Last Call For The State Street Riots

Hey UK fans?  You lost.  That sucks being that close to 40-0 and a national title.  What's worse is you guys promptly proceeded to riot, even if papers refuse to call it that.

Thousands of Kentucky fans shared the suspense, and then the grief, of Saturday night's game after cramming into bars, yards and viewing parties at the Kentucky Theatre and other locations.

On State Street, which had been the epicenter of previous post-game celebrations, downcast expressions and stunned silence quickly gave way to chants of "(expletive) Wisconsin."

Bottles were thrown into the air and fires were set and quickly extinguished by firefighters, who asked for police escorts into the rowdy crowd.

There were several reports of assaults, and fights, and reports of people with minor injuries, such as facial lacerations, a head injury and a foot injury from broken glass.

City officials said 29 people had been arrested, and at least three people had been taken to the hospital. The city said police used pepper spray to break up some fights, and the city brought street sweepers in to defuse the crowd around 2 a.m. City officials described the crowd as "rowdy, and at times hostile."

"We're trying to get out of here. It's a little too chaotic," said Brandon Heinrich. "It's different than if we had won."

Jackie Thompson described the scene as "pretty hostile right now. I just think everyone's kinda at a loss of words and doesn't really know what else to do."

The Lexington Herald-Leader here goes out of its way to call this anything but a riot.  29 people got arrested, but it was all okay because they were college basketball fans, right?

But Ferguson?  Yeah, "thugs, criminals, rioters, looters".  Something to think about next time, right?

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2015/04/04/3784849_thousands-of-fans-pack-bars-yards.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy

Sunday Long Read: Bastards Of The Universe

Vanity Fair's Bill Cohan catches us up on the architects of the financial collapse of 2008.  Turns out the people in the banking industry that wrecked our economy to the tune of trillions ended up A-OK. 81-year-old Jimmy Cayne, former Bear Stearns CEO, doesn't want to talk about it much.  Neither do his friends.

Cayne is not alone among former Wall Street executives in preferring not to revisit the events of 2008. Stan O’Neal, the former chairman and C.E.O. of Merrill Lynch & Co., contacted through a friend, doesn’t want to talk about that time, either. In the years leading up to the crisis—he resigned under fire in October 2007—O’Neal was the person, many people at Merrill believe, chiefly responsible for ratcheting up the firm’s risktaking, allowing its balance sheet to get larded with squirrelly debt securities, just as savvier firms such as Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase were aggressively de-risking their balance sheets. He is said to feel “bitter” about the way he was treated by the press before and after Merrill’s collapse. But he isn’t nursing his wounds on the breadline.

O’Neal left Merrill with a severance package of around $161.5 million, on top of his 2006 pay of $91.4 million. It is not exactly clear what he does these days, other than serve on the board of directors of Alcoa. He doesn’t much keep in touch with his old friends, and he has moved from his Park Avenue apartment to the Upper West Side of Manhattan. “He seems to have retreated from the world,” a friend says.

John Thain, a former partner at Goldman Sachs and onetime C.E.O. of the New York Stock Exchange, got a $15 million signing bonus to replace O’Neal as the C.E.O. of Merrill in January 2008. Thain then steered Merrill to its inevitable demise, in September 2008, when Bank of America bought it for $50 billion in stock, thanks to a major financial assist from the federal government. Thain, too, declined to be interviewed for this piece. Since February 2010, he has been the chairman and C.E.O. of CIT Group, a middle-market lender. His total compensation from CIT in 2013 was $8.25 million and his approximately 350,000 shares of CIT stock are worth around $16 million.

But Thain was already rich. As a pre-I.P.O. partner of Goldman Sachs and a co-chief operating officer of the firm, he received a windfall of more than $500 million when Goldman went public, in May 1999. He still lives at 740 Park Avenue, home to Ronald Lauder and Stephen Schwarzman, among others, in an apartment he bought for $27.5 million from the philanthropist Enid Haupt, in 2006. He also still owns a 14-bedroom mansion, on more than 10 acres, in Westchester, with two swimming pools and a tennis court.

The man who bought Merrill Lynch for $50 billion right before it would have tumbled into bankruptcy, Ken Lewis, the former C.E.O. of Bank of America, is also keeping mum these days. “Thanks for the opportunity but I have no desire to go back to that time,” Lewis wrote me. In March 2014, Lewis agreed to a three-year ban from serving as an officer of a public company and to pay a $10 million fine as part of a settlement with Eric Schneiderman, the New York State attorney general, dealing with claims that he and other Bank of America executives misrepresented to shareholders the impact the Merrill acquisition would have on Bank of America’s earnings. In bringing the lawsuit against Lewis, Andrew Cuomo, Schneiderman’s predecessor (and now New York’s governor), alleged that Lewis knew that Merrill’s earnings would be far less than originally expected, in part because of large bonuses that the brokerage had paid out to its bankers, traders, and executives and in part because of the ongoing write-downs of its risky mortgage-related assets. As part of the settlement with Schneiderman, Bank of America agreed to pay $15 million and to cover Lewis’s $10 million fine, too.

When Lewis left Bank of America, at the end of 2009, he was entitled to as much as $83 million, in a combination of pension and insurance benefits, as well as stock and other compensation. He now, reportedly, lives in a 10,000-square-foot, $4.1 million condominium in Naples, Florida, overlooking the Gulf of Mexico.

So these guys are pretty much doing alright.  Certainly far better than 99.9999% of America since 2008.  They're not in jail or anything, nor will they ever be. And if there's one major failing of the last 7 years, it's that we didn't demand tumbrels and guillotines for these bastards of the universe.

Back To The Drawing Board

With the outrage in Indiana and Arkansas (not to mention corporate America moving jobs elsewhere as a result) Nevada Republicans have killed their version of "religious freedom" legislation for now.

Nevada legislation criticized as giving businesses and corporations a license to discriminate against gay customers appears to have fizzled in light of nationwide outrage over similar “religious freedom” bills in Arkansas and Indiana.

Silver State officials opposing the bill in Carson City gained a high-profile backer late Thursday.

“The Governor believes that this bill is not necessary because the interests of all Nevadans are protected under current law,” Mari St. Martin, spokeswoman for Gov. Brian Sandoval said Thursday night.

Even the bill sponsors are backing away from it.

“After careful reflection and consultation with legislative counsel, I have determined that Nevada’s Constitution already contains adequate safeguards and protections for the civil liberties of Nevada’s citizens, and further legislative emphasis of these rights would be unnecessary,” freshman legislator and Assembly Judiciary Committee Vice Chairman Erven Nelson, R-Las Vegas, said Thursday.

The reaction to Indiana’s legislation was a factor in deciding to withdraw the bill, Nelson said.

“We obviously do not want to have happen in Nevada what’s been threatened to happen in Indiana as far as a boycott and things like that.”

If this isn't the final piece of evidence that the entire point of Indiana's RFRA bill was to codify discrimination against LGBTQ Americans, don't know what is.  But the almighty dollar has a lot of power in a tourism-heavy state like Nevada, and given the mess Indiana is now in, Nevada doesn't want squat to do with that fight.

So back to the drawing board until red states can find a way to discriminate again.  It's what Republicans do, you know...and the next state looks to be Louisiana.

Last Call For Bloody Bill's Revenge

Since Bill Kristol has been wrong about pretty much everything for years now, it's no surprise that he's totally wrong about President Obama's nuclear framework with Iran.  It's even less surprising that he's calling for open war with Tehran as a result.

It's certainly fair to criticize the particulars of the deal, which is honestly less of a "deal" than a series of cascading concessions to Iran. Some of the particulars are so indefensible that they may become the best vehicle for stopping or killing the deal. In fact, Congress might advance several pieces of legislation or amendments along these lines, in addition to the cumbersome Corker-Menendez bill. For example: no sanctions relief if Fordow, which Obama himself said was utterly unnecessary for a peaceful nuclear program, stays open. No sanctions relief if there aren't any-time, any-place inspections. No sanctions relief if the centrifuges don't stop spinning, or if enriched uranium isn't shipped out of the country. No sanctions relief without recognition of Israel's right to exist. One could—and Congress should—multiply examples of the arrows that can be launched to try to bring down this vulnerable deal.

But it's important not to lose sight of the whole, even as one goes after its most vulnerable parts. The whole of the deal is a set of concessions to an aggressive regime with a history of cheating that will now be enabled to stand one unverifiable cheat away from nuclear weapons. In making these concessions, the U.S, and its partners are ignoring that regime's past and present actions, strengthening that regime, and sending the message that there is no price to be paid for a regime's lying and cheating and terror and aggression.

We opponents of the deal disdain to conceal our views and aims. We urge Congress to stop this bad deal. We urge Congress to kill it. We believe sanctions, sabotage, and the threat of military force can better constrain the Iranian regime's nuclear weapons program than this bad deal. But we will also say openly that, if it comes to it, airstrikes to set back the Iranian nuclear weapons program are preferable to this deal that lets it go forward.

So if the GOP can't kill the deal then what, a coup where Congress takes control of the military and attacks Iran?  Kristol is insane, and yet he's still a media voice taken seriously rather than a bloody warmonger who helped sell us a false war with Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands.

Again, utter and complete insanity.  The man belongs in prison, not the opinion pages.

The Insurrection Question

Over at the Washington Post, Colbert King asks if the GOP congress would side with Republican-led states in open defiance of the Obama administration through nullification, the practice of simply declaring through state law that federal edicts that states don't like are simply null and void.

It’s a scary thought, but here it is: If some red states were to openly defy the authority of President Obama in the exercise of his constitutional duties, would today’s Republican Congress side with him? Or would they honor the insurrection?

I wish it could be said with confidence that the legislative branch would oppose a rebellion against the executive branch of government. But I’m not so sure.

Last month, the Republican-led Arizona House of Representatives passed, on a 36-to-24 party-line vote, a bill sponsored by tea party Rep. Bob Thorpe (R-Flagstaff) that “prohibits this state or any of its political subdivisions from using any personnel or financial resources to enforce, administer or cooperate with an executive order issued by the President of the U.S. that has not been affirmed by a vote of Congress and signed into law as prescribed by the U.S. Constitution.”

If adopted by the Arizona Senate and signed into law, executive orders issued by the president would have no force or effect in that state. What’s more, the Arizona House has passed a number of other bills aimed at nullifying policies, rules and regulations of the Obama administration that have not been approved by Congress.

The word “insurrection” does come to mind. Yet the resistance out West to federal authority has been received in virtual silence on Capitol Hill. It’s almost as if the GOP Congress wanted an uprising against the president.

As I've been pointing out, nullification of Obama's executive orders has been in play for several years now, with several states passing laws that refuse to force existing or new federal gun control laws, and Mitch McConnell openly telling states to ignore EPA regulations on power plant emissions, I'm pretty sure we've been in a constitutional crisis for a couple of years now.

To answer King's question, yes, the GOP congress will side with red states and has been. Hell, this is a congress that is constantly suing the President for being the President.

So yes, we're on a dangerous path and have been.  It's about time that maybe our media woke up to this.

Bad At Electoral Math

Political author Eric Ham predicts that Jeb Bush has the edge in the electoral college based on the 2014 midterms, and that by taking Gov. John Kasich as his running mate, he can win Ohio, or by picking Gov. Brian Sandoval, he can win Nevada and take the advantage with Latino voters nationally.

Though Pennsylvania, Virginia and possibly Colorado lean toward Clinton in an all-important White House run, no two states are more integral to any presidential victory than Nevada and Ohio, and they stand solidly in Bush's corner. Nevada has been carried by the winner in every presidential election since 1912, with the exception of 1976. Not to be outdone, since 1964, Ohio has been the only state in the nation to back the winning candidate in every presidential cycle. The advantages held by the GOP in these two bellwether states will make even Clinton's inevitability a tall climb. The Silver State leaned Democratic in 2008 and 2012, with Obama besting Mitt Romney 52 to 46 percent even in a brutal economic climate. Fast forward to 2014, and the Republicans have picked up both chambers of the state legislature. Adding to the list of Republican advantages, Gov. Brian Sandoval, one of the nation's most prominent Latino officeholders, won reelection in a landslide with a whopping 70 percent of the vote. Sandoval and Bush (no stranger to the Latino community) could provide the blueprint for reaching the crucial Latino vote and moving Nevada into the red column. Like Nevada, the Buckeye State is currently enjoying a decided red advantage that could tilt the presidency to Bush in 2016. The single biggest advantage is its immensely popular Republican governor, John Kasich. While harboring his own presidential ambitions, should Kasich decide not to run, there would be no better champion for a Bush-led ticket than him. A two-term governor and former congressman, Kasich has deep roots in Ohio. The Republican presidential nominee will also enjoy the same advantages of the Democratic National Convention, as Cleveland is the host city for the Republican National Convention. Clinton's inevitability makes her formidable, but like his brother before him, Bush recognizes the Electoral College, not the popular vote, is the difference between victory and defeat.

But as David O. Atkins points out, Ohio and Nevada will not be enough for Bush to win without the rest of the electoral college firewall that the Dems have totally collapsing.

Let’s grant Ham’s premise that Bush’s background in Florida will help any more than Gore’s background in Tennessee aided him. Let’s also grant the dubious notion that the Kasich effect and the GOP convention will somehow put the GOP over the top in Ohio. Let’s give the GOP Colorado despite its ever-more-blue demographic shifts, and let’s assume that some combination of Bush’s Spanish speaking and Sandoval’s endorsement somehow pulls Latino voters in Nevada to Bush in spite of the GOP’s rabid freakout over immigration and unwillingness to budge on the issue.

It’s a series of dubious longshots, but let’s give Bush Florida, Colorado, Nevada and Ohio. Let’s also give Bush the swing state of North Carolina (because this isn’t a discussion otherwise), and let’s assume that 2016 isn’t the year that demography overwhelms the GOP in Arizona and Georgia. Let’s also assume (as is likely but not at all certain) that every red-leaning swing state like Missouri and West Virginia falls to Bush.

Even all that still doesn’t get the GOP to more than 268 electoral votes. The Democratic nominee would still win the White House, even under that highly improbable scenario. Bush would have to go beyond that feat to somehow pluck off Iowa, Wisconsin or Virginia just to eke out a narrow win—nor is there any particular reason to believe that will happen. Scott Walker will be dragged through the mud by grueling presidential politics, Virginia continues to solidify its Democratic core in the north, and an older white Democratic nominee is likely to perform significantly better in Iowa than even Barack Obama did in 2008 and 2012.

In other words, Florida, Ohio and Nevada aren't going to be enough for Bush to beat Clinton in 2016.  Not by a long shot.  He's going to need to get several more swing states as well, namely Colorado, Iowa, and New Hampshire without losing Missouri, Georgia, and North Carolina.

Even if Bush wins the three states Ham has him with the "advantage" in, he still loses.

Last Call For Still Not Equal

You know what? At least North Dakota is honest about having no desire to protect LGBTQ community from discrimination. Sure, they simply pretend it doesn't exist, but hey, at least that's not using religion as an excuse.

In the wake of numerous bills bubbling through state legislatures focusing on LGBT rights, a North Dakota newspaper decided to call out the legislators who voted against a bill that would have extended anti-discrimination laws .

According to The Forum, the Fargo-based paper that published the attention-grabbing cover, the bill would have explicitly prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation, but was rejected by a two-to-one vote, sparking outcry both among Democrats and the dozen Republicans who voted in its favor. Even Governor Jack Dalrymple (R), likely mindful of the recent backlash against a religious freedom law in Indiana, spoke in the bill’s favor: “I’m concerned that we have missed an opportunity to affirm what North Dakotans already believe, which is that discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation is not acceptable.”

But the bill’s opponents perceived it as largely unnecessary.

It's not discrimination, see.  It's just treating people differently from a legal, economic, employment and social standpoint because of their sexuality.

Rep. Robin Weisz, R-Hurdsfield, who carried the bill from the House Human Services Committee with an 11-2 do-not-pass recommendation, said the committee listened to a lot of testimony on the “perceived” idea that discrimination is rampant in North Dakota, but “did not receive any testimony that showed any outright discrimination going on.”

“If we’re going to add this as a protected class, we need to be sure that we’re solving a problem,” he said.

That drew a sharp response from Democrats, who referred to the more than 20 people who testified in favor of the bill, including some who traveled across the state to share stories of being mistreated at work because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

But there's no evidence.

Oh well.

Jobapalooza

Not so good numbers this month on the jobs report front.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the economy added 126,000 jobs in March, way less than the expected gain of 245,000 jobs.

This ends the 12-month streak of payroll gains over 200,000 and is the lowest number of monthly job gains since December 2013.

The unemployment rate held steady at 5.5% in March.

Wage growth, however, was better than expected, with earnings rising 0.3% month-on-month in March and rising 2.1% against the prior year.

The report showed that jobs gains continued to trend up in most industries, though jobs in the mining sector — which included oil-related jobs — saw a decline of 11,000 jobs in March. This sector has lost 30,000 jobs this year after adding 41,000 jobs in 2014.

Payroll gains in January and February were also revised lower, with February's gains falling to 264,000 from 295,000 and January's additions falling to 201,000 from 239,000.

Over the past three months, job gains have averaged 197,000 per month.

So 126k jobs, minus 69k downward revisions, is 57k jobs this month.

That's pretty bad.  If that's one bad month like December 2013, that's one thing.  If it's a start of a string of bad months, that's another.  We'll see how April comes in, but March was pretty sucktastic.

You Walker Right Into This One

GOP Gov. Scott Walker is showing the country once again exactly why he'll never be President as he's too macho for diplomacy, y'all.  Greg Sargent:

Today negotiators from Iran, the U.S., and other major powers announced the framework for a deal to curb Iran’s nuclear program, laying the groundwork to draft a final agreement by the end of June. The preliminary deal would limit continued operation of centrifuges to one site, while converting a second one — which had been the subject of controversy — to a research facility. The Arak nuclear reactor could no longer be used to produce weapons-grade plutonium.

In exchange, sanctions against Iran will be lifted by the U.S. and European countries, after the International Atomic Energy Agency verifies Iran has taken those steps. It’s anyone’s guess whether a final deal will be reached, and in the interim, plenty of hard questions will be asked about it.

The 2016 GOP presidential hopefuls are all but certain to oppose the emerging framework, and Congressional Republicans (with the help of some Democrats) will probably try to scuttle any deal before it is signed. But staking out a position against the deal — and trying to sink it — could prove a bit more complicated than it appears.

This is driven home by a new interview that Scott Walker gave to a Wisconsin radio personality, in which he said that not only would he undo any deal with Iran on his first day as president; he would do so even if our European allies wanted the deal to continue.

Well, that certainly shows respect for diplomacy and our allies, especially after conservatives were screaming that President Obama showed no respect for our "ally" Israel by daring to negotiate with Iran in the first place.

I asked Peter Juul, a Mideast analyst for the Center for American Progress, to explain what the consequences of that might be. He told me:

“The big questions would be, How would Europeans and Iranians react? It’s hard to believe that the Iranians would stick to their end of the deal. That would leave Iran open to take their nuclear program as far as they want.

“The Europeans would probably try to keep their portion of the deal in place and try to salvage it. This would place the burden of having blown up the deal on us. This would be particularly ironic, considering that a major Republican and conservative talking point is that the Obama administration is breaking faith with our allies. We would be alienating and breaking faith with our European allies right out of the gate. You’d be irreparably damaging our transatlantic relationships for however long Scott Walker were in office.

“Putin is not going to leave power anytime soon, unless he keels over. For all the talk about the Russian threat, it would be odd to throw our European allies under the bus on Iran at the same time they are facing down a Russia that is not particularly friendly.

“There would be a lot of ripple effects around wherever the U.S. and Europe have security cooperation. This is a reckless, irresponsible, shoot first, don’t-ask-questions-ever approach. It’s just not a viable strategy if your goal is to keep Iran from getting a nuclear bomb.”

Remember, we're still in the primary phase of the 2016 GOP clown car game, which means there's no governance, only idiotic macho bluster.  Walker will fit right in, and he'll lose just like Republicans have for the last two presidential contests.

Course, we could just sell weapons to Iran like Reagan did, right?

StupidiNews!

• The death toll in Thursday's Al Shabaab militant attack on Kenya's Garissa University College has risen to nearly 150 according to the International Red Cross.
• Indiana GOP Gov. Mike Pence has signed a revised version of the state's "religious freedom" bill into law, that now includes some protections for gays and lesbians from discrimination.
• An initial framework of a nuclear deal has been reached with Iran as final preparations are now in place for a June 30th treaty.
• Samsung has reportedly won the rights to manufacture Apple's next iPhone chip as the Korean chipmaker is spending $15 billion to expand production.
• The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the Americans with Disabilities Act does not apply to online streaming service Netflix as the service is not connected to an "actual, physical place".

Last Call For Smart Phones, Not-So-Smart Policy

A new Pew Research study on Americans and smartphones finds that the percentage of Americans with smartphones has almost doubled from just 4 years ago, from 36% to 64%, and that for some 20 million mostly low-income Americans, it's the only means they have of accessing the internet:

10% of Americans own a smartphone but do not have any other form of high-speed internet access at homebeyond their phone’s data plan. 

Using a broader measure of the access options available to them, 15% of Americans own a smartphone but say that they have a limited number of ways to get online other than their cell phone. 

In all, one-in-five American adults (19%) indicate that at least one of those conditions apply to them, and 7% of the public says that both of these conditions apply — that is, they do not have broadband access at home, and also have relatively few options for getting online other than their cell phone. Throughout this report, we refer to this latter group as “smartphone-dependent” users. 

So, who are these Americans who depend on their smartphones for internet access?

Certain groups of Americans rely on smartphones for online access at elevated levels, in particular: 

Younger adults — 15% of Americans ages 18-29 are heavily dependent on a smartphone for online access. 

Those with low household incomes and levels of educational attainment — Some 13% of Americans with an annual household income of less than $30,000 per year are smartphone-dependent. Just 1% of Americans from households earning more than $75,000 per year rely on their smartphones to a similar degree for online access. 

Non-whites — 12% of African Americans and 13% of Latinos are smartphone-dependent, compared with 4% of whites. 

Compared with smartphone owners who are less reliant on their mobile devices, these smartphone-dependent users are less likely to own some other type of computing device, less likely to have a bank account, less likely to be covered by health insurance, and more likely to rent or to live with a friend or family member rather than own their own home.

If I were a Republican strategist, I'd suddenly have a desire to make it a lot harder to own a cell phone without an address, background check, bank account and credit card.

But I'm being cynical of course

Our Home And Native Slam

If businesses are having issues with states like Indiana and Arkansas's open bigotry towards the gay community, it seems our neighbors to the north want to remind everyone that things are a bit less nasty over the border.

Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne, who is openly gay, is urging businesses upset by a so-called religious objections law in Indiana to set up shop in her province. 

The Indiana law, which takes effect July 1, does not specifically mention gays and lesbians, but critics say it is designed to protect businesses and individuals who do not want to serve gays and lesbians. 

Wynne says it's completely unacceptable that in the twenty-first century such a "discriminatory law" would be in place and would be used to divide people and create hostility. 

She says she'll raise the controversial law with Indiana Gov. Mike Pence if he attends this year's meeting of Great Lakes governors and premiers. 

Wynne says Ontario does "a fair bit of trade" with Indiana, and while she didn't threaten to curtail that business, she did urge companies looking for a more open, non-discriminatory jurisdiction to consider her province.

You know what?  More power to Canada on this.  Yeah, it's far from perfect, bigotry and racism towards members of the First Nations is a problem (not to mention against the African-Canadian population of cities like Toronto) but socially the folks next door are still way ahead of the politicians running the show down here.

It's just another reminder that we don't live in a vacuum here.  People around the world see the kind of things Republicans are pulling here in the US these days and they're responding to it.

Arkansas Governor Gets Pence-ive

Seems Arkansas GOP Gov. Asa Hutchinson isn't waiting around to get the full Gov. Mike Pence treatment over the "religious freedom" legislation passed this week by the legislature in Little Rock, and is wisely not signing the bill.

Until it's "revised" of course.

Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson says he does not plan to sign the religious freedom bill that sits on his desk right now, instead asking state lawmakers to make changes so the bill mirrors federal law. 

The first-term Republican governor said he wants his state "to be known as a state that does not discriminate but understands tolerance." 

His decision comes in the wake of an uproar in Indiana, where Gov. Mike Pence has faced pressure from businesses, sports associations like the NCAA and popular culture figures to backtrack on a similar religious freedom law he signed last week. In Arkansas, it's been Walmart applying the most pressure. 

Hutchinson asked lawmakers to recall the law that the Arkansas House had given final approval on Tuesday -- or to send him follow-up legislation that makes the changes he requested. 

Meanwhile, Hutchinson said, he's considering signing an executive order that bars discrimination among the state's workforce. 

"The issue has become divisive because our nation remains split on how to balance the diversity of our culture with the traditions and firmly held religious convictions," Hutchinson said. "It has divided families, and there is clearly a generational gap on this issue."

It's nice for Hutchinson to remember who really runs things in The Natural State.

Walmart, the world's largest retailer, has asked Republican Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson to veto a bill critics say would open the door to discrimination against members of the LGBT community.

Wally World didn't want any trouble, so I'm sure the Governor got his orders to punt.  We'll see what shape the final bill takes, but my guess is that in less than three months, this isn't going to be too much of an issue anyway, thanks to the Supreme Court.

StupidiNews!

• Kenya is reeling this morning from an armed assault on a university by Al Shabaab militants, leaving as many as 15 dead, dozens wounded, and several hostages taken.
• The death toll in deadly floods in Northern Chile along the Copiapo river has reached 24, with more than 60 missing, leading President Michelle Bachelet to cancel a summit trip to Panama.
• California Gov. Jerry Brown has ordered the nation's toughest water restrictions to be put in place as the Golden State's 4-year drought continues with no relief in sight.
• Extended all-night nuclear talks with Iran have still not yielded a deal, prompting both sides to reconsider continuing in light of Tuesday's missed deadline.
• More than 40 US tech firms have signed a letter to the Human Rights Campaign urging lawmakers across the country to extend civil rights protections to LGBTQ groups.

Last Call For Jersey Bob

Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey officially got the hammer dropped on him this afternoon by the feds.

New Jersey U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez has been indicted on federal corruption charges in connection with an ongoing investigation into his business dealings with a Florida doctor, according to a district court clerk familiar with the case. 

Menendez, a Democrat, has held office since 2006. Specific charges in the grand jury indictment weren't immediately available and Menendez's office couldn't immediately be reached for comment. 

Previously, both Menendez and the doctor, Florida optometrist Salomon Melgen, have denied wrongdoing. It wasn't clear if Melgen was also charged in the indictment. Representatives for the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI declined comment.

The expected indictment of Menendez follows a months-long investigation into his relationship with Melgen. The senator has admitted he accepted free private plane trips from Melgen, including a 2008 trip to the luxury resort of Casa de Campo in the Dominican Republic. Menendez claimed to have later repaid almost $70,000 for his trips on the doctor’s jet.

Doesn't look good for him at this point, although it's a bit harder to shame a US Senator into resignation rather than a mere Representative (Hey, David Vitter's still going strong, right?)

We'll see what happens, but with Gov Chris Christie itching to pull the ol' "Appoint a Republican then wait as long as possible to hold a special election" trick again and a GOP controlled Senate, I'm betting there's not going to be a deep well of support for keeping Menendez in office on the part of Republicans with a federal indictment hanging over his head, especially an indictment from a Democratic administration.

I expect things will happen quickly.