Tag Archives: top stories

Here Are the 8 Other Gun Bills About to Face a Vote in the Senate

by ghd12australia Posted on April 17, 2013

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On Wednesday morning, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) both publicly conceded that the background check compromise they forged—which would expand scrutiny of gun buyers online and at gun shows, but would also grant many concessions to the gun lobby—won’t receive 60 votes this afternoon to survive a Republican filibuster. But the gun debate isn’t over yet: The background checks bill is just the first of nine amendments proposed for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s gun control package that will get a vote beginning at 4 p.m. ET. Here’s a quick rundown of the others in the order in which they will come up:

Sen. Chuck Grassley’s (R-Iowa) mental health amendment: Grassley’s Protecting Communities and Preserving the Second Amendment Act of 2013 (PDF), which is cosponsored by five other Republicans, is the conservative alternative to Reid’s gun package. Both include measures on improving background checks, school safety, and gun trafficking prosecutions. But Grassley’s bill would also “place limitations on Fast & Furious type operations,” according to a fact sheet his office put out.

Sens. Patrick Leahy’s (D-Vt.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine)’s gun trafficking amendment: The Leahy-Collins amendment would make gun trafficking a federal felony and strengthen penalties against straw purchasers, including a measure subjecting a gun seller involved in a straw purchase to criminal charges. Convicted gun traffickers would face prison sentences of up to 25 years.

Continue Reading »

Excerpt from – 

Here Are the 8 Other Gun Bills About to Face a Vote in the Senate

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here Are the 8 Other Gun Bills About to Face a Vote in the Senate

10 Reasons the Background Check Bill Means Victory for the NRA

by Felixct7yh Posted on April 17, 2013

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) have been forced this week to consider further retooling their bill for expanded gun background checks, which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters on Tuesday still lacks the 60 votes it needs to overcome a filibuster. The National Rifle Association and senators opposed to the bill continue to argue that it would unfairly burden lawful gun owners while doing nothing to prevent future tragedies like the one in Newtown.

In fact, the bill does an awful lot that should please the pro-gun lobby. Which helps explain why, on Sunday, the gun-rights group Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms endorsed the bill and the “numerous advances for our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms that it contains.” (Even the NRA, consulted during the compromise talks, initially called the bill a “positive development,” as opposed to the stricter gun-control plan initially proposed by Sen. Chuck Schumer; the NRA later backtracked, saying the compromise bill would violate the Second Amendment.)

So, how much would the Manchin-Toomey bill actually expand gun rights? Quite a bit, in its current form. While broadening background checks to some degree, the bill also:

Continue Reading »

Credit – 

10 Reasons the Background Check Bill Means Victory for the NRA

Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on 10 Reasons the Background Check Bill Means Victory for the NRA

John Dean: The McConnell Tape Isn’t Watergate and May Not Be Illegal

by Gwenda Bischof Posted on April 17, 2013

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

This is interesting. John Dean, Richard Nixon’s White House counsel and a star Watergate witness, has weighed in on the McConnell tape controversy. His take: This ain’t Watergate, and the making of the tape probably wasn’t illegal.

After Mother Jones and I disclosed a secretly recorded tape capturing Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and campaign aides discussing using actor/activist Ashley Judd’s past struggles with depression and her religious views as political ammo (should she challenge McConnell), McConnell and aides claimed the minority leader was the victim of a Watergate-style operation and called on the FBI to investigate. McConnell’s campaign manager, Jesse Benton, also played the Hitler card and compared the taping to “Gestapo” tactics. At the end of last week, local Kentucky media reported that two local Democratic operatives linked to a super-PAC called Progress Kentucky, Curtis Morrison and Shawn Reilly, were involved in the taping, having recorded a conversation they heard in a hallway after an open house at McConnell’s campaign headquarters in Louisville. Subsequent reports fingered Morrison more than Reilly. And Morrison has set up a legal defense fund without publicly acknowledging any role in the taping. (I did not comment on the media reports naming Morrison and Reilly because I had promised my source confidentiality.)

Continue Reading »

Jump to original: 

John Dean: The McConnell Tape Isn’t Watergate and May Not Be Illegal

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on John Dean: The McConnell Tape Isn’t Watergate and May Not Be Illegal

These Soldiers Did the Boston Marathon Wearing 40-Pound Packs. Then They Helped Save Lives.

by Hadwin Partize Posted on April 16, 2013

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Tough Ruck soldiers clearing a path to victims Military Friends Foundation

p.mininav-header-text background-color: #000000 !importantMore MoJo coverage of the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings


What We Know About the Boston Marathon Explosions


The Man in the Cowboy Hat: Meet Carlos Arredondo, a Hero of the Boston Bombings


Question Everything You Hear About the Boston Marathon Bombing


Terror Attacks on Sporting Events, Especially Marathons, Are Surprisingly Rare


6 False Things You Heard About the Boston Bombing


These Soldiers Did the Boston Marathon Wearing 40-Pound Packs. Then They Helped Save Lives.

At 5:20 a.m. on Monday, four hours before the Boston Marathon’s elite runners took off, a group of 15 active-duty soldiers from the Massachusetts National Guard gathered at the starting line in Hopkinton. Each soldier was in full combat uniform and carried a “ruck,” a military backpack weighing about 40 pounds. The rucks were filled with Camelbacks of water, extra uniforms, Gatorade, changes of socks—and first-aid and trauma kits. It was all just supposed to be symbolic.

“Forced marches” or “humps” are a regular part of military training, brisk walking over tough terrain while carrying gear that could help a soldier survive if stranded alone. These soldiers, participating in “Tough Ruck 2013,” were doing the 26 miles of the Boston Marathon to honor comrades killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, or lost to suicide and PTSD-related accidents after coming home.

It took about eight hours for all of the soldiers to cross the finish line, some cruising nearly at a 13-minute mile, others coming in at a little slower pace. They were gathered near the medical tent behind the finish line, waiting for the elite runners to come in. That was the contingency plan in case anything went wrong—meet by the medical tent.

“You never think you’re gonna need it, but you always have to have a contingency plan,” says Lieutenant Stephen Fiola of the 1060th Transportation Company, who worked with the Military Friends Foundation to organize the march. Two soldiers stationed in Afghanistan also participated in the ruck from afar, according to Fiola, marching in circles around their base for 26 miles in remembrance of fallen comrades.

A Tough Ruck soldier marching the marathon course Military Friends Foundation

One soldier in the Boston group walked the marathon in honor of Lance Cpl. Alexander Arredondo, who was 20 years old when he died in action in Iraq in 2004. Arredondo’s father, Carlos, was waiting at the finish line to greet the ruckers, wearing a cowboy hat and a Tough Ruck T-shirt, and carrying pictures of his two deceased sons, the second of whom succumbed to depression and suicide after his brother was killed. Fiola was also there, handing Arredondo a bunch of small American flags to pass out to the crowd of spectators in the bleachers. “Everyone was so happy,” says Fiola. “People were cheering, there was music playing, it was almost a surreal experience. A beautiful day.”

When the explosion went off, Fiola and his group immediately went into tactical mode. “I did a count and told the younger soldiers to stay put,” Fiola says. “Myself and two other soldiers, my top two guys in my normal unit, crossed the street about 100 yards to the metal scaffoldings holding up the row of flags. We just absolutely annihilated the fence and pulled it back so we could see the victims underneath. The doctors and nurses from the medical tent were on the scene in under a minute. We were pulling burning debris off of people so that the medical personnel could get to them and begin triage.”

Once the victims were transported away for further medical care, Fiola and the others stood guard around the blast area. “We switched to keeping the scene safe, quarantining the area and preventing people from entering. There was a guy behind me covered, just covered, in his own blood, and I started to smell some smoke. I turn around to look and he’s actually on fire, from a piece of whatever caused the explosion. I saw the smoke coming from his pocket so I reached in and pulled it out. It was his handkerchief, on fire.”

Fiola saw Carlos Arredondo in the distance, assisting more victims. One of Monday’s most harrowing images shows Arredondo, with his cowboy hat and long dark hair, and two others frantically wheeling a young man who appeared to have lost parts of both his legs.

In a video shot by a bystander moments later, Arredondo trembles visibly and grips one of the American flags Fiola had handed to him, now drenched in blood, and explains what he saw and did after the explosions. The right sleeve of his Tough Ruck T-shirt is crimson up to the elbow.

On Tuesday, Fiola said his priority is checking in on the members of Tough Ruck 2013, asking how they’re doing in the aftermath of the tragedy and getting them connected with the Massachusetts National Guard’s support system of mental-health providers, chaplains, and fellow soldiers. He’s encouraging them to talk about what happened with a focus on the help they were able to provide during the chaos.

“We had some sort of an influence, at least in helping the nurses get to the wounded and helping calm people down,” he says. “It’s one of those things that makes you go home and kiss everyone in your family.”

The ruckers at 5 a.m., before setting off on the course Military Friends Foundation

Tough Ruck soldiers cross the finish line before the bombings. Tom Green/Zuma

Original link: 

These Soldiers Did the Boston Marathon Wearing 40-Pound Packs. Then They Helped Save Lives.

Posted in alo, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on These Soldiers Did the Boston Marathon Wearing 40-Pound Packs. Then They Helped Save Lives.

6 False Things You Heard About the Boston Bombing

by ggkk2121333 Posted on April 16, 2013

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

p.mininav-header-text background-color: #000000 !importantMore MoJo coverage of the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings


What We Know About the Boston Marathon Explosions


The Man in the Cowboy Hat: Meet Carlos Arredondo, a Hero of the Boston Bombings


Question Everything You Hear About the Boston Marathon Bombing


Terror Attacks on Sporting Events, Especially Marathons, Are Surprisingly Rare


6 False Things You Heard About the Boston Bombing


These Soldiers Did the Boston Marathon Wearing 40-Pound Packs. Then They Helped Save Lives.

There’s still a lot we don’t know about Monday’s bombing near the finish line of the Boston Marathon. We don’t know if the bombs were set off by one person or multiple people; we don’t know if it was an act of foreign or domestic terrorism; we don’t know what the perpetrators(s) look like; we don’t know what the motive was. One thing we do know: Many of the initial reports on media outlets on Monday and early Tuesday have proven to be false.

That’s inevitable during a breaking news event—and in this case, even some law enforcement officials did more to confuse than to clarify. But one day later, here’s a look at some early storylines that have fizzled upon further scrutiny:

1. Cellphone service shut down in Boston. Reported by: the Associated Press, which credited the information to an unidentified “law enforcement official.” But cellphone service continued uninterrupted in the city. Verizon spokesman Torod Neptune told Mother Jones the reports were “incorrect,” and that service providers were not asked to shut down.

2. Explosions kill 12 people. Reported by: the New York Post. As of 6:58 p.m. on Monday, the tabloid’s website was still touting the 12 dead figure on a splash on its website. (It has since been updated.) The Boston Police Department has only confirmed three dead, along with 176 injuries (including 17 people in critical condition).

3. Bombing at JFK library. Reported by: multiple sources, thanks to a series of ambiguous statements from the Boston Police Department. Boston police commissioner Edward Davis said at a press conference Monday that police were investigating a link between an incident at the JFK library and the marathon bombing. Time‘s Andrew Katz reported on a “possible” device, citing police scanners. By Tuesday morning, the JFK library incident had been officially classified as a “mechanical fire”—as library officials had maintained all along.

4. Saudi national in custody. Reported by: the New York Post, which stated on Monday that a Saudi national had been taken into custody as a “suspect.” Although investigators said they were speaking with a Saudi man who was in the United States on a student visa and was being treated for injuries at a nearby hospital, no one has been taken into custody, and at the moment there are no suspects.

5. Five additional incendiary devices found. Reported by: the Wall Street Journal, which initially said that counterterrorism officials had found five unexploded devices around the Boston area—separate from the two detonated bombs. The New York Times reported three unexploded devices, including one at the corner of St. James and Trinity Streets, and another outside the city in Newton. But the Journal walked back its report quickly and Newton police rebutted the bomb report. On Tuesday, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick confirmed that “two and only two explosive devices were found yesterday,” although many packages were investigated. “There were no unexploded explosive devices found.” Both articles have since been updated.

6. Police have security footage of a “possible suspect.” Reported by: CBS News, citing “one law enforcement official.” According to a Monday afternoon CBS News report, authorities had found a video of an individual carrying backpacks on Boylston Street minutes before the first explosion. This would be news to the Boston Police Department and the FBI, both of whom say they are still looking for a suspect and have no description of what he or she might look like.

This article: 

6 False Things You Heard About the Boston Bombing

Posted in alo, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, oven, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 6 False Things You Heard About the Boston Bombing

What We Know About the Boston Marathon Explosions

by 7GrittonMaine146 Posted on April 15, 2013

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

This explainer is being regularly updated; click here for the latest post or jump to these recent updates:

Watch video of the first and second blasts
Map: Where the explosions occurred along the marathon route
Full transcript and video of President Obama’s press conference
Three confirmed dead

On Monday, two blasts were reported near the finish line of the annual 26.2-mile Boston Marathon, resulting in at least two three dead and scores 132 injured, according to the Boston Police Department and news reports. The explosions—the first of which was on the north side of Boylston Street—occurred roughly three hours after the winners crossed the finish line. “There are a lot of people down,” runner Frank Deruyter of North Carolina told the Associated Press shortly after the explosions. The cause of the blasts were not initially known.

Here’s video of the incident, via MSNBC:

Here are two photos from the scene (warning: graphic):

David L. Ryan/Twitter

Jackie Bruno/Twitter

Here is the initial update from the Boston Marathon, via Facebook:

From the Boston Herald:

“I saw two explosions. The first one was beyond the finish line. I heard a loud bang and I saw smoke rising,” said Herald reporter Chris Cassidy, who was running in the marathon. “I kept running and I heard behind me a loud bang. It looked like it was in a trash can or something. That one was in front of Abe and Louie’s. There are people who have been hit with debris, people with bloody foreheads.”

In response to this news, New York City counterterrorism units have been dispatched. “We’re stepping up security at hotels and other prominent locations in the city through deployment of the NYPD’s critical response vehicles (CRVs) until more about the explosion is learned,” New York City Police Department Deputy Commissioner Paul J. Browne said in a statement Monday afternoon. Washington, DC, and Los Angeles security have also been put on high alert. The White House is in contact with state and local authorities in Boston and Massachusetts. “Our prayers are with those people in Boston who have suffered injuries. I don’t know how many there are,” Vice President Joe Biden said while on a conference call about gun legislation, when he was informed of the blasts.

More from the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency:

An intelligence official told the AP that two additional explosive devices were found at the Boston Marathon, and were being dismantled.

Via the New York Times, here is a street map of where the explosions occurred:

UPDATE, Monday, April 15, 4:40 p.m. EDT: Via NBC News broadcast, Alasdair K. Conn, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, said in a press conference that the hospital is treating six severely injured patients who required immediate resuscitation. They have 19 patients in total; 5 are “pretty badly off,” according to Conn. “This is like a bomb explosion we hear about in Baghdad or Israel,” he continued.

UPDATE 2, Monday, April 15, 4:44 p.m. EDT: Here is video of the second blast along the marathon route:

Here is footage of the initial blast near the finish line, via Boston.com

UPDATE 3, Monday, April 15, 5:02 p.m. EDT: Edward Davis, Boston police commissioner, said at a press conference today:

At 2:50 p.m. today, there were simultaneous explosions that occurred along the route of the Boston Marathon at the finish line. These explosions occurred 50 to 100 yards apart. Each scene resulted in multiple casualties. At this point in time all the victims shave been removed from the scene, we have sent officers to hospitals to be in touch with family members and possible witnesses. We immediately activated a system of response that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and federal government has in place for these types of incidents…We have at this point in time determined that there has been a third incident that occurred. An explosion that occurred at the JFK library. This is very much an ongoing event at this time. We are not certain if these incidents are related, but we’re treating them as if they are.

There were no injuries at the JFK library that the police know of, per commissioner Davis.

If you are trying to locate someone, call: 617-635-4500. If you have any information about the explosions, call: 1-800-494-TIPS.

UPDATE 4, Monday, April 15, 5:22 p.m. EDT: A law enforcement official tells the AP that cellphone service was shut down in the Boston area “to prevent any potential remote detonations of explosives.” (However, some are casting serious doubts on this story, given reports of functioning cellphones and other factors.) The FAA announced a ground stop for Boston’s Logan airport.

UPDATE 5, Monday, April 15, 5:25 p.m. EDT: Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick has released the following statement:

This is a horrific day in Boston. My thoughts and prayers are with those who have been injured. I have been in touch with the President, Mayor Menino and our public safety leaders. Our focus is on making sure that the area around Copley Square is safe and secured. I am asking everyone to stay away from Copley Square and let the first responders do their jobs.

UPDATE 6, Monday, April 15, 5:47 p.m. EDT: Amtrak issued the following statement via Twitter, regarding the Boston Marathon explosions:

At this time all Amtrak trains are operating as scheduled. We will provide an update if this changes. We are increasing security at stations & track right-of-ways. We ask passengers to … report anything suspicious to 1-800-331-0008 or 911.

UPDATE 7, Monday, April 15, 6:16 p.m. EDT: President Obama held a press conference on the explosions, starting at 6:10 p.m. ET. “We still don’t know who did this or why, but make no mistake, we’ll get to the bottom of it,” the president said.

Here is the full text and video of Obama’s statement; the speech lasted about three-and-a-half minutes:

Good afternoon, everybody. Earlier today, I was briefed by my homeland security team on the events in Boston. We’re continuing to monitor and respond to the situation as it unfolds. And I’ve directed the full resources of the federal government to help state and local authorities protect our people, increase security around the United States as necessary, and investigate what happened.

The American people will say a prayer for Boston tonight. And Michelle and I send our deepest thoughts and prayers to the families of the victims in the wake of this senseless loss.

We don’t yet have all the answers. But we do know that multiple people have been wounded, some gravely, in explosions at the Boston Marathon.

I’ve spoken to FBI Director Mueller and Secretary of Homeland Security Napolitano, and they’re mobilizing the appropriate resources to investigate and to respond.

I’ve updated leaders of Congress in both parties, and we reaffirmed that on days like this there are no Republicans or Democrats — we are Americans, united in concern for our fellow citizens.

I’ve also spoken with Governor Patrick and Mayor Menino, and made it clear that they have every single federal resource necessary to care for the victims and counsel the families. And above all, I made clear to them that all Americans stand with the people of Boston.

Boston police, firefighters, and first responders as well as the National Guard responded heroically, and continue to do so as we speak. It’s a reminder that so many Americans serve and sacrifice on our behalf every single day, without regard to their own safety, in dangerous and difficult circumstances. And we salute all those who assisted in responding so quickly and professionally to this tragedy.

We still do not know who did this or why. And people shouldn’t jump to conclusions before we have all the facts. But make no mistake — we will get to the bottom of this. And we will find out who did this; we’ll find out why they did this. Any responsible individuals, any responsible groups will feel the full weight of justice.

Today is a holiday in Massachusetts — Patriots’ Day. It’s a day that celebrates the free and fiercely independent spirit that this great American city of Boston has reflected from the earliest days of our nation. And it’s a day that draws the world to Boston’s streets in a spirit of friendly competition. Boston is a tough and resilient town. So are its people. I’m supremely confident that Bostonians will pull together, take care of each other, and move forward as one proud city. And as they do, the American people will be with them every single step of the way.

You should anticipate that as we get more information, our teams will provide you briefings. We’re still in the investigation stage at this point. But I just want to reiterate we will find out who did this and we will hold them accountable.

Thank you very much.

UPDATE 8, Monday, April 15, 8:00 p.m. EDT: The New York Times is reporting three other unexploded devices, including one in Newton, which is on marathon route. CNN is reporting 132 bombing victims so far, and at least 10 amputations. Doctors are reportedly pulling ball bearings out of victims. One of the two three confirmed dead is an 8 year old boy. One bit of good news: The runners representing the families of the Newtown, Conn. mass shooting—including Laura Nowacki, whose daughter survived the shooting—are safe.

UPDATE 9, Monday, April 15, 9:00 p.m. EDT: There are now three confirmed dead. The FBI has taken the lead role in the investigation.

UPDATE 10, Monday, April 15, 9:15 p.m. EDT: Did you see this amazing picture taken by Boston Globe photographer John Tlumacki? He’d just finished running the marathon himself:

Now there’s a story about the runner on the ground, Bill Iffrig, who got up and finished. John Eligon, one of the writers of the lede New York Times piece, had also just run the marathon and somehow managed to file this story.

UPDATE 11, Monday, April 15, 9:15 p.m. EDT: A group called the NYC Light Brigade projected various NYC Loves Boston signs on the side of the Brooklyn Art Museum:

Continued:  

What We Know About the Boston Marathon Explosions

Posted in alo, Citizen, FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on What We Know About the Boston Marathon Explosions

Rand Paul Does Not Deserve a Gold Star for Speaking at Howard University

by bukaroso Posted on April 12, 2013

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Some supporters of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) think he got a bum rap from critics of his speech at historically black Howard University this week. Andrew Sullivan wrote that “the sheer lack of any grace among some liberal commenters on what was an obvious outreach to African-Americans depresses me.” Others, like National Journal‘s Josh Kraushaar, who gave Paul a hearty pat on the back for “showing up to make a case,” were impressed that Paul went to Howard in the first place.

We can count Paul among the people impressed that Paul showed up. “Some people have asked if I’m nervous about speaking at Howard,” Paul joked. “They say ‘You know, some of the students and faculty may be Democrats.'” That landed like a brick on a concrete slab. After that, as though Paul had spent no time learning about Howard itself, Paul proceeded to lecture his audience on the history of black voters and the Republican Party, using the abridged version preferred by Fox News pundits: Lincoln freed the slaves, Democrats were the party of the Jim Crow, so black people should vote Republican. Paul mangled the name of one of the only elected black senators and a Howard alum, Massachusetts Republican Edward Brooke, calling him “Edwin Brooks,” and then asked the audience if they knew that the founders of the NAACP were Republicans. The people in the audience replied, laughing and incredulous, that they did. Later he tried to whitewash his position on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and an audience member pointed out that Paul’s opposition to a key provision of the act was “on tape.”

From his first lame joke, Paul condescended to his audience by repeatedly underestimating their knowledge of a subject they almost certainly understand better than he does. Institutions like Howard exist in part because much of America once refused to educate blacks and whites together. Paul might as well go to NASA to lecture the scientists on astrophysics.

Also strange is the presumption that somehow Paul was doing something risky or brave by speaking at a historically black college. Howard University is not a Greyhound bus station at midnight. It is way past time for pundits to retire the notion that white politicians deserve extra credit for being willing to talk to a room full of black people. This is, as one Republican once put it, the soft bigotry of low expectations. The history of Republican politics and the conservative movement means that a black audience has every right to be skeptical of the GOP, and that the burden is rightfully on that party to reconcile with black voters. Politicians are supposed to reach out to voters, not the other way around. No more gold stars for attendance.

The official Republican history of race in America should no longer ignore the fact that Republicans abandoned black people after Reconstruction in the name of “reconciliation” between North and South or elide the party’s post-1964 embrace of the politics of white racial resentment. That the party that was once the party of Jim Crow now gets upwards of 90 percent of the black vote is not an indictment of the Democratic Party. It is an indictment of the Republican Party.

Some of Paul’s defenders, such as The Atlantic‘s Conor Friedersdorf, have complained that Paul was unfairly mocked as being “hilariously backward about race,” even though Paul’s positions on war and drug enforcement are much more progressive than other politicians, including many Democrats. Aside from the fact that the Howard audience was quite receptive to Paul on those issues, it’s beside the point. In college, I used to hear all the time from liberals that simply being liberals somehow meant that they couldn’t do or say anything racist. Paul wasn’t being unfairly mocked for his positions on America’s various wars against abstract concepts. He was justifiably mocked for dishonestly condescending to his audience. Having the “correct” politics no more absolves him of that than they would the annoying campus liberals I encountered as a college student.

Paul’s unorthodox (for a Republican) positions on drug enforcement and national security, and even his recent shift on immigration, make him a better messenger to minority voters than most for Republicans. They reflect an admirable empathy for the marginalized and less powerful that the Republican party in general rarely expresses. Despite its misses, during Paul’s Howard speech you could hear the beginnings of a small-government message that might appeal to minorities. But if that message is delivered with a comical underestimation of those who are meant to receive it, then don’t be surprised if they toss the envelope in the trash without opening it.

See original article – 

Rand Paul Does Not Deserve a Gold Star for Speaking at Howard University

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, The Atlantic, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Rand Paul Does Not Deserve a Gold Star for Speaking at Howard University

Top House Dem: On Social Security Cuts, Obama Is Like a Small Child

by Myrna Posted on April 12, 2013

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

President Barack Obama’s new budget has much of his own base up in arms, particularly over $230 billion in proposed cuts to Social Security. On Thursday, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) convened a meeting of House Democrats to hear a closed-door debate on the proposal, which would cost retirees hundreds of dollars a year by tying the growth of monthly Social Security benefits to a new, lower measure of inflation called chained CPI. It was unclear whether the meeting changed any minds, but it certainly highlighted the divisions between the president and his party.

Speaking to reporters after the debate, many Democrats complained that Obama put the cuts on the table far too early. Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), the top Democrat on the House rules committee, likened Obama’s negotiating skills to the eagerness of a five-year-old. “When I was a kid, I couldn’t play hide and seek,” she said. “The pressure was just too much on me. I would hop up and say, Here I am! This is the way this negotiation is taking place. We’re trying to get a grand plan out of Republicans. It would be better instead of hollering up, Here I am! to get that agreement first, before you put it in your budget.”

Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.) said she could envision putting chained CPI in the budget, but only as a product of negotiations, not as an initial offer, and only as part of a grand bargain with additional revenues, and investments in other progressive priorities. “We don’t know what the other side is willing to offer,” she said. “We cannot give anything on a silver platter.”*

Other Democrats were outright opposed to the president’s plan. Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) looked positively distraught. “I can only say that the Progressive Caucus is dead set against it,” he said. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) said she had no idea why Obama is embracing what was initially a Republican idea. “Chained CPI was a bad idea when GOP Speaker of the House John Boehner had it, and it’s a bad idea now,” she said, adding that measure would hurt seniors much more than the recent tax hikes on high-earners hurt them. Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research has calculated that switching to chained CPI would cut about 2 percent of seniors’ retirement income over 20 years. By contrast, the hit that the rich got from Obama’s New Year’s tax increases was only 0.6 percent.*

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.) said she hopes her party doesn’t cave and line up behind the president. “This is so serious because…it will last forever,” she said. “If we institutionalize the chained CPI, we will literally throw generations into poverty.”

The debate House Democrats attended pitted Damon Silvers, the associate general counsel of the AFL-CIO, against Robert Greenstein, president of the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Silvers adamantly opposes chained CPI. Greenstein argues that the plan could be workable, but only if included in a bipartisan deal that preserves spending on things like antipoverty programs and infrastructure, and contains protections for the oldest and poorest beneficiaries, as the president’s budget does.

Pelosi suggested that many in her caucus thought chained CPI should be preserved as an option for making Social Security solvent in the long run, not as a way to pay down the national debt. “The deficit is not about Social Security,” said Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J). “What puzzles me is why the president would do this.”

But nearly every House Democrat who spoke to reporters after the event suggested that, other criticisms aside, Obama’s chained CPI proposal is bad politics. “Our brand is the party that brought you Social Security,” Holt said. Slaughter added that she has been swamped with calls by unhappy constituents opposing the president’s idea. “I’m at a loss for words,” she said. “There are so many people living hand to mouth, day to day.”

Correction: An earlier version of this article misspelled Rep. Velázquez and Rep.Schakowsky’s names.

Link:

Top House Dem: On Social Security Cuts, Obama Is Like a Small Child

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Top House Dem: On Social Security Cuts, Obama Is Like a Small Child

"Veep," Season 2: Douchey and Mean-Spirited Like Washington—But Way Wittier

by wqds234der Posted on April 11, 2013

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

“You know, you’re about as annoying as a condom filled with fire ants. How’s that for a fucking metaphor?” Ohio congressman and gubernatorial candidate Roger Furlong snaps at his aide.

“It’s a simile, sir,” the sheepish, twentysomething male aide replies.

“Shut your mouth, you fat girl,” the congressman rejoins, as he fiddles with his smartphone while lumbering out of the vice president’s office.

If you tuned in to any of Season 1, this exchange from the new season should sound thankfully familiar. Season 2 of Armando Iannucci‘s political satire Veep (premiering Sunday, April 14 at 10 p.m. EDT on HBO) is all the things that made the first eight episodes so worthwhile: It’s a roaringly funny, mean-spirited burlesque that plays out like a good episode of The West Wing—if The West Wing were a slur-filled, punk-rock fantasy.

The passionately petty Selena Meyer (played by a pitch-perfect Julia Louis-Dreyfus) is still the American VP who can’t get any love from the press or administration, and can’t get any face time with POTUS. “I’m about to undergo a national ass-kicking, with no legs…and a massive ass,” Selena remarks. Her staff (played by the series regular Matt Walsh, Sufe Bradshaw, Reid Scott, Anna Chlumsky, and Arrested Development alum Tony Hale) help her pencil-push an agenda while clumsily pursuing their own professional self-interest. Veep has a fairly simple vision of American government: All of them (middle-age senators, cynical data crunchers, aloof operatives) are douchey incompetents—vain, power-hungry, self-loathing, foul-mouthed, back-stabbing, and perpetually upset. In this sense, Veep nails down the tone of Washington in the same way that Scrubs painted an honest portrait of medical professionals: It’s an exaggerated, ridiculous depiction that veers on hitting too close to home.

Continue Reading »

Credit: 

"Veep," Season 2: Douchey and Mean-Spirited Like Washington—But Way Wittier

Posted in alo, FF, GE, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on "Veep," Season 2: Douchey and Mean-Spirited Like Washington—But Way Wittier

At Howard University, Rand Paul Falsely Claims He Never Opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act

by RupertxMcmillan Posted on April 10, 2013

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Following an awkward, earnest speech to an audience at Howard University, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) insisted several times that he did not oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

“I’ve never been against the Civil Rights Act, ever,” Paul told a questioner, following what was the first speech by a Republican legislator at the historically black university in decades. “This was on tape,” the questioner responded.

That’s true. It is on tape. Here it is:

In 2010, during an interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal flagged by ThinkProgress, Paul made it very clear that he opposed a key part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that banned discrimination on the basis of race in “places of public accommodation,” such as privately owned businesses that are open to the public. Here’s the transcript:

PAUL: I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I’m all in favor of that.

INTERVIEWER: But?

PAUL: You had to ask me the “but.” I don’t like the idea of telling private business owners—I abhor racism. I think it’s a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant—but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership. But I absolutely think there should be no discrimination in anything that gets any public funding, and that’s most of what I think the Civil Rights Act was about in my mind.

If federal civil rights laws only outlawed segregation in “anything that gets any public funding,” the state would still be called upon to enforce racism by enforcing the property rights of business owners who did not want to serve people on the basis of skin color (or religion, or national origin). Only by extending the ban on discrimination to all places of public accommodation, including privately owned businesses, could freedom against discrimination actually be upheld. Paul elaborated later in the interview when he said that he “became emotional” reading the speeches of Martin Luther King Jr.

INTERVIEWER: But under your philosophy, it would be okay for Dr. King not to be served at the counter at Woolworths?

PAUL: I would not go to that Woolworths, and I would stand up in my community and say that it is abhorrent, um, but, the hard part—and this is the hard part about believing in freedom—is, if you believe in the First Amendment, for example—you have to, for example, most good defenders of the First Amendment will believe in abhorrent groups standing up and saying awful things and uh, we’re here at the bastion of newspaperdom, I’m sure you believe in the First Amendment so you understand that people can say bad things. It’s the same way with other behaviors. In a free society, we will tolerate boorish people, who have abhorrent behavior, but if we’re civilized people, we publicly criticize that, and don’t belong to those groups, or don’t associate with those people.

Paul expressed similar sentiments in interviews with MSNBC and NPR.

So Paul made it quite clear in 2010 that he didn’t believe in federal law banning discrimination in privately owned businesses that are open to the public. At Howard, Paul seemed to be saying he never opposed the Civil Rights Act in its entirety, but he certainly opposed a key part of it that completely reshaped American society. Supporting the right of white business owners not to serve blacks may be the “hard part of freedom” for someone, but not for anyone who looks like Rand Paul.

Paul got a warm reception from the Howard audience for some of his positions on foreign policy and the war on drugs. But in what seems like a tacit acknowledgement that his past position on a piece of historic civil rights legislation is embarrassing, Paul fibbed about what that position actually was.

Taken from – 

At Howard University, Rand Paul Falsely Claims He Never Opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on At Howard University, Rand Paul Falsely Claims He Never Opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act