a long, long time.

On the other hand, I’d suggest that there is an equally powerful countervailing force at work on the justices. Because, as it happens, the current court is almost fanatically worried about its legitimacy and declining public confidence in the institution. For over a decade now, the justices have been united in signaling that they are moderate, temperate, and minimalist in their duties. From Chief Justice Robert’s description of himself as just an “umpire” and his speeches about humility and the need for unanimity, to Stephen Breyer’s latest book Making Our Democracy Work—a meditation on all the ways the courts depend on public confidence. Roberts even nodded at that court-wide anxiety by devoting most of his 2011 State of the Judiciary report to issues of recusal and judicial integrity, and by reversing his own policy on same-day audio release, in order to allow the American public to listen in on the health care cases next week (albeit on a two-hour delay). That means that the court goes into this case knowing that the public is desperately interested in the case, desperately divided about the odds, and deeply worried about the neutrality of the court. (Greenhouse points to a Bloomberg News national poll showing that 75 percent of Americans expect the decision to be influenced by the justices’ personal politics.) To hand down a 5-4, ideologically divided opinion just before the Republican and Democratic Party conventions, would—simply put—prove that 75 percent correct, and erode further the public esteem for the court. Justice Clarence Thomas doesn’t worry much about things like that. I suspect Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy worry quite a lot.

And with all the cases heading to SCOTUS this year, losing that oh so valuable Sensible Centrist designation and becoming a dreaded Partisan Institution is not something that's going to make Roberts really popular at parties.  His fee-fees would be hurt.  He won't risk it.

At least, not for this.  Now striking down Roe...

T-Mobile Cuts 1,900 Jobs

T-Mobile is closing seven call centers, and increasing hiring at the remaining ones.  They are cutting 1,900 jobs but plan to add approximately 1,400 at the remaining centers.

I'm not surprised.  When the AT&T merger broke in the news, I watched carefully.  When it failed, people rejoiced but it only made sense to me that T-Mobile was going to make some mighty big changes.  I worked for T-Mobile even though I saw the end coming, but finally got out about a month ahead of the cuts.  Our particular location wasn't affected (this time) but I had no way of knowing, and neither did several others who saw the writing on the wall.

For the locations adding jobs, it's good news.  T-Mobile is an excellent place to work, and their benefits are outrageously awesome (though I expect that will be the next thing to go).  They have a structure that really works for the employees, and offsets the sometimes brutally high expectations. To give credit where it's due, they do seem to care about employees.  For example they are offering relocation assistance to those who would follow their job.  They are also offering career counseling to help those who stay find a job that will be a good match for them.

AT&T is crowing today, saying they told the FCC that not allowing the deal to go through would "force" T-Mobile to lay off employees.  Well, not quite.  T-Mobile has had issues in the past, and their investment into their network will inflate their selling price, and laying off employees will increase their profit margin.  More writing on the walls: T-Mobile looks like they are laying the early groundwork to get the hell out of Dodge.  In fact, if the details of the merger are ever released I bet you find TMO reached out to AT&T.

Also, think about this.  AT&T puts up earnest money, TMO keep it but invests it back into a network that AT&T will likely be making a future bid for.  TMO walks with a bit of padding, AT&T claimed its loss and still gets the benefit of how it was spent, and everyone still gets what they want. I'm just saying, it could happen.  It they ever make a second attempt to buy them again, you can bet people will be trying to connect the dots to prove this was just an elaborate plan B.

The Facebook Conundrum

Would you ever give a potential employer your Facebook password?  No freaking way, and no way should it be asked of anyone.

There are the obvious reasons, such as private correspondence and pictures that people have stored with reasonable expectation of privacy.  There are smaller but still important reasons, like its ability to give insight to political views, health issues, thousands of pieces of information that can profile people.  Information that courts have ruled private and in support of the information remaining within our control.  So if you're stupid enough to let those sloppy drunk Mardi Gras pictures get out, that's your problem.

Employers are taking advantage of the hungry and desperate by forcing people to share passwords and submit to other ridiculous invasions of privacy.  Competition is tight, and applicants know if they don't jump through the hoops, someone else will.

There's no question it's wrong.  The question is, why isn't anyone stopping it?

Skunked And Stumped

Deaniac83 over at The People's View notes that in the major Democratic primaries this year at the Congressional level, the "progressives" are getting their asses kicked.  And by "progressives" I mean Kucinich and Ilya Sheyman.

For all the Republican primary woes, a very strong current of positive news is coming out of the Democratic primaries this year - the Democratic Congressional primaries, specifically. Whenever ideological warriors on the Left flank of politics aim to beat down common sense pragmatism, our base is sending a message: we want good results, not just "good fights." Early this month, in Ohio, the least valuable Democrat in Congress, Dennis Kucinich, went down in flames in his Democratic primary. True to style, he chose to exit the stage as his usual bitter self. And last Tuesday, in Illinois' 10th Congressional District, the Professional Left's wonder kid, Ilya Sheyman, lost by a near double digit margin to progressive businessman Brad Schneider. To listen to the Internet's Lefty keyboard warriors, Sheyman's loss was a big tragedy for the progressives, and well, it's all the polling's fault.

Sheyman is the former Mobilization Director for MoveOn.org, and organizing manager at TrueMajority.org. Big names on the "netroot" Left - the PCCC (I find it amazing that people keep associating with them despite their open racism), MoveOn (duh) and Democracy for America all got behind Sheyman for a big push. If there is a personification of "netroots," - aka the keyboard warriors - Sheyman is it. The computer commandos attacked Schneider as a "Republican", based on the fact that over the past two decades, he'd donated to four Republicans, totaling less than 10% of his political donations. Local Democratic leaders condemned the tactics of these groups for reprehensible half-truths about a fellow Democrat.

When election night rolled around, Sheyman lost. Big. He lost big despite the support of these groups, and despite outspending his chief opponent hugely.

And there's an important lesson there.  We need more and better Democrats.  There's honest debate as to which is more important, the "more" part or the "better" part.  I lean towards "more" first generating better later, but I can see the argument for "better" first to an extent.


But Sheyman and Kucinich are neither.

The IL-10 race was really a profile of the "Netroots" going all-in, tearing up their Democratic opponent, and... failing completely and utterly. It's perhaps the race that shows the biggest difference between the Republican base and the (actual) Democratic base: the Democratic base is looking for people who will stand up for what they believe in, and one of the things we believe in is the fierce urgency of governing effectively. Just as the Republican base is in the business of moving their candidates to the unrecognizable fringe, the Democratic base is rejecting ideological warfare in favor of pragmatism and solutions.

That's what the Democratic party stands for. That's what the Democratic base stands for. We stand for pragmatic governance with progressive goals. We stand for moving forward with what progress can be made, and always sticking around for more. We do not have a cow every time one of our own says something nice about someone in the opposing party. We believe that ideological warfare is harmful, and that to move our country forward, we must govern - and that governing entails compromises. We do not think that compromise is a dirty word. We are too smart to fall into a Tea Party trap of our own.

Most of us, anyway.

StupidiNews, Weekend Edition!

• The European Union has leveled new sanctions directly against the assets of Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad and his family.
• New email evidence shows former MF Global CEO Jon Corzine transferred $200 million from a customer's account as the hedge fund firm collapsed.
• The IRS is going after the people with the money: 30% of multimillionaire tax returns were audited last year.
• US companies are now sitting on a record $3.6 trillion in cash, a new record, as record corporate profits continue.
• AT&T is scolding the FCC, saying its scuttled mega-merger with T-Mobile could have saved its rival thousands of jobs.

Last Call

On a day where President Obama spoke about Trayvon Martin's murder and said the following:

"All of us have to do some soul searching to figure out how does something like this happen," President Obama said Friday morning following a White House Rose Garden ceremony when asked about the 17-year-old's death.
The president called the shooting a "tragedy" and says "every aspect" of the case should be investigated. Obama gave his condolences to the slain teenager's parents and said if he had a son, "he'd look like Trayvon."

We have this going on at a Rick Santorum event...

At a shooting range in Louisiana on Friday, an onlooker encouraged Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum to pretend the target he was firing at was President Barack Obama.
“Santorum is shooting a 1911 Colt,” Politico’s Juana Summers tweeted from the sheriff’s office shooting range in West Monroe. “Range master says ‘Well, it’s not your first rodeo.’ Someone here says ‘pretend its Obama.’”

...and this out of the mouth of Newt Gingrich....

In a radio interview on Thursday, Newt Gingrich returned to one of his favorite recent themes, what he calls the “elite media” and their conspiracy to aid and abet the Obama administration.

In an article at Huffington Post, the former Speaker of the House is quoted as saying to Sandy Rios of the American Family Association that the “elite media” are “in the tank for Obama” and will do everything they can to see him re-elected.

“It is just astonishing to me how pro-Obama they are,” he said, “Do you think you are going to see two pages on Obama’s Muslim friends? Or two pages on the degree to which Obama is consistently apologizing to Islam while attacking the Catholic church?”

...and I just shake my head.  I'm a black male who has survived to the ripe old age of 36 and is not incarcerated.  I'm an exception in this country, it seems.  I live in one of the 24 states that has a law that solely exists to justify the use of deadly force as the ultimate sanction against someone who is merely perceived to be a threat, without evidence, due process, or the right to face your accuser (because hey, you're effing dead.)  The legislative need to create laws like this is a symptom of a much more awful syndrome, and in every case these laws were passed by "pro-life" Republicans led by the gun lobbyists.

These laws are designed to allow vigilantism, period.  It's the worst impulse of the whole Glibertarian/Paulite/Somali Pirate anarcho-justice codified into "I get to decide who lives and who dies, and I reserve the right to exercise that impulse at any point."  We're all castles stomping around killing each other, and may the best, most heavily armed castle win.  And as far as Republicans are concerned, well that impulse extends to "We've decided that having a black President violates our right not to have one, so we're going to do something about it from the ground up."

Trayvon Martin's awful, pointless murder is just a symptom of a much uglier sickness.

[UPDATE]  Newt doubles down.

“What the president said, in a sense, is disgraceful,” Gingrich said on the Hannity Radio show. “It’s not a question of who that young man looked like. Any young American of any ethnic background should be safe, period. We should all be horrified no matter what the ethnic background.

“Is the president suggesting that if it had been a white who had been shot, that would be OK because it didn’t look like him. That’s just nonsense dividing this country up. It is a tragedy this young man was shot. It would have been a tragedy if he had been Puerto Rican or Cuban or if he had been white or if he had been Asian American of if he’d been a Native American. At some point, we ought to talk about being Americans. When things go wrong to an American, it is sad for all Americans. Trying to turn it into a racial issue is fundamentally wrong. I really find it appalling.”

Effing. Perfect.

Breaking Not So Bad

University of Virginia political prognosticator Larry Sabato seems to be leaning towards a wash in the Senate this year, with the GOP picking up Montana and Missouri, but the Dems might be able to counter in Nevada.

Ah, the Senate. The battle for control fascinates us — and all election observers — because there are so many intriguing races and personalities. Yet, as we update our ratings today and move in a new direction on Congress’ upper chamber, it is worth stressing at the outset that no party will truly control the Senate come January 2013. There is no chance at all that Democrats or Republicans will hit the magic 60 seats required to break filibusters and thus run the Senate. Increasingly, it looks likely that the winning party will have a smaller majority than the Democrats do now (53 seats) — if there is a majority at all. The tiny margin for the winning party will enable the new Senate to do what Senates do best: a whole lot of nothing (discounting talk, of course).

So yes, it's entirely possible we could be looking at a 51-49 Senate or even 50-50 with the Vice President as the deciding vote.  That could make things...interesting.

Let’s assume that, at the dawn of the 113th Congress in 2013, all 67 sitting senators not up for reelection this year — 30 Democrats, 37 Republicans — return to serve next year (no departures for the Cabinet, the Court or the Great Beyond). Next, let’s also assume that the 16 races we currently favor Democrats to win go to the Blue column, and the nine races where Republicans are favored go to the Red column. (See our full chart below.) Note that we have long flipped Nebraska and North Dakota from Democratic control to Republican control; former Democratic Sen. Bob Kerrey’s return to Nebraska hasn’t moved us a bit. Note also, as we said above, we are assuming that Maine elects King, who in effect becomes an Independent Democrat akin to Connecticut’s Joe Lieberman or Vermont’s Bernie Sanders. Further, our analysis has Democrats holding seats that are actually or potentially competitive, such as Ohio, Michigan and Hawaii. Finally, we presume that Democrats don’t score surprising upsets in places like Arizona and Indiana.

With those assumptions in place, the Senate is tied exactly 46 to 46, with eight toss up races to decide whether Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) continues to lead the chamber, or whether Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R) takes over. 

Those races are Montana, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, Wisconsin, Virginia, Florida and New Mexico.  If Sabato's right, the GOP could pick up 2 seats, but the Dems would pick up a seat in Nevada.  They could win in MA too, leading to the wash theory, 53-47 as it is now.  Six of those 8 tossup seats are defended by Democrats however.   All 8 changing hands would give the GOP the +4 seats they'd need to get it outright, 51-49.

We'll see.  I think the GOP will come up a seat or two short.  But it's going to be damn close.

Observing The Anniversary

As the Affordable Care Act turns two today, the Serious Village Types are contractually obligated to inform us that it was the worst piece of legislation ever conceived and that President Obama is the worst politician of all time for wasting time trying to get GOP votes for the bill, and then going it alone without them, assuring they would vow to destroy the law.

We are assured that everyone hates the bill, left, right, and center, despite the fact that elements of the bill are popular (particularly the parts involving coverage for pre-existing conditions and keeping kids on insurance plans to age 26.)  But at this point I think Republicans have vastly overplayed their hand on it for three reasons.

One is MetamorphoMitt.  The one thing from his past that he can't shake away is MassCare.  Two, the GOP really can't stop themselves from twirling their collective evil mustaches when doing things like voting to kill the Medicare cost review board while complaining that Medicare costs too much.  The other is the GOP assault on women's rights, which is seriously driving away voters of both sexes.

All of these are going to seriously put a dent in the amount of damage the Republicans can do in November.  And call me crazy, but I think the Supreme Court may punt on the law until 2014 because the mandate isn't in effect yet, and precisely because the GOP has done zero to replace the law should it be struck down, there's a fair argument that nuking the law would be a massive burden for the states and for individuals.  Indeed, the government's argument is that without a replacement set of laws, the entire health care system itself could be at risk if the mandate is severed.

Meanwhile, the parts of the law that are going into effect are working slowly and surely behind the scenes, and the law is rolling inexorably forward.  I think we're going to be okay here.

Shiny Chrome

For one day, Chrome overtook Internet Explorer as the most commonly used browser.  They've been hovering for a while, a nagging but persistent threat to the shrinking IE crowd.

It was on a weekend, which is also telling.  When people aren't using their employer's preferences, and they are on their personal devices, Chrome is the popular choice.  And when it isn't number one, it is still very much in the top running.

Number one isn't everything.  Chrome has shown it is a viable and quality browser, and is around to stay.  I've never looked back once I tried it for the first time (thank you, Wizarth!).

Microsoft Office has a free and incredibly competitive alternative, loosening their hold on businesses who are cutting back on costs.  Internet Explorer is losing its dominance over browsers and the chance to hawk Microsoft services.  I believe we can all agree that the Windows mobile phone market is a joke.  So remind me, just what do we need them for again?

One Little Mystery Of The Universe, Solved

It won't cure cancer or stop world hunger, but we now know one thing for absolute certain. Something I had always secretly thought, but never knew until now.

God loves cats.

BOSTON -- A veterinarian says acting like a flying squirrel may have saved a cat from serious injury in a 19-story plunge from a Boston high rise.

Sugar the cat had no broken bones or cuts, just some bruising on her lungs after the fall from a window owner Brittany Kirk had opened to enjoy the recent unseasonably warm weather.

The Animal Rescue League estimates Sugar fell between 150 and 200 feet.

I couldn't have asked for a better birthday present.

Another Milepost On The Road To Oblivion

Yep, getting closer to the seminal Blazing Saddles moment in our national post-racial discourse involving President Obama.  Wonkette:

John Hood, president of the conservative North Carolina-based John Locke Foundation, has apologized for a very special graphic that one of his bloggers, “Hot Talk WRNN co-host Tara Servatius,” included in her post for the think tank’s blog this week. What is the controversy? All it did was show “President Obama in chains and drag with a bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken.” What is the controversy? Everyone loves Kentucky Fried Chicken! And look, Tara Servatius says she “didn’t think about the racial implications of the picture when I posted it. I simply don’t think in those terms.” She’s a fun one.


In an exchange with Myrtle Beach’s The Sun News, Servatius explains that her graphic of President Obama in chains and drag eating a bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken “was meant to illustrate Obama’s southern political strategy, nothing more.”

No.  Just no no no no no.  Hell no.  Between this and the ni-CLANG Pants, I really want to punch the organs out of the next person who says I need to get over race in 2012.

It's President Obama in leather fetish gear, eating a bucket of KFC.  If you don't think THAT'S offensive, you're lying.  You posted the damn thing on purpose.  Congratulations, you pissed people off.  You win.  You know what's going to piss you off even more?  Obama winning in November despite all your awful, sick, lousy efforts to troll the electorate.

Deal with that.

Taking Leave Of Their Senses

In a move with little fanfare, the US Supreme Court issued a ruling that should definitely give supporters of health care reform pause, as well as women's groups.  In a 5-4 ruling on Tuesday, Justice Anthony Kennedy sided with the Roberts-Alito-Thomas-Scalia bloc in declaring that state employees cannot sue states over being denied personal leave under the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993.

The 5-4 decision is a setback for millions of employees of state agencies and state colleges, and it voided in part a provision in the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. Among other things the act said that employees had a right to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to recover from an illness or childbirth.

The rights of employees of private companies are unchanged by the ruling.

In this case, Daniel Coleman was fired from his job with the Maryland Court of Appeals after his request for sick leave was denied. He sued for $1.1 million in damages, alleging that his rights were violated under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act.

And why was Coleman's case thrown out?

Kennedy, in the majority opinion, dismissed the suit and said that Congress could not subject states to suits over personal sick leave because it had nothing to do with remedying a pattern of sex discrimination.

Indeed, Kennedy's opinion went on to say that the states' rights to be immune from lawsuits overruled the individual's rights for recourse if they were fired for actually taking extended personal leave under the FMLA.  Because there is no discrimination at work here, states are immune from lawsuits on the matter.  Kennedy stated that Congress in the FMLA included the provision to sue for recourse in order to remedy discrimination against women for taking extended personal leaves for illnesses.  But Kennedy argues that there's no evidence states as employers were ever discriminating against women or anyone for that matter by denying strictly personal leave under the act.  No discrimination, no lawsuit as a recourse:

Without widespread evidence of sex discrimination or sex stereotyping in the administration of sick leave, it is apparent that the congressional purpose in enacting the self-care provision is unrelated to these supposed wrongs.

The legislative history of the self-care provision reveals a concern for the economic burdens on the employee and the employee’s family resulting from illness-related job loss and a concern for discrimination on the basis of illness, not sex.

But more importantly (and ominously), Kennedy made the broad argument that federal law in this case put an onerous legal and financial burden on the states and that the states could not be compelled by the federal government to have to accept such a burden.

In her dissent, Justice Ginsburg argued that gender neutral-based leave laws indeed were discriminatory against men, and specifically that society was more likely to deny personal leave to men precisely because men were seen as "the stronger sex", and that the recourse to sue was necessary precisely because of cases like this.

Requiring States to provide gender-neutral parental and family-care leave alone, Congress was warned, would promote precisely the type of workplace discrimination Congress sought to reduce. The “pervasive sex-role stereotype that caring for family members is women’s work,” id., at 731, Congress heard, led employers to regard required parental and family-care leave as a woman’s benefit.Carol Ball, speaking on behalf of the U. S. Chamber of Commerce, testified that she did not think “there are going to be many men that take up . . . parental leave.”

Still, the Kennedy argument worries me somewhat. It's a big jump to say that being sued is the same level of onerous burden that health care exchanges or the individual mandate constitutes a "burden" on the states.

But that's exactly the argument that opponents of the mandate are making.  It's foreboding.  Let's be honest, this is all going to come down to Kennedy again.

StupidiNews!

• The Army Staff Sgt. allegedly at the center of an Afghan killing spree faces 17 counts of murder in connection with the March 11th rampage.
• New Zealand police have seized a "marijuana vending machine" in a raid in Auckland.
• A new US intelligence report issued by the State Department warns fresh water shortages will increasingly become an issue in the Middle East, South Asia, and North Africa.
• Portugal's local town governments face a collective $12 billion in debt and looming default unless the national government steps in.
• The FCC is working on a voluntary code of conduct for internet service providers to battle back against botnets.