Why We Can't Talk About Gun Control

Feb 2nd, 2013

We've tried reason, we've employed statistical truth, and we've even called out the leading opponents of any new reforms or enforcement for having previously backed the proposals they now are against.

Neil Steinberg throws up his hands and sees the failure of dialog as a symptom of a pathology:

"...we are not dealing with rational people. Guns are part of the right-wing lunatic fringe of fear, the Obama-loathing, government-hating, minority-despising, science-scoffing quarter of Americans existing in a shadowy permanent grief state over the 1950s, over a white-bread America where they were king that never was and never will be. Guns are the talismans that ward off change in the world, that protect them from all their stalking fears, the wand of hope that someday society will indeed break down — isn’t it fracturing already, with gay marriage? — and they will assume their rightful place as unquestioned kings once more, with their AK-47s set proudly on their kingly hips and their freeze-dried meals nourishing them through the long night of the tardy Mayan zombie apocalypse.

What statistics are going to crack that nut? What numbers are going to change those minds? When they say gun control never works, and you point to the rest of the civilized world, where guns are restricted and gun deaths a trickle, they blink. What rest of the world? Oh, you mean Europe? Where European-style socialism rules? There is no fact that will cut this knot."

Perhaps the "gun-nuts," as some us are prone to calling these fanatics, are exactly that.

They are nuts.

Context, Sen. Rapert? Seriously?

Feb 1st, 2013

Today, ThinkProgress reported on an amateur video (posted below) showing Arkansas State Sen. Jason Rapert (R), a far-right activist who has recently gained national attention for his radical assaults on reproductive choice, making the following statement:

"I hear you loud and clear, Barack Obama. You don’t represent the country that I grew up with. And your values is [sic] not going to save us. We’re going to take this country back for the Lord. We’re going to try to take this country back for conservatism. And we’re not going to allow minorities to run roughshod over what you people believe in!"

It's shameful. It's shocking. It's vile. And it's not playing the "race card" to hammer him for it.

Usually, this is where a public figure who has brought shame to their office makes some sort of apology.

You know the drill. At the very least, they say something along the lines of, "if anyone was offended, etc.."

Some just disappear and they lie low for a while.

Not Sen. Rapert. He has taken to his twitter account to accuse his critics of lacking "context."

No, Seriously.

It's exceedingly rare to see this sort of overt White Supremacism so proudly displayed by a public official in this day and age, but it happens.

However, I can't recall ever seeing someone caught in such a display so devolved that they think it's publicly defensible.

In A Nutshell

Feb 1st, 2013

In A Nutshell

Jan 15th, 2013

Image via

The Saga Of Jonathan Krohn

July 10th, 2012

I remember when I first saw footage of then-conservative wunderkind Jonathan Krohn speaking to CPAC in 2009. At the time, as right wing media lionized him and center media puzzled over him, two things seemed clear to me; First, he had rehearsed the standard points of a movement which he found attractive quite well. Second, he was incredibly bright. He had, after all, written a book on the subject which is somewhat more than I had accomplished at that age.

As passionate as I may be about some of my positions today, I remember with a shudder just how strident I was as an early adolescent. I commented at the time that it was perfectly likely he would change his views before long.

Change he did. As anyone of a political timber knows, he spoke to Politico last week and described his transformation:

"I think it was naive. It’s a 13-year-old kid saying stuff that he had heard for a long time.… I live in Georgia. We're inundated with conservative talk in Georgia.… The speech was something that a 13-year-old does. You haven’t formed all your opinions. You’re really defeating yourself if you think you have all of your ideas in your head when you were 12 or 13. It’s impossible. You haven’t done enough."

It took a certain amount of grace for him to publicly revisit his positions in light of how much he had not only embraced but profited from partisan spectacle in the past. It's an interesting story. 

As I read the comments on twitter and in the initial Politico reporting, there was a certain amount of vulgar, right wing indignation. Just as there had been its opposite in 2009, the political public in the internet age do seem to take these things personally. 

The story should have faded. However, the "conservative" media ensured that it didn't. They went way beyond simple reporting and commentary and into the realm of character assassination. 

This weekend, young Mr. Krohn was compelled to pen a response for Salon:

"I have been treated by the political right with all the maturity of schoolyard bullies. The Daily Caller, for instance, wrote three articles about my shift, topping it off with an opinion piece in which they stated that I deserved criticism because I wear “thick-rimmed glasses” and I like Ludwig Wittgenstein. Why don’t they just call me “four-eyes”? These are not adults leveling serious criticism; these are scorned right-wingers showing all the maturity of a little boy. No wonder I fit in so well when I was 13.

I shouldn't be too surprised. Political divisiveness in America today is a childish thing anyway. The never-ending war between the left and the right seems to me like a couple of drunken college boys fighting over which one of their fraternities is cooler. Think about it: Once you join a side, you have to obey the house rules, go to all the parties, and defend your status as a member of the greatest club on campus. And this is what drove me away from conservatism to my admittedly center-left position of independent mindedness (if that’s a thing)."

I highly recommend the rest of his piece and not for the obvious political reasons. Mr. Krohn is a helluva writer. He's still basically a kid. His views will likely transform any number of times over the next twenty years. That's what happens to people who suffer the curse of critical thinking. But even if I find myself at ideological loggerheads with some future missive, I suspect it will be a good read.

In the meantime, we have seen the full weight and fury of the so-called "conservative" media directed into a campaign of ridicule against an American who is, by every legal definition, still a minor.

That says more about them than it says about him.

Prosecutorial Discretion Is Not Amnesty

June 16th, 2012
by F. Grey Parker

Although a certain knuckle-dragger distracted us from the actual substance of yesterday's Presidential announcement on immigration policy, the new DHS guidelines are still the real story.

What's the bottom line here? What does it mean? As the AP reports:

"The policy will not lead toward citizenship but will remove the threat of deportation and grant the ability to work legally, leaving eligible immigrants able to remain in the United States for extended periods." EMPHASIS MINE

Reliably, the right wing went nuts. Malkin called the it a "stunt" that violates the "rule of law." Limbaugh shrieked that the administration had "broken the law." Rick Moran declared that the President was "pandering" and "acting like a king." The editors over at NRO labeled it "illegal amnesty" and accused the President of being "a little fuzzy on the subject of judicial review."

More rhetorical manipulation using the phrase "amnesty" was found HERE, HERE and HERE.

The push to smear the new guidelines as an "amnesty" is easily understood when this PEW poll on the impact of that particular phrase is taken into account. Language matters.

The problem is that it's not "amnesty." It's also neither a new fast-track to citizenship nor a scheme to suddenly expand the voter rolls with Democratic sympathizers as some on the fringe have implied.

What President Obama unveiled yesterday simply formalizes and ensures continuity for certain policies of prosecutorial discretion which immigration authorities have exercised for decades. What's more, the facts tell us that the Obama administration has been anything but soft on illegal immigration. Deportations since 2009 have been dramatically higher than under both W. terms combined (corroborations HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE.)

They've also been smarter.

The principal difference between Obama's enforcement of immigration law and that of his predecessors has been the targeting of the most dangerous and criminal violators and the prioritization of their deportations first. In fact, deportations of non-citizens convicted of crimes has increased by 70% since Obama took office.

This rational strategy has, predictably, drawn attacks from the GOP. Their 'who cares' approach insists upon a refusal to differentiate between otherwise law abiding young people who have lived here most of their lives, even those who have served in our armed forces, and violent criminals. They would deport them all without consideration for the contributions the former have made or the threat the latter present. They also give no thought to how we would pay to achieve their vision of the wholesale round-up, internment and expulsion of millions upon millions of people.

It does seem as if the biggest problem the right has with the announced policy is that it's not both stupid and cruel.

Just over a year ago, David W. Leopold, President of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, wrote a paper addressing the legal options available to the President and outlining precisely the parameters announced as policy yesterday:

"Deferred action is merely a temporary relief that confers no legal immigration status upon the noncitizen and therefore does not provide long‐term stability for the individual. DHS can initiate enforcement actions when the deferred action grant expires. But by temporarily choosing to delay an enforcement action against a foreign national, the agency can address humanitarian concerns which would otherwise be triggered by arrest, detention or removal. The regulations enable DHS to grant travel authorization for recipients of deferred action. DHS also has the authority to grant employment authorization for those granted deferred action. In this regard, deferred action provides a solution that temporarily suspends the enforcement of immigration laws when DHS determines that execution of enforcement is not warranted at that particular time." EMPHASIS OURS

This isn't amnesty. But it is legal, practical and humane. And that is driving the right crazy.

Climate Change, Nasa And Sketchy Astronauts

April 11th, 2012

HT to Oliver Willis

This morning over at NRO, Jonah Goldberg is hyping a Washington Examiner (yeah, they're not biased) article which opens as follows:

"In an unprecedented slap at NASA's endorsement of global warming science, nearly 50 former astronauts and scientists--including the ex-boss of the Johnson Space Center--claim the agency is on the wrong side of science and must change course or ruin the reputation of the world’s top space agency.

Challenging statements from NASA that man is causing climate change, the former NASA executives demanded in a letter to Administrator Charles Bolden that he and the agency "refrain from including unproven remarks" supporting global warming in the media."

Okay, it sounds big and dramatic. In fact, it's as breathless as print propaganda gets. It's still certifiable horseshit. Who is behind this effort? This is who:

"Former Apollo astronauts Walter Cunningham and Harrison “Jack” Schmitt are listed as the main contacts for the letter, and their past advocacy against climate change science calls into question the scientific validity of the petition.

In 2009 Schmitt appeared on the talk show of 9/11 conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and said that he believed that the environmental movement was a front for Communism.

"I think the whole trend really began with the fall of the Soviet Union. Because the great champion of the opponents of liberty, namely communism, had to find some other place to go and they basically went into the environmental movement," Schmitt said." EMPHASIS MINE

Uh huh. 

What's the real latest information on this critical issue? Well, there's this...

And then there is THIS and THIS and THIS (which is especially depressing) and THIS.

But let's be honest. We really have no time for provable, empirical climate science when we are hot on the trail of the far bigger threat... the vast and insidious global Communist conspiracy.

WTF?

Understatement Of The Year Nominee

April 5th, 2012

I have to tip my hat to Right Wing Watch for this gem:

"As we have noted several times in recent weeks, David Barton has a problem accurately reporting on contemporary issues that are easily verifiable..."

Wow. This is politeness on a scale that deserves no small amount of praise.

David Barton convulsively lies every single time that he opens his face-hole. RWW has tirelessly and ceaselessly exposed his lies for quite a bit longer than the last few weeks.

Frankly, I suggest that they have every right to take a lot more credit here.

As to the particular matter at hand, David Barton was lying. Again. Really blatantly.

Arizona - The American Right's Insanity Incubator

April 4th, 2012

Admittedly, there is plenty of "conservative" crazy to go around.

In Florida, the push is on to drug test, well, pretty much everybody who works for state government provided that they are not legislators.

In Michigan, I am not making this up, the Republican Governor has just signed a law which seems to have been designed for the sole purpose of absolving the brother of that state's GOP party chair from responsibility in a multi-million dollar real estate boondoggle.

From coast to coast, the war on women rages, arguments that the poor should be taxed more are regarded as reasonable and, as Andrew Sullivan has examined HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE, standard GOP talking points about the sitting President are so far removed from reality as to be the equivalent of fiction.

There's also the Ryan plan, a scheme so fantastical in its absurdity that it contains statements like this one on page 16:

"The U.S. military is threatened by an uncontrolled debt burden that weakens America - but defense spending is not the driver of that burden." EMPHASIS MINE

Remember, this a "serious" and "non-political" document.

Mitt Romney has called it "marvelous" to the delight of the President.

Yup, the right wing's whack-doodles are absolutely everywhere making their mischief like pooh-flinging monkeys on a coke binge.

But there really is no place like Arizona.

Sure, most GOP controlled state houses are trying to pass or have passed invasive new restrictions on a woman's right to choose. But none of them are like Arizona's H.B 2036. Not content to merely ape other transvaginal ultra sound mandates or impose new limits on when a pregnancy can be terminated, Arizona's GOP has inserted a provision which effectively alters the fabric of time.

Over at Mother Jones, Kate Sheppard explains:

"Like the proposals before it, Arizona's legislation is modeled on the "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act" designed by the National Right to Life Committee. And like the other bills, it states that abortion would be banned 20 weeks into a pregnancy. But reproductive rights advocates point out that Arizona's law would actually be more restrictive than others, as the bill states that the gestational age of the fetus should be "calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman."

Not to go all middle-school health on you, but that's not exactly the same as the actual date the egg and the sperm hooked up. Figuring out that exact point one became pregnant can be tricky. Most women ovulate about 14 or 15 days after their period starts, and women can usually get pregnant from sexual intercourse that occured anywhere between five days before ovulation and a day after it. Arizona's law would start the clock at a woman's last period—which means, in practice, that the law prohibits abortion later than 18 weeks after a woman actually becomes pregnant."

Got that?

You're pregnant when you're not, ladies. So there. Harlots.

Still, this is very nearly rational in comparison with any number of other initiatives the Arizona GOP has proposed.

Got employer covered health insurance? WELL, let's protect their right to fire you if you use birth control.

Let's link any environmental initiative, even one using private funds to cover governmental interests, to a vast conspiracy involving "one world government," the U.N., Bill Clinton and... whatever.

Let's force any woman who is struggling with the Constitutionally protected right to choose to view an abortive procedure first.

Just in time for the anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr, let's propose rather severe new penalties on civil disobedience.

Don't get me started on Joe Arpaio. Or Russell Pearce. It goes on and on and on with exemplars that boggle in comparison to almost any other so-called "Red State."

The state of Arizona has come to not only define, but also to predict establishment GOP extremism. They are the micro to the macro. If it's nuts, and it's happening there, it's also probably on its way to your state.

For the record, I used to love Arizona.

I once rode a horse in Monument Valley. It's one of my most treasured memories. I hoped at that time to capture the feeling, to be frank, that I thought John Wayne must have had in any of the many films he made there with the great John Ford directing.

It is a place of tremendous natural splendor. I also really liked the people I met when I was there.

But, that seems a lifetime ago.

Would I go back now?

Not a fucking chance unless I have to. I would as soon go to Kazakhstan and start loudly declaring myself to be American.

This is because it seems very nearly as dangerous to be one in either place.

Stephen Kruiser on "Tolerance"

Feb 26th, 2012

When "comedian" Stephen Kruiser isn't bringing his "humor" to outlets like Fox's Red Eye, he tweets funny things like this.

A Ray Of Light At CPAC

Feb 13th, 2012

Although CPAC 2012 was predictably depressing (coverage HERE and HERE) and largely represented the worst that the elites who have taken control of the "conservative" movement have to offer, there was one development about which I had to smile...

Frank Gaffney's 15 minutes appear to be nearly over.

At least they have some standards.

The GOP Mission To Re-Elect Obama

Feb 12th, 2012

First, there was the Ryan Medicare debacle. Then came the GOP-driven debt ceiling disaster. Now, we have the "conservative" movement waging open war on contraception, a strategy which the vast majority of Americans aren't buying no matter how they frame it. In between these iconoclastic moments, we've had no meaningful legislation drafted in the House, demonization of the working poor, defense of corporations as people and an adherence to a social and economic orthodoxy so rigid that even a majority of registered Republicans oppose it point by point.

Perhaps, Team Obama should be thanking these guys.

Jonathan Chait writes:

"...President Obama has rehabilitated his own political standing in large part by highlighting the opposition of congressional Republicans. The Republican strategy has been to block and delay Obama’s agenda at every turn, and Obama has absorbed most of the backlash from a public that tends to hold the president singularly responsible for all political outcomes. Obama’s campaign of publicly highlighting Republican opposition has simultaneously helped to absolve him of at least part of the blame and made him look more like a strong leader.

CPAC Round Up, cont...

Feb 11th, 2012
The day 1 round up is HERE

The Presidential contenders arrived and gave their speeches yesterday.

Newt Gingrich brought the crowd to their feet by attacking unemployment insurance, going so far as to call it a "violation of the Declaration of Independence." We're aren't making this up.


Rick Santorum continued his crusade against the evils of birth control and further ginned up the controversy over insuring women's health with an argument that should make every educated human being shake their head in disbelief:

"...here is what they are forcing them to do, in an insurance policy, they or forcing them to pay for something that costs just a few dollars. Is that what insurance is for?"

Igor Volsky responds:

"In reality, oral contraceptives or “The Pill” range between $35 and $250 for the initial provider visit and the cost of a monthly supply of pills ranges between $15 and $50 a month, which amounts to between $180 and $600 a year depending on woman’s medical coverage. This means some women without insurance coverage for contraception may pay over $850 the first year of their prescription. Other forms of birth control are far more expensive. For instance, the cost for a monthly supply of birth control patches ranges from $15 to $80 dollars, or between $180 and $960 a year. Combined with the doctors visit, uninsured women could spend over $1,200 dollars in the first year."

Ron Paul, the unlikely star of CPACs past, was noticeably absent from his year's festivities. However, he sent his son in do some dirty work for him.

Which brings us to the "frontrunner."

Mitt Romney gave a speech that addressed the burning issue of our time; No, not the ongoing economic decline of the middle class. As everyone at CPAC knows, the real threat to America is "the gay." Bragging about having used an early 20th Century law originally intended to prevent interracial marriage in his fight against marriage equality today, he said:

"On my watch, we fought hard and prevented Massachusetts from becoming the Las Vegas of gay marriage. When I am president, I will defend the Defense of Marriage Act, and I will fight for an amendment to our Constitution that defines marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman."

Although Ron Paul won the previous two CPAC presidential straw polls, the powers that be gave Mitt Romney the victory today with 38% of the vote. Santorum was a close second with 31%.

Partisan Evil Beyond All Measure

Jan 23rd, 2012

Scott Keyes reports for ThinkProgress:

"The campaign manager of Arkansas Democratic congressional candidate Ken Aden arrived home last night to find his child’s pet cat murdered on the front porch with the word “LIBERAL” scrawled across its lifeless body."

You read that right. There's more over at Blue Arkansas including a picture of the poor animal we can't bring ourselves to republish:

"Last night, I got the most chilling phone call I have ever received. It was Jake Burris, Ken Aden’s campaign manager. Last night, Jake and his four kids had come back to their Russellville home. As they were getting out of the car, one of his children discovered their family cat dead on the front porch. One side of the animal's head had been bashed in and an eyeball was hanging out of its socket. But there was something even more horrifying to be found on the corpse.

Written across the animal’s fur in black marker was the word "LIBERAL".

This is terrorism. There’s no other word for it. A police report has been filed. Jake said the kids seem to be handling it okay. The one that discovered the cat was too young to be able to read and Jake had quickly gotten the others into the house before they saw it. Pope County is an insanely conservative area and the Aden campaign has been shaking things up even there and it looks like another right wing sociopath with a taste for violence has come crawling out of the woodwork in response. I asked Aden for a comment on the record:

"This is sickening. To kill a child’s pet…I'm at a loss for words…I've seen the best and the worst of humanity, but this is something else."

Both Ken and Jake though made it clear that they weren’t going to back down on the campaign trail, both agreeing that caving to this kind of behavior would only make things worse.

"I've got a gun and I know how to use it," Jake said. "If I have to protect my kids I'll do it without hesitation."

We're speechless.

Dana Loesch, Artless Fascist, Strikes Again

Jan 13th, 2012
The original title included a pejorative that drew a great deal of blowback. It was not meant to be overtly sexist. I stand by the rest of the piece.

You have likely heard by now that some of our troops were recorded on video urinating on dead bodies in Afghanistan. It is not only shocking and immoral, it is not merely a violation of the uniform military code, it is an act so cravenly stupid that it endangers the safety of their fellow servicemen and women. It invites savage retribution in an already brutal country. The ugliness doesn't end there...

Joe Coscarelli reports for NY Mag:

"Tea party favorite Dana Loesch, the editor-in-chief of Andrew Breitbart's Big Journalism and a CNN political analyst, is a big fan of the Marines who were videotaped urinating on Taliban corpses, and would gladly "drop trou and do it too," she said on her radio showyesterday. "That's me though," she said, incredulous that such an event could be a scandal. "I want a million cool points for these guys. Is that harsh to say? Come on people, this is a war. What do people think this is?" On Twitter today, she can't believe anyone is outraged, at her or the troops."

Indeed. She can't possibly get it. I have had the displeasure of tangling with this disgusting harpy in the past. She is, quite possibly, one of the worst human beings on the face of the Earth. The evidence of corpse desecration which she thinks deserves "a million cool points" is below.



ABC News reports:

"The Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) has already launched its own independent investigation into potential criminal activity shown in the video. All four Marines featured in the video have been identified and interviewed by investigators with the NCIS, the service said in a statement today. Officials are "still tracking down" whoever created and uploaded the video, the NCIS said.

The results of both the NCIS and the USMC investigations will be presented to Marine Lt. Gen. Thomas Waldhauser who will determine further action, the USMC said in a statement.

If authentic, the video portrays potential violations of both the first Geneva Convention, which calls for the dead to be "honorably interred" and graves to be "respected," as well as the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice for allegedly bringing "discredit upon the armed forces."

Audio of this vulgar, Eva Braun-wannabe's celebration of a war crime follows.

Why I Won't Be Watching...

Nov 12th, 2011

A number of readers have asked if will be liveblogging tonight's GOP "debate." My answer is NO. Of course... no. I just can't take it anymore. BooMan explains why it's pointless:

"Voters are not learning anything by watching these debates. They're just being misinformed and presented with an alternate reality that is quite different from anything normal people experience in their lives. Unless you are immersed in right-wing talk radio and Fox News, most of what they're saying doesn't even have a passing relationship to your understanding of the world. Their statistics are fabricated. The problems they identify don't even exist. Their solutions are not plausible on any level you might want to consider. It's really a lot more like pro wrestling than actual politics. Except it's actually less entertaining than actual politics, which proves they're doing it wrong. Even Herman Cain, who was providing some consistent comedic value for a while, is no longer funny now that he's trying to explain how many women he's never harassed. I know it's hard to write about a presidential campaign if you don't watch the debates, but I just can't do it. My capacity to imbibe The Stupid has been maxed out."

Fox News Raises Hullabaloo Over Website Kerfuffle

Sept 14th, 2011

You know, this AttackWatch.com freak-out on the right is really just too much fun. On most levels. The truth is that the disproportionate responses are getting worse. It would seem that the fringe is now trying to outdo one another. As I predicted earlier, they are shoveling some seriously steaming loads of "fair and balanced" over at the Murdoch Device. Apparently, Chris Plante has declared that this interactive website is actually proof of Obama's "very fascist" intent to "create an army."
via Media Matters

The Riots and Conservative Audacity

Aug 13th, 2011
by F. Grey Parker

As the meltdown of order overcame England last week, the reading public was simultaneously subjected to a riot online. There were absurd proclamations by the left that this was a desperate response to the "austerity" measures enacted by the Torys. There were equally vulgar rushes to judgment, a lot of them, from the right. In particular, there was an incredible smear from England's answer to Michelle Rhee, Katharine Birbalsingh, who wrote hastily about the "race" of the man who was killed by London's police in the incident that lit the fuse:

"I'd like to know what they’re angry about. Mark Duggan is dead. He was shot by the police in a shootout. Duggan was in a minicab and shots were fired from both the cab and the police elsewhere. A police officer was hurt in the incident and a bullet was found lodged in a police radio. Either Duggan was shooting at the police or the driver of the minicab was. Either Duggan was in the wrong place at the wrong time and his death is a terrible tragedy – he was caught in the crossfire – or he shot at the police and the police defended themselves. Whatever the explanation, the police did not kill this man in cold blood."

First of all, she exposes a viewpoint which is actually shocking... outside of American right wing circles. The casual acceptance of official violence against people "in the wrong place" has become so common here that we in the States no longer raise much more than an eyebrow. Second of all, this sputtering and angry little rant demonstrates again why no one, either on the left or right, should rush to make political hay before the facts are established.

Do You Think God Is A "Conservative"?

March 21st, 2011

By Stephanie Baselice

The “liberal/conservative” divide in current culture is a division of identity not a division of actual opinion on policy. And it is fake. This divide was manufactured in the boardrooms of corporate owned media for the benefit of a tiny minority of billionaires.