Mark Kelly on Gun Shows: Correct

 

 

There is no argument against Kelly's article other than falsehoods.
First, there is a gun show loop hole.

At gun shows, some of the sellers are Federal Licensed Firearms Dealers. They are required by law to check the buyer in the NICS system. While this does not rule out the issue of straw purchases, or the massive holes in the NICS system, or the three-day default rule--they are checked.

At other tables--at the same show, right next door to the ones described above, are tables where the sellers are not Federally Licensed Firearms Dealers. These tables also offer every type of gun for sale that the FLFD's do. But there is no background check required. None. At all.

In fact, the tables often have signs that read "No questions asked". And indeed, none are asked--expect "how much", and perhaps, "would you like a bag for that?"

This is because those dealers fall into the loophole where they have classified themselves as "hobbyists". Such "hobbyists" are often large scale dealers with extensive inventories, often larger than those of the FLFDs.

They purchase guns in states with very weak gun laws--often Mississippi, for example, or Virginia--and then sell these guns at gun shows in states with regulations are more strict.

The Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 listed a number of categories of individuals who, by law, could not purchase guns: Felons, the seriously mentally ill, and so on.

At gun shows, felons, the mentally ill--anyone, in fact, can walk up to one of these tables operated by a so-called "hobbyist"--even if he makes his primary imcome from this "hobby"--and buy whatever gun they want, as many as they want, any ammunition they want, as much as they want.

With no questions asked.

If gun show sales are not uniformly required to have background checks, any felon, anyone with mental illness, or anyone fro one of the other prohibited categories, who could not purchase at a FLFD, will simply go to a gun show, and buy one, or two, or three, or ten--as many as they like--with no questions asked.

The same issue applies to guns sold over the internet by such "hobbyists". Or in so called "transfers" that are not conducted by FLFDs. There are no background checks--none at all--for these sales.

This is why the NRA and its cohorts are being so fervent about the gun show loophole--which supposedly "doesn't matter", so I wonder why they would be so strident about it.

Because as long as the gun show loophole exists, anyone who wants to evade the background check system will be able to do it simply and easily, and defeat any efforts at meaningful and effective gun control, which is the goal of the NRA.




Pic from: http://www.ablogtowatch.com/astronaut-mark-kelly-interview-watches-are-necessary-in-my-profession/  via AP

Scalia on Voting Rights Act Section 5: Not Aging Gracefully

Scalia's pleasure at his role as a gadfly has, with privilege and age, gradually morphed into a role as a speaker of surprisingly ill considered, and poorly support contempt.

What Scalia referred to as a "racial entitlement", Congress, by a vote of 98-0, viewed as necessary to ensure a constitutional privilege: The right to vote, which, as demonstrated by 15,000 pages of evidence, was still being uniquely undercut in covered states.

Scalia's response--a monarchical one, which anyone familiar with the Separation of Powers would shudder to hear. was that Congress was unfit to make law here.

His basis here was what was essentially a psychological analysis--an area of examination for which he is poorly suited:

“I don’t think there is anything to be gained by any senator to vote against continuation of this act. ... They are going to lose votes if they do not reenact the Voting Rights Act. Even the name of it is wonderful: the Voting Rights Act. Who is going to vote against that in the future?”

Such an analysis would require that the Court examine each Congressional passage of legislation for each member's personal, interior reaction to the name of the Legislation--and to judge its constitutionality on that (unfathomable) basis.

What special quality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act distinguished it for Justice Scalia such that the reaction of members of Congress to its name. and to its electoral and political consequences for the member, should be held up as disqualifying?

Do members of Congress not consider the electoral and political implications of other legislative acts when they vote on them? If so, has Scalia ruled all of them to be unconstitutional?

The keys here are Scalia's words "racial entitlement" combined with the above analysis. He is stating that, unlike intimidation by the force of industries, lobbying groups, or other constituencies themselves, the concerns of this particular constituency are--somehow--invalid.

The use of Scalia's criteria for Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act would, apart from undermining Congress's legislative power for that of an increasingly crankily grandiose Justice, invalidate most legislation, which is enacted by members of Congress for a variety of personal, electoral and political purposes.


 Scalia pic: http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/04/antonin_scalias_time_to_sizzle.html

Ryan Lizza on Cantor: Outmaneuvering Boehner and Himself

Re: Ryan Lizza's  New Yorker piece on Eric Cantor

That Boehner failed to see Cantor's win-win calculation here is remarkable for a Speaker of the House. Romney wins, and Cantor is credited for a brilliant move in forstalling a grand bargain until the arrival of better circumstances, paving the way for his later assumption of the coveted chair after Boehner. Obama is elected, and Boehner fails, leaving to discontent, and a split within the party, paving the way for Cantor's earlier assumption. (Robert Caro would remind us that Lyndon Johnson would never have fallen for this). Cantor has the oft-seen Republican ability for selective self-hypnosis: Reciting that people believe that "Republicans do not have their backs", with a rote certainty of the deputy who almost believes, a sufficient substitute for belief, while otherwise serving his wealthier masters. Exceptionally dangerous, as he believes that he is doing both, depending upon when you ask him.

Nota bene: I also loved Ryan's utterly unironic citation of Mussolini. Those trains don't just run on time...they arrive an hour early!


Pic via: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.chicagonow.com/offhanded-dribble/files/2011/07/2009_0326_Getty_Eric_Cantor_0.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.chicagonow.com/offhanded-dribble/2011/05/karma-if-a-tornado-touches-down-on-eric-cantors-house/&h=303&w=300&sz=22&tbnid=ZM6N73SrrcAxSM:&tbnh=96&tbnw=95&zoom=1&usg=__fHBMMAZOwZL28Te0qAKQrr_iH_g=&docid=PwSQUBlFCbW-pM&sa=X&ei=sp8vUYXzEYS90QGtgoGACQ&ved=0CKQBEP4dMBI

Pomp--and Circumstance

John Boehner, his tan perfected for the occasion from its former mottled resemblance to the shifting colors in the grain of hardwood floor, to the more evenly distributed orange of a perfectly ripened tangelo, just barely covering the all-too-frequently present appearance of pre-speech imbibing just to the point of the controlled, slightest, heavy-tongued slur, strode to the ornate podium.

And so, in the Statuary Hall, the distribution of gifts--custom etched Lenox crystal to the President and Vice President, handsome leather bound mementos for all other attendees of the Congressional lunch--the pomp of the Inaugural ritual in its more intimate, clubbish, and, I imagine in the experience of Obama, necessary form, began.

The extended ceremonial of the day seems, for one who leans towards the introversive end of the scale, whittled, learned away through years of practice, a marathon of the multivariegated forms of political interaction--from gracious, heartfelt thanks, to centuries-old ritual, to dancing the first dance with your wife while Jennifer Hudson sings "Let's Stay Together."

Obama takes to them easily now, without the over-energized haste of his Senatorial days; embracing Sen. Leahy in a grateful hug, the movements of gratitude--the embrace, the face-to-face words of gratitude, the lean in, the grip of the shoulder, the pull away to look once again in the eyes, as he moved through the room, to the next, of so many, who awaited and deserved thanks, and who, so very often, appeared to offer them sincerely, awaited. A small degree of Lincolnesque slowness, of thinking of the steps, of self-awareness (or so we imagine, or infer from the mind of his writings and actions), a certain minute degree of physical exhaustion, and awareness of pacing--characteristic Obama traits.

As was the moment, after he had given his inaugural address, that he turned, told his retinue to wait. The writer, the introspective, the one who is aware that he wants to capture this moment, as the moments will begin to change around him, never to return to this one again, wanted to take it in fully one more time.

Obama might have felt the impulse to do this in 2009. But he would not have. And this certainty--this incremental increase in controlling his own fate, in command, in being less burdened by the height of expectation than moving in the continuum of leadership--is present in this moment.

Obama will always be thinking, rather than acting in a compensatory, justifyingly defensive manner from his gut. He will consider before acting, rather than leaping into the moment.

However, there is a sureness of feel, a sense of the more practiced and directed mind of one who has experienced the nature of those around him, has taken their measure and his; who has learned from some mistakes, and has internalized them both as lessons for action and less restricted caution. And a pleasure. Knowing that the second election would be the true confirmation of one mission of the first African American president--not only to be elected--but to be elected again.

After his swearing in, his daughter Malia turned to him, he smiled and said "I did it."

"You didn't screw it up, Daddy", she said, his daughter feeling her father's most direct concern with a child's centrality and immediacy--what Maraniss has referred to as Obama's care in "avoiding traps".

And, while there will be the countless haters, ideologues, paranoids, and even aside from them, rational political critics who may not concur with his daughter's assessment, there he stood.

The newly sworn-in second term 44th president of the United States.

The Happiest Vice President

Does anyone, has anyone loved the Vice Presidency as much as Joe Biden?

Yes, he's thinking about the Presidency.

But if he was not, if he were only serving the two terms as Obama's Vice President, does anyone believe that he would be a tragic, morose Lyndon Johnson-via-Robert-Caro Vice President, stunted, crippled, depressed, frustrated, feeling as if his life dreams and career were at an end?

Impossible.

Biden is not only seemingly impervious to the less felicitous characterizations that at times swim around them, reflecting them away with a native sunny disposition that, yes, is professional, but is also a genuine, automatic enjoyment, but brings far more to the table than the hoi polloi are often willing to give credit: A remarkable ability to charm with intellect and flexibility, with genuine care and enjoyment, but also with a powerfully sustained thought--each time.

Yes, he emerges in shades, and who knows what ultimate dreams lay behind them; yes he truly enjoys an attractive woman. But he also brings joy to those who he immediately senses need his attention, his care--he has practiced with all types, and he is willing to bring that practice to the task.

He is not condescending. He is not self-aggrandizing. People love Joe.

But while walking that fine line between being the populist and knowing that he is being one, he is more aware than the more simple lines around him that are sometimes drawn.

He is not an introspective, introversive, extremely careful Obama. And he will never be. And that will be an issue, should he become President.

He does have a tendency to roll over himself, carried by the stream of words and feeling, and this has not accrued to his benefit. He is still learning--at this stage of his life--to instill the capacity to catch himself.

But he is happy in his role. He loves the people. He balances a more introspective man, who also loves the people, but is not so fulsome and expansive in demonstration of such.

He is Joe. And he is the happiest Vice President we have seen in some time.

4 years: Less Sober, Less Cautious, More Certain

Osama Bin Laden.

Debt ceiling, versions past and prologue.

Romney, who already seems to have half-faded into a spectral form.

Health care town halls, which now seem ancient, yet still striking in their call to shrill irrationality.

4 years.

I remember seeing the crowds of young people from my balcony, early on the morning of Inauguration Day, so filled with enthusiasm to reach the Mall that they raced towards the gates, like excited troops storming a hill, ready to take their nation back.

Obama's speech that day struck me as unusually sober--it left me with the feeling that he was scaling down expectations, a tone of seriousness, but also that if he could merely leave the nation in as good hands as when he entered, this would be a laudable, sensible target.

This tone--not too high, not too low--has shot through his Presidency, with intelligence and wisdom, with caution and over caution, as Americans became accustomed to a charismatic leader who at his core is not a spontaneous charismatic, but an introspective, at times introverted intellectual, who carries both vision and caution; his well noted pragmatism, a combination that likely was honed as it brought him to this place and position, and one, perhaps, that he has most wisely relied on, knowing that once reaching to extremism, in this nation, at this time, he would not be able to reach back.

And they would call him an extremist in any event.

He knew what they would call him if he actually began to act within the slightest parameters of their delusional fantasies.

So we are here. And crowds gather. We are in the slight remaining overcast of tragedy--one could not help but wonder just what he thought of as he thought of the events in Newtown, so close to his inauguration.

Yet, I am watching a crowd of children singing, and we are here.

New Diagnosis: Norquist Blindness

I announce here today, in the pages of this august journal, a new and persistent medical condition.

It seems to affect those primarily on the far right, although can also be seen in some hastily assembled, deadline driven reports by media.

The condition: Norquist Blindness.

Primary symptoms:

1) A compulsive need to utter the phrase:

"I don't understand how Democrats can expect to reduce the deficit based only on raising the taxes of the super rich. Even if we raised the taxes of every member of the top 1% of the nation's wealthy, we would not be able to cover even a fraction of the deficit", or some variant thereof.

2) A complete, utter, persistent blindness to the fact that Democrats have repeatedly stated that both spending cuts and tax cuts are necessary as a solution to the fiscal cliff.

For example, as noted by the New York Times, Obama has said he will not sign any bill that extends the tax cuts for the rich but wants legislation that extends the tax cuts for families earning $250,000 or less. That alone would be enough to mitigate the economic impact of the fiscal cliff.  He has signaled he will accept changes to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid as part of that last portion of savings.

3) An inability to absorb or retain new information if it contains statements by Democrats that they are seeking both tax cuts and spending cuts.

Causes:

Co-occurring Obsessive-compulsive hoarding; bonds, stock certificates, cash selectively obstructing eardrums; secondary gain via payment for maintaining symptomatic behavior.


Note:

Recent epidemiological studies indicate that the occurrence of Norquist Blindness has shown a sharp, significant decrease beginning in November, 2012.

Prospective modeling research indicates that the falloff of Norquist blindness should continue, until it has been entirely extinguished in the upcoming year.

Scientists may wish to preserve samples of the disorder in a bathtub in order for future medical historians to be able to suitably examine the disease.

Norquist Tacks

Norquist, becoming concerned about his own increasing irrelevance, is now attempting to say that the current debate will have nothing to do with him, in an attempt to preserve his own imaginary domain.

One day before, he was threatening various members that exactly such actions would lead to their defeat by actions taken by ATR.

Now, as reality spreads, and is becoming viral, the air begins to flatulate out of the loose bag that is Norquist, and he says--ah, well, nothing to do with me.

Truth-revealing, a child playing sadly in the sand.

Grover and the "People"

The fact that Norquist incessantly states that his pledge is not to "him" but to "the people" is one of the more repellent of the obvious and self-serving aspects of his protection scheme.

The fact that members of Congress are elected to represent the people means that they do not require an external pledge to make decisions. Rather, such a pledge binds those very representative actions through a nakedly coercive, parasitic contrivance: Receive funding from corporate sponsors who wish to have their interests protected; Use this funding to purchase mailing lists; and threaten to blanket the districts of those who refuse to submit to the pledge with a blizzard of negative advertising.

Grover takes his cut, and corporate investments receive their return, as the nation's representatives of the people are faced with a political protection racket.  This wedging of himself between the interests of corporations and the legitimate functions of government in parasitic fashion is what Norquist himself regards as his "entrepreneurial genius."  It acts against the people, who have chosen these representatives to act on their behalf as they fit.

It is, however, entirely consistent with Norquist's prior "entrepreneurship," such as, as detailed by the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs his organization, ATR, serving as a pass through to hide the origins of funds defrauded from Indian tribes by Jack Abramoff, and passed onto Ralph Reed. 

Sourcewatch reports that:

"Abramoff and partner Scanlon are alleged to have conspired with Washington power broker Grover Norquist and Christian activist Reed to co-ordinate lobbying against his own clients and prospective clients with the objective of forcing them to engage Abramoff and Scanlon to lobby against their own covert operations...Reed repeatedly denied knowing the source of the funds used to campaign against the casinos until prosecutors released emails exchanged between Reed and Abramoff. According to e-mails, Reed and Norquist contacted Abramoff separately in 1999 to say they wanted to do business. Norquist complained about a "$75K hole in my budget from last year." Reed said he was counting on Abramoff 'to help me with some contacts.'"

In 2000, Abramoff warned Reed on February 7 that an initial payment for antilottery radio spots and mailings would be less than Reed thought. 'I need to give Grover something for helping, so the first transfer will be a bit lighter,' Abramoff wrote. The transfer was apparently lighter than even Abramoff expected. In a note to himself on February 22, Abramoff wrote, 'Grover kept another $25K!' Norquist claims he had permission.

Grover always has the slight look of pride and disbelief that he's getting away with it, though covered over with with efforts to hold up self-indoctrination and justification against what he knows to be a scheme, and insipid, childish smugness to indirect away from the essential illusory nature of his emperor-has-no-clothes contrivance and connivance.

Norquist is now aiming smug, contemptuous threats at those who have realized that taking the pledge has become a political liability. His desperate, at times scatological ("poopyhead") phrasing reveals the essential childish nature of the scheme; the threats reveal the inability to actually consider a larger good than his own barely justified, utterly self-serving racket.

The fact that the Republican Party is recognizing that Norquist harms their political interests means that Norquist will soon become a political curiosity; in a perfect irony, small enough to fit in his bathtub.

BREAKING: West Concedes

WaPo:

"Florida Republican Rep. Allen West conceded to Democratic challenger Patrick Murphy Tuesday morning, wrapping up one of the highest-profile and most expensive House races in the country."

Allen West Won't Lose: Suggestions for Further Statements Other Than "I Lost" Based On His Prior Commentary

Rep. Allen West (R) has lost his reelection attempt in Florida, having been defeated by Chris Murphy (D).

The result has Murphy winning by 2,146 votes. This is a margin of 0.58 percent, beyond the requirement of .50 percent necessary by state law to trigger an automatic recount.

West nonetheless refused to accept the results.

He called for a recount in one county, St. Lucie.

The results of this recount showed that West had now fallen behind by a greater number of votes. His margin of defeat was now .65 percent.

The West campaign still refused to accept the results.

In response to a statement by the Murphy campaign that it was now time for West to do the right thing and to concede, a spokesman for the West campaign responded, diplomatically, that “As usual, Murphy's people are full of garbage."

Given West's continuing refusal to acknowledge the democratic will of the people, we provide further characteristic statements for West's use in responding to the nation's electoral process.

To provide the full degree of Westian verisimilitude, we have based these on West's own, most famed, prior statements and national commentary (annotated):


'Mr. Murphy, you are not a man, therefore shall not be afforded due respect from me! 1 Take your message of having repeatedly proven that you have won more votes that I have, and get the hell out! You can take it to Europe, you can take it to the bottom of the sea, you can take it to the North Pole, but get the hell out of the United States of America. 2

I must confess that when I see anyone with a Murphy for Representative bumper sticker, I recognize them as a threat to the gene pool. 3

 We should be censoring the American news agencies which enabled Murphy to win and claim election on the basis of having won the greatest number of votes, and also supported him and applauding him for the efforts. 4 With regard to his recent statement that under Florida law, following the recount, he now legally must be sworn in as Representative, I say: NUTS! 5

With regard to men like Wilson who have not faced the true conflict of battle, I would take such gentlemen over and let them get shot at a few times and maybe they’d have a different opinion. 6

If Joseph Goebbels was around, he’d be very proud of the Democrat party, because they have an incredible propaganda machine. 7'



Annotations: (Citations via Think Progress) 

(1) “YOU ARE NOT A LADY”: According to Think Progress (TP): "In July 2011, West responded to a perceived slight from Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (R-FL) with a fiery letter in which he threatened her and scolded, 'You have proven repeatedly that you are not a Lady, therefore, shall not be afforded due respect from me!' West later said he had apologized, but Wasserman-Schultz said she had not received one."

(2) TP: "LIBERALS “GET THE HELL OUT”: Speaking at the Palm Beach County GOP’s Lincoln Day Dinner last month, West said of liberals, 'Take your message of equality of achievement. … You can take it to Europe, you can take it to the bottom of the sea, you can take it to the North Pole, but get the hell out of the United States of America.'West later tried to walk back the statement, claiming he was only referring to “the message” and not liberals themselves."
 

(3) TP: “A THREAT TO THE GENE POOL: In a July 2011 post on the website Red Country, West wrote, 'I must confess, when I see anyone with an Obama 2012 bumper sticker, I recognize them as a threat to the gene pool.'"

(4)  TP: “WE ALSO SHOULD BE CENSORING THE AMERICAN NEWS AGENCIES: In response to the whistleblower website Wikileaks releasing thousands of pages of diplomatic cables, West declared: 'And I think that we also should be censoring the American news agencies which enabled [Julian Assange] to do this and also supported him and applauding him for the efforts.' West later claimed he only called for “censuring” the media. Either way, it would be a First Amendment violation."

(5) TP: “NUTS!: West has often clashed with opponents over the issue of Islam. In August 2011, a chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations asked West to sever ties with anti-Muslim activists. In response, West sent a letter which read only, 'I am writing to you with regard [sic] your recent letter: NUTS!' Why West chose this response is a mystery, although he might have been quoting a World War II general who responded that way when the Nazis told him to surrender."

(6) TP: “LET THEM GET SHOT AT”: In May 2011, the House narrowly defeated a proposal which would have required President Obama to submit a timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan. Of those who voted for the bill, West said, 'I would take these gentlemen over and let them get shot at a few times and maybe they’d have a different opinion.' This was just months after the shooting of former Rep. Gabby Giffords."

(7) TP: "JOSEPH GOEBBELS WOULD 'BE VERY PROUD' OF DEMOCRATS: In December, West told reporters, 'If Joseph Goebbels was around, he’d be very proud of the Democrat party, because they have an incredible propaganda machine.' The link to Goebbels, Adolf Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda from 1933 to 1945, drew criticism from several members of Congress, the Anti-Defamation League, and others."

McCain's Post-Electoral Stress Disorder, Part 2: Buddies

Lindsay Graham is obviously standing by his friend John McCain's burning, aroused, unsatisfied quest for the electoral vengeance of 2008 that he has longed for, and that has burst into a Post- Electoral Stress Disorder, where he seeks--headlong, enraged--to take his nemesis down, Watergate-style.

Graham neatly parsed where he draws the line this morning on 'Meet The Press'--coming out fully in support of his colleague, if with a backdrop of a degree of fearful reluctance as to where dipping his pen in this particular ink might lead, but ultimately coming down with his obviously enraged friend. Some have also suggested that Graham is supporting McCain on this issue to make use of it in his campaign for reelection in 2014.

One can imagine--and in the recent audio of McCain with a producer questioning him about missing a Presidential Benghazi briefing in order to make complaints about not having sufficient information abut Benghazi , one can get a taste of the rage and desire for revenge on McCain's part, one that he has nurtured with persistence over the past four years but now appears to have more uncontrollably erupted.

Lieberman has, in his Rabbinical style, carefully stepped away from this explosion, stating "I respectfully separate myself from my two amigos."

This loss--in a way, McCain's final loss of the 2008 election--is, naturally much to bear.  Let's hope that in the coming days, he allows this to ease into his usual grace, charm, and intellect.

Hilarity Ensues

With loss and demographic changes come changes in immutable philosophies and natural law.

The Party of the "Obama Phone" and ignoring the 47% awakens, in an open, dewy field--refreshed, reborn, brand-new:

Romney adviser Carlos Gutierrez on 'State of the Union' this morning:

Crowley:  "You know what Mitt Romney has said...He was talking to group of donors and talking about the Obama campaign. He said that that 'he (Obama) went out and gave a lot of stuff to people that he hoped would go out and motivate them, specifically the African-American community, the Hispanic community and young people, he's talking here about the President's efforts to help those youngsters to who came in with undocumented parents. What do you make of that kind of argument?"

Gutierrez: (The 'Casablanca' reference too obvious to even be acknowledged in his tone): "I was shocked. I was shocked, and, frankly I don't think that's why the Republicans lost the election, why we lost the election. I think we lost the election because the far Right of this Party took us to a place where it doesn't belong. "

"We are the Party of prosperity, of growth, of tolerance! These immigrants who come across, and what they do wrong is they risk their lives, and they work because they want to be part of the American dream. That is what the GOP is!"

Crowley (slightly haltingly, embarrassed at having to phrase with delicacy the obvious): "And you would admit that your candidate said things that were anti-Latino, you yourself said that they (speeding up with emphasis at the sheer undeniability of it) feared the Republican Party and he was the head of it."

Gutierrez: (Over her): "Yeah..."

Crowley: "He failed at that."

Gutierrez: "And...and..that's true, and the unfortunate part, we were just talking about this, I don't know if he understood that he was saying something that was insulting."

Gutierrez is not to blame here, trying to grasp the sides of the gigantic, crumbling hole that Romney has created (though he may be at fault for climbing in with him).

The Kinsleyian definition of a political gaffe--telling the truth--has unmistakeably, unavoidably begun.

Romney likely didn't know that he was saying something insulting, so completely a part of his worldview is the notion that 47% of the nation are stereotypical takers.  

His barely disguised condescension; his willingness to say anything to a group of people whose judgment he held in contempt; his willingness to sell some idea, any idea, no matter how contradictory to the previous one, to win, all reflect his essential understanding of half of the nation: A hurdle, to be traversed by any means necessary, in order to put the ideas that he believed they could never grasp into effect.

He didn't know that people could comprehend his grasping insincerity. He didn't know--in fact, displayed a remarkable invulnerability--to absorbing any such knowledge, despite having intermingled with them, by necessity, for many months.

This remarkable degree of distance from understanding those unlike him--hardened as a personality style, unamenable to actual change throughout the long campaign--shows us with increasing clarity the danger to this nation that we avoided.

Now, as the Republican Party rushes to change the Potemkin storefront,  racing back to cover the rampant, overgrown tangle of its prior efforts to debase, tarnish and diminish; to whip up the base with the most extreme onslaughts--conspiratorial, false, the various manifestations and insinuations of the paranoid style--now, they wish to bring them back--to reality.

I would suggest that they do so gradually.

I suspect that not all will come willingly.

And I believe that what we will be left with is a facade--a smiling face with sharpened teeth, a more seductive pitch to lure the 47%, so blindly, clumsily handled, as if alien, by Romney, to the same place. 

Petraeus and Broadwell: Spoils

The WaPo remarks on whether the "perks" that Petraeus received may have impacted upon his failed behavior. 

People--including the people reading this--will, for the most part, take what they can get, with the amount of justification beforehand sufficient to get it, and with the degree of mental effort afterward sufficient to justify it.

Petraeus seems unremarkable in this respect, and probably many others.

He has filled the American need for a stock figure, a heroic general, at a time when we had no one currently successfully auditioning for that role, and took what he could from the spoils, while cagily managing the perceptions.

Not cagily enough however, to prevent a driven, likely disturbed, likely eating disordered, likely unconsciously motivated to defeat him adversary from mounting his fame to claw her own way to what appeared to be a top.

Her own prior deceits and distortions evidentiary, neither of them come off so well at the end.

King

This morning, King looked like the cat that had stolen the canary--thrilled and ashamed.

Stirring the pot of the whirlwind, hoping to tar the victors as best as he can.

Susan Rice: Qualifications, Concerns, and Republican's Bitter, Partisan Calumnies

Rice's style is highlighted by a wavering between a dismissive contempt--seen in its most remarkable and revealing form in the unmasked contempt displayed in an interview by Michael Abramowitz at the U.S. Holocaust Museum (http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/290569-1), and a defensive anxiety when under direct, pressing questioning.

This seems both puzzling, given her sterling academic credentials, and temperamentally unsuited to the role of Secretary of State, to which Hillary Clinton has brought an increasingly polished, aware, adjusted-to-the-situation gravitas.

Even John Kerry, whose knowledge and experience can be undercut by an interminable ponderousness, would bring a steadiness that is crucial to the role, and that Clinton has mastered with an effectiveness rare in recent memory.

I understand that there are multiple qualifications and reasons for such a choice; but in a role where the translation of national position is often communicated through nuances of intended--or unintended--affect--Rice is particularly unsuited on that critical variable. It is not something that is easily changed.

I admire Rice and her accomplishments greatly. But this issue is, and has been demonstrated to be, incontrovertibly true.

This creates a difficult situation. Republicans, in the sour, bitter antagonisms of loss, seek to take Rice down for reasons that have nothing to do with the above. Their accusations towards Rice are driven, distorted, inaccurate, wrong. The tragi-comedy of John McCain avoiding a briefing on Benghazi in order to voice his own partisan infuriations at a "lack of information" is only one manifestation of this Post-Electoral-Stress-Disorder by Republicans.

And the premature conclusions spilled by Peter King, while consistent with his usual style, also begin with partisanship, rather than with Rice's actions.

Kings ejaculations have been directly contradicted by Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland, who said after the hearing that Petraeus stated there were two lines of intelligence information were received: that spontaneous protests were occurring that were in response to the anti-Islamic video, and that *after* this, a more organized attack on the Embassy was started.

Rice should be judged on the merits--not, ironically, on partisan "revenge". There are concerns here, however, which, given the very sensitive inter-cultural matters ahead, demand a honed, practiced, in-control temperament that can be directed with intention.  Rice does not demonstrate this, and we will see its consequences if she is selected.

The Contradiction of Peter King

Peter King, who already appeared to have largely reached conclusions regarding what had occurred in Benghazi before Petraeus's testimony this morning, gave conclusions consistent with his consistent anti-Administration bias:

"He now clearly believes that it [the Sept. 11 attack] did not arise out of a demonstration, that it was not spontaneous and it was clear terrorist involvement.”

However, King's statement has been directly contradicted by others in the Petraeus hearing this morning, and by Ambassadorial staff who received the same information as Rice at the time:

Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland, the committee's top Democrat, said after the hearing that Petraeus stated that there were two lines of intelligence information were received: that spontaneous protests were occurring that were in response to the anti-Islamic video, and that *after* this, a more organized attack on the Embassy was started.

At the time that information was communicated to Rice and others, it was believed that the protests were spontaneous, and this was based upon the intelligence information received at that time.

Ambassador Patrick Kennedy confirmed this, stating that he and all Ambassadorial staff had received this same information, and that "if any one of them had appeared on television on Sunday morning, they would have made the same report as Rice did, based on the intelligence that they had received."

Rep. Ruppersberger, after hearing the Petraeus testimony this morning, stated that he was satisfied that the FBI had behaved properly in not notifying the White House or lawmakers about the inquiry sooner, in keeping with post-Watergate rules set up to prevent interference in criminal investigations.

Abandon Norquist

Grover Norquist's smug, self-serving reign of opportunistic terror, like that of the "Twilight Zone" child who is given power far beyond his temperamental capacities or basic infantile selfishness, looks to be finally coming to an end.

As reported by The Hill, Republicans are abandoning Norquist's "pledge" in droves, as they recognize in increasing numbers that there is far more electoral power in exposing and castigating Norquist than there has been in blindly cowtowing to his scheme.

Of the Republicans newly elected to the House, a dozen have openly rejected Norquist's "pledge"--an outcome unimaginable just a year ago, but clearly only the beginning of the crest of the wave.

Combined with the incumbent House members who have also recognized that it is in their greater interest to reject the "pledge", the result falls below the number of members necessary for a majority in the House.

The Senate has fallen to only 39 "pledge" holdouts, also far below the number necessary for a majority.

Norquist responded to the curtain being drawn back from his coercive lair in an interview with Norah O'Donnell, in which he provided the incisive and original electoral analysis that he believed Mitt Romney lost to President Obama because, according to Norquist, the President had called Romney a "poopyhead". Yes, Norquist actually said this.

The Hill details Norquist's decreased impact:

Norquist’s diminished clout could have ramifications during intensifying negotiations over the so-called “fiscal cliff” and a grand bargain on taxes, spending and entitlements that leaders in both parties want to strike in the coming months.

In the wake of President Obama’s reelection, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has said Republicans could accept a deal that includes new revenue under certain conditions

Those who have now cast the "pledge" aside come from a wide variety of states. They represent a broad cross-spectrum of electoral positions.

What they share is a desire to no longer be bound by a "pledge." Rather, they intend to act as freely chosen elected representatives of the people.  The Hill:

“I don’t want to sign a pledge that’s going to tie my hands,” Ted Yoho, a GOP congressman-elect from Florida, told The Hill. “I need free rein to do what I think is right for the people in my district and the country.”

Susan Brooks, a newly elected Republican from Indiana, offered a similar explanation on the campaign trail, spokeswoman Dollyne Pettingill Sherman said. “She just took the position that she was not going to sign pledges,” she said. “That doesn’t mean she’s for tax increases. She’s not. She was very clear about it.”

Ignore the frantic man behind the curtain, desperately attempting to retain his posture of smug, pre-adolescent certainty.

The time has come to abandon childish things.

Stewart v. Huckabee: Does an Eternity of Flame Signify Hell Or Unusual Metallurgical Metaphors?

On last night's "Daily Show", Jon Stewart presented guest Mike Huckabee with a commercial that he had voiced during the Presidential campaign.

The ad begins with the image of flames set against a dark, cavernous, dystopian background. The voice begins: "This November, some Christian voters..."

We see that there is a worker submerged in the darkness, laboring with a hammer, and then dipping a forge into the flames.

The voiceover continues "...will be put to the test". The ad then quick cuts to a hand checking a ballot. The voiceover continues:

"Some issues...are not negotiable". The words "not negotiable" then appear against the darkness in bold, golden type.

The voiceover: "The right to life from conception to natural death." Life and death are rendered in the same bold golden type.

The cavern-trapped, flame-licked, darkness immersed dystopian worker now dips the word "marriage" into the flames, as the voice intones:

"Marriage should be reinforced."

Then, there is a close cut that fills the screen entirely with flames.

We see the word "marriage" being consumed by those flames as the voiceover adds: "Not redefined."

The word "freedom" is then dipped by the laborer into the fire that burns in the darkness. The words are spoken and appear on the screen: "It is an egregious violation of our cherished principle of religious liberty for the government to force the choice to buy the kind of insurance that leads to the taking of innocent human life."

The words "violations", "religious liberty" and "human life" are bolded in golden hue. The word "choice" is dimmed--so it can barely be seen.

Quick cut to a woman, in worried thought, walking through the curtain of a voting booth. Voiceover: "Your vote will affect the future..."

And quick hard cut to a menacing picture of the laborer, facing forward, the flames burning beside him, set against the cavernous darkness.

Accompanying voiceover to this image: "And be recorded in eternity".

Voiceover: "This is Mike Huckabee asking you to join me and vote November 6th for values that will stand the test of fire."

Stewart, viewing this choice of images and phrases, reasonably queried whether Huckabee was implying that those who cast a vote against Mitt Romney--their vote having been so recorded "in eternity"--would go to Hell.

Huckabee replied that the ad was meant to reference the text of Corinthians 10, and the idea expressed therein that your vote would be tested be fire.

Aside from the perhaps unusual specificity of theological scholarship that Huckabee was bringing to the discussion, Stewart, in his sharp, incisive questioning, missed one question.

For those watching the ad during the campaign, and who just happened to not be familiar with the specific text of Corinthians 10--for that large swath of Americans who are not textual Biblical scholars--perhaps the images and  ideas--lapping flames, dark cavern, man laboring against the increasingly approaching fires, "your vote will be recorded for eternity"--might lead them to a more threatening, emotionally and electorally powerful inference about their fate, should they vote for Obama?

Don't you think that, for that majority of viewers, the flame-devouring, darkness-enclosing, eternal  labors were meant to be understood in "eternal", directional,  flames-lapping-at-your-body, consequential terms, rather than in terms of the strict text? Most people don't know the text of Corinthians 10, Mike!

Why would you expect them to?

Perhaps...he didn't.

Of course--the creative team could have directly cited Corinthians 10, to remove all possible confusion that they were stating that Obama voters would be spend an eternity in Hell.

I wonder why they did not.
 

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Mike Huckabee Pt. 2
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

Norquist Reemerges

Norquist, now that the smoke has cleared, has emerged from his crevice between Republican candidates and corporate interests to again attempt to safely reestablish the continuance of his ongoing swindle.

Norquist's relationship to government is a parasitic one, based on two simple methods: 1) coercion; 2) deceit.

Norquist coerces Republican candidates into taking a pledge that they will "never" raise taxes. How is he able to effect such coercion? He receives large donations from corporate interests who wish to have their taxes kept low. He uses this funding to collect massive mailing and contact lists for each politician.

If a politician does not sign the pledge, he then threatens to blanket their district with a barrage of negative publicity, using these lists to create maximum coverage. Most politicians fold under this blatant corporate coercion.

Their interests are maintained--and Grover takes his cut. He calls this "entrepreneurship".

Norquist, when challenged, says that he is merely acting for the interests of the people. A scheme which paralyzes Government from the collection of necessary revenue, in order to serve the interest of corporate funders and Norquist is hardly in the interests of the people--as we saw in the recent debt ceiling debacle, and in the continuing fear of Republicans to increase taxes in the face of the threat of Norquist's well-funded electoral fusillade.

Norquist is unbearably smug--a kind of indirection which draws scorn away from his more shameful acts.

Like his well detailed fleecing of Indian tribes, in concert with the now reformed Jack Abramoff. Ari Berman of "The Nation" notes that "just a few years ago he was a central player in the Jack Abramoff scandal, using his connections to launder nearly $1 million from Abramoff’s  Indian tribe clients to conservative activist Ralph Reed and Christian anti-gambling groups who were fighting a proposed state lottery in Alabama, according to an extensive report by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. 'Call Ralph re Grover doing pass through,” Abramoff wrote in an e-mail reminder to himself in 1999.'

His current scheme rests on the essential deceit that the paralyzing coercion of elected officials by corporate funded electoral shock and awe is what the nation and its people want and need.

This is a paper thin fallacy that has driven the nation into an economic crisis.

No matter how much Norquist's maintains his snake oil salesman's smugness, it cannot and should not distract us from his greater and more serious offensiveness against the nation.