Category Archives: The Nation

1 bombing suspect dead, the other at large after shootout

BOSTON — The two suspects in the Boston Marathon bombings led police on a wild and deadly chase through the suburbs here early Friday morning that ended in the death of one of the suspects as well as a campus police officer; the other suspect remained at large while hundreds of police officers conduct a manhunt through Watertown, about five miles west of downtown Boston.

The one police identify as Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev, at large.

The surviving suspect was identified as Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev, 19, of Cambridge, Mass., a law enforcement official said. Investigators believe that that both of the suspects were Chechens, a law enforcement official said….

The pursuit began after 10 p.m. Thursday when two men robbed a 7/11 near Central Square in Cambridge. A security camera caught a man identified as one of the suspects, wearing a gray hoodie.

About 10:30, police received reports that a campus security officer at M.I.T. was shot while he sat in his police cruiser. He was found with multiple gunshot wounds, according to a statement issued by Middlesex Acting District Attorney Michael Pelgro, Cambridge Police Commissioner Robert Haas, and MIT Police Chief John DiFava. The officer was taken to Massachusetts General Hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

A short time later, police received reports of an armed carjacking of a Mercedes SUV by two males in the area of Third Street in Cambridge, the statement said. “The victim was carjacked at gunpoint by two males and was kept in the car with the suspects for approximately a half hour,” the statement said. He was later released, uninjured, at a gas station on Memorial Drive in Cambridge. …

One report I saw they just killed the MIT officer execution-style, no chance.

What sequence of events has loosed mad, bloodthirsty Chechen brothers onto the streets of Boston?

I’m going to be traveling today but will try to check in. Y’all have at it…

NRCC won’t support Sanford candidacy

12 Replies

If you were wondering whether the allegation that Mark Sanford trespassed at his wife’s house would have an effect on the special election in the 1st Congressional District, the answer is “yes:”

National Republicans are pulling the plug on Mark Sanford’s suddenly besieged congressional campaign, POLITICO has learned — a potentially fatal blow to the former South Carolina governor’s dramatic comeback bid.

Blindsided by news that Sanford’s ex-wife has accused him of trespassing and concluding he has no plausible path to victory, the National Republican Congressional Committee has decided not to spend more money on Sanford’s behalf ahead of the May 7 special election.

National Republicans are pulling the plug on Mark Sanford’s suddenly besieged congressional campaign, POLITICO has learned — a potentially fatal blow to the former South Carolina governor’s dramatic comeback bid.

Blindsided by news that Sanford’s ex-wife has accused him of trespassing and concluding he has no plausible path to victory, the National Republican Congressional Committee has decided not to spend more money on Sanford’s behalf ahead of the May 7 special election.

Ow. That’s gotta hurt.

I’m starting to think that in spite of that being a GOP seat since 1980, and despite the district being even more Republican after the last reapportionment, Elizabeth Colbert Busch now has a very real chance of winning.

Boston bombings: Why did authorities telegraph the arrest? (Uh… what arrest?)

17 Replies

While I was at home having a late lunch, the following bulletins came on my phone in rapid succession:

AP Mobile: Breaking (1:41PM EDT): Law enforcement official: Arrest imminent in marathon bombing, suspect to be brought to court.
WSJ: Suspect in Boston bombings about to be arrested, according to AP. WSJ can’t independently confirm.
NYTimes: Investigators Say They Have Video of Man Believed to Have Planted Bombs in Boston
AP Mobile: Breaking (2:02PM EDT): Law enforcement official: Boston Marathon bomb suspect in custody, expected in federal court.

And then just now, as I was typing this, the following:

AP Mobile: Breaking (2:47PM EDT): Federal officials deny that Boston Marathon bombing suspect is in custody.

OK, first, why on Earth would any law enforcement official say someone was about to be arrested when the suspect was not yet in custody? Do they suppose mad bombers don’t have smartphones? I mean, a guy doesn’t even need a police scanner these days to keep tabs on the cops at this rate.

And then, on that last bulletin — What the…? Does anyone, in the media or the law enforcement establishment, know what’s going on?

Bishop Guglielmone on Medicaid expansion in SC

24 Replies

Cindi Scoppe had a column, way back on the St. Patrick’s Day, in which she cited a letter by Bishop Robert E. Guglielmone, the head of the Roman Catholic in South Carolina, advocating for Medicaid expansion in SC.

I meant to say something on the subject then, but didn’t get to it. Which is ironic. Cindi’s not even Catholic (OK, she’s a kind of Catholic; she’s Anglican — but not Roman Catholic).

Anyway, something came up to remind me of it this week — a story in the Anderson paper about religious leaders in SC pushing for Medicaid expansion — so I thought I’d go ahead now and share the bishop’s letter.

It is a letter that, unlike the pronouncements of our governor and the House leadership, makes all the sense in the world:

February 20, 2013
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
To be Christian means that we are concerned about the wellbeing and health of all people. God took on flesh to restore the integrity of broken and wounded humanity. Indeed, Jesus made healing of the sick central to his ministry. “He came to the world to make us fully human, to help us to realize our human dignity as creatures made in the image of God. He came to bring the fullness of life” (USCCB Pastoral Letter: Health and Health Care, Nov. 19, 1981).
Throughout the centuries, the Church has carried on the ministry of Jesus by establishing
hospitals and nurturing the apostolate to the sick in response to the needs of suffering people. Pope John XXIII included medical care as a basic right founded on the sanctity of human life in his encyclical, Pacem in Terris. Reaffirming this traditional concern for today, Pope Benedict XVI wrote that “Health is a precious good for the person and society to promote, conserve and protect, dedicating the means, resources and energies necessary so that more persons can enjoy it. Unfortunately, the problem still remains today of many populations of the world that do not have access to the necessary resources to satisfy fundamental needs, particularly in regard to health. It is necessary to work with greater commitment at all levels so that the right to health is rendered effective, favoring access to primary health care” (Benedict XVI: Message to the Pontifical Council for Health Care Ministry, Nov. 18, 2010).
The Catholic Bishops of the United States have consistently called for access to health care forall our citizens: “Our approach to health care is shaped by a simple but fundamental principle: ‘Every person has a right to adequate health care. This right flows from the sanctity of human life and the dignity that belongs to all human persons, who are made in the image of God.’ Health care is more than a commodity; it is a basic human right, an essential safeguard of human life and dignity” (USCCB Resolution: A Framework for Comprehensive Health Care Reform, June 18, 1993). While the Church’s call for access to health care reflects an application of the Gospel to a contemporary need and therefore reflects the urgency of the Gospel, determining how to implement such access is open to prudential judgments of how to make it happen most effectively. We must continually discern wise solutions to the challenges we face, solutions that are both economically and politically viable. In that task of discernment, however, we as Catholics bring time-honored principles of Catholic social teaching to inform our reflection.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) now being legally enacted in our
country is an attempt to bring health care access to a broader range of citizenry in the United States. It is not perfect. In fact, the U.S. Catholic Church is deeply concerned about mandates associated with aspects of the law that would require religious institutions to provide contraception coverage, asking us to violate a consistent position by the Church on this. There are also many concerns about how to rein in the costs of health care so that its expansion is affordable to our country. However, providing access to health care is consonant with Catholic social teaching. Indeed, it is more than consonant — it is called for by Catholic social teaching.
This spring, our South Carolina state legislature will consider whether to opt into the expansion of Medicaid as provided for by the Affordable Care Act. Persons eligible for Medicaid would be expanded by about three hundred thirty thousand more South Carolinians who live near the poverty line but previously have not been eligible. Key state-wide elected leaders and many in the General Assembly have voiced their opposition to this expansion. Leaders of our state’s hospitals, including Catholic hospitals, on the other hand, have endorsed this legislation. It will expand their ability not only to serve the poor of our state but to pay for those services. The State of South Carolina would be required to pay for ten percent of the total cost of this expansion after three years of full funding by the Federal Government. This will require us as a state to find the revenue to pay for this expansion. It will cost us.
Bearing a cost for the sake of something greater is the heart of our faith; it brought us salvation. At the same time, we can and must make this expansion and our whole healthcare system more effective and economically viable. If health care funding as envisioned by the Affordable Care Act is not perfect, we nevertheless are not powerless as a society to refine and make it more effective even as we implement it.
I write as your Bishop in noting the call of Catholic social teaching, and I appeal as a fellow
citizen in making a case for acceptance of Medicaid expansion by our state. I urge my fellow Catholics to study this issue and form your own prudential judgment on its wisdom. However, I ask that you start that evaluation with a presumption in favor of what the Church says is a good to be pursued in society, namely, the flourishing of all people through access to health care. Hold as well our faith conviction that shared sacrifice for a greater good and concern for the poor make us more like Christ. Make your views known to your legislators. For my part, I believe Medicaid expansion offers a step forward for South Carolina.

In the Lord’s Peace,
Most Reverend Robert E. Guglielmone
Bishop of Charleston

Pablo Neruda: ‘…y por las calles la sangre de los niños…’

1 Reply

Here’s a grim coincidence.

When I heard that one of the three dead in Boston was an 8-year-old boy, I remembered what I had heard on the radio early in the afternoon, before the explosions.

Celeste Headlee was interviewing someone about the legacy of Chilean poet Pablo Neruda, and the guest read the last part of Neruda’s poem “Explico Algunas Cosas.”

Here’s how it went:

Y una mañana todo estaba ardiendo
y una mañana las hogueras
salían de la tierra
devorando seres,
y desde entonces fuego,
pólvora desde entonces,
y desde entonces sangre.
Bandidos con aviones y con moros,
bandidos con sortijas y duquesas,
bandidos con frailes negros bendiciendo
venían por el cielo a matar niños,
y por las calles la sangre de los niños
corría simplemente, como sangre de niños.

Victim Martin Richard, 8.

Chacales que el chacal rechazaría,
piedras que el cardo seco mordería escupiendo,
víboras que las víboras odiaran!

Frente a vosotros he visto la sangre
de España levantarse
para ahogaros en una sola ola
de orgullo y de cuchillos!

Generales
traidores:
mirad mi casa muerta,
mirad España rota:
pero de cada casa muerta sale metal ardiendo
en vez de flores,
pero de cada hueco de España
sale España,
pero de cada niño muerto sale un fusil con ojos,
pero de cada crimen nacen balas
que os hallarán un día el sitio
del corazón.

Preguntaréis por qué su poesía
no nos habla del sueño, de las hojas,
de los grandes volcanes de su país natal?

Venid a ver la sangre por las calles,
venid a ver
la sangre por las calles,
venid a ver la sangre
por las calles!

And here it is in English:

And one morning it was all burning, and one morning bonfires sprang out of the earth, devouring humans. And from then on, fire, gunpowder from then on, and from then on blood. Bandidos with planes and Moors, bandidos with rings and duchesses, bandidos with black friars signing the cross, coming down from sky to kill children. And in the streets, the blood of children ran simply like blood of children.

Jackals the jackals would despise, stones that the dry thistle would bite and bit on and spit out, vipers that the vipers would abominate. Facing you, I have seen the blood of Spain rise up to drown you in a single wave of pride and knives. Traitors, generals: look at my dead house, look at Spain broken: from every house, burning metal comes out instead of flowers, from every crater of Spain comes Spain, from every dead child comes a rifle with eyes, from every crime bullets are born that one day will find out in due the sight of the heart.

You will ask: why doesn’t his poetry speak to us of dreams, of leaves, of the great volcanoes of his native land? Come and see the blood in the streets, come and see the blood in the streets, come and see the blood in the streets.

In Neruda’s day, the threat was fascist government. Today, in the West, it’s deluded individuals and small groups of lunatics.

At least 2 dead after explosions at the Boston Marathon

48 Replies

EDITOR’S NOTE: The latest developments in this breaking story will be at the bottom of the comment thread…

This broke a little while ago, but reports remain sketchy. From The Boston Herald:

Two huge explosions rocked the Boston Marathon finish line at Copley Square just before 3 p.m. today, apparently causing numerous casualties.

“I saw two explosions. The first one was beyond the finish line. I heard a loud bang and I saw smoke rising,” said Herald reporter Chris Cassidy, who was running in the marathon.“I kept running and I heard behind me a loud bang. It looked like it was in a trash can or something. That one was in front of Abe and Louie’s. There are people who have been hit with debris, people with bloody foreheads.”

“There are at least a dozen that seem to be injured in some way,” Cassidy said.

Will this be the first successful terror attack in this country since 9/11/01? Or a gas main exploding? We’re still in those foggy first moments of developing news. Or developing history.

High hopes for the Gang of 8’s immigration bill

3 Replies

It’s coincidences like this that make people think there’s some sort of conspiracy among news media. The story on thestate.com this morning, from the NYT news service, was headlined, “Rubio offers full-throated support for immigration bill.”

Meanwhile a story in The Washington Post said,

On Tuesday, the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” is set to unveil a proposal that would represent the most far-reaching overhaul of immigration laws since 1986. The process of developing the legislation, which features a path to citizenship for up to 11 million immigrants who are in the country illegally, was hammered out in two dozen meetings led by veterans of earlier immigration battles, including Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.).

But in many ways, the senators’ negotiations, behind the scenes and in public, have hinged on a party of one. Rubio, the tea party favorite whose parents emigrated from Cuba, has been considered the most crucial player all along. Although he has seemed to waver at times, his full-throated endorsement of the bill Sunday, in a marathon round of seven television interviews, put at ease a group of colleagues who have been working hard to ensure he stays the course. I don’t know how full his throat was, but his calendar was certainly crowded on Sunday.

Sort of makes you think there was an emergency meeting of the Press Establishment yesterday, and “full-throated” would be the modifier of the week.

The chances are good that I, too, will be offering “full-throated” endorsement of the bill when it’s unveiled tomorrow. Partly because, as you know, if both Lindsey Graham and John McCain are for it, I have a tendency to agree. (When Joe Lieberman was in the Senate, and all three of them agreed on something, I was almost always with them — the big exception being health care policy.)

Beyond that, after months of work by this bipartisan group, the pragmatic truth is that politically speaking, whatever they have come up with is the best chance this country has to achieve comprehensive immigration reform. Whatever this one’s flaws may be, I can’t imagine where a better bill would come from. And the country is overdue to address this issue.

I have another rule of thumb — if both David Brooks and E.J. Dionne are for it, I usually am. And I heard them praising the effort on Friday, in a way that implied they’d had a look at the bill. In fact, I thought for a moment that I’d missed something in the news, since they were talking about it as though it were already out there.

But to return to where we started, the fact that Marco Rubio is so “full-throatedly” on board is a good sign that this will be something worth supporting. While McCain and Graham are taking a big political risk with this — Graham faces re-election next year, and as we know, there are elements in his party who despise him specifically for such things as this — for Rubio, the stakes are bigger. Everyone’s speaking of him as a presidential candidate for 2016 (on NPR this morning, they were talking about him being “the GOP’s Obama”).

Presidential ambitions would help explain why he would support something like this, as it helps move him and his party toward the center. It also presents a big risk, since he’s already alienated much of his base just by being one of the Gang of 8.

Which is why all the political talk shows wanted him yesterday.

Whatever happens with Rubio, though, here’s hoping that, after all this buildup, the Gang’s bill doesn’t disappoint.

The overshadowed passing of Annette

4 Replies

Long before there was a Cher, or a Madonna, or a Sting, there was Annette, who preceded them all in needing no surname. Even “Elvis” had “Presley” attached more than Annette used “Funicello” in the early days.

That’s because she was the most famous of the Mouseketeers, and I mean the original, real Mouseketeers, not the latter-day imitations.

We expected the passing of Margaret Thatcher; that movie with Meryl Streep made it seem imminent. But Annette, leaving us at 70, was more of a shock.

I suspect you have to be almost exactly my age — one whose preschool years were entirely contained within the ’50s — to get this completely. Later, seeing her in the beach movies, I’d form another picture of her, and that one probably stuck better — that of a young woman rather than a child, although still a squeaky-clean image. (Alas, she was not my favorite character in those films; that honor belonged to Eric Von Zipper.)

John Updike used a passage, early in Rabbit Run, in which Harry “Rabbit” Angstrom watches the “The Mickey Mouse Club,” which comes across as a way of assuring us that this is, indeed, a quintessentially American novel. But Harry could never connect with the Mouseketeers the way we did. Harry was spoiled goods; he wasn’t one of us. Harry, in that and subsequent novels (OK, so I really only made it through Rabbit Redux before I gave up on him), was always too old for the cultural passages he was experiencing. Yet he plunged through them anyway, which for me imbued him with a certain falseness.

How did we get on Updike? Oh, yeah, Annette…

The Mouseketeers, Elvis, Mickey Mantle and Andy Devine were my first celebrities. It was years and years before I learned from Dumas there had been something in history called a musketeer, which at first looked to me like a misspelling.

Annette! If only once more we could see her standing by Jimmie as he led us through:

M-I-C (see you next week!)
K-E-Y (Why? Because we LIKE you!)
M-O-U-S-E

… and know, with a child’s certainty, that yes, we would see them next week, and that they did indeed like us as much as we liked them…

But was Obama RIGHT about Kamala Harris?

40 Replies

I’m really not terribly interested in whether President Obama’s compliment about California Attorney General Kamala Harris was “sexist.” After all these years, I’m still trying to figure out an accurate, consistent definition of the term. It seems to shift, depending on context.

I’ll let y’all hash that out. Anyway, here’s what I’m talking about:

Speaking at a fundraiser in a wealthy San Francisco suburb, President Obama praised the looks of California Attorney General Kamala Harris.

“You have to be careful to, first of all, say she is brilliant and she is dedicated and she is tough, and she is exactly what you’d want in anybody who is administering the law, and making sure that everybody is getting a fair shake,” Obama said. “She also happens to be, by far, the best looking attorney general in the country.”

“It’s true! C’mon,” he added, to laughter from the crowd…

And why did they laugh? Because most of the people in the crowd, male and female, had probably had more or less the same thought.

Coming from Obama, I take the remark as pretty benign. If it had come from Bill Clinton, I might react differently. Poor Obama — he’s seen as so aloof, so one time he tries to be a regular guy, to give an honest human reaction, even be gallant, and he ends up having to apologize for it. With Bill Clinton, the remark would be superfluous because we already knew he was a “regular guy” — and not in a good way.

400px-Kamala_Harris_Official_Attorney_General_Photo

And really, I want to hear from everyone on this. I’m not looking for the male reaction. Women are equally fine judges of pulchritude. I’m not looking for anything salacious or lascivious. I’m thinking more on the level of that episode of “Seinfeld” when George said of Joe DiMaggio, “Now that is a handsome man.”No, for once, I’d rather stay away from the value judgments, and ask a simple question: Was the president’s observation accurate?

When I started writing this post, I meant to link to a site that would show us all of the attorneys general. Unfortunately, the only link I’ve found that looks like it would enable us to do that doesn’t seem to be working. Maybe a lot of other people had the same thought, and overloaded the site — I don’t know.

I can say that, based on the photos I’ve looked at, she’s the best-looking attorney general I’ve ever seen. (Henry McMaster may have been tall and well-coiffed, but come on…) But I may have missed some unusually handsome examples of both genders; I must admit that.

I’m just trying to help the president out here, on the theory that truth is an effective defense…

Michele Bachmann certainly does whine a lot

7 Replies

Today, Michele Bachmann writes, yet again, to tell me that the Democrats are picking on her:

Fellow Conservative,

The national Democrats would love nothing more than to see me lose — and they have already decided to pull out all the stops to make that happen.

In fact just yesterday, Roll Call — a Capitol Hill political publication — is hinting that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) is telling reporters that I’m on the top of their list for defeat. (The DCCC is Nancy Pelosi’s campaign slush fund.)

You see, the DCCC has already identified my district and campaign as one they are targeting for defeat in 2014. And you can bet they will have the resources to go all out. In 2012 alone, the DCCC raised and spent more than $184 million dollars to defeat Republicans.

And, in addition to working overtime to defeat our campaign, they have willing accomplices in the liberal media to continue their dirty work by misrepresenting and misleading voters all over the national airwaves.

Fellow Conservative, I need your help to fight back.

I cannot do this without you. Our campaign is entirely funded by the donations of my supporters and close friends like yourself.

Won’t you please make an instant online contribution of $25, $50, $100 or more right now so I can fight back against the liberals in the national media and at the DCCC?

You see, the DCCC has it all wrong. They think that if they can defeat me, they will have defeated our values. But, our campaign isn’t about me- it’s about US. It’s about restoring our government and economy, protecting our shared constitutional conservative values, eliminating the wasteful spending in Washington, and ensuring our conservative voice is heard.

We cannot let the DCCC undo all of the great work we have done in the past. The actions we take today will determine our future.

If the national Democrats and the liberal media are going to start campaigning against me this early — then you and I must start this early as well.

And that’s exactly why I’m writing you today.

You have been a loyal supporter and friend, but your continued support has never been more important. The ultra-liberals at the DCCC are now openly targeting my race, and we need to fight back.

The fastest way to join our campaign is by making an online donation.

Thank you for standing with me at the outset of what promises to be an exciting year.

Sincerely,

Michele Bachmann

PS. I need your urgent support. The fact that the DCCC is working this early to defeat our campaign, proves that they will pull out all the stops this election cycle. We must work hard today to prove we are going to fight back with everything we have. Please follow this link to show your support and make your most generous contribution of $25, $50, $100 or more today. Thanks.

It’s gotten to where, when I get an email from Michele, I want to respond the way Grace the secretary in “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” did to Jeannie: “Who’s bothering you now?”

Lesson (too late) for Romney: Always thank the servers

39 Replies

HuffPost has been talking to the bartender who shot the infamous “47 percent” footage that did so much to undermine Mitt Romney last year.

Here’s what he said about how it happened:

The man, who tended bar for a company that catered to a high-end clientele, had previously worked at a fundraiser at a home where [Bill] Clinton spoke. After Clinton addressed guests, the man recalled, the former president came back to the kitchen and thanked the staff, the waiters, the bartenders, the busboys, and everyone else involved in putting the event together. He shook hands, took photos, signed autographs, and praised the meal—all characteristic of the former president.

When the bartender learned he would be working at Romney’s fundraiser, his first thought was to bring his camera, in case he had a chance to get a photo with the presidential candidate. Romney, of course, did not speak to any of the staff, bussers or waiters. He was late to the event, and rushed out. He told his dinner guests that the event was off the record, but never bothered to repeat the admonition to the people working there.

One of them had brought along a Canon camera. He set it on the bar and hit the record button.

The bartender said he never planned to distribute the video. But after Romney spoke, the man said he felt he had no choice.

“I felt it was a civic duty. I couldn’t sleep after I watched it,” he said. “I felt like I had a duty to expose it.”

As Huffington suggests, Obama owes Clinton on this one…

We’ve lost a soldier in the losing, but noble, struggle against Daylight Saving Time. a.k.a. ‘The Devil’s Time’

18 Replies

As I continue to mourn for the loss of my hour over the weekend, I am further saddened by this obit in the Biloxi Sun Herald:

Harry Weathersby Stamps, ladies’ man, foodie, natty dresser, and accomplished traveler, died on Saturday, March 9, 2013. … He had a life-long love affair with deviled eggs, Lane cakes, boiled peanuts, Vienna [Vi-e-na] sausages on saltines, his homemade canned fig preserves, pork chops, turnip greens, and buttermilk served in martini glasses garnished with cornbread. … As a former government and sociology professor for Gulf Coast Community College, Harry was thoroughly interested in politics and religion and enjoyed watching politicians act like preachers and preachers act like politicians. He was fond of saying a phrase he coined ‘I am not running for political office or trying to get married’ when he was ‘speaking the truth.’ He also took pride in his service during the Korean conflict, serving the rank of corporal—just like Napolean, as he would say. … He despised phonies, his 1969 Volvo (which he also loved), know-it-all Yankees, Southerners who used the words ‘veranda’ and ‘porte cochere’ to put on airs, eating grape leaves, Law and Order (all franchises), cats, and Martha Stewart. In reverse order. He particularly hated Day Light Saving Time, which he referred to as The Devil’s Time. It is not lost on his family that he died the very day that he would have had to spring his clock forward. This can only be viewed as his final protest….

As Slatest said, no excerpt does it justice, so go read the whole obit.

Sounds like we lost a great man.

Oh, and if you’re still laboring under the delusion that The Devil’s Time is harmless, check out this from the LAT:

Today is one of the most dangerous days of the year — and the onset of daylight saving time is to blame.

Though it began on Sunday, researchers have found the most acute effects occur on the first Monday after clocks spring forward. That’s when about one-fifth of the world’s population is forced to get up and go to school or work one hour earlier than their bodies are used to. (Unlike on Sunday, there’s no option to just sleep in.)

…Here are some of the things they have learned:

* Heart attacks are more likely in the first week after we spring forward….

* Traffic accidents are 8.6% more common…

* Workplace accidents are more common — and more severe…

* The disruption to normal sleep rhythms was blamed for an uptick in suicides among Australian men…

And so forth. It’s time this madness stopped!

7-year-old boy suspended for being 7-year-old boy

56 Replies

Passing on this bit of news from Maryland:

GLEN BURNIE, MD (CNN) – A 7-year-old Maryland boy was expected to return to school Tuesday after serving a suspension for forming his breakfast pastry into the shape of a gun and allegedly saying the words “bang, bang.”

Children at Park Elementary School went home on Friday with a letter explaining there was a disruption in school.

Josh Welch and his father B.J. say the disruption lead to a two day suspension for the second grader in Brooklyn Park.

Academics are hard for Josh, who suffers from ADHD, but he excels in art class. It is Josh’s own creativity that may have gotten him into trouble.

Josh was enjoying his breakfast pastry when he decided to try and shape it into a mountain. “It was already a rectangle and I just kept on biting it and biting it and tore off the top and it kinda looked like a gun but it wasn’t,” Josh said.

Josh takes full responsibly for trying to shape his breakfast pastry, but admits it was in innocent fun. “All I was trying to do was turn it into a mountain but, it didn’t look like a mountain really and it turned out to be a gun kinda,” Josh said.

When his teacher saw the strawberry tart he knew he was in trouble. “She was pretty mad? and I think I was in big trouble.”

Reminds me of when the elder of my sons was a toddler in his high chair eating toast. He ate it down to where he had two crusts left intact in an L shape. He then grasped it by one side, and aiming the other around the room said “Pow, pow!” Nearly broke my wife’s heart. She felt like she had done something wrong raising him — after all, his older sister had never exhibited such “violent tendencies.”

But boys will do things like that.

The fact that this one did it with a dessert-type item reminds me of a bit of silly dialogue from the original version of “The Office:” It was only a trifling matter. Nevertheless, they took him into custard-y.

Inez announces she’ll step down as CPSC chief

19 Replies

I had heard awhile back that Inez wouldn’t stick around for Obama’s second term, but I guess this makes it official:

WASHINGTON, Feb. 28, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Having led the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) through one of the most significant transformations in the agency’s history, Chairman Inez M. Tenenbaum announced today that she will not seek renomination when her terms expires in October 2013.

In an address at the International Consumer Product Health and Safety Organization annual meeting, the Chairman stated: “I plan to stay on as Chairman until my successor is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, so that I can be sure that the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is in safe hands.”

“So many qualified, deserving people have wanted to serve in the President administration—and he chose me. For the rest of my life, I will be grateful to President Obama for nominating me to be Chairman of the CPSC and for giving me the opportunity to serve in his administration,” added the Chairman. “It has been my great privilege to serve as Chairman of the CPSC, and the best part of my experience has been working with the many talented, dedicated professionals at the agency. “

Chairman Tenenbaum has transformed CPSC into one of the leading safety agencies in the world. Immediately after her July 2009 swearing in, Chairman Tenenbaum established a leadership philosophy aimed at making the agency more accessible and transparent; making education and advocacy a priority; and being firm, but fair, in enforcing safety laws and working to keep unsafe products out of the hands of consumers. In October 2010, Chairman Tenenbaum announced a new five-year Strategic Plan (2011-2016), which set forth a twenty-first century mission and vision for CPSC. The Strategic Plan has made CPSC more proactive, more focused on injury prevention, and moved the agency closer to being the recognized global leader in consumer product safety…

The release goes on with a long list of accomplishments in office. For which I congratulate her, and thank her for her service.

It will be nice to have her back in South Carolina…

Sorry, but ‘Zero Dark Thirty’ wasn’t Best Picture

30 Replies

The Wall Street Journal editorial board has been upset with U.S. senators Feinstein, Levin and McCain for criticizing the makers of “Zero Dark Thirty” for making it look like torture was essential to getting Osama bin Laden.

Now, the editors blame the senators for the movie’s poor showing at the Oscars:

As no one should forget, Senators Dianne Feinstein, Carl Levin and John McCain wrote letters to Sony Pictures and the CIA charging that “Zero Dark Thirty” was a “grossly inaccurate and misleading” portrayal of the interrogation of al Qaeda detainees. Ms. Feinstein’s intelligence committee opened an inquiry into what the CIA told the filmmakers, and the letters coincided with a media attack led by those great believers in artistic free expression at the New Yorker magazine.

Well, mission accomplished. The film was among the best reviewed of 2012 and has done well at the box office. But the attacks had their desired effect of intimidating Hollywood. Director Kathryn Bigelow was denied an Oscar nomination and the film won only a single (shared) award for sound editing. The Oscar ceremonies were Sunday night.

A day later, Reuters reported that the Senate is dropping its investigation of the film and CIA cooperation with the filmmakers…

The WSJ’s reasoning seems to go like this: Feinstein and Levin are liberals (McCain and his experienced-based objections to torture are conveniently forgotten). Hollywood is full of liberals. So Hollywood was cowed into stiffing ‘Zero Dark Thirty’ by fear of straying from liberal orthodoxy. Or something.

But the editors are ignoring something: “Zero Dark Thirty” didn’t deserve Best Picture honors, or Best Director. It was good, even important (important enough that I don’t blame senators at all for taking a political stand on it). But Kathryn Bigelow’s “The Hurt Locker,” which did win the Best Picture honor in 2009, was a more impressive, highly original film.

And the torture scenes? Speaking artistically and not politically, they went on too long. Long enough that it’s perfectly understandable that someone who doesn’t want our national defense to depend on the mistreatment of prisoners to think a political point was being made, and to object to that point. If this had been a work of fiction, devoid of political content, I think most critics would say the interrogations scenes were a drag on the storytelling.

I actually think the point being made by the filmmakers was neutral. I don’t think they were saying torture is good or necessary. I thought they were just saying (oversaying), it happened. And it sorta kinda maybe helped find bin Laden. It’s something to throw into the mix of how we feel about all that. War, including asymmetrical war, is filled with moral ambiguities.

I think they thought it would have been dishonest to leave out that part. Maybe they were right. In any case, they did not make this year’s best picture. Not this time.

Now, changing the subject slightly — what should have been Best Picture? Well, I can’t judge that, because I haven’t seen “Argo.” But I can say with all confidence that I wouldn’t have given it to “Zero Dark Thirty” in the same year that “Lincoln” came out. And if a director was slighted this year, it was Steven Spielberg.

Don’t count Joe Wilson among those wanting the sequester

13 Replies

Joe Wilson put out this release today:

At midnight tonight, the Department of Defense and other government agencies will fall victim to the President’s sequester. Every American family will be affected by the shifting of funds. In the South Carolina’s Second Congressional District, which I am grateful to represent, the Army’s base at Fort Jackson in Columbia is expected to lose approximately $75 million dollars. Additionally, the Savannah River Site in Aiken and Barnwell will be forced to furlough thousands of hardworking employees and stall critical national missions due to a possible $200 million budget cut. Both of these shifts will endanger our national security. The President and the Senate have refused to negotiate with House Republicans on a possible solution until today. House Republicans have voted twice to avoid sequestration. Our nation has a spending problem and we must address these issues before it is too late and our debt spirals out of control. The President should change course and begin working with both Houses of Congress to tackle the nation debt, which threatens American families. In conclusion, God Bless our troops and we will never forget September 11^th in the Global War on Terrorism.

I’m glad that on this, Joe is going the traditional Republican strong-on-defense route, rather than the Tea Party way, as voiced by Mick Mulvaney:
When pressed about the defense cuts, Mulvaney said, “an 11 percent across the board reduction is probably not the best way to run a military. And

I do worry about a hollowed out military – a military that looks the same, but it not capable of performing the missions that we want it to perform. That’s what frightens me.”

But the second term Republican added, “I was the one who offered the amendment to freeze defense spending. I offered a 1 percent across theboard cut to help pay for (Hurricane) Sandy. I’m not one of those Republicans who thinks that defense spending is off the table.

“And that’s why I’ve supported previous efforts to replace those reductions with other reductions. But again, that being said, the only thing worse than those military cuts would be no cuts at all.”

When asked about cuts to other programs, including Homeland Security, education, and owelfare programs, Mulvaney was even more blunt.

“If we have to accept reducing spending in a less than perfect way, then I’ll except reducing spending in a less than perfect way. And keep in mind – this would be the only real spending cuts we’ve actually seen since I got to congress.”

Patriotic Millionaires: ‘Raise our taxes. We can take it.’

22 Replies

I knew about Warren Buffett, but I hadn’t heard of the “Patriotic Millionaires” group until I got this release today:

Patriotic Millionaires Slam Congress on the Sequester Stall
“We did our part, now it is time to do yours!”

New York, NY –Today, Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength implore Congress to come to an agreement and stop the impending budget cuts from the sequester. “Your job in its most basic form is to keep the country running. We did our part, now it is time to do yours!”

Travel writer, TV host, Tour Organizer, and Patriotic Millionaire Rick Steves (WA) says: “It’s time for millionaires like me to step up to the plate and contribute our share. A millionaire south of our border would spend a small fortune for designer fortifications. He’d need armed guards on his street corner so his child could walk to the park. What’s it worth to be able to work hard and prosper in the USA. It’s worth being a patriotic supporter of a progressive tax system. What’s honest? To acknowledge that we are the least taxed wealthy class in the civilized world and we’d live nowhere else. Together, we can invest in the fabric of our society and together we can enjoy the peace and stability and opportunity that you can only find here in America. Yep, I’m a Patriotic Millionaire.”

Filmmaker and Patriotic Millionaire Abigail Disney (NY) says: “The fact is that I pay a lower effective rate on my income than my assistant does, and that is just plain stupid. We need to address the most egregious outs millionaires have access to and bring the tax code back in sync with our values as a democracy and meritocracy. Closing the carried interest loophole, to name one of many, will go a long way toward getting us there.”

CEO of NuCompass Mobility and Patriotic Millionaire Frank Patitucci (CA) says: “If my paying a few more dollars in taxes helps close a deal that will maintain basic government services, count me in. The alternative, a depressed economy, will cost me a whole lot more.”

Former AOL Executive and Patriotic Millionaire Charlie Fink (VA) says: “These two things I know to be true: there is no problem in business that cannot be solved by more revenue AND no business can cut its way out of a budget crisis. With or without the sequester, our problem remains lack of revenue. This was only slightly addressed by higher taxes on the wealthy. We must end corporate welfare, and get back to a system where our businesses, along with the most wealthy, contribute to the general welfare that allows our society to thrive, and create opportunity for others.”

Patriotic Millionaire Woody Kaplan (MA) says: “In order to maintain tax loopholes which advantage only the wealthiest Americans, the Republicans are putting our economy at risk, disrupting government services, and putting middle class taxpayers on furlough. This is an unconscionable combination of greed and arrogance.”

Attorney and Patriotic Millionaire Joel Kanter (VA) says: “It is remarkable that we are days away from the latest chapter in ‘Hostage Politics First, Country & Policy Later’ where millions of families will pay an enormous price. One can only hope that the outcry from those seeking reason will become unbearable on those seeking purity of purpose at all costs, and that Americans themselves will become ever more vigil about allowing their government to be hijacked and held hostage. I daresay an airliner facing these circumstances would become the focus of the world, and yet the millions that will be impacted here are seemingly noticed by none.”

Founder of Student Financial Aid Services, Inc. and Patriotic Millionaire Michael Alexander (CA) says: “Everyone who has reviewed the tax code agrees that it is past time to eliminate tax loopholes that benefit the wealthiest. We are better than that. It is time that the GOP act like grown-ups, show compassion, and do what is best for the country and those less fortunate.”

Angel Investor and Patriotic Millionaire Ron Garret, PhD. (CA) says: “Republicans say they want to shrink the deficit, but they refuse to raise taxes, which leaves draconian cuts as the only possible option. But instead of owning this conclusion they instead try to blame the president for the inevitable results of their own policies and the laws that they voted for. Apparently Republicans understand that if they stood by the results of their policies, the American people would run them and their gerrymandered obstructionist hypocrisy out of town on a rail.”

Patriotic Millionaire Emanuel Stern (NY) says: “For the good of the country, politics and partisanship must be put aside and our national interest set first. Any rational person would understand that both cuts and revenues are needed to achieve fiscal responsibility. It is time for cuts and they should be substantial. But they also must be accompanied by revenue. Loopholes must be closed. Please stop playing politics with our Country’s national interest.”…

The Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength was formed in Fall 2010 by some of the country’s most financially successful citizens who came together to urge the President to let the Bush tax cuts expire for people making more than $1 million per year. Now, Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength consists of more than 220 members, including: more than a dozen current and former Google employees, actress Edie Falco of Showtime’s Nurse Jackie, the founder of Esprit, the founder of the Princeton Review, travel writer Rick Steves, the founder of Ask.com, legendary philanthropist Michael Steinhardt, famed economist Nouriel Roubini, financial guru Andrew Tobias, top executives from Warburg, Pincus, and other major financial firms, filmmaker Abigail Disney, and many others.

Here’s a list of the millionaires. By the way, these aren’t just folks who have a million dollars (which is what I thought “millionaire” meant). These are people who make a million or more a year.

Congratulations to Sen. Lindsey Graham for civility award

24 Replies

Congratulations to Lindsey Graham — and Dianne Feinstein, too — for receiving the Allegheny College Prize for Civility in Public Life.

It’s certainly well-deserved in Graham’s case (yes, there’s the occasional lapse, but we’re all human, right?).

From the release about the prize:

“As they join in accepting the Allegheny Prize, they stand opposed on one of the most significant and polarizing issues of our time – that of gun control,” said [Allegheny College] President [James H.] Mullen. “And yet, they stand together, not only in receiving this Prize, but in their shared commitment to engage that issue with passion, deep conviction and respect for each other.”

“The one thing about being civil is, it doesn’t mean you don’t have passion,” said Graham. “But I never hesitate about calling Dianne because she is a problem solver by nature.”

“Do Americans want a United States Senate and a House of Representatives that can really do their business or do they want one that is so full of themselves, so polarized and so twisted with partisanship, that their ratings are in single digits?” asked Feinstein. “We have a big job on our hands to be able to restore civility.”…

As y’all know, I regard the lack of civility in public life today as serious threat to our project of self-government — this blog is one place where I try, however feebly, to combat the trend. So I’m proud that a South Carolinian was singled out for this honor.

The State quoted Graham as saying, in response to protestations by Sen. Feinstein that she didn’t deserve the award, “Dianne, I don’t deserve it either, but I don’t deserve most of the crap I get, either, so I’ll take it.”

In the end, Graham voted against Hagel for SecDef

8 Replies

Senators voted 58-41 to confirm Chuck Hagel. Not exactly a ringing consensus.

In the end, Lindsey Graham voted against Hagel:

Graham Opposes Hagel Nomination

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) made the following statement on his opposition to Chuck Hagel’s nomination as Secretary of Defense.

“I oppose the nomination of Chuck Hagel to serve as our next Secretary of Defense. The position of Secretary of Defense is one of the most important jobs in our government. There were other, more capable choices available and I regret President Obama did not choose one of them.

“Having said this, I do believe it is the President’s prerogative to pick his Cabinet and I will work with Senator Hagel to ensure our defense at home and security around the globe is not diminished.

“I’m disappointed not one Democrat stepped forward to express concerns about Senator Hagel’s views on Israel and Iran. I believe from his past actions, he has shown antagonism toward the State of Israel. In these dangerous times, his nomination sends the worst possible signal to our enemies in Iran.

“I continue to have serious questions about whether Chuck Hagel is up to the job of being our Secretary of Defense. I hope, for the sake of our own national security, he exceeds expectations.”

####

White House prediction of sequester’s impact on SC