The Oversharing Economy

Finally, a smartphone app that works as intended.




(It's fake but it's still brilliant.)

America's Default Mode Is Broken

Our 2014 elections have assured me that our Republican leaders in Congress will learn to govern any time now. I mean, what could possibly go wr...OH WAIT.

The Hill reports this morning that another “tense standoff,” one similar to the chaos that erupted around Department of Homeland Security funding, is likely to unfold around the need to replenish the Highway Trust Fund, which is set to run low on funding this spring. Business groups — and the Obama administration — are warning of disaster if funding for ongoing infrastructure projects evaporates, while conservative groups are insisting Republicans agree to devolve infrastructure back to the states. Yet John Boehner is already on record saying he wants to replenish infrastructure funding. He just hasn’t said how it should be paid for. Sound familiar? 

In the case of infrastructure, it should be noted that the failure is bipartisan: Democrats have also been far too reluctant to support the obvious solution, i.e., a hike in the gas tax. 

But then there’s the debt ceiling, where the culpability for any crisis will be a lot clearer: It will lie with Republicans who oppose a clean debt limit hike. The Treasury Department is warning that we are close to hitting the debt limit, and is asking Congress rather laughably to “address this mater without controversy or brinksmanship.” Mitch McConnell recently pledged that Republicans will not allow us to “default on the national debt, but in the very next breath, he added that he hoped a debt ceiling hike “might carry some other important legislation that we can agree on in connection with it,” whatever that’s supposed to mean. 

GOP leaders may fully intend to fund infrastructure and avoid default. But the battle over Homeland Security funding is a reminder: Even when they know exactly how these standoffs will end — with the stiff-arming of conservatives and the moving of must-pass legislation with the help of Democrats — they will postpone the inevitable for as long as possible, in an always-futile effort to persuade conservatives that they fought the good fight to the bitter end. Which suggests that the best case scenario is that ultimately, further crises will be avoided, but only after more bouts of messy, protracted, and (in the case of the debt ceiling in particular) destructive drama.

We are all thralls to the 18% of America who voted to keep the GOP in charge of Congress. The default mode of our country is hopelessly, stupidly broken, because MURICA.

Last Call For The Barbaric Yawp Of The Defeated

I'm not at all surprised to learn that opposition to same-sex marriage is growing in Kentucky as opponents are faced with the very real prospect that we're only a few months away from a Supreme Court decision that would nationalize it.

Showing a possible backlash to judicial decisions favoring gay marriage, the percentage of registered voters in Kentucky opposing it has increased to 57 percent this month compared to 50 percent in July. 

A Bluegrass Poll conducted March 3-8 shows that support for gay marriage also has dropped, from 37 percent to 33 percent. 

Chris Hartman, director of the Fairness Campaign, said the uptick in opposition probably reflects the fears of opponents that the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to declare same-sex marriage a constitutional right. 

"Opponents are grasping for ground as it is removed under them," Hartman said. 

The high court will hear oral arguments April 28 on gay marriage bans in Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee and Michigan. Thirty-seven states now allow gay nuptials, 26 of them by judicial decision.

That's a pretty significant spike, but I'm betting similar polls in other red states would show similar results, and a 5-10 point jump seems about right to me.  The prospect of actually having same-sex marriage as a reality where you live is starting to shake the bigots.  It's no longer a rhetorical exercise that will be reality "somewhere else", but imminent.

And judging from Alabama's legal tantrums over the subject, I think it's going to be a long, messy summer.

Even More Schock And Flaw

GOP Rep. Aaron Schock's pattern of abusing the power of his office for monetary gain is rapidly becoming a real problem for him and the Republican Party.

Schock traveled to India on official business in August 2014, a trip during which he met with Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The Global Poverty Project, an advocacy organization that seeks to alleviate extreme poverty internationally, footed the bill, according to a spokesman for the group. 

But Schock's photographer and videographer, Jonathon Link, traveled with him on the trip, which was well-documented on Schock's Instagram account. The organization offered to pay for the costs of one staffer to accompany Schock as long as the staffer flew economy class, according to the spokesman. Another aide was originally going to come, but the organization noted they were looking for a photographer, and Schock suggested Link, with whom he has worked in the past, the spokesman said. The photos Link took were made available to both Schock and the Global Poverty Project. 

The problem is House rules allow a member to accept private money for a companion's travel expenses only if the companion is a staffer, spouse or child. Link was none of those; he didn't appear on Schock's official or campaign payroll until September 2014.

Furthermore, Schock never disclosed that Link accompanied him on the trip, according to a review of public records. Members are allowed to accept money from private sources for some travel as long as they disclose it, and they also are required by law to disclose in writing when someone accompanies them on a trip paid for by an outside organization. Members have to seek a waiver from the Ethics Committee to bring someone other than a staffer or family member. Otherwise, they must pay for the companion's trip out of pocket. 

Instead, a disclosure form filed by Schock after his return gives no indication that he was accompanied by Link. The Global Poverty Project paid $5,000 for travel, $525 for lodging, $300 for meals, $289 for travel insurance and $100 for ground transportation for Schock's travel. The trip took place August 24-29, with a round trip flight from Chicago to New Delhi and a visit to Mumbai, as well. 

The Global Poverty Project separately paid some $4,000 to fly Link from Dallas to New Delhi, and lodge and feed him, according to the group's spokesman.

At this point, Schock's starting to look like a sack of broken goods, and if the Dems can't put him down in 2016, they don't deserve to take the House back anytime soon.  We're not quite up to resignation status yet, but the campaign ads against him have written themselves.

Secret? Agent, Man...

The US Secret Service is at this point bravely straddling the border between phenomenal incompetence and having people openly question that they want to protect this President and his family.  That Washington Post report on two USSS agents driving drunk into a barricade was much, much worse than originally thought.

Two Secret Service agents suspected of driving under the influence andstriking a White House security barricade disrupted an active bomb investigation and may have driven over the suspicious package itself, according to current and former government officials familiar with the incident. 

These and other new details about the March 4 incident emerged Thursday from interviews and police records obtained by The Washington Post. 

The episode has prompted questions from lawmakers about whether the newly appointed leaders of the Secret Service are capable of turning around the troubled agency. Among the lawmakers’ questions: Whether a Secret Service supervisor, as witnesses have alleged, ordered officers to let the agents go home without facing sobriety testing. 

An investigation by the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general is centering on the possible misconduct of two senior agents, including a top supervisor on President Obama’s protective detail.

These idiots got drunk and drove through a crime scene, driving over a possible explosive device in the process and then hitting a temporary barrier set up to protect people in case the device exploded. If the agency's leadership hadn't already been largely fired for gross incompetence, I'd demand that they were all rehired and fired over this massive screw-up.

The Obamas repeatedly get more threats than any First Family in US history, and the people who are supposed to protect them are drunken fratboy assholes.

Awesome.

StupidiNews!

• Another chapter of embattled fraternity Sigma Alpha Epsilon is accused of racist comments on campus, this time at the University of Washington in Seattle.
• A BYU study finds that loneliness and social isolation can be as physically bad for you as obesity as far as predicting a shortened lifespan.
• Police in Ferguson, Missouri are continuing to search for suspects in the shooting of two police officers near the Ferguson Police Department late Wednesday night.
• A record surplus in US crude oil could soon push oil prices down ever further as storage capacity is running out to store oil.
• The FCC's new rules on net neutrality may soon be put to the test as AT&T is resisting plans to stop its throttling of unlimited data plans.

Last Call For The Right To Hate

Alabama Republicans are fighting the federal courts striking down the state's same-sex marriage ban as unconstitutional with as much additional unconstitutional garbage as they can.  This time around it's a "religious exemption" bill in the state House.

HB 56, sponsored by Republican Rep. Jim Hill, would amend state law so that anyone performing marriages in Alabama is "not required to solemnize a marriage for any person or persons.” The bill would also prevent "any civil claim or cause of action, or any criminal prosecution, based on a refusal to solemnize or recognize any marriage.” During a House Judiciary Committee hearing on HB 56, Rep. Hill said the legislation is meant to prevent clergy and probate judges from being "coerced into conducting marriage ceremonies."

Opponents of the bill argued that the language of the legislation is so broad it would allow judges to refuse to marry couples if they object to the couple’s religious beliefs and it would allow religiously affiliated hospitals to refuse visitation rights to same-sex couples. A number of amendments were offered to try to limit the number of people who would be covered by the exemption, but they were successfully beaten back by Rep. Hill and the Republicans.

The issue here is what "solemnize" means.  It could be interpreted to mean as critics say that anyone with an objection to any marriage based on religious beliefs wouldn't have to recognize it as legal. The language of the bill itself:

“A religious organization shall be immune from any civil claim or cause of action, or any criminal prosecution, based on a refusal to solemnize or recognize any marriage under this section or any other provision of Alabama law.” 

“No religious organization is required to provide accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the recognition, solemnization, or celebration of a marriage.”

What constitutes a "religious organization" here?  The bill seems to enshrine the right to refuse to recognize a marriage because of religious beliefs.  That's a terribly messy situation, and I absolutely see this bill being challenged in court.

After Hobby Lobby though, I'm not sure if the Supreme Court won't turn around and say the First Amendment guarantees the right to discriminate.

The reality is that Alabama Republicans are homophobic, gay-hating bigots that want to pass a law making it legal for the state to continue to be homophobic gay-hating bigots.  Period.  This is not about religious freedom.  It is about homophobic bigotry.  End of argument.

Rubin Sandwich And Whine

Chris Hayes is something of an earnest Boy Scout type and if anything he's unerringly polite to his guests, no matter how ridiculous they are and no matter how rude and obnoxious they may be towards him as a member of the "liberal MSNBC lamestream media".  But not even Hayes can get through 5 minutes with Jennifer Rubin without bursting into incredulous laughter at the prospect that President Obama should be negotiating the most favorable deal possible with Iranian leaders that Rubin simultaneously wants deposed through "regime change".





"What you do is present them with the same choice they had in 2003," Rubin says as she winds up towards her big plan. "Why did the mullahs stop enriching in 2003? Because they were scared to death they were going to lose the regime. We had just taken out Saddam Hussein. That is the only time they shut down their program. They only way we get them to peacefully give up their weapons if if they have a choice between regime survival and nuclear war."

Hayes at this point looks like he's suddenly discovered a flying giant marmot that knows Proust. "You're saying that the Iraq War brought the Iranians to the table?"

"It's FACT! I mean you can talk to you know, people in the region, you can talk to the Iranians, I don't think it's a fact in dispute. That's why they gave it up."

OK. Sure. Right.

"Should the US have a policy of regime change towards the Iranian regime?" he asks.

"Eventually, yes. Eventually, we should want evil regimes to listen to their people, to have free and fair elections, we should have supported the Green Revolution, again that was Hillary Clinton's part..."

Chris Hayes by now has had enough.  "How can you possibly have a policy of regime change and simultaneously negotiate with the regime the you officially want to change?"

"Well that's a little bit of a contradiction, but you know you should ask Hillary Clinton(?)..."

Hayes is using both hands by now.  "That's the whole contradiction!"

"...why she gave the Green Revolution short shrift, we really should have supported them."

"I am glad, I am genuinely glad you admitted that we should have a regime change policy towards Iranian regime..." he laughs, unable to continue the conversation with this nutcase seriously any longer.

"Yes, absolutely!" she chimes in.

"...because there's so much disingenuous nonsense being spouted."

Thank you, Chris.

Minor Fascist Tendencies

Dear Tea Party screaming type people who use the word "fascist" to describe everyone who does not share your viewpoint:  actual fascism looks like Sen. Lindsey Graham.

During his remarks before the Concord City Republican Committee last week, Sen. Lindsey Graham(R-SC) suggested that robust military spending is absolutely necessary to defeat ISIS forces abroad, and that, as president, he would use the military itself to force Congress to reverse budgetary cuts to defense and intel. 

In brief audio obtained by BenSwann.com, Sen. Graham purportedly suggests he would use the military to restrict the movement of Congress until they complied: 

[A]nd here is the first thing I would do if I were President of the United States: I wouldn’t let Congress leave town until we fix this. I would literally use the military to keep them in if I had to. We’re not leaving town until we restore these defense cuts. We’re not leaving town until we restore the intel cuts.

Using the President's capacity as Commander-in-Chief to order the military to force Congress to vote the way the President wants to is once again actual, literal fascism, guys.  If President Obama ever made a remark like this in public, articles of impeachment would be on his doorstep within 24 hours.

But apparently it's perfectly okay to say this if you're a Republican candidate for President, right?

What a dangerous idiot this man truly is.  Bur I'm sure we'll all laugh this off as a joke, correct?

StupidiNews!

• Two St. Louis County police officers were shot outside the Ferguson, Missouri police department, both are in serious condition, after protests late Wednesday night turned violent.
• The US Secret Service is again under investigation, this time for allegedly drunk agents crashing a car into a White House barricade.
• A federal appeals court has upheld a lower court decision to dismiss manslaughter charges against two former BP well managers over the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in 2010.
• New figures show the median monthly rent for apartments in Manhattan has jumped nearly 9 percent in February to a record $3,375.
• Apple says a DNS error is responsible for users being unable to log into its Apple Store or iTunes on Wednesday, and that service is now restored.

Last Call For Ten More Years Of This

Getting tired of Republicans going after Hillary all day?  No problem, just pace yourself.  We're in for a long, long game of derangement.

A leading Republican critic of Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday he wants the former secretary of state to testify about her controversial use of personal email for government work by April, timing that could coincide with her expected launch of a 2016 presidential campaign. 

"I would like to have it done by April," Representative Trey Gowdy, a South Carolina Republican who chairs a congressional committee investigating the 2012 attacks on a U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya, said on Wednesday. 

He told MSNBC he wanted answers on the emails "sooner rather than later," and said other congressional panels could also take Clinton to task over her use of a private email address and a private server at her home in New York state for official emails, rather than using government systems. 

That could clash with Clinton's launch of her expected 2016 presidential bid. Democratic sources have said Clinton, who is the frontrunner among potential Democratic candidates, could formally announce her plans as early as April.

Her advisers were considering delaying the announcement until the summer, but many Democrats say the email controversy will force her to accelerate the timetable. A formal declaration that she is running would enable Clinton to hire a larger communications team and respond more readily to crises.

I know the plan is inflicting Clinton Burnout on the nation early so that people give up on her and don't vote, and frankly it's a good plan that has a more than small chance of working.  The problem is Republicans are incompetent and overconfident, always a combination guaranteed to backfire.

We'll see how far they get.  Yes, the emails may yet be a problem, but Republican are already overplaying their hand.

The Ferguson Report: Aftermath

The Justice Department's scathing report on Ferguson, Missouri's local government is getting results. First, the city's municipal judge has resigned over the report accusing him of running the court as a revenue machine for the city:

Judge Ronald Brockmeyer of Ferguson presided in Ferguson for more than a decade and is mentioned in the Justice Department's report about the city that criticized the court's use of sometimes excessive and unnecessary fees. 

That Justice Department review also found that Missouri's troubled Ferguson Police Department engaged in a broad pattern of racially biased enforcement that permeated the city's justice system, including the use of unreasonable force against African American suspects. The report criticized the city's municipal court system and included Brockmeyer's boasts about increasing the court fees. 

Citing a report from the finance director to city council, the Justice Department pointed out that Brockmeyer had been "successful in significantly increasing court collections over the years." 

The report also includes a list of what the judge did to help in the areas of court efficiency and revenue. That list that Brockmeyer drafted approvingly highlighted the creation of additional fees, many of which are widely considered abusive and may be unlawful, according to the Justice Department. The city of Ferguson repealed some of the fees, including a "failure to appear fine," during the Justice Department's investigation.

But Judge Brockmeyer was far from the only problem.  Now the City Manager has resigned in disgrace as well over this scheme.

Ferguson's chief executive resigned Tuesday night, becoming the latest in a string of law enforcement officers and officials to leave their posts following the release of a scathing Department of Justice report.

John Shaw, 39, had served as Ferguson's city manager since 2007, according to the New York Times. The newspaper reported that Shaw's resignation was announced at a city council meeting where members of the Council unanimously approved a "mutual separation agreement." 

The DOJ report, which was released last week, found alleged racial bias in the Ferguson Police Department, municipal jail and court. The report named Shaw as having overseen Ferguson's operations while the city implemented policies to increase revenue that discriminated against black residents, according to the Times. 

Shaw denied in his resignation letter that his office had anything to do with implementing policies that discriminated against some Ferguson residents. 

"While I certainly respect the work that the D.O.J. recently performed in their investigation and report on the City of Ferguson, I must state clearly that my office has never instructed the Police Department to target African-Americans, nor falsify charges to administer fines, nor heap abuses on the backs of the poor,” he wrote, as quoted by the newspaper. “Any inferences of that kind from the report are simply false.”

But you did nothing to stop it, did you Mr. Shaw.  Sorry to see you out of a job, I guess.  When the vast majority of black citizens in Ferguson had outstanding warrants over court fees, it's not hard to imagine the guy in charge of balancing the books looking the other way when the cops would go roll black residents and shake them down for cash, especially when the city got a cut.

To see this happening in 2015 isn't surprising, but it is disturbing.

Lowering The Boomer, Sooner

University of Oklahoma President David Boren has chosen to expel two of the students involved in this week's display of a campus fraternity's viral video of racism.  The question becomes "can a public, taxpayer funded university expel students over racist speech"?  Eugene Volokh says it's a clear violation of the First Amendment.

First, racist speech is constitutionally protected, just as is expression of other contemptible ideas; and universities may not discipline students based on their speech. That has been the unanimous view of courts that have considered campus speech codes and other campus speech restrictions — see here for some citations. The same, of course, is true for fraternity speech, racist or otherwise; see Iota Xi Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. George Mason University (4th Cir. 1993). (I set aside the separate question of student speech that is evaluated as part of coursework or class participation, which necessarily must be evaluated based on its content; this speech clearly doesn’t qualify.)

UPDATE: The university president wrote that the students are being expelled for “your leadership role in leading a racist and exclusionary chant which has created a hostile educational environment for others.” But there is no First Amendment exception for racist speech, or exclusionary speech, or — as the cases I mentioned above — for speech by university students that “has created a hostile educational environment for others.”

Scott Lemieux agrees with Volokh on this question.

It’s a public university, racist speech in itself is protected speech, and I don’t know what exceptions would apply here.

It’s a moot point, but I’m less convinced that the university would be prevented from decertifying the fraternity (although I’m not saying Volokh is wrong about that either.) But it seems to me that expelling the students for this (absolutely indefensible and disgusting and racist) language violates the First Amendment. I can understand why Boren reacted so forcefully and he’s justified in harshly condemning the speech, but I don’t think this is the right remedy.

Completely not a lawyer (both Volokh and Lemieux are) but the Supreme Court made it pretty clear a few years ago that vile speech is protected under the First Amendment when the Westboro Baptist Church successfully sued for their right to protest military funerals in 2010.  The Roberts Court heard another case on vile speech, this time involving internet threats, back in November, and a decision on that is expected this spring.

I hate it but the Constitution and the courts have been very pointed on this.  The government can't stop you from being a racist asshole.  Private entities can surely level consequences against you, but the speech itself (and Boren makes it clear that it's the speech itself the students are being expelled for) is protected from government action.  These students have a compelling case, and I'd expect some hefty legal action against the University of Oklahoma that the courts will support.

There's another question of whether or not the fraternity can discriminate against black students, but again that's a separate battle and the courts have generally sided with universities that the action of discrimination by Greek organizations against students is wrong and that public universities don't have to tolerate it.  But the main issue is about free speech on a taxpayer-funded public university campus, and I don't see how the University of Oklahoma wins this one.

It was a stupid move, long-term.

StupidiNews!

• US military officials say 11 are missing after a helicopter crash during a training mission in the Florida Panhandle Tuesday night.
• The AFL-CIO is joining the court battle against Gov. Scott Walker's new "right-to-work" law signed into law in Wisconsin last week.
• Hillary Clinton says she used a personal email account while Secretary of State for convenience, but that no rules were violated.
• A Nigerian woman detonated a bomb strapped to her body in the city of Maiduguri Tuesday, killing at least 34 in a crowded market.
• A new German study finds that the transition to a successful democracy with the support of citizens takes about 8.5 years to become comfortable with the new government.

Last Call For PG, Rated

With former Ohio Dem Gov. Ted Strickland now in the race for Senate in 2016 against GOP Sen. Rob Portman, it seems Buckeye Dems are rallying around old Ted and not really too keen on anything like a primary challenge from Cincy Councilman PG Sittenfeld.

In a rare move on Tuesday, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee announced its support for Strickland in the primary. It's uncommon for a national party committee to weigh in on a primary with no incumbent.

"[T]here is no question that he is the strongest candidate to defeat Rob Portman," DSCC Executive Director Tom Lopach said in a statement. "We look forward to supporting Ted Strickland’s campaign and are confident that he will be a great Senator."

The nod toward Strickland came a day after Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) endorsed him. Last week Strickland rolled out the endorsements of Ohio Democratic U.S. Reps. Marcia Fudge, Tim Ryan, and Joyce Beatty.

Sittenfeld has vowed to stay in the race, saying in an email to supporters last week, "I am more committed than ever to running for the United States Senate to provide new ideas and new leadership for the people of Ohio."

Now, I'd rather see Sittenfeld in Portman's seat, he's been a pretty decent liberal voice on the Cincy City Council for a while now   Sittenfeld's about face on the Cincy streecar was the pivotal moment that kept Mayor John Cranley from killing the project outright.

The problem is Sittenfeld brought this all on himself, saying in February that he would get out of the race if Strickland got in.  Strickland announced his candidacy late last month, and Sittenfeld suddenly decided he was in it to win it.

Now everyone's pissed off at Sittenfeld, and Strickland is sucking up all the oxygen in the room. I wish the guy luck, because frankly he's going to need it.