May all our readers have a better and even more fulfilling New Year!
Wednesday, December 31, 2014
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
....................................................................................
May all our readers have a better and even more fulfilling New Year!
May all our readers have a better and even more fulfilling New Year!
"Atheism is far more common among elite scientists and some of the most peaceful and equitable societies on earth are also the least religious."
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* I don't believe that the religious fear death as much as that they are TOLD to fear death. Religion LOVES death.
* ... As a matter of fact, it appears to me it's the religious people that seem to have the problem with living moral and fulfilling lives. There is an awful lot of hypocrisy on full display when it comes to that crowd.
* I think your problem in understanding atheism is that you assume all atheists are part of a group similar to Christians or Buddhists. Atheists are just people who don't identify with any particular religion. There is no Church of Atheism or Temple of Atheism.
* For many, the idea of being "spiritual" is necessary for them, even though the word is really not definable. Somehow, doing the right thing became conflated with being "spiritual."
...................................................................................................................................................................
20 amazing quotes from atheists that prove religion isn’t necessary for a meaningful life
Recently an “educational” pamphlet designed for Christian children made its way around Facebook. It warned God’s little lambs to avoid sour unhappy people called “atheists.” A private school curriculum called Accelerated Christian Education includes cartoons in which the atheist characters are rude, mean and drunk; and bad things happen to them.
Stereotypes like these get echoed sometimes even in Christian books and lectures that are targeted at adults. I once attended a successful megachurch on the Sunday before Easter. The pastor wanted his audience to be clear that the resurrection of Jesus wasn’t merely some spiritual metaphor. “If the resurrection didn’t literally happen,” he shouted, “there is no reason for us to be here! If the resurrection didn’t literally happen—there are parties to be had! There are women to be had! There are guns to shoot! There are people to shoot!”
You caught the subtext? Atheists (and even liberal Christians) have no basis for morality. Nothing—and I mean nothing!—stands between a godless person and debauchery or lechery or even violence.
Population demographics suggest otherwise, of course. Atheism is far more common among elite scientists and some of the most peaceful and equitable societies on earth are also the least religious. But believers persist in fearing that godless people are amoral, that unfettered by religion the world would descend into the anarchy and bloodbath depicted in the Left Behind movies.
In reality, when asked about their moral values or what motivates them in life, atheists use words that sound downright spiritual, very much like the words religious people use in fact, with a few noteworthy differences. To create his book, A Better Life, Photographer Chris Johnson asked 100 atheists about what gives their lives joy and meaning. To some Christians the question is equivalent to asking an elephant where he gets his chocolate ice cream. The answers might surprise them even more. Themes include love and connection, compassion and service, legacy (leaving the world a little better), creativity and discovery, gratitude, transcendence, and wonder—all heightened by a sense that this one life is fleetingly transient and precious.
Here are 20 short quotes from Johnson’s assemblage, each of which is crushingly at odds with the standard stereotype of the angry, selfish godless scrooge.
· “Knowing there is a world that will outlive you, there are people whose well-being depends on how you live your life, affects the way you live your life, whether or not you directly experience those effects. You want to be the kind of person who has the larger view, who takes other people’s interests into account, who’s dedicated to the principles that you can justify, like justice, knowledge, truth, beauty and morality.” – Steven Pinker, cognitive scientist
· “In the theater you create a moment, but in that moment, there is a touch, a twinkle of eternity. And not just eternity, but community. . . . That connection is a sense of life for me.” – Teller, illusionist
· ”We are all given a gift of existence and of being sentient beings, and I think true happiness lies in love and compassion.” – Adam Pascal, musician and actor
· “Being engaged in some way for the good of the community, whatever that community, is a factor in a meaningful life. We long to belong, and belonging and caring anchors our sense of place in the universe.” – Patricia S. Churchland, neurophilosopher
· “For me the meaning of life, or the meaning in life, is helping people and loving people . . . The real joy for me is when someone comes up to me and they want to just sit down and share their struggle.” –Teresa MacBain, former minister
· “Joy is human connection; the compassion put into every moment of humanitarian work; joy is using your time to bring peace, relief, or optimism to others. Joy gives without the expectation—or wish—of reciprocity or gratitude. . . . Joy immediately loves the individual in need and precedes any calculation of how much the giver can handle or whom the giver can help.” – Erik Campano, emergency medicine
· “Raising curious, compassionate, strong, and loving children—teaching them to love others and helping them to see the beauty of humanity—that is the most meaningful and joyful responsibility we have.” – Joel Legawiec, pediatric nurse
· “Anytime I hear someone say that only humans have a thoughtful mind, a loving heart, or a compassionate soul, I have to think that person has never owned a dog or known an elephant.” – Aron Ra, Texas state director of American Atheists
· “I find my joy in justice and equality: in all creatures having opportunities for enjoyment and being treated with fairness, as we all wish and deserve to be treated. . . . While I enjoy the positive feelings of self-improvement, this fire pales compared to the feeling of joy that comes from having contributed something to the greater good.” – Lynnea Glasser, game developer
· “You’re like this little blip of light that lasts for a very brief time and you can shine as brightly as you choose.” – Sean Faircloth, author, lawyer, lobbyist
· “Play hard, work hard, love hard. . . .The bottom line for me is to live life to the fullest in the here-and-now instead of a hoped-for hereafter, and make every day count in some meaningful way and do something—no matter how small it is—to make the world a better place.” – Michael Shermer, founder and publisher, Skeptic Magazine
· “I hope to dissuade the cruel parts of the world from their self-imposed exile and persuade their audiences to understand that freedom is synonymous with life and that the world is a place of safety and of refuge.” – Faisal Saeed Al-Mutar, writer
· “I look around the world and see so many wonderful things that I love and enjoy and benefit from, whether it’s art or music or clothing or food and all the rest. And I’d like to add a little to that goodness.” – Daniel Dennett, philosopher and cognitive scientist
· “I thrive on maintaining a simple awe about the universe. No matter what struggles we are going through the miracles of existence continue on, forming and reforming patterns like an unstoppable kaleidoscope.” – Marlene Winell, human development consultant
· “Math . . . music .. . starry nights . . . These are secular ways of achieving transcendence, of feeling lifted into a grand perspective. It’s a sense of being awed by existence that almost obliterates the self. Religious people think of it as an essentially religious experience but it’s not. It’s an essentially human experience.” – Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, philosopher and novelist
· “There is joy in the search for knowledge about the universe in all its manifestations.” – Janet Asimov, psychiatrist
· “Science and reason liberate us from the shackles of superstition by offering us a framework for understanding our shared humanity. Ultimately, we all have the capacity to treasure life and enrich the world in incalculable ways.” – Gad Saad, professor of marketing
· “If you trace back all those links in the chain that had to be in place for me to be here, the laws of probability maintain that my very existence is miraculous. But then after however many decades, less than a hundred years, they disburse and I cease to be. So while they’re all congregated and coordinated to make me, then—and I speak her on behalf of all those trillions of atoms—I should really make the most of things.” – Jim Al-Khalili, professor of physics
All quotes are taken with permission from ”A Better Life: 100 Atheists Speak Out on Joy and Meaning in a World without God.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* I don't believe that the religious fear death as much as that they are TOLD to fear death. Religion LOVES death.
* ... As a matter of fact, it appears to me it's the religious people that seem to have the problem with living moral and fulfilling lives. There is an awful lot of hypocrisy on full display when it comes to that crowd.
* I think your problem in understanding atheism is that you assume all atheists are part of a group similar to Christians or Buddhists. Atheists are just people who don't identify with any particular religion. There is no Church of Atheism or Temple of Atheism.
* For many, the idea of being "spiritual" is necessary for them, even though the word is really not definable. Somehow, doing the right thing became conflated with being "spiritual."
...................................................................................................................................................................
20 amazing quotes from atheists that prove religion isn’t necessary for a meaningful life
Because belief in God isn't a prerequisite for finding joy and beauty in the world
By Valerie Tarico, February 11, 2014Recently an “educational” pamphlet designed for Christian children made its way around Facebook. It warned God’s little lambs to avoid sour unhappy people called “atheists.” A private school curriculum called Accelerated Christian Education includes cartoons in which the atheist characters are rude, mean and drunk; and bad things happen to them.
Stereotypes like these get echoed sometimes even in Christian books and lectures that are targeted at adults. I once attended a successful megachurch on the Sunday before Easter. The pastor wanted his audience to be clear that the resurrection of Jesus wasn’t merely some spiritual metaphor. “If the resurrection didn’t literally happen,” he shouted, “there is no reason for us to be here! If the resurrection didn’t literally happen—there are parties to be had! There are women to be had! There are guns to shoot! There are people to shoot!”
You caught the subtext? Atheists (and even liberal Christians) have no basis for morality. Nothing—and I mean nothing!—stands between a godless person and debauchery or lechery or even violence.
Population demographics suggest otherwise, of course. Atheism is far more common among elite scientists and some of the most peaceful and equitable societies on earth are also the least religious. But believers persist in fearing that godless people are amoral, that unfettered by religion the world would descend into the anarchy and bloodbath depicted in the Left Behind movies.
In reality, when asked about their moral values or what motivates them in life, atheists use words that sound downright spiritual, very much like the words religious people use in fact, with a few noteworthy differences. To create his book, A Better Life, Photographer Chris Johnson asked 100 atheists about what gives their lives joy and meaning. To some Christians the question is equivalent to asking an elephant where he gets his chocolate ice cream. The answers might surprise them even more. Themes include love and connection, compassion and service, legacy (leaving the world a little better), creativity and discovery, gratitude, transcendence, and wonder—all heightened by a sense that this one life is fleetingly transient and precious.
Here are 20 short quotes from Johnson’s assemblage, each of which is crushingly at odds with the standard stereotype of the angry, selfish godless scrooge.
· “Knowing there is a world that will outlive you, there are people whose well-being depends on how you live your life, affects the way you live your life, whether or not you directly experience those effects. You want to be the kind of person who has the larger view, who takes other people’s interests into account, who’s dedicated to the principles that you can justify, like justice, knowledge, truth, beauty and morality.” – Steven Pinker, cognitive scientist
· “In the theater you create a moment, but in that moment, there is a touch, a twinkle of eternity. And not just eternity, but community. . . . That connection is a sense of life for me.” – Teller, illusionist
· ”We are all given a gift of existence and of being sentient beings, and I think true happiness lies in love and compassion.” – Adam Pascal, musician and actor
· “Being engaged in some way for the good of the community, whatever that community, is a factor in a meaningful life. We long to belong, and belonging and caring anchors our sense of place in the universe.” – Patricia S. Churchland, neurophilosopher
· “For me the meaning of life, or the meaning in life, is helping people and loving people . . . The real joy for me is when someone comes up to me and they want to just sit down and share their struggle.” –Teresa MacBain, former minister
· “Joy is human connection; the compassion put into every moment of humanitarian work; joy is using your time to bring peace, relief, or optimism to others. Joy gives without the expectation—or wish—of reciprocity or gratitude. . . . Joy immediately loves the individual in need and precedes any calculation of how much the giver can handle or whom the giver can help.” – Erik Campano, emergency medicine
· “Raising curious, compassionate, strong, and loving children—teaching them to love others and helping them to see the beauty of humanity—that is the most meaningful and joyful responsibility we have.” – Joel Legawiec, pediatric nurse
· “Anytime I hear someone say that only humans have a thoughtful mind, a loving heart, or a compassionate soul, I have to think that person has never owned a dog or known an elephant.” – Aron Ra, Texas state director of American Atheists
· “I find my joy in justice and equality: in all creatures having opportunities for enjoyment and being treated with fairness, as we all wish and deserve to be treated. . . . While I enjoy the positive feelings of self-improvement, this fire pales compared to the feeling of joy that comes from having contributed something to the greater good.” – Lynnea Glasser, game developer
· “You’re like this little blip of light that lasts for a very brief time and you can shine as brightly as you choose.” – Sean Faircloth, author, lawyer, lobbyist
· “Play hard, work hard, love hard. . . .The bottom line for me is to live life to the fullest in the here-and-now instead of a hoped-for hereafter, and make every day count in some meaningful way and do something—no matter how small it is—to make the world a better place.” – Michael Shermer, founder and publisher, Skeptic Magazine
· “I hope to dissuade the cruel parts of the world from their self-imposed exile and persuade their audiences to understand that freedom is synonymous with life and that the world is a place of safety and of refuge.” – Faisal Saeed Al-Mutar, writer
· “I look around the world and see so many wonderful things that I love and enjoy and benefit from, whether it’s art or music or clothing or food and all the rest. And I’d like to add a little to that goodness.” – Daniel Dennett, philosopher and cognitive scientist
· “I thrive on maintaining a simple awe about the universe. No matter what struggles we are going through the miracles of existence continue on, forming and reforming patterns like an unstoppable kaleidoscope.” – Marlene Winell, human development consultant
· “Math . . . music .. . starry nights . . . These are secular ways of achieving transcendence, of feeling lifted into a grand perspective. It’s a sense of being awed by existence that almost obliterates the self. Religious people think of it as an essentially religious experience but it’s not. It’s an essentially human experience.” – Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, philosopher and novelist
· “There is joy in the search for knowledge about the universe in all its manifestations.” – Janet Asimov, psychiatrist
· “Science and reason liberate us from the shackles of superstition by offering us a framework for understanding our shared humanity. Ultimately, we all have the capacity to treasure life and enrich the world in incalculable ways.” – Gad Saad, professor of marketing
· “If you trace back all those links in the chain that had to be in place for me to be here, the laws of probability maintain that my very existence is miraculous. But then after however many decades, less than a hundred years, they disburse and I cease to be. So while they’re all congregated and coordinated to make me, then—and I speak her on behalf of all those trillions of atoms—I should really make the most of things.” – Jim Al-Khalili, professor of physics
All quotes are taken with permission from ”A Better Life: 100 Atheists Speak Out on Joy and Meaning in a World without God.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... the faithful increasingly [are] tailoring religion to suit their own sensibilities ..." So who is to say that their sensibilities are any more correct than anyone else's?
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENT: The message of Christianity is immoral and demeaning. We all are born guilty, so the story goes, of something (gaining knowledge from a tree) so terrible that we must accept the primitive, barbaric and immoral sacrifice of another human being in atonement to a supernatural being, a bronze-age war god named Yahweh. Their infallible book glorifies the end of the planet and all of mankind, except them of course, in a religious war allegedly between good and evil. With an unimaginable degree of certainty followers know they will be saved form [i.e. from] this burning planet into a second life in a different perfect place. That perfect life in that perfect place becomes more valued than this life and this place.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Atheism, agnosticism and belief: Thoughts on going with or without God
By Paul Thornton, December 26, 2014
The Times' front-page article Monday on Ryan Bell, a former Seventh-day Adventist minister nearing the end of his "year without God," prompted dozens of readers to ruminate on religion, spirituality, atheism and agnosticism. The handful of letters published on Christmas Day — some encouraging Bell to embrace a less black-and-white version of faith, others advocating for skepticism — prompted more discussion among readers.
As with all conversations religious — and with the faithful increasingly tailoring religion to suit their own sensibilities — the one on Bell's crisis of faith remains ongoing, with letters still streaming in. The reader submissions below continue that discussion.
George Epstein of Los Angeles coins a universal "religion":
The letters responding to the article on Ryan Bell convince me that my concept regarding religion is right on.
Years ago, my then-12-year-old son asked me: "Dad, how do I know there is a God? I can't see him; I can't hear him; I can't touch him." At that moment my own long-term doubts came to mind. Then I realized that the concept of religion, including a God, was created by well-meaning people to help us live together in peace, harmony and justice for all. It's a good concept.
Today, when asked, I tell people, "My religion is conceptualism." As far as others, any form of religion is OK so long as it helps the believers achieve peace, harmony and justice for all. Obviously, with all the turmoil and killing in our world, these haven't been achieved — all the more reason to pursue conceptualism.
Jim Johnson of Whittier finds little use for agnosticism:
Letter writer Judi Birnberg offers agnosticism as "the only tenable position," demonstrating how some people have not learned from logic how to recognize where the burden of proof properly resides.
This inability to distinguish an onus probandi from a hole in the ground (the fallacy known as the argumentum ad ignorantiam) should disqualify people from jury duty, where in criminal cases, they would mistakenly think that they had three voting options: guilty, not guilty and undecided.
And whereas science relies on the null hypothesis, those who advocate agnosticism would perhaps mistakenly think it necessary to spend millions of dollars proving that a potential new drug does not cure cancer. "Who can say with certainty that [God] does not exist?," asks Birnberg, when no such certainty is necessary.
Cathedral City resident Rolf Olson proposes a simple test of belief:
Does it take a year to decide if one is a Christian? Shakespeare advises, "To thine own self be true," which many interpret as the hallmark of honest self reflection resulting in a healthy conscience.
Read the Christian statement of beliefs in the Apostles' Creed. If the reader can then say, with honesty, "Yes, I believe in the reality of these supernatural events and characters," then one is a Christian.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENT: The message of Christianity is immoral and demeaning. We all are born guilty, so the story goes, of something (gaining knowledge from a tree) so terrible that we must accept the primitive, barbaric and immoral sacrifice of another human being in atonement to a supernatural being, a bronze-age war god named Yahweh. Their infallible book glorifies the end of the planet and all of mankind, except them of course, in a religious war allegedly between good and evil. With an unimaginable degree of certainty followers know they will be saved form [i.e. from] this burning planet into a second life in a different perfect place. That perfect life in that perfect place becomes more valued than this life and this place.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Atheism, agnosticism and belief: Thoughts on going with or without God
By Paul Thornton, December 26, 2014
The Times' front-page article Monday on Ryan Bell, a former Seventh-day Adventist minister nearing the end of his "year without God," prompted dozens of readers to ruminate on religion, spirituality, atheism and agnosticism. The handful of letters published on Christmas Day — some encouraging Bell to embrace a less black-and-white version of faith, others advocating for skepticism — prompted more discussion among readers.
As with all conversations religious — and with the faithful increasingly tailoring religion to suit their own sensibilities — the one on Bell's crisis of faith remains ongoing, with letters still streaming in. The reader submissions below continue that discussion.
George Epstein of Los Angeles coins a universal "religion":
The letters responding to the article on Ryan Bell convince me that my concept regarding religion is right on.
Years ago, my then-12-year-old son asked me: "Dad, how do I know there is a God? I can't see him; I can't hear him; I can't touch him." At that moment my own long-term doubts came to mind. Then I realized that the concept of religion, including a God, was created by well-meaning people to help us live together in peace, harmony and justice for all. It's a good concept.
Today, when asked, I tell people, "My religion is conceptualism." As far as others, any form of religion is OK so long as it helps the believers achieve peace, harmony and justice for all. Obviously, with all the turmoil and killing in our world, these haven't been achieved — all the more reason to pursue conceptualism.
Jim Johnson of Whittier finds little use for agnosticism:
Letter writer Judi Birnberg offers agnosticism as "the only tenable position," demonstrating how some people have not learned from logic how to recognize where the burden of proof properly resides.
This inability to distinguish an onus probandi from a hole in the ground (the fallacy known as the argumentum ad ignorantiam) should disqualify people from jury duty, where in criminal cases, they would mistakenly think that they had three voting options: guilty, not guilty and undecided.
And whereas science relies on the null hypothesis, those who advocate agnosticism would perhaps mistakenly think it necessary to spend millions of dollars proving that a potential new drug does not cure cancer. "Who can say with certainty that [God] does not exist?," asks Birnberg, when no such certainty is necessary.
Cathedral City resident Rolf Olson proposes a simple test of belief:
Does it take a year to decide if one is a Christian? Shakespeare advises, "To thine own self be true," which many interpret as the hallmark of honest self reflection resulting in a healthy conscience.
Read the Christian statement of beliefs in the Apostles' Creed. If the reader can then say, with honesty, "Yes, I believe in the reality of these supernatural events and characters," then one is a Christian.
...................................................................................................................................................................
A pox on both your houses!
...................................................................................
"'How Do You Show Up at a David Duke Event and Not Know What It Is?' Erick Erickson, a widely followed radio talk-show host and conservative blogger, said ..."
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Don't be so hard on Scalise. I can't tell the difference between a klan rally and a teaparty rally either
* ... The Republicans haven't even taken control of Congress and already they're up to their usual shenanigans, they'll be doing lots more apologizing for self-inflicted fiascoes for the next two years.
* Republican voters really should stop voting for Republican candidates. They make the Republican party look really bad.
...................................................................................................................................................................
House Republicans move to contain fallout from Scalise, Grimm controversies
By Ed O'Keefe and Robert Costa, December 30, 2014
Republican leaders moved forcefully on Tuesday to control the damage from a pair of scandals that have suddenly disrupted the party as it prepares to take full control on Capitol Hill.
In back-to-back moves, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) pushed out Rep. Michael G. Grimm (R-N.Y.), who pleaded guilty last week to federal tax-evasion charges, and backed Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), who acknowledged that he once -addressed a white-supremacist group before coming to Congress.
Some Republicans praised Boehner for his actions, expressing their eagerness to start the new Congress in a position of strength to fully exploit their gains in the midterm elections. But others worried about the potential political fallout from a fresh racial controversy for a party eager to show its broadening appeal to minorities ahead of the 2016 presidential election.
John Weaver, a GOP consultant who advised the presidential campaigns of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), said in an e-mail that Scalise “cannot serve in leadership in our party as we’re in the process of trying to show the American people we can handle the burden of governing, especially in a country so divided across all demographic lines.”
The twin controversies could also derail the carefully laid plans of Boehner and the incoming Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), to shape the party’s message and Washington’s political agenda in the coming weeks. The Republican leaders are poised to make final decisions by Friday about which legislation to hold votes on in the early days of the new Congress. The Senate is expected to focus on bills related to energy policy, while the House is most likely to focus on general economic and job-creating proposals.
Some Republicans also are hoping to focus on immigration and border-security policy, a fight that Democrats have been preparing for since President Obama’s executive action delaying deportation for many immigrants. A controversy involving race could complicate Republican bargaining power.
In a flurry of phone calls late Monday into Tuesday, Scalise reassured his colleagues that he had been oblivious to the racist and anti-Semitic associations of the group when he addressed it in 2002 as a state legislator. In a statement, he called his appearance “a mistake I regret,” emphasizing that it was only to promote his tax-cutting agenda as a Louisiana state representative.
“As a Catholic, these groups hold views that are vehemently opposed to my own personal faith, and I reject that kind of hateful bigotry,” he said. “Those who know me best know I have always been passionate about helping, serving, and fighting for every family that I represent. And I will continue to do so.”
Hoping to quickly put the scandal behind him, Boehner defended Scalise on Tuesday, saying the Louisiana Republican had his “full confidence.” He added that Scalise “made an error in judgment, and he was right to acknowledge it was wrong and inappropriate.” He called Scalise “a man of high integrity and good character.”
Boehner took the opposite approach with Grimm, urging him to step down and then tersely thanking him Tuesday for his service, calling his resignation “the honorable decision.”
“In the last 24 hours, Boehner has twice demonstrated how he is taking charge,” said Karl Rove, an adviser to President George W. Bush. “Both incidents show Boehner is capable of leading with both caution and conviction.”
But Grimm’s resignation could mean a fresh headache for Republicans if Democrats win the seat, which is a possibility in a district where Obama captured 52 percent of the vote in 2012.
It will be up to a Democrat, New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, to decide whether to hold a special election to replace Grimm. Republican Daniel M. Donovan Jr., the district attorney for Richmond County, has been mentioned by New York politicos as a possible candidate. Democrats mentioned include Michael Cusick, a state assemblyman, and former congressman Michael E. McMahon.
Grimm’s announcement that he will resign next Monday ended months of controversy for the lawmaker, a former FBI agent once considered a star GOP recruit. He left the powerful House Financial Services Committee in the spring after federal prosecutors unveiled a 20-count indictment, but he refused to resign and won reelection for a third term in November despite his troubles.
Grimm made up his mind to resign after he spoke with Boehner, who urged him to give up his office, according to associates familiar with their telephone call.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), the incoming chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, was among the dozens of rank-and-file members who defended Scalise.
“I was a chief of staff for a governor, and I saw a state representatives thinly staffed, if at all. They’re young and eager,” he said. “It sounds like something he shouldn’t have done, but if that’s all there is to it, it’s time to move on and tackle bigger, more important things.”
Another Utah Republican, Mia Love, who is one of two black Republicans taking House seats next week, said in a statement that while she had not talked to Scalise about his 2002 appearance, “From my experience, the Majority Whip has been extremely helpful to me and all of my colleagues.”
Scalise and other party leaders have heralded the election of Love and Texas Republican Will Hurd, a black former CIA operative, as a sign of the GOP’s diversifying ranks.
But conservative activists and more mainstream operatives were fretting about the Scalise controversy’s implications for the party’s image.
“It’s always a step forward and two or three steps backward with this kind of stuff. We’ve got to get beyond that,” said Michael Steele, former Maryland lieutenant governor and past chairman of the Republican National Committee.
One of his party’s most prominent black members, Steele suggested that Scalise might have to relinquish his leadership position, just as then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) did in 2002 after making laudatory comments about Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.), who was a former segregationist.
“How Do You Show Up at a David Duke Event and Not Know What It Is?” Erick Erickson, a widely followed radio talk-show host and conservative blogger, said in a Twitter message.
Democrats seized on the controversy but stopped short of calling for Scalise’s ouster.
A spokesman for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called the incident “deeply troubling” and used it as a way to fault House Republicans for not reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act and for joining lawsuits challenging Obama’s recent executive actions to change immigration policy.
A wider Democratic pile-on appeared to be thwarted in part by Rep. Cedric L. Richmond, the only black Louisiana Democrat in Congress.
“I don’t think Steve Scalise has a racist bone in his body,” Richmond told the New Orleans Times-Picayune. “Steve and I have worked on issues that benefit poor people, black people, white people, Jewish people. I know his character.”
Richmond added that he was not going to let partisan critics “use Steve as a scapegoat to score political points when I know him and know his family.”
Other Republicans said Scalise’s troubles were a media-driven affair.
“This is an absurdity,” former House speaker Newt Gingrich said in an e-mail. “Twelve years ago Scalise made a mistake in judgment while giving speeches on the state budget. Among Democrats there was a dispensation for Justice Hugo Black, who was an active Klan member, and for [former West Virginia senator Robert C.] Byrd, who once led his local Klan group.”
Scalise declined all interview requests and spent Tuesday at his suburban New Orleans home. Aides said he had spoken with Boehner by telephone Monday and was in touch with Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), with whom he has a closer relationship.
“We’ll be able to get beyond it,” Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), an ally of the leadership, said of the Scalise situation. “This is going to be an important year for House Republicans. We’ve got the Senate with us now, and we’re going to take on big issues. This whole episode has been a shame for Scalise, but it’s only a distraction.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Don't be so hard on Scalise. I can't tell the difference between a klan rally and a teaparty rally either
* ... The Republicans haven't even taken control of Congress and already they're up to their usual shenanigans, they'll be doing lots more apologizing for self-inflicted fiascoes for the next two years.
* Republican voters really should stop voting for Republican candidates. They make the Republican party look really bad.
...................................................................................................................................................................
House Republicans move to contain fallout from Scalise, Grimm controversies
By Ed O'Keefe and Robert Costa, December 30, 2014
Republican leaders moved forcefully on Tuesday to control the damage from a pair of scandals that have suddenly disrupted the party as it prepares to take full control on Capitol Hill.
In back-to-back moves, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) pushed out Rep. Michael G. Grimm (R-N.Y.), who pleaded guilty last week to federal tax-evasion charges, and backed Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), who acknowledged that he once -addressed a white-supremacist group before coming to Congress.
Some Republicans praised Boehner for his actions, expressing their eagerness to start the new Congress in a position of strength to fully exploit their gains in the midterm elections. But others worried about the potential political fallout from a fresh racial controversy for a party eager to show its broadening appeal to minorities ahead of the 2016 presidential election.
John Weaver, a GOP consultant who advised the presidential campaigns of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), said in an e-mail that Scalise “cannot serve in leadership in our party as we’re in the process of trying to show the American people we can handle the burden of governing, especially in a country so divided across all demographic lines.”
The twin controversies could also derail the carefully laid plans of Boehner and the incoming Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), to shape the party’s message and Washington’s political agenda in the coming weeks. The Republican leaders are poised to make final decisions by Friday about which legislation to hold votes on in the early days of the new Congress. The Senate is expected to focus on bills related to energy policy, while the House is most likely to focus on general economic and job-creating proposals.
Some Republicans also are hoping to focus on immigration and border-security policy, a fight that Democrats have been preparing for since President Obama’s executive action delaying deportation for many immigrants. A controversy involving race could complicate Republican bargaining power.
In a flurry of phone calls late Monday into Tuesday, Scalise reassured his colleagues that he had been oblivious to the racist and anti-Semitic associations of the group when he addressed it in 2002 as a state legislator. In a statement, he called his appearance “a mistake I regret,” emphasizing that it was only to promote his tax-cutting agenda as a Louisiana state representative.
“As a Catholic, these groups hold views that are vehemently opposed to my own personal faith, and I reject that kind of hateful bigotry,” he said. “Those who know me best know I have always been passionate about helping, serving, and fighting for every family that I represent. And I will continue to do so.”
Hoping to quickly put the scandal behind him, Boehner defended Scalise on Tuesday, saying the Louisiana Republican had his “full confidence.” He added that Scalise “made an error in judgment, and he was right to acknowledge it was wrong and inappropriate.” He called Scalise “a man of high integrity and good character.”
Boehner took the opposite approach with Grimm, urging him to step down and then tersely thanking him Tuesday for his service, calling his resignation “the honorable decision.”
“In the last 24 hours, Boehner has twice demonstrated how he is taking charge,” said Karl Rove, an adviser to President George W. Bush. “Both incidents show Boehner is capable of leading with both caution and conviction.”
But Grimm’s resignation could mean a fresh headache for Republicans if Democrats win the seat, which is a possibility in a district where Obama captured 52 percent of the vote in 2012.
It will be up to a Democrat, New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, to decide whether to hold a special election to replace Grimm. Republican Daniel M. Donovan Jr., the district attorney for Richmond County, has been mentioned by New York politicos as a possible candidate. Democrats mentioned include Michael Cusick, a state assemblyman, and former congressman Michael E. McMahon.
Grimm’s announcement that he will resign next Monday ended months of controversy for the lawmaker, a former FBI agent once considered a star GOP recruit. He left the powerful House Financial Services Committee in the spring after federal prosecutors unveiled a 20-count indictment, but he refused to resign and won reelection for a third term in November despite his troubles.
Grimm made up his mind to resign after he spoke with Boehner, who urged him to give up his office, according to associates familiar with their telephone call.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), the incoming chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, was among the dozens of rank-and-file members who defended Scalise.
“I was a chief of staff for a governor, and I saw a state representatives thinly staffed, if at all. They’re young and eager,” he said. “It sounds like something he shouldn’t have done, but if that’s all there is to it, it’s time to move on and tackle bigger, more important things.”
Another Utah Republican, Mia Love, who is one of two black Republicans taking House seats next week, said in a statement that while she had not talked to Scalise about his 2002 appearance, “From my experience, the Majority Whip has been extremely helpful to me and all of my colleagues.”
Scalise and other party leaders have heralded the election of Love and Texas Republican Will Hurd, a black former CIA operative, as a sign of the GOP’s diversifying ranks.
But conservative activists and more mainstream operatives were fretting about the Scalise controversy’s implications for the party’s image.
“It’s always a step forward and two or three steps backward with this kind of stuff. We’ve got to get beyond that,” said Michael Steele, former Maryland lieutenant governor and past chairman of the Republican National Committee.
One of his party’s most prominent black members, Steele suggested that Scalise might have to relinquish his leadership position, just as then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) did in 2002 after making laudatory comments about Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.), who was a former segregationist.
“How Do You Show Up at a David Duke Event and Not Know What It Is?” Erick Erickson, a widely followed radio talk-show host and conservative blogger, said in a Twitter message.
Democrats seized on the controversy but stopped short of calling for Scalise’s ouster.
A spokesman for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called the incident “deeply troubling” and used it as a way to fault House Republicans for not reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act and for joining lawsuits challenging Obama’s recent executive actions to change immigration policy.
A wider Democratic pile-on appeared to be thwarted in part by Rep. Cedric L. Richmond, the only black Louisiana Democrat in Congress.
“I don’t think Steve Scalise has a racist bone in his body,” Richmond told the New Orleans Times-Picayune. “Steve and I have worked on issues that benefit poor people, black people, white people, Jewish people. I know his character.”
Richmond added that he was not going to let partisan critics “use Steve as a scapegoat to score political points when I know him and know his family.”
Other Republicans said Scalise’s troubles were a media-driven affair.
“This is an absurdity,” former House speaker Newt Gingrich said in an e-mail. “Twelve years ago Scalise made a mistake in judgment while giving speeches on the state budget. Among Democrats there was a dispensation for Justice Hugo Black, who was an active Klan member, and for [former West Virginia senator Robert C.] Byrd, who once led his local Klan group.”
Scalise declined all interview requests and spent Tuesday at his suburban New Orleans home. Aides said he had spoken with Boehner by telephone Monday and was in touch with Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), with whom he has a closer relationship.
“We’ll be able to get beyond it,” Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), an ally of the leadership, said of the Scalise situation. “This is going to be an important year for House Republicans. We’ve got the Senate with us now, and we’re going to take on big issues. This whole episode has been a shame for Scalise, but it’s only a distraction.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
"The country is ready for full recognition of the freedom to marry. Let's hope the Supreme Court is as well."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Supreme New Year's Resolution: Stop the Harm to Families of Denying the Freedom to Marry
By Jeffrey S. Trachtman, December 28, 2014
The Supreme Court will decide shortly whether to review and decide a marriage equality case before its current term ends in June. Many are praying for this, eager to wrap up an issue long past the tipping point that folks are sick of discussing.
But there is a more important reason the Court should act now: to halt the severe harm that continuing denial of the freedom to marry inflicts every day on countless same-sex couples, their children, and their extended families and friends. It matters whether this harm ends in June 2015 or lingers into the future.
The long-building national consensus for marriage equality reached critical mass after the Supreme Court's 2013 Windsor decision held it unconstitutional for the federal government to refuse to recognize the lawful marriages of same-sex couples. A flood of state and federal court decisions over the last eighteen months has applied Windsor to invalidate the marriage bans of the majority of states.
The first batch of these cases reached the Supreme Court in September, in the form of requests for review by states whose laws had been struck down. But because all the decisions went in one direction, there was no legal conflict for the Court to resolve -- the usual basis for granting "cert."
The Court's denial of review delayed the nationwide elimination of discrimination and its harms -- but it also made all those favorable decisions final, allowing marriages to go forward in five more states (up from 19) and setting off a ripple effect that has now brought the freedom to marry to thirty-five states (with Florida coming on line in a few days as number 36), plus four with pro-equality rulings on appeal. In comparison, only thirty-four states permitted interracial couples to marry when Loving v. Virginia was decided in 1967.
More recently, a handful of courts have gone the other way -- most significantly, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which in one fell swoop in November reversed pro-equality rulings in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. Marriage rights advocates are now asking the Supreme Court to review this decision and one issued by a federal district judge in Louisiana upholding that state's marriage ban. Their chances are good, because the Sixth Circuit created a classic "circuit split," though it is still possible the Court will opt to let litigation play out first in the remaining states.
Denial of review now would have no silver lining. It would simply entrench discrimination in five states, perpetuating needless injury to thousands of families. That's why several organizations advocating for the rights of same-sex couples and their families (including Freedom to Marry, Family Equality Council, and PFLAG) filed a brief (prepared by my law firm) urging the Supreme Court to grant review and halt the ongoing harms of marriage discrimination.
In the 15 states without the freedom to marry, families suffer concrete harm every day, deprived of literally hundreds of government benefits and protections as well as private benefits awarded based on marital status.
For example, Steven Rains and Don Condit of Fort Worth, Texas, together for 31 years, married in California in 2008 but were treated as unmarried back home in Texas. When Don died unexpectedly, Steven was omitted from his death certificate, excluded from making decisions about his cremation, and is now deprived of surviving spouse benefits based on Dan's military service and private pensions.
Another couple, April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse of Hazel Park, Michigan, have been together more than eight years and are raising three adopted special needs children. Because Michigan bars same-sex couples from marrying and all unmarried couples from adopting together, Jayne adopted two of the children herself and April adopted the third -- but neither is recognized as a parent of the other's children. This deprives all three children of the protections and stability of having two legal parents.
Exclusion from marriage also inflicts severe dignitary injury -- the impact of being treated as second-class citizens with second class relationships. These injuries can be quite tangible, particularly the psychological harm to children of being told by society that their families are less real and worthy of respect than those of different-sex parents. In Windsor, the Supreme Court recognized that failing to respect existing marriages "demeans" couples and "humiliates" their kids. Total exclusion from marriage is at least as demeaning and humiliating.
Even couples deemed married in their home states are harmed by continuing marriage discrimination in other states. Every time they travel to a non-recognition state they risk being treated as unmarried in the event of a medical or other emergency. They need to obtain second parent adoptions or create living wills and powers of attorney to try to replicate the rights they would have automatically if their marriages were respected. Couples who fail to anticipate these problems may face grievous results, such as exclusion from the hospital bedside of a dying spouse.
These harms happen every day and may be catastrophic -- robbing a surviving spouse of a lifetime of earned retirement benefits or leaving a child parentless when the biological or adoptive parent dies and the state does not recognize the surviving partner as a parent.
There is simply no good reason to inflict these risks and harms on American families for another day, much less another year. The country is ready for full recognition of the freedom to marry. Let's hope the Supreme Court is as well.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Supreme New Year's Resolution: Stop the Harm to Families of Denying the Freedom to Marry
By Jeffrey S. Trachtman, December 28, 2014
The Supreme Court will decide shortly whether to review and decide a marriage equality case before its current term ends in June. Many are praying for this, eager to wrap up an issue long past the tipping point that folks are sick of discussing.
But there is a more important reason the Court should act now: to halt the severe harm that continuing denial of the freedom to marry inflicts every day on countless same-sex couples, their children, and their extended families and friends. It matters whether this harm ends in June 2015 or lingers into the future.
The long-building national consensus for marriage equality reached critical mass after the Supreme Court's 2013 Windsor decision held it unconstitutional for the federal government to refuse to recognize the lawful marriages of same-sex couples. A flood of state and federal court decisions over the last eighteen months has applied Windsor to invalidate the marriage bans of the majority of states.
The first batch of these cases reached the Supreme Court in September, in the form of requests for review by states whose laws had been struck down. But because all the decisions went in one direction, there was no legal conflict for the Court to resolve -- the usual basis for granting "cert."
The Court's denial of review delayed the nationwide elimination of discrimination and its harms -- but it also made all those favorable decisions final, allowing marriages to go forward in five more states (up from 19) and setting off a ripple effect that has now brought the freedom to marry to thirty-five states (with Florida coming on line in a few days as number 36), plus four with pro-equality rulings on appeal. In comparison, only thirty-four states permitted interracial couples to marry when Loving v. Virginia was decided in 1967.
More recently, a handful of courts have gone the other way -- most significantly, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which in one fell swoop in November reversed pro-equality rulings in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. Marriage rights advocates are now asking the Supreme Court to review this decision and one issued by a federal district judge in Louisiana upholding that state's marriage ban. Their chances are good, because the Sixth Circuit created a classic "circuit split," though it is still possible the Court will opt to let litigation play out first in the remaining states.
Denial of review now would have no silver lining. It would simply entrench discrimination in five states, perpetuating needless injury to thousands of families. That's why several organizations advocating for the rights of same-sex couples and their families (including Freedom to Marry, Family Equality Council, and PFLAG) filed a brief (prepared by my law firm) urging the Supreme Court to grant review and halt the ongoing harms of marriage discrimination.
In the 15 states without the freedom to marry, families suffer concrete harm every day, deprived of literally hundreds of government benefits and protections as well as private benefits awarded based on marital status.
For example, Steven Rains and Don Condit of Fort Worth, Texas, together for 31 years, married in California in 2008 but were treated as unmarried back home in Texas. When Don died unexpectedly, Steven was omitted from his death certificate, excluded from making decisions about his cremation, and is now deprived of surviving spouse benefits based on Dan's military service and private pensions.
Another couple, April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse of Hazel Park, Michigan, have been together more than eight years and are raising three adopted special needs children. Because Michigan bars same-sex couples from marrying and all unmarried couples from adopting together, Jayne adopted two of the children herself and April adopted the third -- but neither is recognized as a parent of the other's children. This deprives all three children of the protections and stability of having two legal parents.
Exclusion from marriage also inflicts severe dignitary injury -- the impact of being treated as second-class citizens with second class relationships. These injuries can be quite tangible, particularly the psychological harm to children of being told by society that their families are less real and worthy of respect than those of different-sex parents. In Windsor, the Supreme Court recognized that failing to respect existing marriages "demeans" couples and "humiliates" their kids. Total exclusion from marriage is at least as demeaning and humiliating.
Even couples deemed married in their home states are harmed by continuing marriage discrimination in other states. Every time they travel to a non-recognition state they risk being treated as unmarried in the event of a medical or other emergency. They need to obtain second parent adoptions or create living wills and powers of attorney to try to replicate the rights they would have automatically if their marriages were respected. Couples who fail to anticipate these problems may face grievous results, such as exclusion from the hospital bedside of a dying spouse.
These harms happen every day and may be catastrophic -- robbing a surviving spouse of a lifetime of earned retirement benefits or leaving a child parentless when the biological or adoptive parent dies and the state does not recognize the surviving partner as a parent.
There is simply no good reason to inflict these risks and harms on American families for another day, much less another year. The country is ready for full recognition of the freedom to marry. Let's hope the Supreme Court is as well.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
"We call on every citizen who is concerned about the state of our republic to join our New Hampshire Rebellion against big money in politics ..."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Time to rebel against big money in politics
In January, a band of “Granny D walkers” will put on their boots in Dixville Notch and take to the road in the New Hampshire Rebellion against big money in politics.
One week later, walkers will join the New Hampshire Rebellion in Portsmouth, Nashua and Keene, taking inspiration from New Hampshire’s late legendary reformer Doris “Granny D” Haddock, who walked cross-country at age 90 for campaign finance reform, back in 1999.
From Jan. 11-21, hundreds of walkers will log thousands of miles touching hundreds of thousands of fellow citizens with one simple message: We, the people, are not for sale. They will walk through sun, snow and sleet, and sleep in churches, homes and motels until they arrive in Concord.
On Jan. 21, the walkers will converge on the state capitol to raise their voices in a unison declaration of independence from big money in politics.
Their cause is as old, and as bold, as our own state constitution. Adopted in its first iteration on Jan. 5, 1776 – six months before the Declaration of Independence was signed at Philadelphia – the New Hampshire constitution declares in no uncertain terms that government is “instituted for the common benefit … not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, or class of men.”
Their grievance is shared by the vast majority of American citizens, in New Hampshire and beyond.
Five years after the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision opened the floodgates to unlimited political spending, elections for public office have become a private good.
Here in New Hampshire, the 2014 midterm elections set a staggering, sobering new trend. Close to $100 million was spent on state and congressional races, most of it coming from out-of-state interests who care little for our people. Of the roughly $60 million that was spent on the U.S. Senate contest alone, the majority of dollars came from a handful of “independent” spenders, many of them undisclosed.
Even money raised by the candidates themselves was grossly unrepresentative of the public at large. A fraction of 1 percent of Americans provided the lion’s share of campaign funds in 2014, giving amounts that few of us can fathom to buy access and influence in politics.
The money is not well spent in the eyes of most voters. As anyone within earshot of a TV can attest, 2014 ranked as the most negative election in state history, with some 90 percent of all ads aired against a candidate.
To the special interests, however, such contributions are found to provide a hefty return on investment. One need not look further than our mangled tax code or generous subsidies for energy, agriculture, pharmaceutical and other entrenched industries.
The framers of New Hampshire’s constitution, like their counterparts in Philadelphia, strongly disapproved of any governmental arrangement that favored “one man or class of men” – but they didn’t stop there.
Article 10 of the state constitution goes one step further: “Whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered … the people may and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government.”
That is precisely what the New Hampshire Rebellion intends to do peacefully.
In short order, the presidential candidates will be traveling to New Hampshire to court our votes. They will tell us that energy and the environment, taxes and trade, health care and housing, education and the economy, deficits and the national debt are pressing public concerns.
As a bipartisan band of citizens, we agree.
But there is another prior problem that cannot be ignored: In fact, our ability as a nation to meet the many challenges we face hinges on our ability to address this fundamental issue once and for all: the corrupting influence of big money in politics.
As such, we welcome the candidates to our state on one condition: that the pledge to stop big money on day one.
New Hampshire may not speak for the nation on every issue, but on this issue of systemic corruption, the vast majority of Americans are aligned – 96 percent, to be precise, according to a recent survey conducted by the Global Strategy Group. Yet 91 percent doubt that meaningful reform is possible anytime soon.
We intend to prove them wrong – with their help.
We call on every citizen who is concerned about the state of our republic to join our New Hampshire Rebellion against big money in politics and walk with us – for a mile, a day or all the way. Our future as a great nation is at stake.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Time to rebel against big money in politics
Five years after the Citizens United decision, elections for public office have become a private good
By Daniel Weeks, December 30, 2014In January, a band of “Granny D walkers” will put on their boots in Dixville Notch and take to the road in the New Hampshire Rebellion against big money in politics.
One week later, walkers will join the New Hampshire Rebellion in Portsmouth, Nashua and Keene, taking inspiration from New Hampshire’s late legendary reformer Doris “Granny D” Haddock, who walked cross-country at age 90 for campaign finance reform, back in 1999.
From Jan. 11-21, hundreds of walkers will log thousands of miles touching hundreds of thousands of fellow citizens with one simple message: We, the people, are not for sale. They will walk through sun, snow and sleet, and sleep in churches, homes and motels until they arrive in Concord.
On Jan. 21, the walkers will converge on the state capitol to raise their voices in a unison declaration of independence from big money in politics.
Their cause is as old, and as bold, as our own state constitution. Adopted in its first iteration on Jan. 5, 1776 – six months before the Declaration of Independence was signed at Philadelphia – the New Hampshire constitution declares in no uncertain terms that government is “instituted for the common benefit … not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, or class of men.”
Their grievance is shared by the vast majority of American citizens, in New Hampshire and beyond.
Five years after the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision opened the floodgates to unlimited political spending, elections for public office have become a private good.
Here in New Hampshire, the 2014 midterm elections set a staggering, sobering new trend. Close to $100 million was spent on state and congressional races, most of it coming from out-of-state interests who care little for our people. Of the roughly $60 million that was spent on the U.S. Senate contest alone, the majority of dollars came from a handful of “independent” spenders, many of them undisclosed.
Even money raised by the candidates themselves was grossly unrepresentative of the public at large. A fraction of 1 percent of Americans provided the lion’s share of campaign funds in 2014, giving amounts that few of us can fathom to buy access and influence in politics.
The money is not well spent in the eyes of most voters. As anyone within earshot of a TV can attest, 2014 ranked as the most negative election in state history, with some 90 percent of all ads aired against a candidate.
To the special interests, however, such contributions are found to provide a hefty return on investment. One need not look further than our mangled tax code or generous subsidies for energy, agriculture, pharmaceutical and other entrenched industries.
The framers of New Hampshire’s constitution, like their counterparts in Philadelphia, strongly disapproved of any governmental arrangement that favored “one man or class of men” – but they didn’t stop there.
Article 10 of the state constitution goes one step further: “Whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered … the people may and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government.”
That is precisely what the New Hampshire Rebellion intends to do peacefully.
In short order, the presidential candidates will be traveling to New Hampshire to court our votes. They will tell us that energy and the environment, taxes and trade, health care and housing, education and the economy, deficits and the national debt are pressing public concerns.
As a bipartisan band of citizens, we agree.
But there is another prior problem that cannot be ignored: In fact, our ability as a nation to meet the many challenges we face hinges on our ability to address this fundamental issue once and for all: the corrupting influence of big money in politics.
As such, we welcome the candidates to our state on one condition: that the pledge to stop big money on day one.
New Hampshire may not speak for the nation on every issue, but on this issue of systemic corruption, the vast majority of Americans are aligned – 96 percent, to be precise, according to a recent survey conducted by the Global Strategy Group. Yet 91 percent doubt that meaningful reform is possible anytime soon.
We intend to prove them wrong – with their help.
We call on every citizen who is concerned about the state of our republic to join our New Hampshire Rebellion against big money in politics and walk with us – for a mile, a day or all the way. Our future as a great nation is at stake.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"Bush may well have some joyful days, but ... he more likely will find them filled with acrimony."
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Great - Bush III will skip into the ring "joyously" after his low-IQ brother wrecked the economy and someone else cleaned it up his mess.
* Joyful? Just another catchphrase. The last Bush used "compassionate conservative". What did we get? Endless war and not just a mountain, but a whole mountain range of debt. It's time to uproot these Bushes, and toss them all into the trash heap of history.
* I'd be more apt to believe Jeb's "joyful campaigner" angle if he wasn't present as his father gave rise to Lee Atwater or when his brother gave wing to Atwater's protege Karl Rove! So...knowing what I know, I call...bull-sh!t!
...................................................................................................................................................................
Jeb Bush’s politics of joy
By Tom Keane, December 30, 2014
Running for president is no easy decision, full of worries about family, money, and rubber-chicken dinners. For Jeb Bush, there are other considerations as well: Is America ready for its first three-fer? Will voters elect a man whose first name is an acronym? (Jeb stands for “John Ellis Bush.”) And then this one, straight from the candidate himself: “Can I do it joyfully?”
Best of luck with that.
It’s an odd coupling of the two words. Politics and joy? Sounds like alcohol and automobiles or orange juice and toothpaste. They’re possible to mix, of course, but beware.
I get what Bush is trying to do. Partly he is reacting to the Republican travails of four years ago. Those primaries were notable for their viciousness. It was evident to most observers that Mitt Romney would ultimately win. Nevertheless, several GOP candidates launched scorched-earth attacks on him, notably Newt Gingrich who (bizarrely for a free-market conservative) described Romney’s work as “vulture capital.” The eventual nominee entered the general election severely weakened. Bush, the most Romney-esque of the field (in that he’s relatively more centrist) is sending a warning shot across the bow: This time around, play nice.
Then too, Bush seems to have a good political ear. Politics has become increasingly partisan and unpleasant in Washington, and Americans wish it were otherwise. By large majorities, voters describe the federal government as “broken.” Bush, a self-styled problem solver, wants to project an image as someone who is free from the muck.
And, of course, he may actually believe it. A joyous politics is one that speaks to people’s better side. It’s one conducted on positive and not negative terms. It’s one that attempts to transcend divisions and bridge differences.
But it doesn’t always work.
The antecedent to joyous politics is William Wordsworth’s poem “The Character of the Happy Warrior,” which describes the many virtues of the joyful leader, from keeping the law to self-sacrifice to an unerring focus on “high endeavors.” In American politics the “happy warrior” moniker has been applied to an affable few, including Alfred E. Smith (by Franklin Roosevelt in 1924), Joe Biden (by Barack Obama in 2012) and, most notably, to the cheerful Hubert Humphrey, senator from Minnesota, vice president under Lyndon Johnson and Democratic nominee in 1968.
But joyful politicians aren’t the same as joyful politics, as Humphrey’s story illustrates.
Humphrey kicked off his run for president in late April 1968, shortly after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. and in the midst of enormous turmoil over the Vietnam War. In direct reference to the grimness of those times, he called for a campaign grounded in “the politics of happiness, the politics of purpose, and the politics of joy.” It was not to be.
The sitting vice president was widely jeered, tagged with the same pro-war brush as the administration. The two anti-war candidates, Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy, presented themselves as stark contrasts; Kennedy’s assassination in June cast a pall over the race for the nomination. In late August, the Democrats had their rancorous national convention in Chicago. The images beamed out to viewers around the country weren’t pretty. While party insiders handed Humphrey the nomination inside the hall, outside demonstrators and police clashed violently, alienating voters and ultimately swinging support to the GOP’s Richard Nixon.
Oh, joy.
If “joyful” to Jeb Bush is simply about temperament, then he may well be able to remain upbeat and smiling even as his opponents savage him and the primaries grind on. But if “joyful” means something different — a new and more aspirational politics — it’ll be hard to maintain during the upcoming campaign.
The grassroots, particularly within the GOP, are a surly bunch, filled with naysaying: no to Obamacare, no to gay marriage, no to new immigrants, no to choice, no to taxes and no to government in general. Keeping a positive message in the midst of that will be difficult. Indeed, successful politicking almost requires tearing down your foes even as you build yourself up. Bush may well have some joyful days, but — like Humphrey — he more likely will find them filled with acrimony.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Great - Bush III will skip into the ring "joyously" after his low-IQ brother wrecked the economy and someone else cleaned it up his mess.
* Joyful? Just another catchphrase. The last Bush used "compassionate conservative". What did we get? Endless war and not just a mountain, but a whole mountain range of debt. It's time to uproot these Bushes, and toss them all into the trash heap of history.
* I'd be more apt to believe Jeb's "joyful campaigner" angle if he wasn't present as his father gave rise to Lee Atwater or when his brother gave wing to Atwater's protege Karl Rove! So...knowing what I know, I call...bull-sh!t!
...................................................................................................................................................................
Jeb Bush’s politics of joy
By Tom Keane, December 30, 2014
Running for president is no easy decision, full of worries about family, money, and rubber-chicken dinners. For Jeb Bush, there are other considerations as well: Is America ready for its first three-fer? Will voters elect a man whose first name is an acronym? (Jeb stands for “John Ellis Bush.”) And then this one, straight from the candidate himself: “Can I do it joyfully?”
Best of luck with that.
It’s an odd coupling of the two words. Politics and joy? Sounds like alcohol and automobiles or orange juice and toothpaste. They’re possible to mix, of course, but beware.
I get what Bush is trying to do. Partly he is reacting to the Republican travails of four years ago. Those primaries were notable for their viciousness. It was evident to most observers that Mitt Romney would ultimately win. Nevertheless, several GOP candidates launched scorched-earth attacks on him, notably Newt Gingrich who (bizarrely for a free-market conservative) described Romney’s work as “vulture capital.” The eventual nominee entered the general election severely weakened. Bush, the most Romney-esque of the field (in that he’s relatively more centrist) is sending a warning shot across the bow: This time around, play nice.
Then too, Bush seems to have a good political ear. Politics has become increasingly partisan and unpleasant in Washington, and Americans wish it were otherwise. By large majorities, voters describe the federal government as “broken.” Bush, a self-styled problem solver, wants to project an image as someone who is free from the muck.
And, of course, he may actually believe it. A joyous politics is one that speaks to people’s better side. It’s one conducted on positive and not negative terms. It’s one that attempts to transcend divisions and bridge differences.
But it doesn’t always work.
The antecedent to joyous politics is William Wordsworth’s poem “The Character of the Happy Warrior,” which describes the many virtues of the joyful leader, from keeping the law to self-sacrifice to an unerring focus on “high endeavors.” In American politics the “happy warrior” moniker has been applied to an affable few, including Alfred E. Smith (by Franklin Roosevelt in 1924), Joe Biden (by Barack Obama in 2012) and, most notably, to the cheerful Hubert Humphrey, senator from Minnesota, vice president under Lyndon Johnson and Democratic nominee in 1968.
But joyful politicians aren’t the same as joyful politics, as Humphrey’s story illustrates.
Humphrey kicked off his run for president in late April 1968, shortly after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. and in the midst of enormous turmoil over the Vietnam War. In direct reference to the grimness of those times, he called for a campaign grounded in “the politics of happiness, the politics of purpose, and the politics of joy.” It was not to be.
The sitting vice president was widely jeered, tagged with the same pro-war brush as the administration. The two anti-war candidates, Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy, presented themselves as stark contrasts; Kennedy’s assassination in June cast a pall over the race for the nomination. In late August, the Democrats had their rancorous national convention in Chicago. The images beamed out to viewers around the country weren’t pretty. While party insiders handed Humphrey the nomination inside the hall, outside demonstrators and police clashed violently, alienating voters and ultimately swinging support to the GOP’s Richard Nixon.
Oh, joy.
If “joyful” to Jeb Bush is simply about temperament, then he may well be able to remain upbeat and smiling even as his opponents savage him and the primaries grind on. But if “joyful” means something different — a new and more aspirational politics — it’ll be hard to maintain during the upcoming campaign.
The grassroots, particularly within the GOP, are a surly bunch, filled with naysaying: no to Obamacare, no to gay marriage, no to new immigrants, no to choice, no to taxes and no to government in general. Keeping a positive message in the midst of that will be difficult. Indeed, successful politicking almost requires tearing down your foes even as you build yourself up. Bush may well have some joyful days, but — like Humphrey — he more likely will find them filled with acrimony.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... Republicans are happy that the lies she’s been told keep her from being too supportive of the ACA."
...................................................................................................................................................................
The substance and politics of Obamacare, in one citizen
By Paul Waldman, December 30, 2014
There’s a journalistic trope that has become so common over the past couple of decades that you probably don’t notice it anymore, or just assume that it’s how news stories have always been written. It’s what media scholars call the “exemplar” — an individual person whose story is used as a vehicle to explain the effects of a policy or an event. There’s always a danger that this narrative technique can oversimplify things. On the other hand, the use of an exemplar is a good way to connect large issues to the lives of the people affected by them.
And every once in a while, a good reporter can find an exemplar whose story so perfectly captures an issue that it does more than just spice up an article, but actually leads us to a deeper understanding.
So it is with this story in today’s New York Times by Abby Goodnough, who reports on the successes and hurdles of the Affordable Care Act in Kentucky, which accepted the expansion of Medicaid and set up its own exchange. Here’s the beginning of the story of one of the exemplars Goodnough found, which tells us a tremendous amount about where the ACA has come, substantively and politically, and what its future holds:
Now let’s consider how the two parties look at Amanda Mayhew and people like her. Start with what Democrats would say to her:
You can read those two paragraphs and say that they’re caricatures, warped by my liberal bias. But look back and see if you can find one of those sentences that is demonstrably untrue. Did Republicans care about the fact that before the ACA, there were more than 50 million Americans without health coverage? They certainly never tried to do anything about it. Are they actually disappointed that so many people believe falsehoods about the ACA? Give me a break — they couldn’t be happier, because it makes their political task that much easier.
Every voter who thinks there are death panels, or that Obamacare means elderly people aren’t allowed to get cancer treatments, or that Obamacare made their insurer use a more limited provider network (a business decision made by a private company to cut costs, which I’ve had people tell me they thought was required by the law) is someone who’ll nod their head at the next Republican candidate who tells them that Obamacare is a horror show.
At the same time, Republicans know that if they actually took Amanda Mayhew’s insurance from her, she probably would turn against them, as would others who heard her story. There’s a level of obvious cruelty and real-world consequence that no amount of propagandizing could overcome. In a way, both parties are satisfied with the status quo. Democrats are happy that she has insurance, and Republicans are happy that the lies she’s been told keep her from being too supportive of the ACA. So neither of those things is likely to change.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The substance and politics of Obamacare, in one citizen
By Paul Waldman, December 30, 2014
There’s a journalistic trope that has become so common over the past couple of decades that you probably don’t notice it anymore, or just assume that it’s how news stories have always been written. It’s what media scholars call the “exemplar” — an individual person whose story is used as a vehicle to explain the effects of a policy or an event. There’s always a danger that this narrative technique can oversimplify things. On the other hand, the use of an exemplar is a good way to connect large issues to the lives of the people affected by them.
And every once in a while, a good reporter can find an exemplar whose story so perfectly captures an issue that it does more than just spice up an article, but actually leads us to a deeper understanding.
So it is with this story in today’s New York Times by Abby Goodnough, who reports on the successes and hurdles of the Affordable Care Act in Kentucky, which accepted the expansion of Medicaid and set up its own exchange. Here’s the beginning of the story of one of the exemplars Goodnough found, which tells us a tremendous amount about where the ACA has come, substantively and politically, and what its future holds:
Amanda Mayhew is one of the beneficiaries. She earns little enough to qualify for Medicaid under the new guidelines, and she enrolled in August. She has been to the dentist five times to begin salvaging her neglected teeth, has had a dermatologist remove a mole and has gotten medication for her depression, all free.Then a bit later in the article, we learn more:
“I am very, very thankful that Medicaid does cover what I need done right now,” said Ms. Mayhew, 38. “They ended up having to pull three teeth in the last three weeks, and I would have been in a lot of pain without it.”
A nurse practitioner at Family Health Centers had prescribed anti-depressants after Ms. Mayhew had her last baby in 2013 — at the time, she had temporary Medicaid for her pregnancy — but she stopped taking them when the coverage ended. Now she is back on them, and feeling good.Ms. Mayhew is obviously a good-hearted person. In fact, she’s so considerate of others that she’d give up the insurance that has been life-changing for her, if it meant she could save others from the horrifying things that she has heard Obamacare does, like denying cancer treatments to the elderly. It’s not her fault that what she has heard are outright lies — how is she supposed to know that? She got it from “news programs,” supposedly authoritative sources, which might mean a talk radio show or maybe a certain television network.
“That’s been a big thing for me,” she said.
And yet.
“I don’t love Obamacare,” she said. “There are things in it that scare me and that I don’t agree with.”
For example, she said, she heard from news programs that the Affordable Care Act prohibited lifesaving care for elderly people with cancer.
There is no such provision, although a proposal to pay doctors to engage patients in end-of-life planning — such as whether they would want life-sustaining treatment if they were terminally ill — was removed from the law after it sparked a political firestorm over “death panels.” The misperception remains widespread: A poll this month by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 41 percent of Americans still believe the law created “a government panel to make decisions about end-of-life care for people on Medicare.” An equal number found the law did not.
“If we have Obamacare and the insurance is available to me, I will use it and be thankful for it,” Ms. Mayhew said. “But would I gladly give up my insurance today if it meant that some of the things that are in the law were not in place? Yes, I would.”
Now let’s consider how the two parties look at Amanda Mayhew and people like her. Start with what Democrats would say to her:
We believed that it was a terrible thing that you were uninsured. We fought, at considerable political risk, to get you insurance. And now we’re very pleased that you have it. But we really wish you understood the truth about what the Affordable Care Act does and doesn’t do. Please vote for us.And here’s what Republicans would say to her (if they were being honest):
We didn’t care all that much that you were uninsured. We fought with all our might against the law that gave you the insurance you have now. If we could, we’d repeal it tomorrow and take that insurance away. But we’re overjoyed that you believe the false things you do about the ACA — indeed, we encouraged you to believe things like that, even though we knew they were lies. Please vote for us.Not every Republican thinks that — there were many Republicans in Kentucky who went along with Democratic governor Steve Beshear’s acceptance of the Medicaid expansion, which made the change in Mayhew’s life possible. But every important congressional Republican does say that, as does every Republican who wants to be president (with the exception of Ohio’s John Kasich, another governor who accepted the expansion).
You can read those two paragraphs and say that they’re caricatures, warped by my liberal bias. But look back and see if you can find one of those sentences that is demonstrably untrue. Did Republicans care about the fact that before the ACA, there were more than 50 million Americans without health coverage? They certainly never tried to do anything about it. Are they actually disappointed that so many people believe falsehoods about the ACA? Give me a break — they couldn’t be happier, because it makes their political task that much easier.
Every voter who thinks there are death panels, or that Obamacare means elderly people aren’t allowed to get cancer treatments, or that Obamacare made their insurer use a more limited provider network (a business decision made by a private company to cut costs, which I’ve had people tell me they thought was required by the law) is someone who’ll nod their head at the next Republican candidate who tells them that Obamacare is a horror show.
At the same time, Republicans know that if they actually took Amanda Mayhew’s insurance from her, she probably would turn against them, as would others who heard her story. There’s a level of obvious cruelty and real-world consequence that no amount of propagandizing could overcome. In a way, both parties are satisfied with the status quo. Democrats are happy that she has insurance, and Republicans are happy that the lies she’s been told keep her from being too supportive of the ACA. So neither of those things is likely to change.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... Obama said he was hopeful that at least on some issues, that won't be necessary, because there's overlap between his interests and those of congressional Republicans."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Obama warns GOP he plans to use veto pen in 2015
By Josh Lederman, December 29, 2014
Bracing to do business with a Congress run solely by Republicans, President Barack Obama is serving notice he has no qualms about vetoing legislation he dislikes.
This would be a significant change in style for Obama, come January when the new Congress will be seated with the GOP not only in command in the House but also the Senate as well.
He's wielded the veto pen through his first nearly six years very sparingly. Since taking office in 2009, Obama has only vetoed legislation twice, both in fairly minor circumstances.
"I haven't used the veto pen very often since I've been in office," Obama said in an NPR interview airing Monday. "Now, I suspect, there are going to be some times where I've got to pull that pen out."
He added: "I'm going to defend gains that we've made in health care. I'm going to defend gains that we've made on environment and clean air and clean water."
Obama's warning to the GOP that he'll veto legislation if necessary to protect his agenda and laws like the Affordable Care Act came as he sought to set the tone for a year in which Congress and the president are on a near-certain collision course. Buoyed by decisive gains in last month's midterm elections, Republicans are itching to use their newfound Senate majority to derail Obama's plans on immigration, climate change and health care, to name a few.
To overturn Obama's veto, Republicans would need the votes of two-thirds of the House and Senate. Their majorities in both chambers are not that large, so they would still need to persuade some Democrats to defy the president.
But Obama said he was hopeful that at least on some issues, that won't be necessary, because there's overlap between his interests and those of congressional Republicans. On that point, at least, he's in agreement with incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
"Bipartisan jobs bills will see the light of day and will make it to the President's desk, and he'll have to make decisions about ideology versus creating jobs for the middle class," McConnell said in response to Obama's comments. "There's a lot we can get done together if the president puts his famous pen to use signing bills rather than vetoing legislation his liberal allies don't like."
Potential areas for cooperation include tax reform and global trade deals — both issues where Obama and Republicans see at least partially eye to eye. Conversely, the likeliest points of friction surround Environmental Protection Agency regulations, the Keystone XL pipeline and Obama's unilateral steps on immigration, which let millions of people in the U.S. illegally avoid deportation and get work permits.
In the interview, recorded before Obama left Washington earlier this month for his annual Hawaii vacation, Obama also offered his most specific diagnosis to date of why Democrats fared so poorly in the midterms. He said he was "obviously frustrated" with the results.
"I think we had a great record for members of Congress to run on and I don't think we — myself and the Democratic Party — made as good of a case as we should have," Obama said. "And you know, as a consequence, we had really low voter turnout, and the results were bad."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Obama warns GOP he plans to use veto pen in 2015
By Josh Lederman, December 29, 2014
Bracing to do business with a Congress run solely by Republicans, President Barack Obama is serving notice he has no qualms about vetoing legislation he dislikes.
This would be a significant change in style for Obama, come January when the new Congress will be seated with the GOP not only in command in the House but also the Senate as well.
He's wielded the veto pen through his first nearly six years very sparingly. Since taking office in 2009, Obama has only vetoed legislation twice, both in fairly minor circumstances.
"I haven't used the veto pen very often since I've been in office," Obama said in an NPR interview airing Monday. "Now, I suspect, there are going to be some times where I've got to pull that pen out."
He added: "I'm going to defend gains that we've made in health care. I'm going to defend gains that we've made on environment and clean air and clean water."
Obama's warning to the GOP that he'll veto legislation if necessary to protect his agenda and laws like the Affordable Care Act came as he sought to set the tone for a year in which Congress and the president are on a near-certain collision course. Buoyed by decisive gains in last month's midterm elections, Republicans are itching to use their newfound Senate majority to derail Obama's plans on immigration, climate change and health care, to name a few.
To overturn Obama's veto, Republicans would need the votes of two-thirds of the House and Senate. Their majorities in both chambers are not that large, so they would still need to persuade some Democrats to defy the president.
But Obama said he was hopeful that at least on some issues, that won't be necessary, because there's overlap between his interests and those of congressional Republicans. On that point, at least, he's in agreement with incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
"Bipartisan jobs bills will see the light of day and will make it to the President's desk, and he'll have to make decisions about ideology versus creating jobs for the middle class," McConnell said in response to Obama's comments. "There's a lot we can get done together if the president puts his famous pen to use signing bills rather than vetoing legislation his liberal allies don't like."
Potential areas for cooperation include tax reform and global trade deals — both issues where Obama and Republicans see at least partially eye to eye. Conversely, the likeliest points of friction surround Environmental Protection Agency regulations, the Keystone XL pipeline and Obama's unilateral steps on immigration, which let millions of people in the U.S. illegally avoid deportation and get work permits.
In the interview, recorded before Obama left Washington earlier this month for his annual Hawaii vacation, Obama also offered his most specific diagnosis to date of why Democrats fared so poorly in the midterms. He said he was "obviously frustrated" with the results.
"I think we had a great record for members of Congress to run on and I don't think we — myself and the Democratic Party — made as good of a case as we should have," Obama said. "And you know, as a consequence, we had really low voter turnout, and the results were bad."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Monday, December 29, 2014
"Changes to the Internal Revenue Service regulations governing 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations could shrink the percentage they can devote to election activities such as advertising."
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENT: What I would't give to see that happen. Obama could do it too. Lawrence O'Donnell pointed that one out a while back. The IRS screwed the pooch when they wrote the regulations because the law clearly does not allow these organizations to act as they do. And changing regulations is well within the Presidential purview.
...................................................................................................................................................................
AN ELABORATE PLOT TO MAKE DARRELL ISSA CRAZY
By Charles P. Pierce, December 29, 2014
Over at Bloomberg Politics, Margaret Talev has lit the fuse by which dozens of heads may go supernova all at once. I mean it, this woman is calling for the mother of all cable-news tantrums. She may also be calling for the immediate spontaneous combustion of Darrell Issa and anyone standing within a 15-foot radius of him. Amid other suggestions as to how the president can continue to do the job he was elected (twice) to do, and fck with the minds of the opposition at the same time, both laudable goals, she drops the big one. I like her style, I must say.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENT: What I would't give to see that happen. Obama could do it too. Lawrence O'Donnell pointed that one out a while back. The IRS screwed the pooch when they wrote the regulations because the law clearly does not allow these organizations to act as they do. And changing regulations is well within the Presidential purview.
...................................................................................................................................................................
AN ELABORATE PLOT TO MAKE DARRELL ISSA CRAZY
By Charles P. Pierce, December 29, 2014
Over at Bloomberg Politics, Margaret Talev has lit the fuse by which dozens of heads may go supernova all at once. I mean it, this woman is calling for the mother of all cable-news tantrums. She may also be calling for the immediate spontaneous combustion of Darrell Issa and anyone standing within a 15-foot radius of him. Amid other suggestions as to how the president can continue to do the job he was elected (twice) to do, and fck with the minds of the opposition at the same time, both laudable goals, she drops the big one. I like her style, I must say.
So-called dark-money nonprofits, such as those affiliated with the Koch brothers, could find it much harder to muck around in elections. Under current practices, up to half of these groups' money can be spent on politics. Changes to the Internal Revenue Service regulations governing 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations could shrink the percentage they can devote to election activities such as advertising. Overall, the aim would be to make it more difficult for any nonprofit group to engage in campaign politics; in practice, it would likely be perceived as a disproportionate handicap of conservative donor-backed organizations. These are among the reforms that the administration, regulatory groups or Congress could take on if so inclined (which Congress probably is not).Oh, my sweet Jesus H. Christ on a Vespa, if the IRS were to adjust its regulations so as to end the laughable farce that Citizens For Limited Whatever is actually a social-welfare organization, and not a well-financed exercise in ratfcking, a regulatory adjustment that is only overdue by about 20 years, it would take the jaws of life to get our pals from True The Vote off the ceiling. Not only is this excellent public policy, because it goes at least some distance toward rendering our elections less of a plutocratic puppet show, it's also a remarkable political kick in the nuts. My god, what a wonderful idea this is. Do it now.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... if [Republican] leaders really are willing to lie, even to their own representatives, why should ... voters expect to be treated with any more respect ...?"
...................................................................................................................................................................
Rep. Stutzman learned what most Americans already knew: Too many politicians lie
Politicians are so widely perceived as liars that even their obvious whoppers have become mundane. You mean you can't really provide health care to millions of uninsured Americans without increasing cost? We can't keep our current coverage even if we like it?
Oh, well . . .
When politicians lie to each other and are called out publicly for it, however, it's still unusual enough to be considered news -- at least when the one making the charge is a relatively obscure congressman from northeast Indiana and the alleged prevaricators just happen to be the leaders of his own party.
Nobody really comprehends the entire 1,600-page, $1.1 trillion "cromnibus" bill approved by the House and Senate earlier this month with rare bipartisan support. The bill's very name hints at its schizophrenic nature, with its omnibus spending portion funding most of the federal government through next year and its continuing resolution portion funding the Department of Homeland Security only into March, when new Republican majorities presumably will address President Obama's unilateral attempt to legalize millions of illegal immigrants.
But in the real world, lying does not become more honorable or acceptable simply by becoming more commonplace. And so Rep. Marlin Stutzman's claim that he was duped by House GOP leaders into supporting the bill caught the attention of voters and journalists nationwide. Stutzman, who represents Indiana's 3rd District, said he provided a crucial vote allowing allow House leaders to bring the bill to the floor only after they assured him cromnibus would be replaced by a shorter-term continuing resolution.
"I was very surprised and even more disappointed to see the cromnibus back on the floor," he said in a statement. "The American people deserve better."
Indeed they do, in many ways. Unfortunately, there is no indication the incoming Republican majority is any more serious about providing it than President Obama and the Democrats have been.
GOP leaders -- who should lead the fight to restore fiscal sanity and conservative principles when the new Congress convenes in January -- wasted no time in throwing Stutzman under the bus, with an aide to House leader Kevin McCarthy of California, who allegedly made the bogus promise to Stutzman, claiming that "at no time was (such a promise) communicated by the leadership team."
Which means, of course, that if GOP leaders aren't lying, Stutzman is. Neither possibility will, or should, inspire confidence in voters who entrusted control of Congress to the party that still claims to support traditional American values.
More than a century ago German leader Otto von Bismarck remarked that "Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made." And he was right, of course: Democratic leaders had to bribe some of their own delegation to secure the party-line passage of Obamacare, just as GOP House leaders had to twist their own members' arms and work with the other party to pass cromnibus through a Democrat-controlled Senate and avoid a possible government shut down for which history indicates they would be blamed.
As of next month, however, there will be no need for subterfuge; no justification for lies. With solid majorities in both the House and Senate, the GOP should present a bold, unambiguous and united challenge to cynical, expansionist, debt-happy government, working with the president when possible and blocking him when necessary while laying out the conservative vision needed to energize voters in the 2016 presidential race.
If the Republican Party is unwilling or powerless to do at least that much, it is little better than the party it wants to replace. And if its leaders really are willing to lie, even to their own representatives, why should should voters expect to be treated with any more respect -- or be willing to accept it quietly any more than Stutzman was?
...................................................................................................................................................................
Rep. Stutzman learned what most Americans already knew: Too many politicians lie
And if the new GOP majority doesn't improve things, it won't deserve to keep power
By Kevin Leininger, December 30, 2014Politicians are so widely perceived as liars that even their obvious whoppers have become mundane. You mean you can't really provide health care to millions of uninsured Americans without increasing cost? We can't keep our current coverage even if we like it?
Oh, well . . .
When politicians lie to each other and are called out publicly for it, however, it's still unusual enough to be considered news -- at least when the one making the charge is a relatively obscure congressman from northeast Indiana and the alleged prevaricators just happen to be the leaders of his own party.
Nobody really comprehends the entire 1,600-page, $1.1 trillion "cromnibus" bill approved by the House and Senate earlier this month with rare bipartisan support. The bill's very name hints at its schizophrenic nature, with its omnibus spending portion funding most of the federal government through next year and its continuing resolution portion funding the Department of Homeland Security only into March, when new Republican majorities presumably will address President Obama's unilateral attempt to legalize millions of illegal immigrants.
But in the real world, lying does not become more honorable or acceptable simply by becoming more commonplace. And so Rep. Marlin Stutzman's claim that he was duped by House GOP leaders into supporting the bill caught the attention of voters and journalists nationwide. Stutzman, who represents Indiana's 3rd District, said he provided a crucial vote allowing allow House leaders to bring the bill to the floor only after they assured him cromnibus would be replaced by a shorter-term continuing resolution.
"I was very surprised and even more disappointed to see the cromnibus back on the floor," he said in a statement. "The American people deserve better."
Indeed they do, in many ways. Unfortunately, there is no indication the incoming Republican majority is any more serious about providing it than President Obama and the Democrats have been.
GOP leaders -- who should lead the fight to restore fiscal sanity and conservative principles when the new Congress convenes in January -- wasted no time in throwing Stutzman under the bus, with an aide to House leader Kevin McCarthy of California, who allegedly made the bogus promise to Stutzman, claiming that "at no time was (such a promise) communicated by the leadership team."
Which means, of course, that if GOP leaders aren't lying, Stutzman is. Neither possibility will, or should, inspire confidence in voters who entrusted control of Congress to the party that still claims to support traditional American values.
More than a century ago German leader Otto von Bismarck remarked that "Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made." And he was right, of course: Democratic leaders had to bribe some of their own delegation to secure the party-line passage of Obamacare, just as GOP House leaders had to twist their own members' arms and work with the other party to pass cromnibus through a Democrat-controlled Senate and avoid a possible government shut down for which history indicates they would be blamed.
As of next month, however, there will be no need for subterfuge; no justification for lies. With solid majorities in both the House and Senate, the GOP should present a bold, unambiguous and united challenge to cynical, expansionist, debt-happy government, working with the president when possible and blocking him when necessary while laying out the conservative vision needed to energize voters in the 2016 presidential race.
If the Republican Party is unwilling or powerless to do at least that much, it is little better than the party it wants to replace. And if its leaders really are willing to lie, even to their own representatives, why should should voters expect to be treated with any more respect -- or be willing to accept it quietly any more than Stutzman was?
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... even professional hedge fund managers are letting their political or psychological biases get in the way of their investments."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Are your political opinions costing you money?
Liberals and conservatives alike let biases skew their investing
By Brett Arends, December 29, 2014
A while ago, when I was attending a concert at Bard College in central New York, I got talking with an elderly man who wanted to bend my ear about government spending and “runaway inflation.” He grew incredulous when I pointed out that there wasn’t any runaway inflation. It was either being hidden, or was just about to hit, he said. I think he was holding a lot of his money in gold in anticipation.
He was not alone. There is a whole army of people who have been convinced that we are about to turn into Weimar Germany.
I cannot possibly fault people for fearing, five or so years ago, that government policies might lead to inflation. I’ll freely confess I was worried about it myself. The real problem is sticking with an opinion long after the world has proved it misplaced. “I change my mind when the facts change,” John Maynard Keynes is supposed to have retorted once in an argument, adding: “What do you do, sir?” If the man I was talking to then has gone all-in on his gold bullion opinion, he’s lost about half his money, and missed out on a boom on Wall Street.
It’s another example of the dangers of letting personal opinions, including your political opinions, get in the way of your investments. A lot of people have lost a lot of money over the past six or so years for precisely that reason.
And so comes a fascinating research paper by two finance professors at the University of Arizona, Luke Asher DeVault and Richard Sias, entitled “Hedge Fund Politics and Portfolios.”
They have looked at nearly 500 hedge funds during the period from 2000 through 2012, and compared their political donations and their investment strategies. In so doing they tried to answer some important questions. Do politically “conservative” funds invest differently from “liberal” funds? If so, how — and why?
Politics and portfolios
It must have been exhausting work. They’ve looked at 13(f) regulatory filings for funds. They compared the funds’ stock investments based on various characteristics, such as profitability, company maturity, stability and so on. Then they trawled the Federal Election Commission databases for contributions. I don’t usually talk about methodology, but anyone willing to go blind doing this while the rest of us were watching “Breaking Bad” or “Game of Thrones” deserves recognition.
What they found? In a nutshell, most hedge funds are either “strongly conservative” or “strongly liberal” in their campaign donations (conservative funds outnumber liberal ones, but not by much). And there was a statistically meaningful difference in how they invested.
In a nutshell: Funds run by liberals were much more likely to invest in smaller companies, riskier companies, younger companies and more speculative companies. Funds run by conservatives were more likely to invest in larger, more stable and “value”-oriented companies.
Furthermore, funds run by liberals were more likely to make big, sweeping changes to their portfolios. Conservatives tended to be more cautious.
Now it’s true that some of these differences might be nakedly political. Conservatives, especially during the George W. Bush administration, were probably more willing to invest in Big Oil, and Big Tobacco, and so on. Liberals were probably more willing to invest in young alternative startups run by kids. But DeVault and Sias argue the real differences are more fundamental.
There is an enormous body of research into the connections between psychological traits and political persuasion. There’s even research into whether these differences are due to nature or nurture (the research is based on things like comparing identical and fraternal twins, adoptees and so on). DeVault and Sias argue that people who are more comfortable with ambiguity and change tend to be more liberal; such people are also more likely to invest in speculative small caps. Meanwhile people who want “order” and “stability” are likely to feel reassured by blue- chip value stocks and, say, former Vice President Dick Cheney.
Make of it what you will.
But arguably the most important news from this research is that even professional hedge fund managers are letting their political or psychological biases get in the way of their investments. It’s yet another reason so many of them underperform.
There is an investment cult which tells you that you should only ever hold passively managed “index” funds because absolutely nobody can beat the stock market consistently. The market, say members of this cult, is just too smart to beat.
Phooey.
But there is a parallel argument in favor of index funds which is a lot better. It’s that even though markets can be beaten, most people end up letting their emotions get in the way of good investment decisions. They are too afraid of uncertainty, or not afraid enough; they are too worried that the Democrat (or Republican) in the White House is sending the country to ruin; and so on. If even professional hedge fund managers are letting their biases color their portfolio, are you sure that you aren’t?
...................................................................................................................................................................
Are your political opinions costing you money?
Liberals and conservatives alike let biases skew their investing
By Brett Arends, December 29, 2014
A while ago, when I was attending a concert at Bard College in central New York, I got talking with an elderly man who wanted to bend my ear about government spending and “runaway inflation.” He grew incredulous when I pointed out that there wasn’t any runaway inflation. It was either being hidden, or was just about to hit, he said. I think he was holding a lot of his money in gold in anticipation.
He was not alone. There is a whole army of people who have been convinced that we are about to turn into Weimar Germany.
I cannot possibly fault people for fearing, five or so years ago, that government policies might lead to inflation. I’ll freely confess I was worried about it myself. The real problem is sticking with an opinion long after the world has proved it misplaced. “I change my mind when the facts change,” John Maynard Keynes is supposed to have retorted once in an argument, adding: “What do you do, sir?” If the man I was talking to then has gone all-in on his gold bullion opinion, he’s lost about half his money, and missed out on a boom on Wall Street.
It’s another example of the dangers of letting personal opinions, including your political opinions, get in the way of your investments. A lot of people have lost a lot of money over the past six or so years for precisely that reason.
And so comes a fascinating research paper by two finance professors at the University of Arizona, Luke Asher DeVault and Richard Sias, entitled “Hedge Fund Politics and Portfolios.”
They have looked at nearly 500 hedge funds during the period from 2000 through 2012, and compared their political donations and their investment strategies. In so doing they tried to answer some important questions. Do politically “conservative” funds invest differently from “liberal” funds? If so, how — and why?
Politics and portfolios
It must have been exhausting work. They’ve looked at 13(f) regulatory filings for funds. They compared the funds’ stock investments based on various characteristics, such as profitability, company maturity, stability and so on. Then they trawled the Federal Election Commission databases for contributions. I don’t usually talk about methodology, but anyone willing to go blind doing this while the rest of us were watching “Breaking Bad” or “Game of Thrones” deserves recognition.
What they found? In a nutshell, most hedge funds are either “strongly conservative” or “strongly liberal” in their campaign donations (conservative funds outnumber liberal ones, but not by much). And there was a statistically meaningful difference in how they invested.
In a nutshell: Funds run by liberals were much more likely to invest in smaller companies, riskier companies, younger companies and more speculative companies. Funds run by conservatives were more likely to invest in larger, more stable and “value”-oriented companies.
Furthermore, funds run by liberals were more likely to make big, sweeping changes to their portfolios. Conservatives tended to be more cautious.
Now it’s true that some of these differences might be nakedly political. Conservatives, especially during the George W. Bush administration, were probably more willing to invest in Big Oil, and Big Tobacco, and so on. Liberals were probably more willing to invest in young alternative startups run by kids. But DeVault and Sias argue the real differences are more fundamental.
There is an enormous body of research into the connections between psychological traits and political persuasion. There’s even research into whether these differences are due to nature or nurture (the research is based on things like comparing identical and fraternal twins, adoptees and so on). DeVault and Sias argue that people who are more comfortable with ambiguity and change tend to be more liberal; such people are also more likely to invest in speculative small caps. Meanwhile people who want “order” and “stability” are likely to feel reassured by blue- chip value stocks and, say, former Vice President Dick Cheney.
Make of it what you will.
But arguably the most important news from this research is that even professional hedge fund managers are letting their political or psychological biases get in the way of their investments. It’s yet another reason so many of them underperform.
There is an investment cult which tells you that you should only ever hold passively managed “index” funds because absolutely nobody can beat the stock market consistently. The market, say members of this cult, is just too smart to beat.
Phooey.
But there is a parallel argument in favor of index funds which is a lot better. It’s that even though markets can be beaten, most people end up letting their emotions get in the way of good investment decisions. They are too afraid of uncertainty, or not afraid enough; they are too worried that the Democrat (or Republican) in the White House is sending the country to ruin; and so on. If even professional hedge fund managers are letting their biases color their portfolio, are you sure that you aren’t?
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... the liberated, second-term, post-midterm president's list may well include some new maneuvers to enrage the opposition party."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Five Ways Obama Can Mess with Republicans in 2015
He's freed from the constraints of another election. If the end of 2014 foreshadows the president's next set of moves, Republicans will not be amused.
By Margaret Talev, December 29, 2014
President Barack Obama knows how to get under Republicans' skin (in so many ways, but in this case we're talking about going around Congress to get things done), and he ended 2014 with a bang: A climate deal with China. Executive action on immigration. A move to normalize relations with Cuba.
As he makes his New Year's resolutions, the liberated, second-term, post-midterm president's list may well include some new maneuvers to enrage the opposition party. Here are five ways he could do it again in 2015.
Keystone
You already know more than you ever thought you would about oil-sands crude, right? TransCanada Corp. wants to complete an $8 billion, 1,179-mile pipeline starting in the Canadian province of Alberta and running 830,000 barrels of oil per day through Nebraska into a network to refineries in Texas and Louisiana. While Obama cares about the Keystone XL project in the context of foreign policy and maintaining good relations with neighbor, ally and trading partner Canada, in 2012 he blocked it because of concerns in Nebraska and kicked it to the State Department for more study.
Now, incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said he wants to start the new Congress by taking up a bill by Senator John Hoeven, a North Dakota Republican, to approve Keystone under congressional authority. Environmentalists and major Democratic donor Tom Steyer are fighting the project, saying it will worsen global warming and could trigger toxic spills. Republicans largely back the project, saying it can create jobs and reduce gas prices. Opponents say such benefits are greatly overstated or downright irrelevant, given how low gas prices have fallen lately.
Obama was coy throughout the midterms about which way he'll go, maintaining that it was in the State Department's hands and that he would weigh the pros and cons. But he doesn't want Congress to tell him what to do. And in recent weeks, he's hinted strongly that he's turned against Keystone XL. He told comedian Stephen Colbert that while it would be good for Canada, “it's not going to push down gas prices here in the United States,” and that any economic benefit must be weighed against contributing to the warming of the earth, “which could be disastrous.” In his year-end news conference, the president said that “it’s not even going to be a nominal benefit to U.S. consumers.” Asked whether he was issuing a veto threat, he demurred. “I'll see what they do,” he said of Republicans in Congress. “We'll take that up in the new year.”
Campaign finance reform
So-called dark-money nonprofits, such as those affiliated with the Koch brothers, could find it much harder to muck around in elections. Under current practices, up to half of these groups' money can be spent on politics. Changes to the Internal Revenue Service regulations governing 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations could shrink the percentage they can devote to election activities such as advertising. Overall, the aim would be to make it more difficult for any nonprofit group to engage in campaign politics; in practice, it would likely be perceived as a disproportionate handicap of conservative donor-backed organizations. These are among the reforms that the administration, regulatory groups or Congress could take on if so inclined (which Congress probably is not).
Climate change
Think power plants and methane.
Last year, Obama proposed power-plant standards Republicans oppose to reduce carbon dioxide by 26 percent by 2020 and 30 percent by 2030 from 2005 levels. The standards are set to be issued in June, and then states will have another year to adopt their own plans to carry the standards out. McConnell will make it a top priority to try to stop Obama, either by blocking funding to carry out the policy or by changing provisions of the Clean Air Act, said David Doniger, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council climate and clean air program. “It will be fought over by the Republicans all through the year,” he said. “There will be lots of lawsuits and so on. But the administration's very committed to this.”
There's another front on which the administration is expected to move early in the new year: setting standards to curb the leakage of methane, or natural gas. Raw methane emitted into the air is 36 times more heat-trapping than carbon dioxide, Doniger said, so stopping the leakage of methane at well pads, processing plants and pipelines could have a big impact. The administration had promised a proposal by the end of 2014 but it's getting pushed to 2015. “It's the biggest opportunity to cut climate pollution that they haven't already seized,” he said. Setting standards would likely translate to increased inspections and mandatory repairs.
Pardons
We're not talking Bill Clinton-Marc Rich kinds of pardons. We're talking about non-violent prisoners incarcerated on drug charges and other such offenses.
This is a social-justice issue—and to a large degree, a racial-justice issue—for Obama. He was talking about it long before Michael Brown's killing in Ferguson, Mo., and other incidents renewed a debate about criminal justice, race, police abuses and sentencing. In late December, Obama granted clemency to 20 people, most of whom had been locked up on drug charges. Administration officials signaled months earlier that the scope of what Obama and his attorney general are considering could ultimately affect hundreds or thousands of incarcerated Americans.
Federal prosecutor Loretta Lynch, Obama's nominee to succeed outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder, has a record of experience with cases involving police and the treatment of minorities, including her work on the team prosecuting New York City police officers accused of sodomizing a Haitian immigrant. (One officer pleaded guilty; another officer's conviction was overturned on appeal.) If confirmed, Lynch will be the first black female U.S. attorney general.
Nuclear deal with Iran
The P5+1—the U.S., along with China, France, Germany, Russia and the U.K.—are seeking limits to Iran's nuclear program through negotiations in exchange for the easing of sanctions. Negotiators didn't meet a Nov. 24 deadline and agreed to a seven-month extension. While Iran insists its interest lies in energy and other civilian uses, the U.S. and allies suspect Iran of trying to get an atomic bomb. Obama has expressed skepticism of the deal's prospects but said that it's worth trying.
Many congressional Republicans—and some Democrats—say Iran can't be trusted and want to go in the opposite direction, pushing for more sanctions. Senator Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican and possible presidential candidate, said on Fox News in mid-December that “Iran was struggling under sanctions. They were on the point of collapse, and Obama, just like he's doing with Cuba, stepped in with a lifeline, relaxed sanctions, and is in the process of trying to negotiate a very, very bad deal.” Conservative media outlets also are gearing up in opposition to Obama's approach. And a former U.S. Marine being held prisoner by Iranian authorities has expressed concerns that his fate is becoming tied to the nuclear negotiations.
But in an interview in November with ABC News, Obama sounded a note of optimism. While gaps between the countries are “still significant,” he said, he was “confident that if we reach a deal that is verifiable and ensures that Iran does not have breakout capacity, that not only can I persuade Congress, but I can persuade the American people that it's the right thing to do.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
Five Ways Obama Can Mess with Republicans in 2015
He's freed from the constraints of another election. If the end of 2014 foreshadows the president's next set of moves, Republicans will not be amused.
By Margaret Talev, December 29, 2014
President Barack Obama knows how to get under Republicans' skin (in so many ways, but in this case we're talking about going around Congress to get things done), and he ended 2014 with a bang: A climate deal with China. Executive action on immigration. A move to normalize relations with Cuba.
As he makes his New Year's resolutions, the liberated, second-term, post-midterm president's list may well include some new maneuvers to enrage the opposition party. Here are five ways he could do it again in 2015.
Keystone
You already know more than you ever thought you would about oil-sands crude, right? TransCanada Corp. wants to complete an $8 billion, 1,179-mile pipeline starting in the Canadian province of Alberta and running 830,000 barrels of oil per day through Nebraska into a network to refineries in Texas and Louisiana. While Obama cares about the Keystone XL project in the context of foreign policy and maintaining good relations with neighbor, ally and trading partner Canada, in 2012 he blocked it because of concerns in Nebraska and kicked it to the State Department for more study.
Now, incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said he wants to start the new Congress by taking up a bill by Senator John Hoeven, a North Dakota Republican, to approve Keystone under congressional authority. Environmentalists and major Democratic donor Tom Steyer are fighting the project, saying it will worsen global warming and could trigger toxic spills. Republicans largely back the project, saying it can create jobs and reduce gas prices. Opponents say such benefits are greatly overstated or downright irrelevant, given how low gas prices have fallen lately.
Obama was coy throughout the midterms about which way he'll go, maintaining that it was in the State Department's hands and that he would weigh the pros and cons. But he doesn't want Congress to tell him what to do. And in recent weeks, he's hinted strongly that he's turned against Keystone XL. He told comedian Stephen Colbert that while it would be good for Canada, “it's not going to push down gas prices here in the United States,” and that any economic benefit must be weighed against contributing to the warming of the earth, “which could be disastrous.” In his year-end news conference, the president said that “it’s not even going to be a nominal benefit to U.S. consumers.” Asked whether he was issuing a veto threat, he demurred. “I'll see what they do,” he said of Republicans in Congress. “We'll take that up in the new year.”
Campaign finance reform
So-called dark-money nonprofits, such as those affiliated with the Koch brothers, could find it much harder to muck around in elections. Under current practices, up to half of these groups' money can be spent on politics. Changes to the Internal Revenue Service regulations governing 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations could shrink the percentage they can devote to election activities such as advertising. Overall, the aim would be to make it more difficult for any nonprofit group to engage in campaign politics; in practice, it would likely be perceived as a disproportionate handicap of conservative donor-backed organizations. These are among the reforms that the administration, regulatory groups or Congress could take on if so inclined (which Congress probably is not).
Climate change
Think power plants and methane.
Last year, Obama proposed power-plant standards Republicans oppose to reduce carbon dioxide by 26 percent by 2020 and 30 percent by 2030 from 2005 levels. The standards are set to be issued in June, and then states will have another year to adopt their own plans to carry the standards out. McConnell will make it a top priority to try to stop Obama, either by blocking funding to carry out the policy or by changing provisions of the Clean Air Act, said David Doniger, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council climate and clean air program. “It will be fought over by the Republicans all through the year,” he said. “There will be lots of lawsuits and so on. But the administration's very committed to this.”
There's another front on which the administration is expected to move early in the new year: setting standards to curb the leakage of methane, or natural gas. Raw methane emitted into the air is 36 times more heat-trapping than carbon dioxide, Doniger said, so stopping the leakage of methane at well pads, processing plants and pipelines could have a big impact. The administration had promised a proposal by the end of 2014 but it's getting pushed to 2015. “It's the biggest opportunity to cut climate pollution that they haven't already seized,” he said. Setting standards would likely translate to increased inspections and mandatory repairs.
Pardons
We're not talking Bill Clinton-Marc Rich kinds of pardons. We're talking about non-violent prisoners incarcerated on drug charges and other such offenses.
This is a social-justice issue—and to a large degree, a racial-justice issue—for Obama. He was talking about it long before Michael Brown's killing in Ferguson, Mo., and other incidents renewed a debate about criminal justice, race, police abuses and sentencing. In late December, Obama granted clemency to 20 people, most of whom had been locked up on drug charges. Administration officials signaled months earlier that the scope of what Obama and his attorney general are considering could ultimately affect hundreds or thousands of incarcerated Americans.
Federal prosecutor Loretta Lynch, Obama's nominee to succeed outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder, has a record of experience with cases involving police and the treatment of minorities, including her work on the team prosecuting New York City police officers accused of sodomizing a Haitian immigrant. (One officer pleaded guilty; another officer's conviction was overturned on appeal.) If confirmed, Lynch will be the first black female U.S. attorney general.
Nuclear deal with Iran
The P5+1—the U.S., along with China, France, Germany, Russia and the U.K.—are seeking limits to Iran's nuclear program through negotiations in exchange for the easing of sanctions. Negotiators didn't meet a Nov. 24 deadline and agreed to a seven-month extension. While Iran insists its interest lies in energy and other civilian uses, the U.S. and allies suspect Iran of trying to get an atomic bomb. Obama has expressed skepticism of the deal's prospects but said that it's worth trying.
Many congressional Republicans—and some Democrats—say Iran can't be trusted and want to go in the opposite direction, pushing for more sanctions. Senator Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican and possible presidential candidate, said on Fox News in mid-December that “Iran was struggling under sanctions. They were on the point of collapse, and Obama, just like he's doing with Cuba, stepped in with a lifeline, relaxed sanctions, and is in the process of trying to negotiate a very, very bad deal.” Conservative media outlets also are gearing up in opposition to Obama's approach. And a former U.S. Marine being held prisoner by Iranian authorities has expressed concerns that his fate is becoming tied to the nuclear negotiations.
But in an interview in November with ABC News, Obama sounded a note of optimism. While gaps between the countries are “still significant,” he said, he was “confident that if we reach a deal that is verifiable and ensures that Iran does not have breakout capacity, that not only can I persuade Congress, but I can persuade the American people that it's the right thing to do.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
"Now one of the party's top leaders must answer for a 12-year-old speech he gave to a white supremacist group, and at a time when racial tensions are once again a topic of national debate."
...................................................................................................................................................................
The GOP Leader Who Addressed a White Supremacist Group
By Russell Berman, December 29, 2014
For a politician just elevated a few months ago to the third-ranking post in the House, Representative Steve Scalise is not well known to most Americans outside the Beltway. That may be about to change, but not in a way the Louisiana Republican would like.
Scalise's office on Monday acknowledged that the House majority whip addressed a white supremacist group with ties to David Duke in 2002 while he was a state representative in Louisiana. Uncovering posts on Stormfront, a white nationalist Internet forum, Lamar White Jr. reported on his Louisiana politics website Sunday that Scalise spoke at an international conference of the European-American Unity and Rights Organization (EURO), a group led by Duke, the former Klansman, congressman, and gubernatorial candidate. The organization has been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Scalise spoke about a top-priority issue for him at the time: federal grant programs at the Department of Housing and Urban Development that he referred to as "slush funds," according to a Stormfront commenter quoted by White. The commenter named Alsace Hebert wrote that Scalise alluded to a racial component of the federal grants, although he did not quote him directly:
Scalise, 49, won his seat in the House in 2008 and has advanced quickly. After leading the Republican Study Committee, an influential conservative bloc, he won the post of majority whip that opened up following Eric Cantor's surprise primary defeat in June. That puts him behind only Boehner and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy in the House leadership hierarchy. Inside the Capitol, he's known as a friendly conservative who is relentlessly on message, a trait that endeared him to party leaders who supported him over more freewheeling, gaffe-prone colleagues.
For House Republicans, the revelation continues what has been a bumpy period following a successful November election. Representative Michael Grimm of New York pleaded guilty to tax fraud last week but is resisting calls for his resignation, while the office of Representative Blake Farenthold of Texas is facing a lawsuit from a former staffer who is alleging she was sexually harassed. Now one of the party's top leaders must answer for a 12-year-old speech he gave to a white supremacist group, and at a time when racial tensions are once again a topic of national debate.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The GOP Leader Who Addressed a White Supremacist Group
By Russell Berman, December 29, 2014
For a politician just elevated a few months ago to the third-ranking post in the House, Representative Steve Scalise is not well known to most Americans outside the Beltway. That may be about to change, but not in a way the Louisiana Republican would like.
Scalise's office on Monday acknowledged that the House majority whip addressed a white supremacist group with ties to David Duke in 2002 while he was a state representative in Louisiana. Uncovering posts on Stormfront, a white nationalist Internet forum, Lamar White Jr. reported on his Louisiana politics website Sunday that Scalise spoke at an international conference of the European-American Unity and Rights Organization (EURO), a group led by Duke, the former Klansman, congressman, and gubernatorial candidate. The organization has been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Scalise spoke about a top-priority issue for him at the time: federal grant programs at the Department of Housing and Urban Development that he referred to as "slush funds," according to a Stormfront commenter quoted by White. The commenter named Alsace Hebert wrote that Scalise alluded to a racial component of the federal grants, although he did not quote him directly:
Representative Scalise brought into sharp focus the dire circumstances pervasive in many important, under-funded needs of the community at the expense of graft within the Housing and Urban Development Fund, an apparent give-away to a selective group based on race.In a statement on Monday, Scalise spokeswoman Moira Smith said the lawmaker had spoken to "to hundreds of different groups with a broad range of viewpoints" during his career in public service.
In every case, he was building support for his policies, not the other way around. In 2002, he made himself available to anyone who wanted to hear his proposal to eliminate slush funds that wasted millions of taxpayer dollars as well as his opposition to a proposed tax increase on middle-class families. He has never been affiliated with the abhorrent group in question. The hate-fueled ignorance and intolerance that group projects is in stark contradiction to what Mr. Scalise believes and practices as a father, a husband, and a devoted Catholic.An aide subsequently clarified to Roll Call that it was "probable" that Scalise spoke to EURO in 2002 but did not know it was a white supremacist group. The aide said Scalise didn't specifically remember the event, and his office had no record of it.
Scalise, 49, won his seat in the House in 2008 and has advanced quickly. After leading the Republican Study Committee, an influential conservative bloc, he won the post of majority whip that opened up following Eric Cantor's surprise primary defeat in June. That puts him behind only Boehner and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy in the House leadership hierarchy. Inside the Capitol, he's known as a friendly conservative who is relentlessly on message, a trait that endeared him to party leaders who supported him over more freewheeling, gaffe-prone colleagues.
For House Republicans, the revelation continues what has been a bumpy period following a successful November election. Representative Michael Grimm of New York pleaded guilty to tax fraud last week but is resisting calls for his resignation, while the office of Representative Blake Farenthold of Texas is facing a lawsuit from a former staffer who is alleging she was sexually harassed. Now one of the party's top leaders must answer for a 12-year-old speech he gave to a white supremacist group, and at a time when racial tensions are once again a topic of national debate.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Sunday, December 28, 2014
"Disagreement is one of the joys of freedom ... our democratic system would be healthier if it followed the Greenfield rule and reserved the harshest invective for things that are genuinely monstrous."
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENT: The Obama haters in this nation mystify me. The guy has faced unprecedented opposition in Congress but has done reasonably well, with -- as with any president -- plenty to criticize from both sides of the political spectrum. He's neither the best nor the worst, but has done better than many would under these circumstances.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Off-key political discourse
By E.J. Dionne Jr., December 28, 2014
Meg Greenfield, the late Washington Post editorial page editor, counseled against writing in "High C" all the time. By this she meant that an editorialist or columnist who expressed equally noisy levels of indignation about everything would lack credibility when something truly outrageous came along that merited a well-crafted high-pitched scream.
We now seem to be living in the Age of High C, a period when every fight is Armageddon, every foe is a monster, and every issue is either the key to national survival or the doorway to ruin.
This habit seems especially pronounced in the way President Obama's adversaries treat him. It's odd that so many continue to see Obama as a radical and a socialist even as the Dow hits record levels and the wealthy continue to do very nicely. If he is a socialist, he is surely the most incompetent practitioner in the history of Marxism.
The reaction to Obama is part of a larger difficulty that involves pretending we are philosophically far more divided than we are. In all of the well-off democracies, even people who actually call themselves socialists no longer claim to have an alternative to the market as the primary creator and distributor of goods and services. The boundaries on the left end of what's permissible in the public debate have been pushed well toward the center. This makes the hysteria and hyperbole all the more incomprehensible.
But let's dream a little and assume that the American left signed on to the proposals put forward by Lane Kenworthy of the University of California-San Diego in his challenging (and, by the way, very pro-market) book "Social Democratic America," published earlier this year. Kenworthy's argument is that we can "successfully embrace both flexibility and security, both competition and social justice."
His wish list is a straightforward set of progressive initiatives. A few of them: universal health insurance and early education, extensive new help on job searches and training, a year of paid parental leave, an increased minimum wage indexed to prices, expansions of efforts that supplement wages such as the Earned Income Tax Credit, and the government as an employer of last resort.
His program, he says, would cost around 10 percent of our GDP. Now that's a lot of money and the debate about whether we should spend it would be anything but phony. Yet would such a level of expenditure signal the death of our constitutional system? Would it make us like, say, Cuba? No, and no. It might make us a little more like Germany, the Netherlands or the Scandinavian countries. We can argue if we want to do this, but these market democracies happen to share with us an affection for freedom and enterprise.
And when it comes to High C, there's nothing quite like our culture wars in which disagreements about social issues are seen as battles between libertines and bigots. When I look around, I see a lot of liberals who live quite traditional family lives and even go regularly to churches, synagogues and mosques. I see a lot of conservatives who are feminists when it comes to their daughters' opportunities and oppose bigotry against gays and lesbians.
The ideological resolution I'd suggest for the new year is that all sides stop fighting and pool their energies to easing the marriage and family crisis that is engulfing working-class Americans.
This would require liberals to acknowledge what the vast majority of them already practice in their own lives: that, all things being equal, kids are better off with two loving and engaged parents. It would require conservatives to acknowledge that many of the pressures on families are economic and that the decline of well-paying blue-collar work is causing huge disruptions in family formation. I'd make a case that Kenworthy's ideas for a more social democratic America would be good for families, but let's argue it out in the spirit of a shared quest for remedies.
Maybe it's asking too much, but might social conservatives also consider my friend Jonathan Rauch's idea that they abandon their campaign against gay marriage in favor of a new campaign on behalf of the value of committed relationships for all of us?
Disagreement is one of the joys of freedom, so I am all for boisterous debate and tough political and philosophical competition. It's how I make my living. But our democratic system would be healthier if it followed the Greenfield rule and reserved the harshest invective for things that are genuinely monstrous.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENT: The Obama haters in this nation mystify me. The guy has faced unprecedented opposition in Congress but has done reasonably well, with -- as with any president -- plenty to criticize from both sides of the political spectrum. He's neither the best nor the worst, but has done better than many would under these circumstances.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Off-key political discourse
By E.J. Dionne Jr., December 28, 2014
Meg Greenfield, the late Washington Post editorial page editor, counseled against writing in "High C" all the time. By this she meant that an editorialist or columnist who expressed equally noisy levels of indignation about everything would lack credibility when something truly outrageous came along that merited a well-crafted high-pitched scream.
We now seem to be living in the Age of High C, a period when every fight is Armageddon, every foe is a monster, and every issue is either the key to national survival or the doorway to ruin.
This habit seems especially pronounced in the way President Obama's adversaries treat him. It's odd that so many continue to see Obama as a radical and a socialist even as the Dow hits record levels and the wealthy continue to do very nicely. If he is a socialist, he is surely the most incompetent practitioner in the history of Marxism.
The reaction to Obama is part of a larger difficulty that involves pretending we are philosophically far more divided than we are. In all of the well-off democracies, even people who actually call themselves socialists no longer claim to have an alternative to the market as the primary creator and distributor of goods and services. The boundaries on the left end of what's permissible in the public debate have been pushed well toward the center. This makes the hysteria and hyperbole all the more incomprehensible.
But let's dream a little and assume that the American left signed on to the proposals put forward by Lane Kenworthy of the University of California-San Diego in his challenging (and, by the way, very pro-market) book "Social Democratic America," published earlier this year. Kenworthy's argument is that we can "successfully embrace both flexibility and security, both competition and social justice."
His wish list is a straightforward set of progressive initiatives. A few of them: universal health insurance and early education, extensive new help on job searches and training, a year of paid parental leave, an increased minimum wage indexed to prices, expansions of efforts that supplement wages such as the Earned Income Tax Credit, and the government as an employer of last resort.
His program, he says, would cost around 10 percent of our GDP. Now that's a lot of money and the debate about whether we should spend it would be anything but phony. Yet would such a level of expenditure signal the death of our constitutional system? Would it make us like, say, Cuba? No, and no. It might make us a little more like Germany, the Netherlands or the Scandinavian countries. We can argue if we want to do this, but these market democracies happen to share with us an affection for freedom and enterprise.
And when it comes to High C, there's nothing quite like our culture wars in which disagreements about social issues are seen as battles between libertines and bigots. When I look around, I see a lot of liberals who live quite traditional family lives and even go regularly to churches, synagogues and mosques. I see a lot of conservatives who are feminists when it comes to their daughters' opportunities and oppose bigotry against gays and lesbians.
The ideological resolution I'd suggest for the new year is that all sides stop fighting and pool their energies to easing the marriage and family crisis that is engulfing working-class Americans.
This would require liberals to acknowledge what the vast majority of them already practice in their own lives: that, all things being equal, kids are better off with two loving and engaged parents. It would require conservatives to acknowledge that many of the pressures on families are economic and that the decline of well-paying blue-collar work is causing huge disruptions in family formation. I'd make a case that Kenworthy's ideas for a more social democratic America would be good for families, but let's argue it out in the spirit of a shared quest for remedies.
Maybe it's asking too much, but might social conservatives also consider my friend Jonathan Rauch's idea that they abandon their campaign against gay marriage in favor of a new campaign on behalf of the value of committed relationships for all of us?
Disagreement is one of the joys of freedom, so I am all for boisterous debate and tough political and philosophical competition. It's how I make my living. But our democratic system would be healthier if it followed the Greenfield rule and reserved the harshest invective for things that are genuinely monstrous.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"We have to get beyond the corrosive idea that we have to agree with others on everything in order to cooperate on anything ..."
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* So the Kochs are now going directly from BUYING elections and BUYING Congress to just MAKING laws now? Just what we need in this country: more of the .01% unhinged selfish self-centered greedy plutocrat oligarchs running things! And, no, you cannot trust these guys. They never ever do anything to help anyone but themselves. Never, ever.
* I don't believe for a moment that he gives half a crap about the 'little guy'!
* That bit irked me as well. There is a purpose to this philanthropy but I seriously doubt it is for the reasons stated.
* Do you want to bet whether somehow private prisons will be part of the plan to "reform" the criminal justice system? If the Koch brothers are not invested in corporate prisons, some of their 1% friends certainly are.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Charles Koch Wants To Change America's Criminal Justice System
By Molly Reilly, December 28, 2014
Charles Koch, the billionaire chairman and CEO of Koch Industries and leading conservative mega-donor, has set his sights on a new goal: reforming America's criminal justice system.
In an interview with The Wichita Eagle published Saturday, Koch said his own experiences in courts -- including the time a federal grand jury indicted Koch Industries on 97 counts of environmental crimes in 2000 -- prompted him to study the justice system at both the state and federal level. In that particular case, centered on a Koch Petroleum Group refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas, prosecutors eventually dropped all but one of the charges after the corporation agreed to pay a settlement.
According to Koch's chief counsel Mark Holden, the case made the billionaire industrialist wonder "how the little guy who doesn't have Koch’s resources deals with prosecutions like that," the Eagle reports.
Koch and his brother David have gained notoriety as the bankrollers of Americans for Prosperity, a political advocacy group that backs candidates who favor slashing taxes and shrinking government. But the brothers have also quietly backed criminal justice reform for years, and sponsored a forum on the issue earlier this year. Charles Koch said he plans to ramp up his reform efforts in 2015.
"Over the next year, we are going to be pushing the issues key to this, which need a lot of work in this country," Koch told the Eagle. "And that would be freedom of speech, cronyism and how that relates to opportunities for the disadvantaged."
Koch pointed to sentencing as an area in desperate need of reform, arguing that sentences should be "more appropriate to the crime that has been committed."
His new mission has precipitated some unlikely alliances. The Eagle reports that Koch has unofficially teamed up with progressive mega-donor George Soros and the American Civil Liberties Union to address prison reform. Koch has also earned praise from outgoing U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, who told The Marshall Project that Koch's donation to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, which funds training for attorneys who represent those in need, was a positive force. According to reports, Koch has been a supporter of the organization since 2004.
"That's a good thing to hear -- people from very different places along the ideological spectrum understanding that we have to make our criminal justice system more fair," Holder said. "It's about 51 years or so after Gideon [v. Wainwright], and there are way too many people on the civil side, as well as the criminal side, who don't have their legal needs met. There's a justice gap. And to hear that the Koch brothers would be contributing money in that way is something that I think should be applauded."
NACDL president Theodore Simon has also commended the Kochs for their support.
"We have to get beyond the corrosive idea that we have to agree with others on everything in order to cooperate on anything," Simon told Reuters in October. "This grant is going to help lawyers help the needy in our society."
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* So the Kochs are now going directly from BUYING elections and BUYING Congress to just MAKING laws now? Just what we need in this country: more of the .01% unhinged selfish self-centered greedy plutocrat oligarchs running things! And, no, you cannot trust these guys. They never ever do anything to help anyone but themselves. Never, ever.
* I don't believe for a moment that he gives half a crap about the 'little guy'!
* That bit irked me as well. There is a purpose to this philanthropy but I seriously doubt it is for the reasons stated.
* Do you want to bet whether somehow private prisons will be part of the plan to "reform" the criminal justice system? If the Koch brothers are not invested in corporate prisons, some of their 1% friends certainly are.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Charles Koch Wants To Change America's Criminal Justice System
By Molly Reilly, December 28, 2014
Charles Koch, the billionaire chairman and CEO of Koch Industries and leading conservative mega-donor, has set his sights on a new goal: reforming America's criminal justice system.
In an interview with The Wichita Eagle published Saturday, Koch said his own experiences in courts -- including the time a federal grand jury indicted Koch Industries on 97 counts of environmental crimes in 2000 -- prompted him to study the justice system at both the state and federal level. In that particular case, centered on a Koch Petroleum Group refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas, prosecutors eventually dropped all but one of the charges after the corporation agreed to pay a settlement.
According to Koch's chief counsel Mark Holden, the case made the billionaire industrialist wonder "how the little guy who doesn't have Koch’s resources deals with prosecutions like that," the Eagle reports.
Koch and his brother David have gained notoriety as the bankrollers of Americans for Prosperity, a political advocacy group that backs candidates who favor slashing taxes and shrinking government. But the brothers have also quietly backed criminal justice reform for years, and sponsored a forum on the issue earlier this year. Charles Koch said he plans to ramp up his reform efforts in 2015.
"Over the next year, we are going to be pushing the issues key to this, which need a lot of work in this country," Koch told the Eagle. "And that would be freedom of speech, cronyism and how that relates to opportunities for the disadvantaged."
Koch pointed to sentencing as an area in desperate need of reform, arguing that sentences should be "more appropriate to the crime that has been committed."
His new mission has precipitated some unlikely alliances. The Eagle reports that Koch has unofficially teamed up with progressive mega-donor George Soros and the American Civil Liberties Union to address prison reform. Koch has also earned praise from outgoing U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, who told The Marshall Project that Koch's donation to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, which funds training for attorneys who represent those in need, was a positive force. According to reports, Koch has been a supporter of the organization since 2004.
"That's a good thing to hear -- people from very different places along the ideological spectrum understanding that we have to make our criminal justice system more fair," Holder said. "It's about 51 years or so after Gideon [v. Wainwright], and there are way too many people on the civil side, as well as the criminal side, who don't have their legal needs met. There's a justice gap. And to hear that the Koch brothers would be contributing money in that way is something that I think should be applauded."
NACDL president Theodore Simon has also commended the Kochs for their support.
"We have to get beyond the corrosive idea that we have to agree with others on everything in order to cooperate on anything," Simon told Reuters in October. "This grant is going to help lawyers help the needy in our society."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)