Cogitamus

Proof of Life and Open Thread

Yes, I am still among you.   The past week was utterly without breathing room, but hopefully things will slow a bit for the next couple of weeks. 

In what little time I had, I also found myself a bit stumped in terms of anything interesting to say.  My general impression as I scanned political headlines is that the Republican Party has predictably enough reverted to form, that its phony post-election moment of reflection has passed, and the consensus remains that there is nothing wrong in the party's positions that cannot be improved upon by going further right.  The result has been a whole flurry of recent crazy, breathtaking in its brazeness: Tax cuts for the rich remain paramount, the social safety net should be destroyed in order to obtain them, people making minimum wage are overpaid, that minority voters need to be more sensitive to Republican needs, abortion rights should be gutted completely, while the run to own any kind of gun and ammunition should be sacrosanct.  This is a party that has moved somewhere beyond doubling down on its agenda into a far right netherworld.

And the bottom line is that until the GOP is convincingly and overwhelmingly defeated at the polls on multiple occasions, they are going to continue to be a plague on our society.  Only their complete removal from the levers of power will allow for a sane path forward in this country. 

We have got to get people to vote in mid-term elections with the same level of enthusiasm that they bring to presidential races.  We need to undo the grotesque gerrymandering that has magnified Republican voting power well beyond what it should be.  This is difficult. painstaking, and slow work.  some of it will take at a minimum four or five more election cycles to accomplish.  But it strikes me as the only way forward in which we can stop this kind of crap -- which is clearly out of step with majority opion -- from continuing to dominate our political agenda. 

What's on your minds? 

 

 

No Future for You - and Open Thread

"Anarchy in the U.K." - Sex Pistols

I apologize for the radio silence.  I would complain about my schedule but it seems a bit churlish to bitch about a good paying legal job in which one is in demand, given the subject matter on which I am posting. 

Even as we receive some modestly good economic news, I have been reading a series of things over the last week or two that leaves me wondering how it is our children are supposed to make a decent living in this country.  It seems to me that what we are reaping societally is the predictable failure of the totemic worship of the free market over the last three decades to actually work for the many.  On a largely bipartisan basis, American elites bought into the notion that the unfettered free market and its vaunted "efficiency" would leave us more prosperous collectively.  Advances in technology along with increased global trade and education levels were held out as the future of the American economy -- and well they might be, but it is apparent it will be an economy that leaves huge swaths of the population behind, including many who are highly educated.

The market has ceased to serve -- it instead has become a rapacious beast that must be continuously fed human sacrifices.  Ends are ignored while means are worshipped to no discernible good outcome.  Fools like Friedman jabber about the need to continuously educate ourselves, to hurl our children into the economic war of all against all with endless gusto without ever once seeming to question where all of this gets us.  Yglesias -- the Kinsley of a new generation -- urges people to write for free -- hey it worked for him -- not understanding why this does not seem a particularly pleasing path for middle-aged folks who have spent decades actually getting paid for their work.  Law schools deceive people into burdening themselves with life long debt for jobs that aren't there or just don't pay.  Universities and community colleges are following suit. 

The hollowing out of the middle class is real and happening before our eyes.  The decline of social mobility too.  Those with a leg up -- who won't have to begin adult life weighted down with massive debt -- will have extraordinary advantages over their peers, while inequality grows and grows ever more entrenched. 

The challenge for the next generation of the left -- politicians, activists, academics, thinkers, and policy makers -- is to figure out a new path, one that moves beyond free market dogma toward an economy that actually delivers for people.  It seems to me that it is one in which far more intervention in the market place -- including (gasp) protective tariffs -- may need to be explored.  Taxes are going to have to be higher and sharply more progressive, the social safety net will need to grow rather than contracting, industries like finance will need to be brought to heel in the interest of the public good.  In short, the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that we are going to need to move beyond the Clintonian consensus of the 1990s and figure out strategies that allow our children to have prosperous and decent lives.

What say you?    

 

Why I'm Glad Elizabeth Warren's a Senator, Part XLIV

Damn, she's already making an impact over there.  Here's the latest, in a hearing where Senators were asking questions of bank regulators:

The US government takes money laundering very seriously for a good reason. And it puts strong penalties in place… It's possible to shut down a bank... Individuals can be banned from ever participating in financial services again.  And people can be sent to prison. in December, HSBC admitted to... laundering $881 million that we know of... They didn't do it just one time... They did it over and over and over again… They were caught doing it, warned not to do it, and kept right on doing it. And evidently made profits doing it. Now, HSBC paid a fine, but no individual went to trial. No individual was banned from banking and there was no hearing to consider shutting down HSBC's actives in the US.... You're the experts on money laundering. I'd like your opinion. What does it take? How many billions of dollars do you have to launder for drug lords and how many sanctions do you have to violate before someone will consider shutting down a financial institution like this?

And:

"If you're caught with an ounce of cocaine, you're going to go to jail... But if you launder nearly a billion dollars for international cartels and violate sanctions you pay a fine and you go home and sleep in your own bed at night."

There are plenty of people in Congress willing to give a pass to the big-money boys.  Warren's a Senator for the rest of us.

Birthday Open Thread

 

The Federal government thought my birthday was a sufficiently important occasion that it gave the day off to every Federal employee in the DC area.  Very thoughtful of it - I'm touched. :)

To accompany the occasion, here's one of my favorite pieces of music, the first movement of Beethoven's Seventh.  (Yes, the first movement. I know everybody goes gaga over the second movement, and it's a great piece of music too. But the opening movement is quite something all by itself.)

Sorry about its being broken into two videos, but I love this particular version, and I couldn't find it all in one piece.  There's also a four-minute overlap between the two, so when you shift to the second video, start just before the 4-minute mark.

I love Kleiber's sweeping gesture at the 4:23 mark of the first video, as he sends the orchestra into the full, wild, joyous romp of the main movement.  Up until then, Beethoven's just been building up the anticipation.  You've got to come up with something pretty damn impressive to justify that much buildup, but this is Beethoven we're talking about, so he succeeds.

 

And on a completely different note, a song containing a not-so-subtle hint about my current age.

 

 

Open thread.

What Business Does the Supreme Court Have To Even *Consider* the Voting Rights Act?

I just don't understand where Roberts, Scalia & Co. have any business even looking at this law.  Can anyone explain this to me?

The Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution is very simple and straightforward:

SECTION 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

SECTION 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Okay, Congress has this power to enforce this Amendment with 'appropriate legislation.' What are the boundaries of 'appropriateness'? If it hasn't exceeded them by passing the Voting Rights Act, then the Supreme Court should sit down and shut up.

Quite a few other Constitutional amendments have a section with essentially the same language as Section 2, specifically the 13th, 14th, 19th, 23rd, 24th, and 26th Amendments, and the defunct 18th Amendment to the Constitution.

So, how big a grant of authority to Congress is the power to enforce a Constitutional amendment with appropriate legislation?

The Supreme Court, discussing the identical section of the 14th Amendment in Ex Parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339 (1879) said at 345-346 (emphasis mine):

It is not said the judicial power of the general government shall extend to enforcing the prohibitions and to protecting the rights and immunities guaranteed. It is not said that a branch of the government shall be authorized to declare void any action of a State in violation of the prohibitions. It is the power of Congress which has been enlarged, Congress is authorized to enforce the prohibitions by appropriate legislation. Some legislation is contemplated to make the amendments fully effective. Whatever legislation is appropriate, that is, adapted to carry out the objects the amendments have in view, whatever tends to enforce submission to the prohibitions they contain, and to secure to all persons the enjoyment of perfect equality of civil rights and the equal protection of the laws against State denial or invasion, if not prohibited, is brought within the domain of congressional power.

"Whatever legislation is...adapted to carry out the objects the amendments have in view...is brought within the domain of congressional power."

That seems pretty clear to me.

How can the Court possibly say the Voting Rights Act fails that test? As best as I can tell, it is not for them to judge whether the VRA enforces the Fifteenth Amendment in a way they like. It is not for them to judge whether the VRA enforces the Fifteenth Amendment in a way that they regard as effective.  It is not even for them to judge whether the VRA's enforcement of the Fifteenth Amendment is superfluous at this point in time. It is only for them to judge whether the VRA is "adapted to carry out the objects the amendments have in view." Which it obviously is.

The Supreme Court should sit down and shut up before they gut all seven Constitutional amendments that include this language.

There Is No Conservative Crisis of Ideas. They Just Aren't Interested In Solving Actual Problems.

This is a response of sorts to Brad DeLong's American Conservatism’s Crisis of Ideas: Project Syndicate Monarchy, Patriarchy, Orthodoxy Weblogging.

 

There is no crisis, Brad.  Where we see problems in need of solutions - millions of people with no jobs and no jobs available for them, tens of millions of people without health insurance, millions of people working full time but still not having enough money to live on, crumbling infrastructure, millions of young people either not being able to afford college, or coming out saddled with unconscionable piles of debt, money in politics drowning out the voice of the people, millions headed to retirement age with 401(k)s without any money in them, people not having any sick days to take when they or their kids get sick so that they have to keep working anyway, you name it - they see stuff that they're basically A-OK with.

And ideas, in politics, are for solving problems that can, and that you believe should, be solved by some sort of governmental action.  The conservative dearth of ideas is because they don't see problems, or believe that they should be solved through market forces and individual choices. 

So in response to actual problems, you get conservative ideas like this: if you're poor, you must be poor because being poor didn't give you sufficient incentive to do something about it.  So we'll take away what little public aid there was, because you need more incentive.  The fact that there are no jobs out there, and that means of improvement like affordable education and training aren't there for them, isn't a problem in their eyes.  Oh, maybe we should get rid of the minimum wage, then there'd be more jobs.  The additional jobs wouldn't pay enough to live on, but they don't see that as a problem either.

When they regard something as a problem, they're creative and persistent enough.  Rich people still have to pay taxes - that's a problem, so they keep pressing for more tax cuts for rich people.  Corporations still have laws and regulations they have to follow - that's a problem, so they keep pressing to remove regulations.  Poor people and minorities can vote - that's a problem, and they've been very creative in their attempts to solve it.  More people vote for Democrats rather than Republicans, which would be a problem if it resulted in Democratic control of the government, so they've been attacking that with gerrymandering of House districts, and schemes to split the electoral votes of states that vote Democratic in Presidential elections.

But most of the stuff we see as problems, they don't.  So of course they don't have any ideas about solving them.  Sometimes political realities prevent them from straightforwardly admitting to not seeing something as a problem.  In those cases they generally take the solution to one of their problems, like lower taxes for rich people, and claim it's really a solution to the problem the rest of us are grappling with.  But that's just pretense.

So the absence of conservative ideas isn't a crisis for conservatives; it's the natural reflection of who they are and what they believe.  It isn't a problem, so they aren't going to solve it.  It's here to stay.

Bob Woodward - Liar or Fool? - Why Choose? and Open Thread

"Outside the Trains Don't Run on Time" - Gang of Four

[oddjob reminded me of this one in the previous comment thread.]

- Every time I have watched Bob Woodward on television over the last twenty or so years, my usual reaction has been "this idiot brought down a president?"  I then think either that Bernstein was grossly underrated or that this is the luckiest sonuvabtich in the history of journalism.  Because he seems exceedingly dense, credulous, slightly slow on the uptake, a guy whose ignorance is only exceeded by his undeserved sense of self-regard.    Woodward's claim that he was threatened by the White House for his ridiculous reporting on the sequester has been quite the amusing story.   But what really cracked me up was the right wingers who seem to think that Woodward is some sort of liberal hero and that only our blind loyalty for Obama is behind the denunciation of his epic dishonesty.  The man who wrote Maestro for fuck's sake.     And boy, that Gene Sperling knows how to deliver a blood-chilling threat:

But I do truly believe you should rethink your comment about saying saying that Potus asking for revenues is moving the goal post. I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim.

Really, how can anyone take seriously a man who claims that this is a threat?

- Erik Loomis is frustrated that the AFL-CIO and building trades unions are supporting the Keystone Pipeline. 

I understand the tough situation that Keystone creates for organized labor. A union’s job is to protect the interests of its members, including keeping them employed, all too rare today. But in the early 21st century, with organized labor in deep decline, does it make sense to promote short-term job growth at the cost of telling the thousands of people who care deeply about a variety of progressive causes, including climate change, that organized labor is not an ally?

Does he really not understand who elects the local and international (all of these unions have Canadian members) officers of these unions?  Hint -- the guys who are looking to work on the pipeline and thinking about their next job.  Local union officers by law must stand for election every three years, international officers every five years.  Can you imagine being the head of a building trades union and telling the members that the union is passing up on the opportunity for lucrative work in order to forge greater bonds with other progressives? -- all of whom no doubt show the same reciprocal respect for the concerns of union members by buying only union-made domestic cars (no Priuses kids), shopping at union grocery stores (stay out of Whole Foods), and hiring only union contractors in their homes.  [I keep thinking of one of my clients bringing one of our meetings to a quick close because he and his fellow union members wanted to get to a public hearing about a nuke plant "before the Sahara Club got there."]  If the AFL-CIO deserted the building trades unions in this cause, they would be risking further disaffiliations at a time of grave weakness.  This is a case of institutions being accountable to their memberships.  If other progressives can't understand that then there really isn't much hope of alliances.

What's going on with you?     

Tuesday Trivia and Open Thread

"Ceremony" - Dean Wareham

- Oscar, Oscar, Oscar - Roy has his way with the Zhdanovites of the right concerning the Academy Awards last night, but it's worth noting that the desire for propaganda is hardly the exclusive province of our right wing brethren.  Witness this trashing of Argo -- the movie is "reprehensible" -- evidently because it was not a documentary of U.S. perfidy in the 1953 coup that toppled Mohammad Mosaddeq.  And this one spreads the hate not only for Argo, but for Lincoln (which focuses far too much on the 16th President at the expense of Black abolitionists) -- not to mention Zero Dark Thirty.  I just keep thinking of the tag line to one of the horror films of the 1970s -- "it's only a movie, it's only a movie."  

- As for the ceremony itself, I wasn't too impressed.  I have a pretty broad and irreverent sense of humor, but Seth McFarlane is only funny if you have an IQ of about 100.  He's a smarmy, smug, self-satisfied mediocrity who seems to think boob jokes are cutting edge and daring stuff.  Oddly enough, I also think having the orchestra cut people off so quickly takes away some of the interest in the program.  I'd cut out a chunk of the awards (sorry sound guys) and loosen things up a bit.

- I assume that the right wing reaction to Michelle Obama's presentation of the Best Picture award is going to be worth at least a two-part series for Roy.

- And now, back to Washington's version of show business.  This post on No More Mister Nice Blog pretty much sums up the manner in which our elite media is so horrible and so inadequate to the challenges to truth and sanity posed by today's GOP.  Incidentally, for those of you concerned that Ezra Klein might be becoming a "courtier" I thought his absolute dismantling of David Brooks the other day was a reassuring sign to the contrary.   What was amazing to me is that I don't think Brooks had any idea that he had just been gutted in public.  God, he's a dumbass.

- Does anyone remember "Mission Accomplished?

Jump in.

Sunday Miscellany and Open Thread

As the sequester deadline approaches, there's been a lot of noise about 800,000 Defense Department furloughs, but on the civilian side of the government, it seems that most agencies are doing nothing.  The sequester officially starts on March 1 (next Friday), but they've got to give us Federal employees 30 days' notice of a furlough.

I can't help but notice that 30 days takes us until after the current continuing resolution expires on March 27.  Its successor will either include all, some, or none of the sequestration cuts.  And the Republicans have been very clear that they will not threaten a government shutdown this time

So I'm wondering if there's a bit of bluff and kabuki going on over the sequester, and that maybe the only thing that matters is the CR.  If the government doesn't really make any sequestration cuts until after March 30 anyway, whatever was in the CR would be the law, regardless of the sequester.

On edit: I just saw Oddjob's link in the previous thread about the threat of air traffic controller furloughs.  Under the sequester as written, of course that would have to happen: it's written so that agencies have little if any room to pick and choose what they cut. But it's one of those things that slips by you until someone points it out. 

But that might be the magic word that gets businesses leaning on the GOP to strike a deal.  Throwing a monkeywrench in business travel gets the boardroom's attention.  And the sweet part is that not even those with their own private jets would be immune.  There's no express lane in the air traffic control system for that Gulfstream.

Other stuff I've been thinking about:

Self-driving cars.  Though I haven't said much about it here, I've become mildly obsessed with the subject - and this was even before my Achilles tendon blew out, leaving me unable to drive for the time being.   (The recovery's going well, thanks.)  I've been hoping they'll be a legal and commercial reality in 10 years, which is about the time my son would be eligible to get his learner's permit.  But a self-driving car would have been very handy in recent weeks.  I can get around a store well enough if I can get there, but my wife has to drive me on even the simplest errands, plus to my physical therapist's and orthopedist's appointments.

The USPS.  Contra Matt Yglesias, whatever may doom the USPS, it won't be because nowadays everyone uses email instead*.  Personal correspondence hasn't been the bulk of the Postal Service's business for a long, long time.  The real question is, will businesses and nonprofits continue to send out unsolicited mailings via snail mail?  My guess is that they will, because it's really hard for them to get people's attention online.

Every business I order something from online asks me for an email address, ditto every nonprofit I contribute money to online. I've got a separate account on Yahoo mail to give to all of these outfits, which I generally ignore absent a particular need, because reading it would be like drinking through a firehose.  They can send out a hundred million emails for close to free, but those emails probably don't do much for them now, and the returns will only keep diminishing.

On the other hand, I get a half-dozen pieces of snailmail a day, more or less, and I actually see these.  I have to give them at least enough attention to decide whether to throw them away right away.  Even if I don't want to send any money to the League of Conservation Voters this month, their name has registered with me.

The truth is that any online medium gets overwhelmed very quickly - email, Facebook, whatever.  Snailmail may eventually go away, but it's going to take some time because it has that advantage of tangibility.

So, what's on your minds on this sunny (in the DC area, at least) Sunday afternoon?

*Yglesias' thought, not mine.  Even email is starting to become somewhat old-fashioned, as best as I can tell: the kids stay in touch with each other via text and Facebook.

The Man who Mistook his Girlfriend for an Intruder and Other Observations

"Girlfriend in a Coma" - The Smiths

- Can I just note that I find Oscar Pastorious's claims that he shot his girlfriend because he thought she was an intruder to be about the least credible thing I've heard since OJ dedicated himself to finding the real killers.  Jesus.  Maybe our defense lawyer friends can open my mind, but Christ this seems preposterous.

- I don't know about you, but I have this sense that Lindsey Graham is in the habit of acting out the flogging scene in Lawrence of Arabia with John McCain playing the Jose Ferrer role and that he uses "Benghazi" as his safe word. 

- Roy has been cracking me up with his coverage of the "Downton Abbey" is the greatest conservative show ever meme in the right wing blogosphere.  Now I confess to being a Downton watcher and to also understanding that it is pretty much just a highfalutin' soap opera, so I won't make fun of its appeal.  But the idea that one could walk away from it thinking that it is somehow an affirmation of contemporary right wing values is a bit much.  Especially given the aristocratic disdain for hard work and capitalism portrayed throughout the series -- to be a "tradesman" is about as damning a sin as there could -- it is fascinating to see the wingers try to call this world their own.  They are strange little people.

- Speaking of BBC series, I did actually start watching the original House of Cards again and want to once again urge any of you who have not seen it to check it out.  It's absolutely fabulous as they say.  I'd like to see our winger friends claim it as a testament to conservative values. 

Time for bed.  Leave your defenses of Pastorius, Graham, and costume dramas in comments.

Consider it an open thread as well.

Not So Grand Old Party and Open Thread

"A-Punk" - Vampire Weekend

Wasting time at the office on this holiday weekend.  Need to clean the desk and tend to a few things so I can hit the ground running tomorrow.  That's my story and I'm sticking to it. 

- Ramesh Ponnuru has a piece in the New York Times today about updating the Republican Party's ideas to face the reality of today.  I say good luck with that.  Ponnuru largely echoes the kind of ideas put forth by Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam in Grand New Party -- policies that are supposed to aid the American working class, the so-called "Sam's Club" voters, who are supposed to be the new face of the Republican Party.  Like Douthat and Salam, Ponnuru acknowledges that income tax cuts for the wealthy -- the north star of Republican policy for the last 35 years -- have done nothing for the white working class, the constituency upon which Republican success rests.  He argues for economic policies that do not fit within the current Republican mania for smaller government and deficit reduction (yes, we know this is a selective obsession). 

All three would like to see the payroll tax burden reduced -- which raises obvious questions about how to preserve the long term solvency of Social Security and Medicare, programs that are more important than ever to working class Americans, who by and large lack the traditional pensions and other resources for secure retirements.  They all argue, as well, for an expanded child tax credit -- in other words a wealth transfer that would favor married couples with children, an attempt to "nudge" people in the direction of stable family formation and to support "traditional" families.  This right wing social engineering will be paid for by not lowering taxes on the wealthy (and maybe even increasing them), a bit of a heresy in the era of Paul Ryan and Rand Paul and the heroic job creators of the upper class.  In other words it is a form of wealth redistribution on behalf of people who adopt a family structure of which Ponnuru, Douthat, and Salam approve.  (Along with a number of other social conservatives, all three are convinced that the sexual revolution has been disastrous for the working class -- one suspects that advocating for its repeal may prove less popular with its intended audience.)

It seems to me that Ponnuru and his allies are on to something in acknowledging that plutocratic economic policies aren't really going to deliver that which the working class needs.  However, I don't see how they can sell this sort of thing to a party that has fully committed itself to the notion that taxes must go down at all times and that government has nothing to offer to people.  

Similarly, the young Republicans portrayed in this lengthy New York Times Magazine piece, who are troubled by the GOP's hateful attitudes towards gays and immigrants -- which most Americans in the 18-29 demographic find to be at least puzzling if not abhorrent -- don't seem to have a very clear idea of how one does a 180 on these kinds of issues without alienating the folks who support you that very reason.  The Republican Party, minus its hater constituency, is a pretty small club.  (Of course a large number of the young right wingers interviewed in this article see the GOP's problems as more a result of bad messaging and technological backwardness rather than the Party platform.)  Can one really form a majority party based on cutting taxes and government spending rather than based on various forms of white resentment?  Color me skeptical.      

What's on your minds?   

Asteroids and Meteors from Space, Oh My! Open Thread

The cosmos is throwing rocks at us!

A couple of hours ago, an asteroid passed within about 17,000 miles of Earth - that's closer than the altitude our geosynchronous satellites orbit at.

And of course, early this morning, a meteor made life interesting for the residents of Chelyabinsk, Russia.

So what's on your minds?

Have a good weekend, but keep an eye on the sky!  Open thread.

Live Blogging the State of the Union

Alright, it's about that time.  Time for future President Rubio to wow us all.  But first, we have to hear from the Kenyan usurper.

(How Obama resists the urge to pop Eric Cantor with an elbow in this setting [walking in with Cantor immeidately behind him] is beyond me.  So much self control.)

You know for a guy who is supposed to be all aloof and shit, Obama really seems to enjoy pressing the flesh at these things. 

Come home America.  (That's the first time I've ever seen the Supreme Court justices stand up -- I guess the mention of the troops makes that okay.) 

"We've cleared away the rubble of crisis." 

Ah, the middle class.  Time to drink if you're playing along at home. (Actually Atrios somehow left that one out of his drinking game word list.)

He's explaining the sequester in a very fine fashion I think.

And one of those Sorenson type sentences about keeping promises.  

"Bipartisan tax reform."  I think you have to do a jello shot. 

Replace "wreckless cuts" with "smart savings."  Who could argue?

"Defict reduction alone is not an economic plan." 

Three questions we need to ask every day.  1) "Does this make my ass look fat?"

Climate change gets mentioned.  And some facts: the twelve hottest years have happened in the last 15. "The overwhelming judgment of science."  He gets a smile out of angry gramps with a shout out.

 "Self-healing power grids."  But they have to want to heal themselves. 

"Grow our middle class."  Drink children, drink.

"Comprehensive immigration reform."  Shot of tequilla. 

Huckleberry Closet Case is applauding.  I am opposed to whatever it is he is in favor of.

Raise the minimum wage to $9 an hour.  "No one who works full time should have to live in poverty".  What a radical notion.

Why the fuck does Boehner look like he's crying?

Isn't it too soon to end the war in Afghanistan?

Having a hard time staying awake -- not a commentary on the speech, but a little too much cold medication and a warm lap top. 

"Burma."  I wonder when the last time Burma was mentioned in a SOTU?  It probably was followed by the word "shave."

Man, nodded off in the chair here and missed the end. 

Seemed like a pretty solid effort.  What did you all think?

And now, the moment you've all been waiting for.  Marco Rubio. American exceptionalism includes the right to be an upwardly mobile fetus. He's a lot better than Governor "Kenneth the Page."  Just as fundamentally dishonest, but a lot more telegenic.  He really is a lying sack of shit.  (If we can get the economy to grow at 4% per year -- yeah, and if pigs could fly.)     

Weird water bottle moment.  Very poor bit of stage craft there. 

The wing nuts will like the speech.  Not too sure about the general public.

Monday Miscellany and Open Thread

"Shuggie" - Foxygen

My neglect continues -- travel, Amtrak's incredibly bad wifi on Friday, the lad came to town for the weekend (to attend some conference that featured Yglesias) and I had to pull a few hours time at the old firm on Saturday.  So I feel a little out of it.  

- I've been watching a little bit of the new netflix production of House of Cards with Kevin Spacey.  I am afraid it pales in comparison to the original British series from 1990 with the incomparable Ian Richardson. (If you have not seen it, by all means do so -- all three seasons of it are superb.) There are two problems I see with the series -- one is that Spacey's Francis Underwood lacks the humor and joire d'evil that made Richardson's Francis Urquhart irresistible.  The other is that what works in a parliamentary system -- the idea of a skilled legislative maneuverer rising improbably to power -- just does not really translate into the American system of government.  It is not unusual for someone to rise to Prime Minister in a parliamentary system without facing the voters as the party standard bearer -- think of John Major, Gordon Brown, and Julia Gilliard for example.  All simply needed to convince enough members of their caucus that they were the ones to lead their government going forward.  In the U.S., legislative skill have seldom translated into capturing the presidency.  (No one could have ever imagined Tom DeLay becoming president.)   Other than Lyndon Johnson, I can't really think of someone who was a major leader in Congress capturing the presidency.  (I guess Gerald Ford's unique path to the top could also be considered, but Ford was never really a powerhouse as the head of the GOP minority.)  I am trying to think who else managed to obtain the presidency after being a major congressional power?  Maybe James Madison, but his service was short in the House and it was hardly his claim to fame.  Other than him, I can't come up with anyone.

- I enjoyed reading this article in the New Republic about the GOP as the party of white people, but found its attempt to intellectualize the racism that has driven a great deal of the Republican Party's electoral strength over the last fifty years to be a bit much.  I don't think it was John Calhoun's ideas of limited federal power that appealed to the new conservatives. 

- And please read this New Yorker piece by Jill LePore on the defense budget that bbw pointed out to me.  It's really well done and has a very informative historical aspect to it.

Alright, time to call it a night.  Hope all of our New England friends have dug out.

Jump in.

 

 

Thursday in the Airport Open Thread

"Going to Georgia" - Mountain Goats

What with seeing a sign to Macon on my way to the airport today and all of the madness about guns, this song naturally came to mind.  Well worth listening to the monologue that John Darnielle gives -- he is a hilarious story teller -- as to what inspired the song.

Anyway, stuck in Charlotte, but now my flight is less late than previously predicted.  These are the small victories of today's air travel.

- I recommend this piece by Duncan Black in USA Today -- I know -- on the failure of the 401(k) experiment.  It makes me think Atrios should stretch out and write from time to time.  The guy's good.

- All we need is more good guys with guns folks.  What could go wrong?  The panicky shooting of innocent newspaper deliverers by the cops pretty much shoots that argument in the head, as it were. 

Alright, make your own fun.  I'll be in NYC in a couple of hours.

Gun Nuts is Nuts and Open Thread

 

"Blues from a Gun" - Jesus and Mary Chain

It seems that nearly every day now since Newtown some fresh evidence of the insanity of our gun culture comes our way.  I can only conclude that we share our country with a lot of truly pathetic, deluded individuals, people who live in the grip of overwhelming fear, hatred, and paranoia that would seem to make life a living hell.  Think about what it must be like to be a civilian who carries every day, someone who basically feels like they need to be able to deal death as part of their daily routine.  How fucking sick and sad is that?

Even seemingly sane and "liberal" proponents of gun culture strike me as sad and fearful.  This piece in the Times a few weeks ago, "Confessions of a Liberal Gun Owner" made me shake my head.    Basically the author decided he needed a gun following the somewhat chaotic (and unnecessary) evacuation of Houston for Hurricane Rita during which nothing happened to him but some nasty traffic.  But the "experience" made him feel like he needed a gun.  Jesus, I'm glad this guy didn't live in DC in the 80s and early 90s -- he would have bought a tank.  This was followed by a piece by Walter Kirn in the New Republic in much the same tone -- a man needs guns to face danger and believe me I've faced danger so shut up you liberals who don't understand things.  Kirn once nursed a shotgun all night while a teenager, holed up in his family home while an escaped convict was on the loose.  (No the ex-con did not show up at his house.  No Kirn did not heroically save his family by blowing away the con.  Nope -- nothing happened.)  But then a number of years later a meth-addled fellow in Montana hissed that he was going top kill Kirn, who in turn showed him his concealed .22 and the tweaker ran away.  Here's Kirn's version of events:

I also know the opposite feeling, of outmanning someone else, because I pulled a gun on a guy once. It happened outside of the building where I live in downtown Livingston, Montana, a town of 7,000 that I moved to from New York City 23 years ago, back when New York was still considered dangerous. I was in the cab of my Ford pickup after a trip to a mini-storage locker with my two children, who were nine and six. Right across the street was the Mint Bar, a cavernous old brick hideout for midday tipplers in front of which was standing a lean young man who'd glared at me with a manic, feral focus the moment I'd parked and opened the truck door. He seemed high, not just drunk, with that toxic aura of meth, and when our eyes met, he bared his teeth and hissed that he was going to kill me, that I was dead, shifting his weight toward the curb at the same time. Somehow my kids didn't hear him as they climbed out, nor did they see my reaction to his threat: I opened the glove compartment and removed a long-barreled .22 target pistol that was there by chance, as part of the move. Its rubber grip met my hand and melded with it in a smooth, reflexive motion. I held the gun across my belt line, displaying its silver profile as I turned. The scary young man was about ten yards away by then, but when he saw the gun, his body rocked backward as though in a cartoon. I watched his flushed face drain pale as he backed off, one shoe untied and dragging a long, loose lace. He vanished around the bar's corner, a full retreat that left me presiding over a total victory that no one, because the street was empty, had witnessed.

Wow.  That's some high drama.  I am sure but for the firearm, the unarmed meth head would have no doubt killed Kirn and his whole family with his bare hands.

These "scary" stories make me laugh a bit.  I lived through years in DC where there was better than a murder a day -- I lived for a while two blocks from an open air drug market and a block from where a quadruple homicide occurred in 1989.  I later lived in another neighborhood a few blocks from a crack house and where another murder occurred early in my residency.  It just never occurred to me though that getting a gun was any answer to this sort of thing -- what was I going to do, carry it around loaded every day just waiting for menace to befall me?  As it turns out, I was never victimized in any of the marginal places I've lived -- although I suppose in my posher surroundings I could always be surprised.  The bottom line though is that one has to put fear into reasonable perspective and live life with a certain level of fatalism.  (Like a man, I'm tempted to add but won't.)  The truth is that "stranger" murders remain rare even in highly violent places.  The overwhelming majority of killings here were due to the drug trade.  That, and, of course, crimes of passion.  The world is, generally speaking, not out to get you. 

- Speaking of paranoia and stories that make clear that being extraordinarily proficient in firearms is no guarantee of safety, this story of the murder of former Navy Seal sniper Chris Kyle is a chilling one.  I would submit that if a weapon didn't make Chris Kyle safe, it isn't going to do much for anyone else's sorry ass.  Seriously though -- take a few minutes to read the comments to this story, most of which center on the claim that Kyle was obviously killed by the Obama Administration for some nefarious reason.  These are your fellow citizens, friends.  (Especially you bbw. :-) ) 

What's up? 

 

Thank You Scott Brown and Open Thread

"Cool Jerk" - Human Sexual Response

- Well I turn 53 today -- what an utterly inconsequential number -- but I got an early brithday present from Scott Brown when he decided not to run for the Senate again.  Now maybe Brown knows something we don't know and he would not be as formidable as I feared in a special election.  Or maybe the prospect of running in 2031 and then again in 2014 after having run in 2010 and 2012 was unappealing -- and frankly who could blame him on that score.  Standing for election four times in five years for the same seat would be a pretty unappetizing prospect for almost anyone. And in a state in which the sort of everyday forces arrayed against him meant each election was likely to be a pitched battle -- probably attracting national money as well -- I can see where taking a little time off and then running for governor -- something which historically has been easier going for Republicans in Massachusetts -- might be appealing.  Finally, I think Brown probably understood that one more loss would likely consign him to the electoral scrap heap and although he led in the early polls, my sense is that someone like Ed Markey, once he consolidated his position, would likely be formidable.

Anyway, it made me happy as can be, both because I think each Senate seat is likely to prove crucial in 2014, and, because I really dislike Brown and am offended at the prospect of him occupying a Massachusetts Senate seat.  It's just wrong. 

- Speaking of 2014, I was also quite pleased to see Mark Begich polling well in Alaska.  I have assumed that Begich was going to be quite vulnerable, running in a Republican state for a seat that he only won due to the extraordinary legal difficulties that Ted Stevens was facing and the fact that it was a Democratic wave year.   His favorable rating of 48%, while not overwhelming, is pretty good in a right wing state.  He crushes Joe Miller in a prospective match up by 20 points.  I wonder if the grifter from Wasilla is thinking about this race.  It seems to me that she needs to undertake some electoral activity in order to assure the gravy train keeps running.  

- Chaka Khan?  I feel for them.

- Always a sucker for demographic stories.  This one on why Obama seems more liberated in his post-electoral victory mode.

- A good piece by Amanda on the gun in the home for safety delusion -- this time as it applies to women.

Okay, house cleaning to celebrate the birthday.  It's too damn cold for other diversions right now.  Will head out for a fine dinner at the unfashionable hour of six tonight.  That way I won't miss the Matlock reruns.

What's going on with all of you?

Groundhog Day Open Thread

 

Let's do this day just once, though.

Digiter-ado and Open Thread

 

"Death Defying" - Hoodoo Gurus

Hey all.  Weird weather day here in our nation's capital -- it hit 70 and I walked master Stanley while wearing shorts this morning.  And now it is raining like hell as we prepare for the temperature to drop about 30 degrees overnight.

- My favorite story of the last couple of days had to be this gaffe by Australia's "First Bloke."  One can only imagine the dressing down that Prime Minister Julia Gilliard might have administered to him.  I can only marvel though at the fact that Australia has as its prime minister a) a woman b) who has made clear that she is an atheist c) and that she did not want to have children and (d) who lives with a man to whom she is not married.  Although one can envision a woman reaching the presidency in the U.S. (hopefully in four years), one cannot really imagine that that woman could share publicly any of these other views or practices with Gilliard.  I say "good on her."  And remember, she is from the right wing of the Labor Party. One can only hope we reach this state in American politics while I still draw breath.

- While on the subject of Australian prime ministers, I learned this fun fact about the possibility that one had been devoured by a shark in the not so distant past.  This is one of those stories I have no wish to have debunked.  (And on that note I should say hi to our friend down under Emma.)

- Back to domestic concerns, I remain convinced that we will not see either gun control or immigration reform emerge from the Republican controlled House.  I would be particularly shocked if any kind of gun control passed muster with these clowns.  And I can't see Boehner ignoring the Hastert Rule on this one.  The question remains, will Harry Ried, absent action from the House, subject Landrieu, Begich, Pryor, and Hagan to a gun control vote prior to mid-terms in which all will be deeply vulnerable.  I can't imagine he will.  Meanwhile, we will continue to live in a nation of heavily armed lunatics.  A whole lot of lunatics.   It is very difficult to share the nation with people who would rather have the right to carry assault weapons more than having a right to health care coverage.  We're exceptional alright -- exceptionally stupid.   

- I was a bit shocked by the small drop in GDP last quarter.  One would think that this would be a wake up call to our austerity freaks, but I doubt it.  As much as many of us would like to see a cut in defense spending, I think it is something that needs to be done gradually over a few years, preferably in a stronger economy where other government spending fills the Keynesian vacuum.

- And here's a piece on unionism and the implications of its decline for non-union workers by Erik Loomis with which I totally agree. 

What's up with you? 

 

Labor Pains

I am a big fan of both Eric Loomis at LG & M and Laura Clawson at Daily Kos -- we union folks have to stick together.  But I want to respectfully disagree with them about their views on organizing in the construction industry and the relationship between union and employers.  Both Loomis and Clawson express distaste for the retirement of Scabby the Rat -- the large inflatable rat used as a prop in protesting against non-union construction companies -- and some rather poorly phrased words from the head of the Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO to the effect that Scabby is not the face that the unions want to present to employers. (Not to mention how it might make the prospective members feel.) 

Loomis has some good points in his piece about the importance of a culture of solidarity and what he deems the folly of unions attempting to appeal to CEOs.  Clawson echoes these sentiments.  Both of them see a lack of militancy undermining the future of unions. 

My experience in the industry suggests that they are wrong.  I have been involved in a few "bottom up" organizing campaigns over the years.  Non-union workers persuaded, authorization cards obtained, NLRB elections successfully held -- the entire path that advocates of the organizing model of unionism urge upon us.  I then sat down with the employers to negotiate an initial agreement and got exactly nowhere.  They had no interest in reaching agreement, but went through the motions of good faith bargaining until the point where they could declare an impasse.  And then the choice arrives for the employees -- most of whom in recent campaigns in which I have been involved have been primarily immigrants from Mexico and Central America and were simply not interested in striking.  Absent the threat of a strike, the organizing campaigns came to an end with a whimper.

I am afraid that I have become a proponent of top-down organizing these days -- that is organizing in the construction industry that is dependent on attracting an employer to sign what is known as a pre-hire agreement with a union.  This entails selling the benefits of a relationship with a union directly to the employer -- maybe the employer wants the ability to hire twenty-five certified welders at one time, maybe he wants access to people with specialized training or apprentices, maybe the appeal is to be able to man up for a large job and then lay off a work force that is used to returning to a union hiring hall at the completion of a project.  Hell, some employers even want to be union because they would like their employees to have medical and pension benefits.  

Basically a building trades local union is only as successful as the contractors with whom it has relationships.  The ability of employers to win work and perform it effectively in a hideously competitive environment is the key to keeping union members employed at good wage rates.  In such an enviroment, a posture that is overly adverserial is likely to be self-defeating in a profound way.  Right now, unionized employers and unions in the building trades are allied in a fierce battle with the non-union employers, many of whom eagerly exploit undocumented workers in a manner that undermines wages and benefits in entire sectors of the construction economy.  (There is precious little enforcement of federal or state laws that would prevent this exploitation from occurring.)  It is distressing to watch companies that have been long time model employers -- yes, there is such a thing -- get eviscerated by these bottom feeders out there, something I feel like am constantly witnessing these days.

I understand the visceral appeal of militancy while we are in the midst of the new guilded age.  But most unionized construction employers are not Jaime Diamond or Bill Gates.  They are typically small to medium sized companies -- the vast majority with fewer than 100 employees -- often owned by former union members who went into business.  My experience with most of them -- and I deal with them constantly -- is that they are pretty fair people with some sense of obligation to their employees and a willingness to accept unions as their partners.  

As for the commited bottom feeders out there, I see little hope for organizing them under existing law.  It is much too easy to lay off union adherents in the construction industry when an organizing campaign is ongoing and even where an election is won, efforts to get a contract from an unwilling employer are usually futile.  The best approach to employers like this in good construction markers is "stripping" them, i.e. attracting their most skilled employees to the union and referring them to a good contractor..  During times of slack employment, we need to be able to rely on the authorities to enforce laws against phony subcontracting, failure to pay overtime, worker misclassification on prevailing wage jobs, and the use of undocumented workers, although the latter causes discomfort among a lot of folks on the left.  

Ultimately, I think being a union employer can be sold to a receptive company, but it is almost impossible to jam down the throat of a business that resists unless circumstances are exceptionally favorable.  I don't mean to sound tepid or defeatist, but 27 years of experience with the trades leads me to think I'm correct here.   

 

Sunday Random Walk and Open Thread

While I've been laid up, I've been reading Krugman and Wells' introductory economics text.   (I've been aware that there are gaps in my basic understanding of economic principles, and if I'm going to read an intro text, then why not the best, you know?) The book is wonderfully clear and well-written, and introduces a lot of key ideas pretty early in the going.

Which is a good thing, because I'm not very far in yet. But the book is already giving me a framework to think about economic issues that I didn't have before. For instance, K&W ask, "How do we know how well [a market] economy is doing?" The yardstick they give is whether that economy is using its resources efficiently: "Economists say an economy's resources are used efficiently when they are used in a way that has fully exploited all opportunities to make everyone better off. To put it another way, an economy is efficient if it takes all opportunities to make some people better off without making other people worse off." (Emphasis in original.)

Putting it like that tells you right away that our economy is doing a pretty crappy job right now: we have plenty of work that needs doing and isn't getting done (just in terms of crumbling infrastructure alone), and lots of people who have no work. We have not fully exploited all opportunities to make everyone better off - far, far from it.  The notion that our economy's doing what it should, and that it's just going to take time to work things through, is wrong - our economy is leaving massive amounts of unused resources on the table, and as a result, wasting big chunks of the lives of millions of Americans.

It would be nice if one of the two major parties still considered high unemployment to be enough of a problem to actually talk about it on a regular basis.

Yglesias asks what Americans have less of than they used to. Krugman answers, time. Glad to hear him say it, because while it's been one of my main axes to grind for maybe 15 years now, it's never been on the political radar at all, and more people read Krugman than read me. But I'll say it again: enshrine two weeks' vacation and one week's sick leave in the law. Who could disagree with that? And overtime shouldn't be a free resource for employers, excepting only workers making a few multiples of the median wage.

If the government needs more revenue, a financial transactions tax would be a good place to start.

Bobby Jindal wants to increase taxes on 80% of Louisiana residents in order to finance a tax cut on the rich. He won't be the GOP nominee in 2016 no matter what K-Drum thinks, more's the pity: the ads would write themselves. But to borrow a riff from Atrios, I'm old enough to remember when the GOP wanted to cut taxes for everyone (they'd cut taxes for the rich a lot more, of course, but they'd at least cut everyone's taxes to some degree). Yet over the past year or two, it seems to have hardened into GOP dogma that the moochers and takers aren't paying enough taxes and should be paying more, in addition to the continuing orthodoxy that the rich are paying too much in taxes and should be paying less.

Good luck with that message at election time, guys.

Open thread.

The Senate Is A Fundamentally Antidemocratic Institution (Shit Is Still Fucked Up and Bullshit)

People ought to be able to understand how their government works.

Only an extremely small percentage of the population understands why the Senate doesn't work.  Probably under 1% of the population, and certainly well under 5%.

Hell, I've been working for years at understanding the Senate rules, and I'm still not sure I really 'get it.'  All I can tell you is that there are far more tools for minority obstruction than I realized even a few months ago.  The filibuster is just the most visible one.  The thing I'm only starting to get my head around is that the Senate is a body that operates on the principle of unanimous consent, which provides an astounding array of opportunities for a minority of any size to throw a spanner in the works.

A government that people can't understand is a fundamentally antidemocratic government.  Sure, we've got the vote, but if half of one branch of our government is a black hole where legislation dies for no apparent reason, that only goes so far.

The Senate rules don't need to be tweaked.  The current 'reform' is better than nothing, but it doesn't touch the heart of the problem.  The current rules need to be thrown away, shredded, mulched, and replaced by a much simpler, clearer set of rules, rules that don't give 41 (or often fewer) Senators the power to bring the business of the Republic to a halt by means not comprehended by the general public.

I'll give the last word to Alexander Hamilton, in The Federalist, No. 22:

The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. In those emergencies of a nation, in which the goodness or badness, the weakness or strength of its government, is of the greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for action. The public business must, in some way or other, go forward. If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated. It is often, by the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence of the necessary number of votes, kept in a state of inaction. Its situation must always savor of weakness, sometimes border upon anarchy.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

 

Happy 40th Roe v. Wade Day, Thoughts on Obama, Open Thread

"A Girl in Trouble is a Temporary Thing" - Romeo Void

There's a time when every girl learns, to use her head
Tears will be saved till they're better spent
There's no time for her to be afraid
So instead, she takes care of business
Keeps a cool head

Hey there -- it is damn cold here in our nation's capital.  Everyone who attended was quite lucky the inauguration was held yesterday.  The only one I know who likes this weather is Stanley, who seems positively giddy in the cold.  His human companion much less so.  I was reduced to wearing the terrorist face mask tonight, which is not really a look I prefer. 

- On this, the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Rachel Maddow had a terrific report on how highly circumscribed the right to abortion has become in large parts of the country.  She focused on Arkansas, North and South Dakota, and Mississippi, each of which is down to a single abortion provider.  In addition, those who are fortunate enough to be able to get to the single state clinic during their often truncated hours then face a barrage of obstacles (waiting periods) and indignities (forced ultra sounds, scripted untruths that providers are required to read to them before they exercise their constitutional rights).  Essentially women in these states have become second class citizens, possessors of a right in theory that has become nearly impossible to exercise.  It's an outrage.

- What did you all think of the inaugural address.  I thought both its content and delivery were quite impressive.  I am not sure that I was as impressed with its sheer rhetorical content -- I think he has given more poetic speeches -- but I thought he made a compelling argument for the theme of continuous struggle for equality and inclusiveness in American history and for the role of government (as well as activism) in helping to bring about progress in this realm.  As many have noted, the tying of Seneca Falls, Selma, and Stonewall back to the Declaration of Independence was a great thing to hear from a sitting president of the United States while on his grandest stage.  His vigorous defense of the social safety net and his pointed attack on the notion that those who make use of it are "takers" was a wonderfully pointed moment from a president who has often held fire on his opponents.  I liked it.

- Which leads me to another thought -- do you get the sense that Obama feels extremely liberated by having won reelection?  One gets the sense that without the prospect of facing reelection, he feels like he can draw some lines in the sand in a way he has not in the past.

- One last thing on Obama -- the notion that he has been stymied from time to time due to his unwillingness to socialize with Republicans or because he lacks "executive management skills" is just laughable.  Why is it that these critics cannot understand or accept that the ideological gulf that separates the President from Republicans is real and that Republicans will not give him a break because of this -- not because he won't have them over for movie night and not because he hasn't properly delegated authority to his cabinet.  It's not that I don't have criticisms of how Obama conducted his first term -- the failure to pursue immigration reform early on, the passivity in the face of the Gang of Six highjacking health care reform for months, the lack of urgency regarding judicial appointments, and the fundamental misjudgment about the nature of his opposition were all significant mistakes.  But they were mistakes of political judgment, not the result of being socially aloof or not having served in an executive capacity,

- Read Roy's review of Lincoln.  It's a thing of beauty.

- Speaking of movies, I finally saw Zero Dark Thirty yesterday.  It's an impressive bit of film making, taut and compelling.  I was disturbed by the apparent apologia for torture and the suggestion that it was the key to finding bin Laden, but I found the film to be impeccably made and acted.  Hopefully Roy will review this too and give you a little more than I have. 

Alright, the floor is open.

Weekend Open Thread

 

"Forest Whitaker" - Bad Books (A lovely live acoustic version of the song.)

Coming up for air here after another full week -- continuing to pay the price for a bit of fun in the sun.

- Contrary to what I suggested in my last post, it appears that the House Republicans -- or at least their leadership -- are not completely committed to crashing the economy or at least not immediately.  A bit of realism seems to have crept into the equation in recent weeks.  If that is the case, it will have the double virtue of backing down the crazies a bit while also reinforcing Obama's sense of resolve.  I like that combination.  But I remain skeptical -- I think the 90 day extension of the debt ceiling being floated by Republicans is more of a tactical move to give them a chance to unite around another unpalatable position.   

- In the words of a TPM commenter, Darwin smiled.

- I enjoyed this Jonathan Chait piece on David Brooks.  Brooks inadvertently lays out a rather good approach for the Democrats to further marginalize the Republicans and take back the House. 

- I wish I could get a better sense of what actually transpired during this Algerian hostage taking.  One gets the feeling that the Algerians were less meticulous in this matter than we might have liked.  Maybe the crudity of the response will ultimately discourage this sort of thing.  Or so I hope. Otherwise, it just seems exceedingly grim. 

Update:  Sorry about the comments.  Christ, that drives me crazy.  I will see what I can do. 

What's on your minds?

1000 Gun Deaths Since Newtown

The carnage never stops.  (We passed that particular milestone four days ago, actually.)

James Fallows passes on the following comment from a reader:

This panel, and the rest of the media nearly always misses two points that are critical.  

      - Daily gun deaths [not the big massacres] are the real killer.  

      - The shooters are most likely to be either pissed off and jealous or perfectly rational with a heavily distorted value system, not mentally ill.  And mental health experts state whenever they can that it is very hard to determine which patients will become violent. Most will not, and that is certain.

This is absolutely true.  The massacres may get our attention, and this last one seems to have finally got us moving on this issue again.  But it's the day-to-day killings that really add up: we've had the equivalent of 37 Newtowns since Newtown.  In other words, every day's another Newtown.

Banning high-capacity magazines will help with the massacres, but not with the everyday shootings.  It's really hard to say what will help with those.  But I think it wouldn't hurt to try Sir Charles' idea for a free-market solution: require gun owners to carry liability insurance, and let the insurance industry sort out the risks.  That would also put a well-financed lobby on the right side of the issue, for once.  And maybe we'd get lucky, and the ongoing cost of insurance would cause a few malcontents to throw in the towel and sell off their guns.

Universal gun registration would be a necessary precondition of such a step, and unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be part of President Obama's proposal.  It's unfortunate - if there were ever a time to press for it, now would be the time.

Open thread.