Tuesday Trivia and Open Thread

 

"Roscoe" - Midlake

(I like the building scenes that go along with the video.)

- I enjoyed this article on America's love affair with saying how "busy" we all are -- I'm certainly not immune.  I  particularly enjoyed this line: "if your job wasn’t performed by a cat or a boa constrictor in a Richard Scarry book I’m not sure I believe it’s necessary."  Words to live by.  This seems particularly apt in light of the DC area's desperate need for people to remove downed trees and tree limbs and repair power lines -- all of our high powered nonsense is exposed as just that when the electricity isn't running.

- I am pretty much done arguing over the merits of the ACA against the magical thinkers on the left.  Pretty much all I had to say is captured in this post by Scott Lemieux at LG & M.   And its follow up.  Simply put, there is nothing to suggest that there was ever going to be sixty votes in the Senate for a single payer system.  Moreover, I have serious doubts that if push came to shove, the ghosts of FDR and LBJ working in concert with Obama could have mustered a majority in either house for single payer.  It just wasn't going to happen. 

- Roy does his usual fine job in capturing the madness, (and for us, the sweet, sweet schadenfrede of the pink Himalayan salt tears [a phrase I've shamelessly stolen and can't remember from whom]) of the right wing over John Roberts' perfidy -- coerced, as we all know, by the New York Times editorial board holding his children at gunpoint. 

- And please read what LG&M accurately characerized as this "epic post" at Crooked Timber critiquing libertarians and their unwillingness to deal with the coercive power of management and ownership in the workplace, something that remains to my mind the central power relationship in most of our lives and the one in which the rankest forms of dominance take place.  It says everything I would have like to have said and better.

What's up with you?

 

Comments

[Paula B]

Can a gay, pro-choice Republican who looks like Mitt Romney unseat an entrenched, ethically challenged Democrat in suburban Boston? You bet. http://bo.st/M3MALU

[Sir Charles]

Paula,

That's the district where I grew up. Interestingly it is place that had never elected a Democrat until 1969 when a friend of mine's father won the seat as an adamant opponent of the Vietnam War in a special election. Since then the seat has been held by a Democrat for all but two terms I believe.

Sorry to see Tierney in trouble -- he has been a very good congressman. I tend to think he will pull it out on the strength of Obama's likely landslide over Mitt, who is stunningly unpopular in the state that he used to govern.

I'd like to see oddjob's take on it -- as far as I know this is his district too, although I am less sure of its border now after my 30 year absence and the loss of two congressional seats in Mass.

[Paula B]

OJ? I'm curious, too. Districts have been drastically realigned this year, btw. I'm now in a district that reaches all the way over to Blackstone, Westborough and Leominster, of all places. I guess that's to Republican it up. My congressman, John Olver (D), is retiring after 30 years or so, but his four-county district is disappearing, too.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

For me the big story is the Roberts reverse on the ACA, what caused it, what it means for the future, and the question as to whether there were leaks, from which side, and to who. (It is interesting that, among the writers praising the Roberts switch are Charles Lane, and we know what you think of him, and the Amar brothers, Vikram and Akhil, who have, whenever I've come across them, seemed not the brightest bulbs -- they used to be part of FindLaw's Writ when that existed. Meanwhile, John Yoo is claiming that it is even more pro 'big government' than we had hoped.)

But the question of possible leaks is even more fascinating. There seems to be a strong likelihood of 'someone with intimate knowledge of the Conservative Justices' having leaked the background after the decision came down. (If it wasn't one of the justices, which seems highly possible, the next most likely seems to be Ginny Thomas, rather than a clerk or staff member.)

But there's the corresponding suggestion of leaks to Leahy, and the speech he made that is described as 'having an audience of one, the Chief Justice.'

This really is unprecedented. The Court has rarely been known for post-decison leaks of any kind, at least until deceased Justices' papers get opened -- and i believe there have been some Justices (Souter? and at least one of the Roosevelt nominees, iirc) who have ordered their papers destryed rather than take the chance of 'leaking posthumously.'

Then, of course there is the 'what does this mean going forward' debate, which has launched theories ranging from Roberts finally living up to the testimony he gave on confirmation to the idea that the whole thing is a Machiavellian political ploy, that not only does Roberts' decision weaken Commerce Clause protection, but that a decision against the ACA would mobilize Democrats, while a decision supporting it would -- theoretically, at least -- get Republicans mad enough to even start liking Romney.

(But -- and there are more 'on the other hands' here than at an Octopus convention -- this is countered by the claim that the Conservatives are so angry with Roberts that they refused to address his arguments directly -- if this wasn't because the decision came down too late -- or Scalia was too sloppy -- to respond.)

That brings le to Scalia, and whether the *ahem* eccentric nature of his AZ dissent, and the sloppiness in this brief, say something about him and his future. (I really should have gone back and read some of his dissents from the past to see if he's always been this bad, if the 'intellectual leader of the Conservative Justices' was always as much a fraud as he is now. Anyone have any good examples on either side of that one?)

I dp wonder if the rant is a sign of him losing it, or just getting tired of the fight. I've never seen him as likely to turn into a McReynolds, serving out his life sentence and getting more and more isolated, more and more despised even by his fellow justices. I think he has a 'joy in living' that is one of the few admirable traits in that awful collection that is Antonin the Great.

(If he were only five years younger, I'd seriously speculate the possibility of a Romney-Scalia ticket, but 76 is just too old for that to be more than a vague possibility -- and only because I put no bounds to Romney's stupidity that makes it even that.)

If he is tired, at what point would he retire? The 'convwis' is that he wouldn't before the election, in case Romney wins, but if it begins looking like Obama is a sure winner -- well, it does now -- and that the Democrats will pick up some Senate seats -- now possible, but it will be more than likely in a few months -- wouldn't it be smarter for him to resign early and force Obama into making a pick before the election? (Of course, whoever Obama does pick, and when, will be used against him. He could tell the Senate to choose between Lindsey Graham and Orrin Hatch and he'd still be accused of 'appointing a radical socialist to the seat.')

Anyway, that's just one area of my mind that has something in it. (And I wrote this without seeing any but Paula's first response in the thread.)

[Paula B]

(And I wrote this without seeing any but Paula's first response in the thread.)
Meaning, what?

[oddjob]

all of our high powered nonsense is exposed as just that when the electricity isn't running

That's always been what's bothered me about the idea of libraries throwing away books and going 100% online. Online's great - so long as the electricity's working.....

[oddjob]

the Roberts reverse on the ACA, what caused it, what it means for the future

His opinion creates a precedent for reigning in the ability of Congress to regulate commerce, no? On the one hand we get the ACA, but at the cost of a future where the Commerce Clause isn't as expansive as it's been during the last 60 years (or so I've read).

[oddjob]

Lynn, MA is still part of Tierney's district. What's been added were some areas northwest of Lynn that I think were in Tsonga's district and are distinctly more likely to vote Republican than was typical in Tierney's district before.

I don't know what to expect. In a different political environment I can imagine myself voting for Tisei, but not in this one. The last thing the House of Representatives needs now is another Republican, no matter how moderate.

[oddjob]

FWIW, both of Tierney's brothers-in-law have publicly asserted (one in a courtroom while being sentenced, the other from Antigua where he's a fugitive) that Tierney knew all about the whole thing all along.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Paula:
Meaning that if anyone else had opened a discussion since that comment, I hadn't seen it, nothing more. I must have used an equivalent at least fifty times, because I go on and on so much that I don't see intervening comments.

Oddjob and Sir C (and Mandos): It is interesting that a new series, REVOLUTION, set for the Fall, involves a post-apocalyptic world where all technology, all electrictiy, apparently had simply stopped running. It is apparently set some time in the future from that event. So far I haven't found much else about it -- no pilot on line yet, and I haven't even been able to check out the trailers -- except the one thing that makes me expect something better than the stream of 'high-concept failures' like FLASH FORWARD, THE EVENT, TERRA NOVA, and ALCATRAZ, that have been popping up.

That one thing is that the show-runner is Eric Kripke, the man who was behind SUPERNATURAL. True, he could be a Joss Whedon, stumbling into a hit like BUFFY and making everyone KNOW how much a genius he was -- if you don't look at the movie version. But Kripke doesn't seem to be that type, and SUPERNATURAL, over-all, is a much better show than BUFFY was.

Oh, and one more thing here. Apparently Anderson Cooper has finally come out. Bo surprise, but still welcomed.

[Sir Charles]

Jim,

I cannot imagine a worse candidate for office than Scalia. He'd make Chris Christie look like a model of restraint. He is actually a guy who can be charming and engaging, but his sense of superiority and his scorn for lesser beings, not to mention his incredibly extreme views, would I think be disastrous.

I think you may be right that he is heading into McReynolds territory. He is increasingly nakedly political and obviously seemed to want to deal body blows to the Obama Administration that were not forthcoming. His has become the very essence of a non-judicial temperament.

oddjob,

I think the Commerce Clause issues are really critical and that it is essential that we retain the presidency -- probably for at least the next eight years -- in order to be able to win these battles.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

And one sad note, Andy Griffith died yesterday. And if you don't realize how good he was capable of being -- and even the "Sherrif Andy' bit was pretty epic, it's hard to create a character that becomes that symbolic -- try watching A FACE IN THE CROWD. (It's on Thursday morning at 1:45 AM, and will be its own type of fireworks.

[oddjob]

Justice Antonin Scalia ... declares his belief that Wickard v. Filburn was wrongly decided, and he of course signed onto the recent Supreme Court dissent calling for the overturn of all of Obamacare.

Who would disagree with this approach? The younger Judge Scalia....

In 1985 Judge Scalia was publicly opposed to the sorts of conservatively activist decisions he's now voting for.

(Hat tip, Sully.)

[oddjob]

Today's latest on Rep. John Tierney (D-MA) for those interested.

[Bill H]

My wife takes some pride in being a "multi-tasker," reading a magazine while watching a television show, for instance, and basically rejecting the idea of ever just doing one thing at a time. To me it sort of comes off as having a short attention span and usually not knowing what is going on around her. She doesn't know who Paul Krugman is, for example.

If she reads this, of course, I'm a dead man, but not only am I capable of focusing on one thing and doing it in depth, I'm also able to live on the edge.

[oddjob]

LOL! :)

I also truly suck at multi-tasking. One thing at a time please! (There's a reason I've never been a father.)

[nancy]

There is a fine tribute to Andy Griffith at the Self-Styled Siren . I especially liked that she made mention of both 'Matlock' and 'Murder, She Wrote'.

From Griffith's final years, the Siren chiefly knows Matlock. And the Siren likes Matlock, if not as much as she loves Murder, She Wrote. For the Lansbury the Siren has impeccable company, for Matlock who knows, but the Siren got real tired, real fast of people mocking her about both shows. Listen, if you hate the basic formula and find the production values lacking or the scripts rote, fair enough. But if your disdain is based on the fact that Griffith was old and the guest stars were old and the audience was old--what's up with that? We're all gonna be old, insh'allah, as they always used to say back home in Birmingham. Many of the old people the Siren has known were and are awesomer than she will ever become. Matlock's the oldest and the smartest guy in the room. How is this not way cool? And like every TV crime fighter the Siren has ever loved, from Columbo on, Matlock banks on people underestimating him, lulled by his folksy Southern ability to seem much, much less threatening than he actually is.

As for multi-tasking, I view it as rapidly-recycling procrastinations. By way of defending a near inability to do so. Loved the 'busyness' essay -- glad to see that Richard Scarry hasn't been consigned to the dustbins of 'toddler lit'.

And reading Roy...as ever...although that piece is perhaps a hall of famer. Man has stamina. Had I read the material at each of the links in his piece, I'd be screaming bonkers.

[Sir Charles]

Bill,

I think everything suggests that multitasking is really ineffective. But I suggest you don't share that wife.

nancy,

Richard Scarry remains the man in my mind.

Roy maintains a great sense of equanimity despite the swamp in which he wades.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Just ducking in quickly as I emjoy the Mets, but have to make an award for the most disgusting comments of the day (week? year?) by a Congressman, the Deadbeat Dad, Joe Walsh. Both were made about his opponent, Tammy Duckworth -- who most of you know lost both legs and an arm in Iraq. Actually, the first one comes from a couple of months ago.
“What else has she done? Female, wounded veteran … ehhh.”

Today he 'explained':

"Understand something about John McCain. His political advisers, day after day, had to take him and almost throw him against a wall and hit him against the head and say, "Senator, you have to let people know you served! You have to talk about what you did!" He didn't want to do it, wouldn't do it. Day after day they had to convince him. Finally, he talked a little bit about it, but it was very uncomfortable for him. That's what's so noble about our heroes.

"Now I'm running against a woman who, I mean my God, that's all she talks about. Our true heroes, it's the last thing in the world they talk about. That's why we're so indebted and in awe of what they have done."

(What McCain was he talking about? Not John.)

[Bill H]

Sir Charles, share that with my wife? Oh hahahah. I am brave, intrepid, and at times a bit self destructive, but I am not utterly stupid.

[paula b]

I understand. A one-armed, no-legged woman has a huge advantage over a brainless deadbeat like Walsh. She's not playing fair!

[Crissa]

Over at CNN conservatives are crowing that Andy Griffith's quick burial robbed the media of a circus.

It seems to me that the media will make however much of a circus it wants, body or no.

[Crissa]

Oh, kinda a post-note. I bought a flag pole for the house - one of those rickety aluminum with the fall-out styrene plastic screws to hold the flag - and put up my father's flag for the Fourth. It hasn't been flown in forty years, and is a bit ratty, but I needed to do it. My father died thirty-five years ago.

I'll take it down in the morning, but it gets to see the sun rise once more in California. (Yes, I have a spotlight on it for the night, no idea what it could think about an LED lamp.)

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Don't plan on doing much talking today -- subject to change st any time -- but there are a truly incredible number of good articles coming out today, so I can give you a start on your post-holiday reading. But okay, so I came up with one idea to pass on first -- and this is entirely my idea, I own it, and I give the rights freely and without seeking compensation to anyone who will use it in a pro-Obama ad campaign. (15 sec commercials can work -- see GEICO)

THE ELEPHANT FAMILY: A parade of ten elephants begin to parade across the screen, carrying signs, Papa's saying "VOTE FOR" at the head, Mama ("For President") at the end, the kids carrying one-letter signs that read -- as they cross the screen "M R . M O N E Y" As soon as the mother's sign becomes visible you hear a loud trumpeting from off stage, an old-fashioned 'technical difficulties, please stand by' sign comes down, and there are signs of confusion behind it. When it lifts, the kids are 'in the right order.' (M . R O M N E Y)

Makes the point simply, no? (And despite growls from a certain 'big dog,' the attacks on Bain and his other financial foibles and attitudes seem to be becoming as effective as any of the others.)

(Okay, another one, also offered freely. A cartoon Romney get5s a note from a tv station asking for an interview, and then you see him handing out tickets to bills of various denominations. They exit stage right, carrying suitcases. Cut to Romney being interviewed -- all comercials are wordless, btw -- the reporter leaves, then the postman delivers a postcard (DVD better?) showing the bills, wearing shorts, throwing beachballs, and sipping drinks, under a sign "Welcome to the Cayman Islands."

And one more -- these are coming as i type, literally -- showing an advisor writing a note "Dear President romney: I've checked, and the Constitution does not allow us to outsource cabinet positions to South Asia, sorry.")

Okay, if I can shut up the NEXT comment will be the planned list of artucles.

[Paula B]

Prup---The elephants idea is brilliant. The Dems would be foolish not to use it.

So, here it is July 4, 2012. In the last 24 hours, scientists from around the world (including a nephew at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Princeton) have completed the Standard Measure of particle physics by finding the Higgs boson, this country has turned 236, and my son turned 40. A great day to be alive!

Happy Fourth, everyone. Let the grilling begin.

[Sir Charles]

Happy Fourth to all.

I'm enjoying the mid-week day off immensely.

[nancy]

Gather comments are stuck again. Mine didn't go though. So testing here.

[nancy]

One accepted. Two not. Hey Typepad, here I come.

[Eric Wilde]

Monsoons are supposed to arrive today in New Dehli. Yesterday the weather finally dipped down below 100F (measured at dawn.)

As much as I'm not a patriot or a big fan of many things that happen in the USA, the rank abuse of power here in India is far more galling. It seems to be getting worse, as I witnessed yet more police intimidation first hand this trip.

My 4 year old daughter insists that when she grows up she's moving to Australia, though I have no idea what put that thought in her head as we've never been there. Perhaps she's the wisest one of the family, though.

[KN]

Objectively, the discovery of the Higgs by far and away overshadows the independence holiday. Paula B. one small pedantic correction, I think you meant to refer to the Statdard Model. Discovery simply refers to having achieved a statistical surety equivalent ot 5 sigma, or standard deviations from the mean. To compare, polls never report more than one sigma measurements and even then the manner in which they report them is misleading.

Moreover, pushing statistical certainty towards a goal of 5 sigma becomes increasingly difficult as the goal is approached.

This is an enormous landmark.We will not know the consequences for perhaps decades, maybe even centuries.

Long after the USA becomes a footnote in history books, the knowledge of the Higgs and its properties we will achieve in the future, will have totally unknowable effects.

Given the data I have seen on the net, the first question that arises is, is there only one Higgs, or are there Higgs of different masses?

Are y'all enjoying the exposlions?

KBO

[Paula B]

KN --- As in parallel universes? I can accept that possibility but not the thought of two Mitt Romneys and/or John Boehners. My mind reels. And, of course, I meant Standard Model, not Measure. Brain gremlins, again. Blame it on the heat.
Charlie Pierce has a nice one today over at Esquire blogs.

[Bill H]

Reading about the heat and wishing we had some. Gray skies the entire day, the infamous San Diego "June Gloom" in July, and a high temp of 65. That's what comes from living next door to the world's largest "swamp cooler." (The Pacific Ocean)

[Sir Charles]

KN,

I have to sheepishly admit that the whole Higgs Boson thing is completely over my head. Smart people tell me it's a pretty damn big deal, but, ironically, I more or less have to take that on faith.

Eric,

You've made me feel slightly better about our weather hear, although July is off to one oppressive start. I think we are supposed to hit 100 again today, after a sweltering 99 yesterday, followed by 102 on Saturday. This is just not a comfortable place to be when it's in the triple digits -- although I would imagine it is paradise compared to New Delhi.

Sadly, India remains plagued by bad governance despite its putatively democratic character. It never seems like a place where the rule of law has effectively taken hold. It's one of the reasons I am less bullish about its prospects than many people. (Plus its grotesque inequality and willingness to tolerate staggering rates of child malnutrition, where it stacks up really poorly compared to China.)

Paula,

I thought that there were two Mitts -- the one who says and believes one thing and his opposite.

Bill,

I was shocked the first time I went to San Diego at how cool it can be -- now granted it was March not June, but it felt not dissimilar to where I had grown up in Massachusetts, something I wasn't expecting. And I was stunned at how cold the Pacific is -- again, it is not unlike the ocean water that I grew up with.

[Sir Charles]

That would be weather "here" not "hear."

Jesus, I hate when I do that.

I blame it on multitasking.

[oddjob]

Sir C., you need to experience San Fran. in July.

"The coldest winter I ever experienced was a summer in San Francisco."
- Mark Twain

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

The wether thear is going to be brutal, with the lowest high through the weekend being 98 on Sunday before a break. Saturday -- there and here -- is getting really scary, with you at 105 and Brooklyn at 98. (I had, when I saw that, wondered if I could get away with talking a local rehab place with a pool -- that has been calling me to get me back, I went there a couple of times a couple of years ago -- into letting me hang out there and maybe see if I want to try their ortho guy. Then I remembered, uh-uh, it's Saturday, they are Orthodox, I'm staying hot.

Meanwhile --- *oh, no, on a day when the windows need to be open, the lawn people are around, cutting the grass right outside my window. I like the results and am glad my brother-in-law hires them but they use the worst fume-makers.

Anyway, I was going to try again with some bloghopping, but as my mind surrendered to gasoline intoxication, I wondered, if NY turned into Arizona, how many of the weed-whacking brigade would be leaving, and how many 'American workers' would rush to replace them? More later, BfAZ and Blue Jersey already have stories to discuss. But now, see if this one gets up, duck under the shower, and then start the next one. Maybe it will be even a little coherent -- for a change.

[Sir Charles]

oddjob,

I have been to SF numerous times but never in July. I think I have been incredibly lucky in that I've by and large experienced great weather there, although I have had a couple of classic short term San Francisco fogs. I was in San Jose one day and it was 82 and when we drove back to SF it was about 55.

My only really cold visit was my first, which was in mid-May. I played tennis on a roof top tennis court and it once again reminded me of being on the North Shore. Bone chilling damp and wind. It was truly miserable. I had left DC in the midst of one of its spring heat waves -- we had already cracked 90 -- and packed completely inappropriately. I had to buy a bunch of clothes, which wasn't completely bad, as San Francisco has much better men's clothes than DC.

[kathy a.]

prup -- maybe the pool will make an exception because of the heat emergency?

everybody packs inappropriately for SF. we can always tell the tourists -- they're the ones wearing shorts, goosebumps, and hastily-purchased "i <3 SF" sweatshirts.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

A look at a few blogs that some of you might have heard me mention before.

Blog for Arizona: This is always one of the two or three top state blogs, with a great cast of writers -- and they've been adding more recently. But this week they have outdone themselves. There are so many must reads -- or posts linking to must-reads' that I'l just mention them and tell you to start at the top and work down. (Besides, I just wondered if one reason TP swallows comments could be that there are too many links and TP thinks they are spam.)

Okay, the links come fast and furious, and the first topic is

Fast and Furious: AZBlueMeanie has been paying more attention to the recent FORTUNE investigative piece on the subject, and today he links to the follow-up piece.

If FORTUNE -- hardly known as a lefty mag -- is not entirely making things up, this is an incredible series, basically showing that, despite the Isshole, and the tons of apologies from the White House, there wasn;t even an 'oops.' That there was no attempt to 'let guns leak over the border' that the ATF agents were trying to catch the traffickers before the guns left the area, but that local prosecutors, federal prosecutors, and the local laws all kept them from doing it.

"Irony abounds when it comes to the Fast and Furious scandal. But the ultimate irony is this: Republicans who support the National Rifle Association and its attempts to weaken gun laws are lambasting ATF agents for not seizing enough weapons—ones that, in this case, prosecutors deemed to be legal."

"Prosecutors: Transferring guns is legal in Arizona" is the heading on one section of the report, maybe the single most damning. Again a slightly shortened sample:

By January 2010 the agents had identified 20 suspects who had paid some $350,000 in cash for more than 650 guns. According to Rep. Issa's congressional committee, Group VII had enough evidence to make arrests and close the case then.

Prosecutors: Transferring guns is legal in Arizona

This was not the view of federal prosecutors. In a meeting on Jan. 5, 2010, Emory Hurley, the assistant U.S. Attorney in Phoenix overseeing the Fast and Furious case, told the agents they lacked probable cause for arrests, according to ATF records. Hurley's judgment reflected accepted policy at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Arizona. "[P]urchasing multiple long guns in Arizona is lawful," Patrick Cunningham, the U.S. Attorney's then–criminal chief in Arizona would later write. "Transferring them to another is lawful and even sale or barter of the guns to another is lawful unless the United States can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the firearm is intended to be used to commit a crime."...

It was nearly impossible in Arizona to bring a case against a straw purchaser. The federal prosecutors there did not consider the purchase of a huge volume of guns, or their handoff to a third party, sufficient evidence to seize them. A buyer who certified that the guns were for himself, then handed them off minutes later, hadn't necessarily lied and was free to change his mind. Even if a suspect bought 10 guns that were recovered days later at a Mexican crime scene, this didn't mean the initial purchase had been illegal. To these prosecutors, the pattern proved little. Instead, agents needed to link specific evidence of intent to commit a crime to each gun they wanted to seize.

None of the ATF agents doubted that the Fast and Furious guns were being purchased to commit crimes in Mexico. But that was nearly impossible to prove to prosecutors' satisfaction. And agents could not seize guns or arrest suspects after being directed not to do so by a prosecutor. (Agents can be sued if they seize a weapon against prosecutors' advice. In this case, the agents had a particularly strong obligation to follow the prosecutors' direction given that Fast and Furious had received a special designation under the Justice Department's Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force. That designation meant more resources for the case, but it also provided that prosecutors take the lead role.

Meanwhile, -- and I haven't been following the story before this, so if the next statement is inaccurate, please correct me -- the apparently main impediment to a perfectly legal operation has not gotten much scrutiny, the Arizona Federal Prosecutor, Emory Hurley:

The wiretap represented the ATF's best—perhaps only— hope of connecting the gun purchases it had been documenting to orders from the cartels, according to Hurley. In Minneapolis, the prosecutors Voth had worked with had approved wiretap applications within 24 hours. But in Phoenix, days turned into weeks, and Group VII's wiretap application languished with prosecutors in Arizona and Washington, D.C.

No one has yet explained this delay. Voth thinks prosecutor Hurley's inexperience in wiretapping cases may have slowed the process. Several other agents speculate that Arizona's gun culture may have led to indifference. Hurley is an avid gun enthusiast, according to two law-enforcement sources who worked with him. One of those sources says he saw Hurley behind the counter at a gun show, helping a friend who is a weapons dealer.

[snip]

Prosecutors repeatedly rebuffed Voth's requests. After examining one suspect's garbage, agents learned he was on food stamps yet had plunked down more than $300,000 for 476 firearms in six months. Voth asked if the ATF could arrest him for fraudulently accepting public assistance when he was spending such huge sums. Prosecutor Hurley said no. In another instance, a young jobless suspect paid more than $10,000 for a 50-caliber tripod-mounted sniper rifle. According to Voth, Hurley told the agents they lacked proof that he hadn't bought the gun for himself.

I'll stop quoting here except for the final paragraph:

Meanwhile, Issa and other lawmakers say they want ATF to stanch the deadly tide of guns, widely implicated in the killing of 47,000 Mexicans in the drug-war violence of the past five years. But the public bludgeoning of the ATF has had the opposite effect. From 2010, when Congress began investigating, to 2011, gun seizures by Group VII and the ATF's three other groups in Phoenix dropped by more than 90%.

I'll cover the follow-up post -- and at least three more unrelated 'must-reads' in the next comment(s), but I have to ask if anyone is surprised that the same WH that withdrew 'end-of-life counseling' from the ACA just before the Democrats were able to use the "death panel" story to make a fool of Palin is now apologizing for something that never happened, talking before the results of its own investigation came in.

I may agree with Sir Charles that the surrender of the public option was a necessity, but that's not to deny the WH's tendency overall to surrender things they could have fought (and won)

[Sir Charles]

I at least had the good fortune to be staying in Union Square and bought some really nice stuff.

It was in San Diego -- and specifically at Sea World after getting too close to the Orca show -- that I ended up wearing some of the most hideous sweat clothes ever purchased.

[kathy a.]

union square is definitely better than fisherman's wharf, sartorially speaking.

my worst clothing fail during travel was in the opposite direction. i was driving from the bay area to south carolina in a non-air-conditioned car. along about new mexico, we had to stop at a K-mart for shorts and tank tops (not in the wardrobe), and the a/c respite.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Following up on F&F, this week's FORTUNE deals with the interaction between the ATF Agents and local gun shops. Short and worth reading, and one point I skipped over in the first comment was the friction between two groups of agents on the Task Force. The clash between 'go by the book' and 'cowboy' makes for good TV and movies -- COMMON LAW being a good example running now. In real life, on the other hand, it can get messy and dirty.

But then we get more into politics and Mr. Money, and it is his money -- particularly the part of it buried in the tax shelters -- and how he got to use them -- that gets looked at by Vanity Fair and by the AP, both linked to here.

But the real on target shot comes from Robert Reich, in a blog piece reprinted from his own blog by the CSM.

Much of what Reich says is nothing new to a regular reader of Desert Beacon, but his name gives it more weight, and he fills in some details that are new.

Then on politics directly there is another post, that makes an argument that some of you are far too familiar with, and gives that guy, Prup, a chance to expand on it there, in comments. And he wishes he'd written anything as clearly and as well as Bob Lord does in this paragraph:

Think about it. If we're hearing about Stericycle and Cranbrook HIgh now, what will we be hearing about in September? Will the release of any one item be devastating to Romney? No. But each item impacts a pool of voters uniquely and places that pool beyond Romney's reach. For example, most voters aren't going to vote against Romney because they learned that he was a bully in high school. But bullying victims, their parents, children and siblings will have a lot of trouble voting for Romney. In addiion, the cumulative effect of the opposition research on Romney, come November, will be substantial.

And he finishes:

First, use Romney's campaign statements and record at Bain and as Mass Gov to define him as elitist, far right, out of touch, and a flip-flopper, while letting Romney handle the unlikeable part for himself. Second, define the election as a choice between Romney's reinstitution of Bush's failed policies and the policies Obama has implemented to put us back on the right track. Third, run up the score with voting blocks where Romney is weak -- Latinos, LGBT, single women, etc. And fourth, use all that opposition research to turn random voters and keep Romney on defense far more than he wants to be.

Hmm, add in the fact that there is no 'pool of ucommitted voters reachable by standard Republican arguments' to refill the leaking bucket -- that those who could be convinced already are and are already counted in Romney's totals, and there just might be a case for arguing that Romney won't get 100 EVs, like I recall somebody saying.

(The comments include a cite by 'cheri' -- usually a reliable source -- to something that at least is supposed to be McCain's 'oppo book' on Romney. I've already asked her for a source, but whether it is McCains or not, it has a LOT of material.)

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Whew, and that was just one blog, and it's already time for cat-feeding and my usual nap, more important tpday because I just couldn't sleep last night. (No, I don't have air conditioning in my room -- the house would need total rebuilding -- it's circa 1920 and wasn't a mansion then, though it isn't a horror now -- for some form of central air, which we couldn;t afford, but I have a hook up for AC in my room. But, since I have to keep the wondow open because I am a smoker, and because the dedicated line is used for the computer and air machine, I never tried to see if I could use the one I brought with me. And yes the smoking -- not just tobacco but with a fragrant green topping on the pipes -- is worth it and the other problems. I've heard the lectures, know them, can answer some of them, and choose to continue, not continue because I am addicted.

[Sir Charles]

Jim,

I agree with you that the ability to portray Romney as a completely amoral vulture capitalist is a potent weapon. And I suspect that delving into these tax shelters offshore is going to hurt him.

I think that the Obama campaign should hammer home what Reich is stressing -- this guy wasn't Henry Ford (not to hold him up as exemplary) creating hundreds of thousands of jobs, he was a speculator and casino capitalist playing a rigged game in which he couldn't lose.

Whatever they do, they should not listen to the Mark Halperin's of the world -- they should hammer Romney on Bain, even if it gives the Village set the vapors. It's going to prove very effective.

Having said that, there is enough of the electorate in enough states that Romney will pretty much be assured of 200 electoral votes.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Okay, we'll see. You continue to forget that the electorate that you see as potentially Romney's is already counted in his tital and he can only lose votes -- with no place to replace them. And there are a lot of groups that would ordinarily vote Republican in red states -- sometimes imply out of ignorance of what the Republican Party has become, or who Romney is as a person, that will slowly leach away from him.

Remember, the exact same arguments -- that there was a core bvase that would stick with the candidate and that there were others that would remain with him because they had a visceral, unconquerable hate for the incumbent -- could and were made about McGovern as well. I was making them -- and including (as we can't this year) McGovern's history (Popular Blue Senator from a Deep Red state -- though those weren't the terms) of appealing cross party and his appeal to farm states in general. Okay, so he might not win, but the Nixon haters and the ordinarily liberal and becoming more radical states like the Mid-Atlantic ones would make it close.

And again, you ain't ever seen nuttin' like the circus the convention will be this year -- even worse than 1972 if not like 1968 (a different sort of crazy).

Texas could lose me my bet -- barely, and only if the voter purging goes through -- but if I'd made it 125, I wouldn't have the slightest reason to worry, and 200 is just plain out of reach.

[oddjob]

And here's why Sir C. could be making a mistake about assuming Pennsylvania is safe for Obama.

(Hat tip, Sully.)

[oddjob]

“Oh, what a contrast, my friends, between these two men who would be president! President Obama is betting on America and American workers, and Mitt Romney is betting his resources in the Cayman Islands, in Bermuda, in Switzerland and God only knows where else he is putting his resources,”
- Ohio governor Ted Strickland, introducing Obama at a campaign speech today.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

First, there is a document that purports to be the McCain opposition research file on Romney that was put up on Buzzfeed by Andrew Kaczynski. Parts of it, pertaining to Romney's pro-choice record and flip-flop on abortion, were previously published on RedState.com.

I don't know Kaczynski, or how accurate he is. The book is devastating, whoever prepared it, but if it is McCain's staffwork, it wil be even more powerful. And devastating may be an understatement. If you download it and check it, the number of flat lies -- and this is supposedly pre-2008 -- is incredible. (I decided to check the 2nd Amendment section instead f the more obvious ones like gay rights and abortion. There are about half a dozen quotes from Romney about 'owning a gun and being a hunter' all of which he later admitted were not true. He didn't own a gun, his son owned two and kept them at one of his 'places,' and the only two times in his life he went hunting were when he was fifteen, and 45 years later, in 2006, when he attended a quail hunt with the Republican Governors' Association. Then he tried to lie out of that, then admitted again 'it was only twice.')

This could destroy Romney in the red states. (I wonder how many people are going to print off sections or the whole thing, and send it to ministers and TeaParty leaders, anonymously. It's a tricky ethical question, whether -- in some cases -- it is right to play into prejudices -- like Romney's having appointed gay judges -- and activist ones at that -- as Governor, or his support for abortion rights -- to stop someone who would turn those prejudices into laws. I'd do it, but with a few tiny qualms.)

Even before I looked at this, I was going to reply to oddjob that even "Pennsyltucky" that might go for any other type of Republican, is likely to have an instinctive dislike of the arrogant rich boy type.

Now, if this gets suitable verification (the facts and quotes are, almost certainly, accurate, it's the source that is tricky) you could have two 'Questions of the Day for Mitt" everyday until the election and not run out of questions, and everyone could be shaped to turn off a different segment of the Republican base -- even iof, in this use, they were written as "Good Mitt, where did you go>" questions.

[oddjob]

I was going to reply to oddjob that even "Pennsyltucky" that might go for any other type of Republican, is likely to have an instinctive dislike of the arrogant rich boy type.

I won't for a moment deny the accuracy of that, but I think most of Pennsyltucky will still vote for him because the idea of sitting out the presidential election (& thus letting the n*ggers & libruls in Philadelphia dictate an outcome in favor of the Muslim Marxist Facist Kenyan in the White House will be regarded by most of them as just beyond the pale.)

[nancy]

Meanwhile, on the 'other' coast, this guy was just endorsed by the Seattle Times in his bid to move the governorship over to the GOP. Look at the neat trick of trying to dodge any critical press, now a standard part of the GOP kit. He was one of the AG's who signed on to the suit to throw PPACA out, with Gov. Gregoire filing to stop him from doing so. He's running for Governor -- overturning ACA was supposed to be his signal achievement. Unfortunately as King County gets more suburbanized, he's not a long-shot, even in my blue state.

It's the state and congressional races that have my attention. In the end, I can't see people voting to allow Romney to purchase the WH to add to his list of addresses. Ann opened up again following 'it's our turn' with more on-air cluelessness today (C&L). Prospect of her being a Marie Antoinette First Lady is pretty hard to entertain. Familiarity definitely breeding contempt with these people.

[nancy]

Forgot to say. I much appreciated the embed. Dancer at heart, I don't always listen to lyrics. Yes, terrible, terrible habit. But this is lovely stuff. Thanks.

[KN]

Paula B - ironic I mangled my pedantry, perhaps that is your reference to parallel universes? Unlike SC I will admit forthrightly, whiskey always plays a role in the coherence of my comments. I'm not a fan of the multiverse stuff. Too speculative if you can swallow that. But I am thrilled by the vindication of the prediction of the Higgs because it gives all science a little boost in further credibility. That it took 40 years and an enormous and unprecedented effort to verify the original Higgs predicition is just icing on the cake. Science works.

SC - I am sympathetic to your point of view, for one thing I am not a physicist so most of this stuff is way beyond me as well, but as I tried to indicate above, we who work in this arena are all wedded to the same simple conviction that the scientific method is a legitimate path to new knowledge. It is far from perfect or in any sense the wholly grail. But it does work.

I read an interesting explanation of the Higgs yesterday, I should be able to cite it but I can't at the moment, so I will try to summarize it accurately and pointing out this is not my description.

To start with the universe appears to be permeated with a uniform Higgs field. Try to think of it as analogus to the gravitational field. Yes, they are intimately related. Gravitation affects mass, the Higgs field endows objects with mass. Different kinds of particles that make up matter interact with the Higgs field along a continuum, some interactions are weak, some are very strong. Since these particles are separated by space, something must mediate the interactions they have with other matter, that something is the Higgs
boson. Now to the analogy I am borrowing. Pitcture a room of people - assume they are all about equivalent in status, that is no celebrities, no honorees. You could say they are in equilibrium, interacting more or less at random. Then suppose a personality enters the room, Elvis. The crowd will "gravitate" towards the celebrity personality. That is to say, Elvis interacts more strongly with the Higgs field than the other people in the rooom, thus he distorts it in a fashion that attracts the other people towards him. Moreover, there is another subtle effect, the news that Elvis is going to enter the room affects the Higgs field of otherwise equally jostling participants. The Higgs boson is the mediator, it informs the other masses that there is a yet greater mass nearby and they react accordingly.

The unfortunate thing about this great discovery is we are still confronted with the fact that our best theory of gravitation, namely, general relativity, is incompatible with our best theories of all the other forces, the EM, the weak and the strong.

It will be interesting to see how the physicists sort out the consequences of the discovery of the Higgs. No doubt at all there are plenty of them who have assumed from the outset that it would be found and they might have something of a headstart on the contrarians.

I don't suppose this lecture has been useful to anyone here as the lilt of things is almost purely political but what the hell, at least some clusters of my neurons got some flex out of it.

KBO

[oddjob]

Ann opened up again following 'it's our turn' with more on-air cluelessness today (C&L).

I didn't live here in '94 but from what I gather her handlers kept her out of sight during that senatorial campaign after one time when she talked to the press about the wedding present George Romney gave them. I forget the details but I know it was an investment portfolio with "not much" and the "not much" was enough that it painfully revealed how unaware she was of her privileged life.