Sunday, August 28, 2011
Marine to Mila Kunis: Let’s me and you hook it up at the Marine Corps Ball; Mila Kunis to Marine: Okay
I’m trying to read this guy’s mind and figure out whether he cut the video as a goof, just messing around on a slow day at war, or whether this was actually part of a brilliantly clever scheme to make it happen. Step one: Film the clip, in full bad-ass uniform,
replete with a cutesy move with the shades. Step two: E-mail it out to friends and friends of friends and wait for it to go viral. Step three: Hope that some entertainment reporter stumbles across it and asks Mila Kunis about it — on camera, preferably.
If this guy really did game it out that way, he should be planning war strategy in Afghanistan. Jackpot:
After questioning her publicist if she knew about the invitation, the clearly flattered 27-year-old actress agreed.
“I’ll go, I’ll do it for you,” she said, turning to Timberlake. “Are you going to come?”
“They don’t want me! They want you,” Timberlake responded. “You need to do it for your country.”
Kunis nodded.
“I’ll do it,” she confirmed.
So get that limo reserved, Sgt. Moore!
Alternate headline: “Marine Corps recruiting up 800 percent.” The only problem? Obviously there’ll be other guys who follow his lead and the pressure will be on for other gorgeous young starlets not to say no. C’mon, Blake Lively: You do support the troops, don’t you?
Dude, this is so alpha, it should come with a content warning for beta males. Damn.
Bachmann: Who needs executive experience if it means more big government?
Politico notes, correctly, that this is a great line directed at Romney, an “eh” line directed at Pawlenty, and a dumb line directed at Perry or Palin. There’s no obvious way out of this box: After four years of blaming the failures of Hopenchange in part on The One having never run so much as a lemonade stand, how do Republicans turn around now and take a chance on Bachmann?
Bachmann said executive experience doesn’t matter if it comes with “more of the same big government as usual.”
“This election will be about quite simply, who can lead that restructuring effort,” Bachmann said, referring to turning around the economy and working to repeal the federal health care reform law.
“Executive experience in government is one thing, but not when it comes to a promise of more of the same big government as usual,” she continued.
“Right on!” says Rick Perry, hunkered down in his office and feverishly dialing political operatives in New Hampshire. Bachmann’s other emerging problem is that the more she woos the Huckabee faction in Iowa with ostentatious displays of social conservatism, as she did last week when she signed a marriage pledge so heavy-handed that even Gingrich is shying away from it, the more she risks being pigeonholed as a “Christian candidate” a la Huck three years ago. Case in point: “Nightline” is planning to run a report tonight in which a former patient at the counseling center owned by Bachmann and her husband will claim that he was advised to pray the gay away. Won’t hurt her a bit with social cons, but if it does come down to her and, say, Romney for the nomination, his pitch to undecideds will be that the GOP can’t afford sideshows that take them off-message when they’re trying to beat Obama on the economy. Which of course is actually 90 percent of the reason to consider nominating Pawlenty. Once the general election campaign begins, blandness is very much a virtue.
Exit question: Via Ace, here’s a choice passage from Palin’s latest Facebook note. Who’s this aimed at?
As we approach 2012, there are important lessons we can learn from all of this. First, we should never entrust the White House to a far-left ideologue who has no appreciation or even understanding of the free market and limited government principles that made this country economically strong. Second, the office of the presidency is too important for on-the-job training. It requires a strong chief executive who has been entrusted with real authority in the past and has achieved a proven track record of positive measurable accomplishments. Leaders are expected to give good speeches, but leadership is so much more than oratory. Real leadership requires deeds even more than words. It means taking on the problems no one else wants to tackle. It means providing vision and guidance, inspiring people to action, bringing everyone to the table, and with a servant’s heart dedicating oneself to striking agreements that keep faith with our Constitution and with the ordinary citizens who entrusted you with power. It means bucking the status quo, fighting the corrupt powers that be, serving the common good, and leaving the country better than you found it. Most of us don’t see a lot of that real leadership in D.C., and it’s profoundly disappointing.
Pawlenty’s been pushing precisely the same message on the trail in Iowa lately. Hey Ed Rollins — any idea who Palin’s talking about here
Bachmann said executive experience doesn’t matter if it comes with “more of the same big government as usual.”
“This election will be about quite simply, who can lead that restructuring effort,” Bachmann said, referring to turning around the economy and working to repeal the federal health care reform law.
“Executive experience in government is one thing, but not when it comes to a promise of more of the same big government as usual,” she continued.
“Right on!” says Rick Perry, hunkered down in his office and feverishly dialing political operatives in New Hampshire. Bachmann’s other emerging problem is that the more she woos the Huckabee faction in Iowa with ostentatious displays of social conservatism, as she did last week when she signed a marriage pledge so heavy-handed that even Gingrich is shying away from it, the more she risks being pigeonholed as a “Christian candidate” a la Huck three years ago. Case in point: “Nightline” is planning to run a report tonight in which a former patient at the counseling center owned by Bachmann and her husband will claim that he was advised to pray the gay away. Won’t hurt her a bit with social cons, but if it does come down to her and, say, Romney for the nomination, his pitch to undecideds will be that the GOP can’t afford sideshows that take them off-message when they’re trying to beat Obama on the economy. Which of course is actually 90 percent of the reason to consider nominating Pawlenty. Once the general election campaign begins, blandness is very much a virtue.
Exit question: Via Ace, here’s a choice passage from Palin’s latest Facebook note. Who’s this aimed at?
As we approach 2012, there are important lessons we can learn from all of this. First, we should never entrust the White House to a far-left ideologue who has no appreciation or even understanding of the free market and limited government principles that made this country economically strong. Second, the office of the presidency is too important for on-the-job training. It requires a strong chief executive who has been entrusted with real authority in the past and has achieved a proven track record of positive measurable accomplishments. Leaders are expected to give good speeches, but leadership is so much more than oratory. Real leadership requires deeds even more than words. It means taking on the problems no one else wants to tackle. It means providing vision and guidance, inspiring people to action, bringing everyone to the table, and with a servant’s heart dedicating oneself to striking agreements that keep faith with our Constitution and with the ordinary citizens who entrusted you with power. It means bucking the status quo, fighting the corrupt powers that be, serving the common good, and leaving the country better than you found it. Most of us don’t see a lot of that real leadership in D.C., and it’s profoundly disappointing.
Pawlenty’s been pushing precisely the same message on the trail in Iowa lately. Hey Ed Rollins — any idea who Palin’s talking about here
Pawlenty plays it safe — but smart — on homosexuality
GOP presidential hopeful and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty said today he’s not sure whether homosexuality is genetic or behavioral. Political Ticker reports:
“As I understand the science, there’s no current conclusion that it’s genetic,” Pawlenty said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
Saying he preferred to “defer to the scientists” about the issue, the former Minnesota governor said it was unclear if being gay or lesbian was a lifestyle choice.
“There’s no scientific conclusion that it’s genetic. We don’t know that. So, we don’t know to what extent it’s behavioral,” Pawlenty said. “That’s something that has been debated by scientists for a long time.”
T-Paw didn’t pass on the chance to reiterate his support for traditional marriage, however. He phrased his views positively, emphasizing that he is a proponent of marriage between one man and one woman and saying simply, “I have not supported the issues of allowing gay couples to have the same benefits in public employment as traditional couples.”
Political Ticker and other news outlets framed Pawlenty’s remarks as a “punt,” but, from where I sit, he answered the question the only way he could have. So far, science has not conclusively established homosexuality as a genetic predisposition. Given that Pawlenty presumably disapproves of gay behavior, what did he have to gain by either absolving gay couples of responsibility for that behavior or blatantly accusing them of poor choices?
Conversely, he did have something to gain by making a statement in support of traditional marriage — an institution his base likewise values and wants to see protected. (Keep in mind just 28 percent of Republicans think same-sex marriage should be legal and just 25 percent of conservatives hold that view.) Perhaps Pawlenty played it safe, but, primarily, he played it smart.
“As I understand the science, there’s no current conclusion that it’s genetic,” Pawlenty said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
Saying he preferred to “defer to the scientists” about the issue, the former Minnesota governor said it was unclear if being gay or lesbian was a lifestyle choice.
“There’s no scientific conclusion that it’s genetic. We don’t know that. So, we don’t know to what extent it’s behavioral,” Pawlenty said. “That’s something that has been debated by scientists for a long time.”
T-Paw didn’t pass on the chance to reiterate his support for traditional marriage, however. He phrased his views positively, emphasizing that he is a proponent of marriage between one man and one woman and saying simply, “I have not supported the issues of allowing gay couples to have the same benefits in public employment as traditional couples.”
Political Ticker and other news outlets framed Pawlenty’s remarks as a “punt,” but, from where I sit, he answered the question the only way he could have. So far, science has not conclusively established homosexuality as a genetic predisposition. Given that Pawlenty presumably disapproves of gay behavior, what did he have to gain by either absolving gay couples of responsibility for that behavior or blatantly accusing them of poor choices?
Conversely, he did have something to gain by making a statement in support of traditional marriage — an institution his base likewise values and wants to see protected. (Keep in mind just 28 percent of Republicans think same-sex marriage should be legal and just 25 percent of conservatives hold that view.) Perhaps Pawlenty played it safe, but, primarily, he played it smart.
On Friday, Governor Scott Walker signed a bill that made Wisconsin the 49th state to allow law-abiding citizens to carry firearms. Walker had tried to get the bill passed for years while a state legislator, but his Democratic predecessor, Jim Doyle,
and Democrats in the legislature had stymied those efforts. This time the bill passed with bipartisan support and allows Wisconsin residents to get permits on a must-issue basis — meaning that the state cannot deny a permit application without justifiable cause, such as a felony record:On Friday, Governor Scott Walker signed a bill that made Wisconsin the 49th state to allow law-abiding citizens to carry firearms. Walker had tried to get the bill passed for years while a state legislator, but his Democratic predecessor, Jim Doyle,
and Democrats in the legislature had stymied those efforts. This time the bill passed with bipartisan support and allows Wisconsin residents to get permits on a must-issue basis — meaning that the state cannot deny a permit application without justifiable cause, such as a felony record:
In one stroke, the legislation takes Wisconsin from being one of the final pair of remaining holdouts on concealed carry to having one of the more permissive bills in the country.
The proposal, which takes effect Nov. 1, joins other long-sought measures that Republicans passed this year, including requiring photo IDs from voters and making health savings accounts tax-exempt.
Signing the bill in Rothschild, near Wausau, Walker noted the length of the fight over the legislation, which he had once also supported as a lawmaker.
“By signing concealed carry into law today we are making Wisconsin safer for all responsible, law abiding citizens,” he said in a statement.
The measure includes provisions requiring training and permits, which were sought by both Walker and Democrats. Some Republicans unsuccessfully pushed “constitutional carry” bills that would have allowed people to carry concealed guns without permits.
Protesters shouted about the threat to public safety facing Wisconsin residents that has been seen in, er, how many carry states? Zero. In fact, most states see a decrease in crime after the enactment of such legislation, as Rep. Cliff Stearns noted in 2009:
Allowing law-abiding people to arm themselves offers more than piece of mind for those individuals — it pays off for everybody through lower crime rates. Statistics from the FBI’s Uniformed Crime Report of 2007 show that states with right-to-carry laws have a 30% lower homicide rate, 46% lower robbery, and 12% lower aggravated assault rate and a 22% lower overall violent crime rate than do states without such laws. That is why more and more states have passed right-to-carry laws over the past decade.
In 1987, my home state of Florida enacted a “shall issue” law that has become the model for other states. Anti-gun groups, politicians and the news media predicted the new law would lead to vigilante justice and “Wild West” shootouts on every corner.
But since adopting a concealed carry law Florida’s total violent crime rate has dropped 32% and its homicide rate has dropped 58%. Floridians, except for criminals, are safer due to this law. And Florida is not alone. Texas’ violent crime rate has dropped 20% and homicide rate has dropped 31%, since enactment of its 1996 carry law.
Another study makes the moral case for expanding and enhancing right-to-carry laws. A report by John Lott, Jr. and David Mustard of the University of Chicago released in 1996 found “that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths.” Further, the Lott-Mustard study noted, “If those states which did not have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravate assaults would have been avoided yearly.”
Think about it. Nearly 8,000 of our fellow citizens have died between 1992 and 1996 because of the irrational fear that law-abiding Americans would abuse their right to self defense. In fact concealed carry permit holders are more law-abiding than the rest of the public. For example, Florida, which has issued more carry permits than any state has issued 1.36 million permits, but revoked only 165 (0.01%) due to gun crimes by permit-holders.
John Lott wrote about the dynamics of self-defense in his seminal book, More Guns Less Crime, which is in its third edition (and is available on Kindle now, too). Here in Minnesota, opponents also warned about the return of the Wild Wild West and blood flowing in the streets, and the scare tactics turned out to be entirely false. That’s because going through the training process provides a sobering douse of cold water on gun owners about the realities of using a firearm for self-defense. My late friend Joel Rosenberg’s excellent book on the subject Everything You Need to Know About (Legally) Carrying a Gun in Minnesota and his most recent effort The Carry Book gave an entertainingly dire warning to those who thought that a carry permit was the same thing as a Junior Deputy badge.
Law-abiding citizens who seek out and receive the necessary training to get the permit know exactly the stakes involved, which is why (besides the fact that they were law-abiding in the first place) these states don’t see increases in crime rates, especially in relation to permit holders. But having law-abiding citizens carry firearms may be why criminals suddenly take less interest in victimizing them, which may well be the reason for the drops in crime seen after adoption of carry-permit laws.
We’ll be celebrating Joel’s life and work at the MOB Day at the Range this Thursday evening, as well as raising funds for his family. Looks like we can also celebrate the fact that our neighbors to the east have won the right to protect themselves, too
and Democrats in the legislature had stymied those efforts. This time the bill passed with bipartisan support and allows Wisconsin residents to get permits on a must-issue basis — meaning that the state cannot deny a permit application without justifiable cause, such as a felony record:On Friday, Governor Scott Walker signed a bill that made Wisconsin the 49th state to allow law-abiding citizens to carry firearms. Walker had tried to get the bill passed for years while a state legislator, but his Democratic predecessor, Jim Doyle,
and Democrats in the legislature had stymied those efforts. This time the bill passed with bipartisan support and allows Wisconsin residents to get permits on a must-issue basis — meaning that the state cannot deny a permit application without justifiable cause, such as a felony record:
In one stroke, the legislation takes Wisconsin from being one of the final pair of remaining holdouts on concealed carry to having one of the more permissive bills in the country.
The proposal, which takes effect Nov. 1, joins other long-sought measures that Republicans passed this year, including requiring photo IDs from voters and making health savings accounts tax-exempt.
Signing the bill in Rothschild, near Wausau, Walker noted the length of the fight over the legislation, which he had once also supported as a lawmaker.
“By signing concealed carry into law today we are making Wisconsin safer for all responsible, law abiding citizens,” he said in a statement.
The measure includes provisions requiring training and permits, which were sought by both Walker and Democrats. Some Republicans unsuccessfully pushed “constitutional carry” bills that would have allowed people to carry concealed guns without permits.
Protesters shouted about the threat to public safety facing Wisconsin residents that has been seen in, er, how many carry states? Zero. In fact, most states see a decrease in crime after the enactment of such legislation, as Rep. Cliff Stearns noted in 2009:
Allowing law-abiding people to arm themselves offers more than piece of mind for those individuals — it pays off for everybody through lower crime rates. Statistics from the FBI’s Uniformed Crime Report of 2007 show that states with right-to-carry laws have a 30% lower homicide rate, 46% lower robbery, and 12% lower aggravated assault rate and a 22% lower overall violent crime rate than do states without such laws. That is why more and more states have passed right-to-carry laws over the past decade.
In 1987, my home state of Florida enacted a “shall issue” law that has become the model for other states. Anti-gun groups, politicians and the news media predicted the new law would lead to vigilante justice and “Wild West” shootouts on every corner.
But since adopting a concealed carry law Florida’s total violent crime rate has dropped 32% and its homicide rate has dropped 58%. Floridians, except for criminals, are safer due to this law. And Florida is not alone. Texas’ violent crime rate has dropped 20% and homicide rate has dropped 31%, since enactment of its 1996 carry law.
Another study makes the moral case for expanding and enhancing right-to-carry laws. A report by John Lott, Jr. and David Mustard of the University of Chicago released in 1996 found “that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths.” Further, the Lott-Mustard study noted, “If those states which did not have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravate assaults would have been avoided yearly.”
Think about it. Nearly 8,000 of our fellow citizens have died between 1992 and 1996 because of the irrational fear that law-abiding Americans would abuse their right to self defense. In fact concealed carry permit holders are more law-abiding than the rest of the public. For example, Florida, which has issued more carry permits than any state has issued 1.36 million permits, but revoked only 165 (0.01%) due to gun crimes by permit-holders.
John Lott wrote about the dynamics of self-defense in his seminal book, More Guns Less Crime, which is in its third edition (and is available on Kindle now, too). Here in Minnesota, opponents also warned about the return of the Wild Wild West and blood flowing in the streets, and the scare tactics turned out to be entirely false. That’s because going through the training process provides a sobering douse of cold water on gun owners about the realities of using a firearm for self-defense. My late friend Joel Rosenberg’s excellent book on the subject Everything You Need to Know About (Legally) Carrying a Gun in Minnesota and his most recent effort The Carry Book gave an entertainingly dire warning to those who thought that a carry permit was the same thing as a Junior Deputy badge.
Law-abiding citizens who seek out and receive the necessary training to get the permit know exactly the stakes involved, which is why (besides the fact that they were law-abiding in the first place) these states don’t see increases in crime rates, especially in relation to permit holders. But having law-abiding citizens carry firearms may be why criminals suddenly take less interest in victimizing them, which may well be the reason for the drops in crime seen after adoption of carry-permit laws.
We’ll be celebrating Joel’s life and work at the MOB Day at the Range this Thursday evening, as well as raising funds for his family. Looks like we can also celebrate the fact that our neighbors to the east have won the right to protect themselves, too
Snowe: No Social Security or Medicare cuts in the debt-ceiling deal
Via Think Progress, which asks a good question. If Snowe’s serious about a balanced-budget amendment, why rule out a deal on entitlements right now when there’s a tiny (emphasis on “tiny”)
bit of political momentum to make big changes to the budget? If she thinks Medicare’s too tough a nut to crack when we’re facing armageddon in three weeks, wait until millions more boomers are on the rolls and she has to deal with cuts every. single. year.
Another good question for you: Where does this leave us vis-a-vis the Lightbringer’s (alleged) proposal to raise the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67? That’s not a cut, strictly speaking, but the outcry will be enormous all the same. Is Snowe open to entitlement reform so long as she doesn’t have to call it a cut or is this a pure “hands off Medicare!” pander to seniors ahead of her reelection campaign next year? If it’s the latter, then any deal involving entitlements would start with just 46 votes in the Senate (assuming Collins and Scott Brown stick with the caucus, which is unlikely). How do they pick up 14 Democrats to beat the filibuster, especially when the DNC’s core campaign message next year will be, er, “hands off Medicare”?
Don’t look for members of Maine’s congressional delegation to support cuts in Social Security or Medicare as part of the debt limit legislation, but all four say a debt reduction package that includes budget cuts and new revenues is likely.
“There are solvency problems with both programs,” Sen. Olympia Snowe said in an interview on Friday, “They have to be addressed but not as part of the debt reduction talks.”
She said any debt reduction plan worked out by President Barack Obama and congressional leaders will still need the support of members of both parties and both Medicare and Social Security have strong bipartisan support…
She said she has no idea what will come out of the budget talks but she believes to get enough votes to pass it will have to have cuts in spending and additional revenue.
She wants to raise revenue by closing loopholes, not raising rates, a plan Collins agrees with. Does Collins also agree that entitlements should be off the table right now? The story doesn’t quote her to that effect but the lede sure makes it sound like it. (And it would be in keeping with her skittishness about Ryan’s Path to Prosperity.) If she’s out too, then we start with 45 votes in the Senate. And if Brown, who also opposes Ryan’s plan and is up for reelection, joins them then we’re at 44. What could go wrong?
Oh, in case you’re wondering how this afternoon’s debt-ceiling meeting went, Chuck Todd tweets, “The two sides are farther apart in debt talks than they have been for a while. Some in talks believe this is going no where. #stalemate?” If that’s the narrative in tomorrow’s papers, Wall Street should have an interesting day. ABC goes behind the scenes:
Boehner said at one point that “it’s clear to all of us how big this spending problem is. Congress keeps voting for programs we can’t pay for. But look, entitlement cuts aren’t easy for us to vote for either. Our guys aren’t cheerleading about cutting entitlements.”
“Your guys already voted for them,” the president said, referring to the budget offered by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wisc.
“Excuse us for trying to lead,” Boehner said…
During another exchange, Republicans were going through proposed tax increases as bad for jobs.
“C’mon, man!” Vice President Biden exclaimed, “let’s get real!”
Cantor’s proposal this afternoon totaled $1.7 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years, including … $200 billion in Medicare and Medicaid. Where that leaves us vis-a-vis Snowe, Collins, and Brown, I have no idea. The task now is to somehow get to $2.4 trillion, which is the amount they’ll need to raise the debt ceiling by to get through all of next year and beyond the lame duck Congress. Boehner has insisted that total deficit reduction be at least equal to the increase in the debt ceiling, so they need to find $700 billion somewhere. Interestingly, as part of his own Medicare proposal, Obama reportedly wanted $800 billion to $1 trillion in new revenue; if the GOP can get to $700 billion to make this deal, why not try for $800 billion and then call his bluff on Medicare? Make him own that proposal. If nothing else, it’ll be a hedge against Democratic Mediscaring next year.
While you mull, via Bryan Preston, here’s The One flat out admitting today that new taxes are on the way in 2013. Have at it, RNC ad team.
No “Hollywood victory moments” in the budget fight
Boehner didn’t cave on the budget deal this weekend, as some feared he would. The prior fears were not by any means inexplicable. Republicans in Washington are speaking mildly rather than trenchantly, and taking slings and arrows from the chattering class. There’s no Terminator-type trash talk coming from them. All the movement and fury seems to be on the Democrats’ side.
And that makes sense, because it’s the Democrats who occupy indefensible ground. Essentially, their position is that if Republicans won’t agree to raising the debt ceiling and raising taxes, the president will use his discretion to default on US government debt after 2 August. They don’t put it that way, of course, but that’s the reality. If Obama defaults on government debt, it will be because he decided to, not because he had to. He could be impeached for making such a decision.
The money will be there to meet out debt obligations; it just won’t be there to do that and continue to pay for all the other activities of the government. Obama could, equally, decide to cut expenditures in wildly unpopular ways like shorting Medicare reimbursements or leaving the troops without their pay, but Democrats in Congress wouldn’t let him get away with that either, any more than Republicans would. The real option after 2 August is to cut expenditures on other operations of the government, including the programs and subsidies that the Obama administration considers its highest priorities.
All of which is why it’s the Democrats who are most alarmed about having to face the choices after 2 August. The GOP position is not a precarious one. It’s a strong and meaningful position, and that’s why Obama and the Democrats are mounting a sustained assault, using every trick in the book to get the GOP to give up the ground it has staked out. Advertently or not, the Republicans have acted according to the strategic maxim of Bismarck’s military genius, Von Moltke the Elder:
A clever military leader will succeed in many cases in choosing defensive positions of such an offensive nature from the strategic point of view that the enemy is compelled to attack us in them.
Why doesn’t the GOP position look more tough and inspiring? For one thing, because our imaginations have been so conditioned to Hollywood productions and the 120-minute movie package that we think victories have to be signaled by the devices of video storytelling, or they aren’t victories.
But in real life, it rarely happens that way. Think back to January and the endless, annoying Cirque du Wisconsin with the runaway Democrats hiding out across the state line in the EconoLodge or wherever it was. There was no Hollywood victory at the end of that sorry episode. Eventually the Democrats just straggled back. On balance, the Wisconsin Republicans have been winning the peace.
But they looked, throughout the pitched confrontation, like a herd of deer caught in the headlights: bemused, a little shell-shocked, a little quizzical. A lot of conservatives wrote them off because they were just a bunch of modern legislator schmoes, doing modern legislature stuff. But while the Democrats and unions are still fighting a vociferous rearguard action, and it ain’t over yet, the momentum has clearly turned to the Republicans’ side.
Consider James Pethokoukis’ reference to Reagan and Reykjavik in 1986 (cited by Ed). Mikhail Gorbachev offered to raise the Reagan ante on strategic arms cuts, the best counteroffer ever presented by a Soviet leader, but Reagan turned it down because Gorbachev’s condition was that Reagan abandon the Strategic Defense Initiative.
This certainly didn’t resonate as a victory at the time. We don’t remember it today, but the Western media proclaimed an atmosphere of civilizational doom after the Reykjavik summit. You couldn’t swing a dead cat without hitting an editorial containing the phrase “snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.” Even many of Reagan’s staunchest supporters wondered if the old man had finally gone round the bend. Reagan was defending territory he had staked out – territory so alarming to the Soviets that it drove them to act, maneuver, change their approach, move off of their position – and to the observers of the time, that looked like disaster.
What we do remember today, however, is that it was Reagan who got what he wanted in the end.
In politics, victory often comes on little cat feet. I won’t be surprised if the way a GOP budget victory looks to the public is a lot like how it looks in Wisconsin today. An interim solution rather than a grand bargain; a sense of tension maintained rather than the catharsis of a satisfying conclusion.
There will be work left to do, but a shift of momentum. An MSM counter-narrative will be retailed relentlessly, on the water-torture principle. Paroxysms of caterwauling will persist from the Democrats and their constituencies. From the GOP, no glory, no stirring speeches, no one-liners. No string crescendo, no pulsating beat. Nothing but a bunch of Republicans looking weary and dithery, like they just stumbled in from a windstorm – but haven’t forgotten what they went out into it for.
J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at The Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,” Patheos, The Weekly Standard online, and her own blog, The Optimistic Conservative
And that makes sense, because it’s the Democrats who occupy indefensible ground. Essentially, their position is that if Republicans won’t agree to raising the debt ceiling and raising taxes, the president will use his discretion to default on US government debt after 2 August. They don’t put it that way, of course, but that’s the reality. If Obama defaults on government debt, it will be because he decided to, not because he had to. He could be impeached for making such a decision.
The money will be there to meet out debt obligations; it just won’t be there to do that and continue to pay for all the other activities of the government. Obama could, equally, decide to cut expenditures in wildly unpopular ways like shorting Medicare reimbursements or leaving the troops without their pay, but Democrats in Congress wouldn’t let him get away with that either, any more than Republicans would. The real option after 2 August is to cut expenditures on other operations of the government, including the programs and subsidies that the Obama administration considers its highest priorities.
All of which is why it’s the Democrats who are most alarmed about having to face the choices after 2 August. The GOP position is not a precarious one. It’s a strong and meaningful position, and that’s why Obama and the Democrats are mounting a sustained assault, using every trick in the book to get the GOP to give up the ground it has staked out. Advertently or not, the Republicans have acted according to the strategic maxim of Bismarck’s military genius, Von Moltke the Elder:
A clever military leader will succeed in many cases in choosing defensive positions of such an offensive nature from the strategic point of view that the enemy is compelled to attack us in them.
Why doesn’t the GOP position look more tough and inspiring? For one thing, because our imaginations have been so conditioned to Hollywood productions and the 120-minute movie package that we think victories have to be signaled by the devices of video storytelling, or they aren’t victories.
But in real life, it rarely happens that way. Think back to January and the endless, annoying Cirque du Wisconsin with the runaway Democrats hiding out across the state line in the EconoLodge or wherever it was. There was no Hollywood victory at the end of that sorry episode. Eventually the Democrats just straggled back. On balance, the Wisconsin Republicans have been winning the peace.
But they looked, throughout the pitched confrontation, like a herd of deer caught in the headlights: bemused, a little shell-shocked, a little quizzical. A lot of conservatives wrote them off because they were just a bunch of modern legislator schmoes, doing modern legislature stuff. But while the Democrats and unions are still fighting a vociferous rearguard action, and it ain’t over yet, the momentum has clearly turned to the Republicans’ side.
Consider James Pethokoukis’ reference to Reagan and Reykjavik in 1986 (cited by Ed). Mikhail Gorbachev offered to raise the Reagan ante on strategic arms cuts, the best counteroffer ever presented by a Soviet leader, but Reagan turned it down because Gorbachev’s condition was that Reagan abandon the Strategic Defense Initiative.
This certainly didn’t resonate as a victory at the time. We don’t remember it today, but the Western media proclaimed an atmosphere of civilizational doom after the Reykjavik summit. You couldn’t swing a dead cat without hitting an editorial containing the phrase “snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.” Even many of Reagan’s staunchest supporters wondered if the old man had finally gone round the bend. Reagan was defending territory he had staked out – territory so alarming to the Soviets that it drove them to act, maneuver, change their approach, move off of their position – and to the observers of the time, that looked like disaster.
What we do remember today, however, is that it was Reagan who got what he wanted in the end.
In politics, victory often comes on little cat feet. I won’t be surprised if the way a GOP budget victory looks to the public is a lot like how it looks in Wisconsin today. An interim solution rather than a grand bargain; a sense of tension maintained rather than the catharsis of a satisfying conclusion.
There will be work left to do, but a shift of momentum. An MSM counter-narrative will be retailed relentlessly, on the water-torture principle. Paroxysms of caterwauling will persist from the Democrats and their constituencies. From the GOP, no glory, no stirring speeches, no one-liners. No string crescendo, no pulsating beat. Nothing but a bunch of Republicans looking weary and dithery, like they just stumbled in from a windstorm – but haven’t forgotten what they went out into it for.
J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at The Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,” Patheos, The Weekly Standard online, and her own blog, The Optimistic Conservative
Video: Talking class warfare, Casey Anthony, and MN shutdown on Tom Sullivan Show
Earlier this week, I taped an appearance on the Tom Sullivan Show, which aired for the first time yesterday on Fox Business Channel. Tom put together a good panel, with Lauren Simonetti from Fox Business and economist Lindsey Piegza.
We went through two rather similar topics in the Minnesota shutdown, which comes at the end, and the ramped up class-warfare rhetoric coming out of the White House of late. We also debated whether cameras in courtrooms have become a problem in trials like the one involving Casey Anthony or whether the media is the problem:
I was happy to set the record straight on the Minnesota shutdown, but I missed the opportunity to rebut Lauren on the Canterbury issue. Yes, the lack of state inspections has hampered business at the race track, but that hardly impacts most Minnesotans. The bigger impact is certainly with people who regularly access state services. I wasn’t arguing that there is no impact, but that the impact has been barely noticeable for most Minnesotans. People here are annoyed by the inability of the government to resolve the issue, but the people getting most hurt are the state workers who support Dayton and suddenly don’t have any income. As more of the details emerge from this standoff, the worse it will look for Dayton, who deliberately waited until the session ended to veto the budget bills the GOP produced six weeks earlier — six weeks in which Dayton refused to negotiate on the bills separately so that state government could keep operating.
By the way, I mention that I’d been to a baseball game the day before, which is one reason I may look a little stiff (or more so than usual, anyway). I forgot the sunscreen and ended up with bad sunburns on my neck and legs, which made for an interesting morning with a necktie and long pants. Thankfully, the show asked for a makeup artist that blended down my neck and face, or I might have looked like a beet. Nevertheless, I had a lot of fun with Tom, Lauren, and Lindsey, and hopefully I’ll get another chance soon to contribute.
wait
Quotes of the day
House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) released the following statement today regarding ongoing debt limit discussions with the White House:
“Despite good-faith efforts to find common ground, the White House will not pursue a bigger debt reduction agreement without tax hikes. I believe the best approach may be to focus on producing a smaller measure, based on the cuts identified in the Biden-led negotiations, that still meets our call for spending reforms and cuts greater than the amount of any debt limit increase.”
***
“I got this from a GOP congressional source later in the afternoon:
“WH is demanding major, unambiguous tax hikes. To get spending caps & entitlement tweaks, greater economic pain appears to be the WH’s asking price. It is increasingly likely that we aren’t going to see a ‘big’ deal if the WH doesn’t budge. Speaker looks to be holding strong…
“[Update 7:39 PM] Appears that the basic framework for future tax reform could not be resolved.
“The bipartisan consensus on tax reform (broader base & lower rates) was championed by President’s fiscal commission, and yet now is being rebuked by the President. Lowering top rates that would help make America more competitive was too large a leap for a true class warrior.”
***
“Tax reform is a worthwhile policy goal, and Mr. Boehner is right to pursue it. But the only way he can avoid being taken for a ride by Democrats is if all parts of any deal are negotiated, voted on and then implemented immediately. Two men, one deal, once. Promises of future action aren’t credible.
“Even if Mr. Obama is sincere on tax reform, he can’t guarantee he can deliver Senate Democrats who are desperate to keep their majority in 2012, much less Nancy Pelosi. We’re told that in Thursday’s White House meeting, Mr. Obama promised to veto any short-term debt-limit deal to give the two sides more time to negotiate. If that’s true, then the President isn’t serious. It means he is using the pressure of the August 2 deadline to bull-rush Mr. Boehner into a bad deal.
“If Mr. Obama is sincere about a long-term spending and tax reform agreement, he’ll take the time to get it right. If he insists on issuing ultimatums, then House Republicans would be better off passing a debt-limit ceiling for a few months with comparable spending cuts and letting Senate Democrats do the same. Mr. Boehner shouldn’t bet his majority on Mr. Obama’s promises.”
***
“In the latest salvo in their campaign to portray Republicans as extremists for not wanting to accept tax increases as part of a budget deal, liberal bloggers led by Ezra Klein have been promoting a chart showing that in the past, the GOP has been willing to accept deals that are far less generous than what President Obama is supposedly offering them. Yet as Conn Carroll pointed out earlier, there’s a big difference between budget deals as negotiated, and budget deals as implemented. The reason why today’s conservatives are much less tolerant of deals that include tax hikes is that they’ve learned from history that the reality of such agreements is that taxes go up as negotiated, but Congress doesn’t deliver the promised spending cuts. No past deal poisoned the well more than the 1990 budget pact, in which President Bush infamously broke his ‘no new taxes’ pledge…
“Back in 1990, the establishment was saying the same things about the need for a ‘balanced approach’ in which all sides sacrifice something to reduce the deficit. Yet what we ended up with in reality was a deal that raised taxes and slashed military spending (in other words, the liberal approach) while entitlements and non-defense discretionary spending rose by an even higher amount than was projected before a deal. Is it any wonder that today’s conservatives are deeply suspicious of budget deals in which Republicans agree to raise taxes in exchange for promised spending cuts?”
***
“The media will initially be all excited about the deal, but will turn almost instantly towards declaring it has no chance to pass, seizing on every criticism of the package or declaration of opposition as sure-fire signs the proposal is dead. The outcry against the package (both before and after the details are known) will be intense on both the left and the right. Interest groups from all quarters will denounce the measure as unacceptable. National security conservatives, for example, will declare that the Pentagon cuts will eviscerate America’s ability to defend itself; liberal groups will deem the entitlement reductions unacceptable. Thumbs down will also come from Paul Krugman, Rush Limbaugh, and every Republican running for president in 2012…
“As the House prepares to vote, the media will declare again that there is virtually no chance of passage. Strange-bedfellow allies, including prominent elements of Big Business and Big Labor – plus, inevitably, Bill Clinton – will make the ‘don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good’ argument in public and in private. As the measure’s details become more known, there will be another round of fly-specking from webizens of the left and the right, declaring the package the worst thing ever considered by Congress in American history. Obama will give some blockbuster speech explaining why the bill must pass. The measure will appear dead both before and immediately after his speech. Then a handful of liberal and conservative House members will come off the fence and declare themselves in favor (some might even flip from declared opposition)…
“And, then, the bill will heart-stoppingly pass the House, with some secret backroom deals and lobbying that will be revealed (if ever) only long after the fact. Reps. Bachmann and Pelosi will vote against. And then it will fully dawn on Boehner and McConnell at the White House signing ceremony (likely as Obama is handing them their souvenir pens) that they were part of history, including part of the part where Obama was able to take off the table the single most damaging issue that could be used against him in 2012.”
***
“Politicians have always postured in public and played poker in private, but as both sides dithered over the debt ceiling, even grizzled veterans grew disgusted. ‘My side’s just as guilty. I think we’re going to have a crisis because politics is going to trump the good of the country,’ says Republican Sen. Tom Coburn. ‘It doesn’t sound like there are any real adults any more, including in the White House.’”
Report: DeMint, Jim Jordan nix McConnell’s debt-ceiling plan; Update: Dems are considering it, says Durbin
DeMint’s opposition isn’t confirmed yet but Robert Costa of NRO has it on good authority. That might not be an insuperable obstacle to passage in the Senate given the fact, per Bret Baier below, that Reid seems open to the idea. If he can bring the Dems into line then all they’d need is the usual suspects — Brown, Snowe, Collins, Murkowski, and a few others — and they’re golden.
But Jordan’s kiss of death in the House will make things hard for Boehner:
Rep. Jim Jordan (R., Ohio), chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee, tells NRO that while he hasn’t review all the details of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R., Ky.) “contingency plan,” he doesn’t see much of a future for it in the House.
The RSC has 175 members. If all or most walk away, Boehner would need practically the entire Democratic caucus plus 50-60 Republicans who are willing to break with conservatives and lock arms with the left in the name of ceding control of the debt ceiling to Obama. They’d be doing it in the name of averting a default and boxing in The One as the candidate of debt next year, but I doubt that’d save them from primary challenges. How does Boehner get McConnell’s bill through the House under those circumstances? No wonder he seems so noncommittal about it; watch his reaction when Baier presses him on it at 1:30 of the clip below.
The key here, as is increasingly the case, might be Cantor. Whether there’s a rift between him and Boehner or not, he’s banked enough conservative cred by holding the line on taxes throughout the negotiation that he might be able to pry away some RSC members if he backed McConnell’s plan. Has anyone heard his reaction to it yet? If so, please tip us and I’ll update the post. I’ll leave you with a link to this brief but must-see vid (via NRO), which contains what must be one of the most ominous pauses in modern political history. No wonder McConnell’s thinking about Plan B.
Update: The Senate might be ready to play ball:
A back-up plan proposed by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell that would keep the U.S. government from defaulting on its debts next month is viable and under consideration by Senate Democrats, according to Sen. Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the chamber.
“We’re talking about it as one of the options, yes,” Durbin said in response to a question about whether the McConnell plan is viable.
Update: Still no word on Cantor vis-a-vis McConnell’s plan, but this quote from earlier today speaks volumes:
Across the Capitol, a closed-door caucus of House Republicans broke up with the leadership conceding that it’s frankly at a loss about getting the votes before Treasury’s Aug. 2 deadline.
“Nothing can get through the House right now,” Cantor said after the White House meeting. “Nothing.”
wait
“Sister Wives” clan to challenge constitutionality of Utah’s polygamy law
Who’s angrier about this? Traditional marriage activists, or gay rights activists who don’t want to see the debate about same-sex marriage dragged down the slippery slope when they’re trying to build on momentum from New York?
Nationally-known constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley said the lawsuit to be filed in U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City will not call for plural marriages to be recognized by the state. Instead, it asks for polygamy between consenting adults like his clients, former Utahn Kody Brown and his wives, to no longer be considered a crime.
“We are only challenging the right of the state to prosecute people for their private relations and demanding equal treatment with other citizens in living their lives according to their own beliefs,” Turley said in a press release. The Browns star in the TLC network show “Sister Wives.” There is no word yet on whether they will appear in a press conference scheduled for Wednesday…
The complaint to be filed Wednesday, Turley said, presents seven constitutional challenges to the state’s bigamy law. It is largely based on the right to privacy.
“In that sense, it is a challenge designed to benefit not just polygamists but all citizens who wish to live their lives according to their own values—even if those values run counter to those of the majority in the state,” said Turley, a member of the faculty at George Washington University.
If the distinction between decriminalization and state recognition seems confusing (which it did to me at first), it helps to know that Utah’s bigamy statute includes cohabiting with one person when you’re legally married to another. And in fact, this guy is only legally married to one woman; the other three are, er, “sister wives.” Basically, he’s arguing that he doesn’t care if the state recognizes them as legal spouses or not, just that he doesn’t want the cops to come knocking and lock him up when they find out. In that sense, his court claim mirrors the current legal regime in most states where gay marriage is banned but gay sex is constitutionally protected.
So, no lawsuit to legalize polygamous marriage — yet. But legal precedents have a funny way of building on each other:
The lawsuit is not demanding that states recognize polygamous marriage. Instead, the lawsuit builds on a 2003 United States Supreme Court decision, Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down state sodomy laws as unconstitutional intrusions on the “intimate conduct” of consenting adults. It will ask the federal courts to tell states that they cannot punish polygamists for their own “intimate conduct” so long as they are not breaking other laws, like those regarding child abuse, incest or seeking multiple marriage licenses…
The questions surrounding whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry are significantly different from those involved in criminal prosecution of multiple marriages, Ms. Pizer noted. Same-sex couples are seeking merely to participate in the existing system of family law for married couples, she said, while “you’d have to restructure the family law system in a pretty fundamental way” to recognize polygamy.
Professor Turley called the one-thing-leads-to-another arguments “a bit of a constitutional canard,” and argued that removing criminal penalties for polygamy “will take society nowhere in particular.”
Ah, but they’re not asking to change family law, just to take polygamy out of the penal code. The family law case will be the next lawsuit. FYI, the Supreme Court already upheld laws against polygamy — 130 years ago, rejecting a Mormon challenge based on the Free Exercise Clause. So there’s precedent here if SCOTUS wants it when it eventually hears a case along these lines. Two important footnotes, though. One: The Court’s language in Lawrence v. Texas, a decision authored by Anthony Kennedy, was famously broad in its implications (a point noted by Scalia in dissent at the time), so there’s no telling whether that earlier precedent is still good law. And second, Lawrence itself overruled a much more recent precedent in Bowers v. Hardwick to arrive at its holding. So yeah, there’s quite a fair chance that the Brown clan might pull this off.
Exit question: Speaking of people who aren’t eager to watch this court/media battle play out, how excited do you think Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are right now?
Nationally-known constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley said the lawsuit to be filed in U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City will not call for plural marriages to be recognized by the state. Instead, it asks for polygamy between consenting adults like his clients, former Utahn Kody Brown and his wives, to no longer be considered a crime.
“We are only challenging the right of the state to prosecute people for their private relations and demanding equal treatment with other citizens in living their lives according to their own beliefs,” Turley said in a press release. The Browns star in the TLC network show “Sister Wives.” There is no word yet on whether they will appear in a press conference scheduled for Wednesday…
The complaint to be filed Wednesday, Turley said, presents seven constitutional challenges to the state’s bigamy law. It is largely based on the right to privacy.
“In that sense, it is a challenge designed to benefit not just polygamists but all citizens who wish to live their lives according to their own values—even if those values run counter to those of the majority in the state,” said Turley, a member of the faculty at George Washington University.
If the distinction between decriminalization and state recognition seems confusing (which it did to me at first), it helps to know that Utah’s bigamy statute includes cohabiting with one person when you’re legally married to another. And in fact, this guy is only legally married to one woman; the other three are, er, “sister wives.” Basically, he’s arguing that he doesn’t care if the state recognizes them as legal spouses or not, just that he doesn’t want the cops to come knocking and lock him up when they find out. In that sense, his court claim mirrors the current legal regime in most states where gay marriage is banned but gay sex is constitutionally protected.
So, no lawsuit to legalize polygamous marriage — yet. But legal precedents have a funny way of building on each other:
The lawsuit is not demanding that states recognize polygamous marriage. Instead, the lawsuit builds on a 2003 United States Supreme Court decision, Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down state sodomy laws as unconstitutional intrusions on the “intimate conduct” of consenting adults. It will ask the federal courts to tell states that they cannot punish polygamists for their own “intimate conduct” so long as they are not breaking other laws, like those regarding child abuse, incest or seeking multiple marriage licenses…
The questions surrounding whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry are significantly different from those involved in criminal prosecution of multiple marriages, Ms. Pizer noted. Same-sex couples are seeking merely to participate in the existing system of family law for married couples, she said, while “you’d have to restructure the family law system in a pretty fundamental way” to recognize polygamy.
Professor Turley called the one-thing-leads-to-another arguments “a bit of a constitutional canard,” and argued that removing criminal penalties for polygamy “will take society nowhere in particular.”
Ah, but they’re not asking to change family law, just to take polygamy out of the penal code. The family law case will be the next lawsuit. FYI, the Supreme Court already upheld laws against polygamy — 130 years ago, rejecting a Mormon challenge based on the Free Exercise Clause. So there’s precedent here if SCOTUS wants it when it eventually hears a case along these lines. Two important footnotes, though. One: The Court’s language in Lawrence v. Texas, a decision authored by Anthony Kennedy, was famously broad in its implications (a point noted by Scalia in dissent at the time), so there’s no telling whether that earlier precedent is still good law. And second, Lawrence itself overruled a much more recent precedent in Bowers v. Hardwick to arrive at its holding. So yeah, there’s quite a fair chance that the Brown clan might pull this off.
Exit question: Speaking of people who aren’t eager to watch this court/media battle play out, how excited do you think Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are right now?
Quotes of the day
“Former Sen. Alan Simpson, R-Wyo., the GOP co-chair of President Obama’s deficit commission, told ABC News that ‘The American people are disgusted at both parties’ for not being able to agree on a measure to reduce the deficit…
“‘Reagan raised taxes,’ Simpson said. ‘We’ve never had less revenue to run this country since the Korean war.’
“Contrary to some Republicans expressing skepticism about the Aug. 2 default date, Simpson said that Treasury Secretary ‘Tim Geithner ain’t fooling.’”***
“[M]any Congressional Republicans seem to be spoiling for a fight, calculating that some level of turmoil caused by a federal default might be what it takes to give them the chance to right the nation’s fiscal ship…
“Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, the Budget Committee chairman seen as the voice of fiscal authority among House Republicans, said that he believed an agreement leading to a debt limit increase would eventually be reached, but that the impasse could extend beyond the administration’s Aug. 2 drop-dead date.
“‘Let’s say we go past Aug. 2,’ he said in an interview. ‘As time goes on, the situation deteriorates, so I do believe there will be something.’ He pointed to ‘macroeconomic circumstances and credit markets — and also paying the bills — Social Security, Medicare, the troops.’
“‘I think there ultimately will be something,’ he said. ‘I really honestly don’t know what it’s going to be. I really don’t.’”
***
The hotter precincts of the blogosphere were calling [McConnell's proposal] a sellout yesterday, though they might want to think before they shout. The debt ceiling is going to be increased one way or another, and the only question has been what if anything Republicans could get in return. If Mr. Obama insists on a tax increase, and Republicans won’t vote for one, then what’s the alternative to Mr. McConnell’s maneuver?…
“The tea party/talk-radio expectations for what Republicans can accomplish over the debt-limit showdown have always been unrealistic. As former Senator Phil Gramm once told us, never take a hostage you’re not prepared to shoot. Republicans aren’t prepared to stop a debt-limit increase because the political costs are unbearable. Republicans might have played this game better, but the truth is that Mr. Obama has more cards to play.
“The entitlement state can’t be reformed by one house of Congress in one year against a determined President and Senate held by the other party. It requires more than one election. The Obama Democrats have staged a spending blowout to 24% of GDP and rising, and now they want to find a way to finance it to make it permanent. Those are the real stakes of 2012.
“Even if Mr. Obama gets his debt-limit increase without any spending cuts, he will pay a price for the privilege. He’ll have reinforced his well-earned reputation as a spender with no modern peer. He’ll own the record deficits and fast-rising debt. And he’ll own the U.S. credit-rating downgrade to AA if Standard & Poor’s so decides.”
***
“Most people don’t care about the deficit, much less the debt ceiling. They care about jobs and the economy–which is the real advantage Republicans have in the coming campaign.
“If McConnell actually proposes to pull an Emily Littella and say ‘Never mind’ about the debt ceiling, the President can pocket this inadvertent gesture of sanity, sign the debt ceiling extension…and then come right back with an economic package reducing the deficit $2.4 trillion over the next ten years, including the budget cuts that both sides have agreed upon plus the loophole closing revenue raisers–corporate jets, oil and ethanol subsidies, and hedge fund manager tax breaks–that 80% of the American people favor. Let the Republicans vote that one down, or refuse to consider it at all in the House of Representatives. Barack Obama would have a lovely issue to run on.
“But I don’t believe for a moment that McConnell is going to do this. He’s desperate, facing a deal that either includes revenue increases or doesn’t happen at all. He’s blinking as fast as he can.”
***
“There is no constitutional authority for the legislative branch to surrender its clearly delineated duty to write bills for raising revenue and borrow money on the credit of the United States.
“Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner recently employed a clever but easily falsifiable argument, which cites Section 4 of the 14th Amendment to claim that the president can override the separation of powers…
“McConnell’s enthusiasm for this unconstitutional gimmick is disheartening, but it does not change the law. Congress has no more right to give up its authority than the president has to confiscate it.”
***
“Despite intense lobbying of Congress by President Obama, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, and others in the administration about the economic urgency for raising the nation’s debt limit, fewer than one in four Americans favor the general idea of raising it. Also, Americans are significantly more concerned about the budgetary risk of giving the government a new license to spend than they are about the potential economic consequences that would result from not raising the debt limit. Both of these findings put Americans more on congressional Republicans’ side of the debate than Obama’s — at least in terms of political leverage as the two sides negotiate a deal.”
“I can guarantee you, Mark, that planis going nowhere.” Click the image to listen.owhere.” Click the image to listen.
“‘Reagan raised taxes,’ Simpson said. ‘We’ve never had less revenue to run this country since the Korean war.’
“Contrary to some Republicans expressing skepticism about the Aug. 2 default date, Simpson said that Treasury Secretary ‘Tim Geithner ain’t fooling.’”***
“[M]any Congressional Republicans seem to be spoiling for a fight, calculating that some level of turmoil caused by a federal default might be what it takes to give them the chance to right the nation’s fiscal ship…
“Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, the Budget Committee chairman seen as the voice of fiscal authority among House Republicans, said that he believed an agreement leading to a debt limit increase would eventually be reached, but that the impasse could extend beyond the administration’s Aug. 2 drop-dead date.
“‘Let’s say we go past Aug. 2,’ he said in an interview. ‘As time goes on, the situation deteriorates, so I do believe there will be something.’ He pointed to ‘macroeconomic circumstances and credit markets — and also paying the bills — Social Security, Medicare, the troops.’
“‘I think there ultimately will be something,’ he said. ‘I really honestly don’t know what it’s going to be. I really don’t.’”
***
The hotter precincts of the blogosphere were calling [McConnell's proposal] a sellout yesterday, though they might want to think before they shout. The debt ceiling is going to be increased one way or another, and the only question has been what if anything Republicans could get in return. If Mr. Obama insists on a tax increase, and Republicans won’t vote for one, then what’s the alternative to Mr. McConnell’s maneuver?…
“The tea party/talk-radio expectations for what Republicans can accomplish over the debt-limit showdown have always been unrealistic. As former Senator Phil Gramm once told us, never take a hostage you’re not prepared to shoot. Republicans aren’t prepared to stop a debt-limit increase because the political costs are unbearable. Republicans might have played this game better, but the truth is that Mr. Obama has more cards to play.
“The entitlement state can’t be reformed by one house of Congress in one year against a determined President and Senate held by the other party. It requires more than one election. The Obama Democrats have staged a spending blowout to 24% of GDP and rising, and now they want to find a way to finance it to make it permanent. Those are the real stakes of 2012.
“Even if Mr. Obama gets his debt-limit increase without any spending cuts, he will pay a price for the privilege. He’ll have reinforced his well-earned reputation as a spender with no modern peer. He’ll own the record deficits and fast-rising debt. And he’ll own the U.S. credit-rating downgrade to AA if Standard & Poor’s so decides.”
***
“Most people don’t care about the deficit, much less the debt ceiling. They care about jobs and the economy–which is the real advantage Republicans have in the coming campaign.
“If McConnell actually proposes to pull an Emily Littella and say ‘Never mind’ about the debt ceiling, the President can pocket this inadvertent gesture of sanity, sign the debt ceiling extension…and then come right back with an economic package reducing the deficit $2.4 trillion over the next ten years, including the budget cuts that both sides have agreed upon plus the loophole closing revenue raisers–corporate jets, oil and ethanol subsidies, and hedge fund manager tax breaks–that 80% of the American people favor. Let the Republicans vote that one down, or refuse to consider it at all in the House of Representatives. Barack Obama would have a lovely issue to run on.
“But I don’t believe for a moment that McConnell is going to do this. He’s desperate, facing a deal that either includes revenue increases or doesn’t happen at all. He’s blinking as fast as he can.”
***
“There is no constitutional authority for the legislative branch to surrender its clearly delineated duty to write bills for raising revenue and borrow money on the credit of the United States.
“Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner recently employed a clever but easily falsifiable argument, which cites Section 4 of the 14th Amendment to claim that the president can override the separation of powers…
“McConnell’s enthusiasm for this unconstitutional gimmick is disheartening, but it does not change the law. Congress has no more right to give up its authority than the president has to confiscate it.”
***
“Despite intense lobbying of Congress by President Obama, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, and others in the administration about the economic urgency for raising the nation’s debt limit, fewer than one in four Americans favor the general idea of raising it. Also, Americans are significantly more concerned about the budgetary risk of giving the government a new license to spend than they are about the potential economic consequences that would result from not raising the debt limit. Both of these findings put Americans more on congressional Republicans’ side of the debate than Obama’s — at least in terms of political leverage as the two sides negotiate a deal.”
“I can guarantee you, Mark, that planis going nowhere.” Click the image to listen.owhere.” Click the image to listen.
To Play With Giants, App Devs Risk Getting Squashed
Hot-selling mobile apps have earned some independent programmers hundreds of thousands of dollars. But one of the greatest risks of developing apps for a platform controlled by a large corporation, such as Google or Apple, is that you can easily get crushed.
Take for example Mike Jacobs, a developer of software startup Hello, Chair. For nine months, his team of three has been working on an iPhone app called Appsaurus, which makes App Store recommendations based on the apps you already own. So it was very bad news for Hello, Chair when Apple in September introduced a free App Store recommendation tool called App Store Genius.
“That’s one of the scariest things: If Apple moves an inch, they crush a bunch of little developers,” Jacobs said in a phone interview.
With giants dominating Silicon Valley, start-ups and independent programmers are fitting in between the cracks by developing apps for corporations’ mobile platforms. Apple’s App Store, which launched July 2008, is the largest to date with 100,000 apps and counting. Google’s Android platform is second largest, serving roughly 14,000 apps. In the case of the App Store, a lucky bunch have struck it rich with soaring sales, while others have suffered at the mercy of the giant they’re developing for.
More often, Apple is scrutinized for its questionable approval policy. The company has rejected some developers’ apps for unclear reasons, which often puts them in financial hurt (in severe cases, a six-digit loss).
But stories like Hello, Chair’s — where the corporation inadvertently competes with its developers — are a bit rare. Jacobs said his company was striving to provide something the iPhone was missing in hopes to make the platform even better. However, Apple, too, is thinking of ways to improve its products — and with a considerably larger team of in-house programmers and billions of dollars in resources, the Cupertino, California company beat a small start-up to the idea of an App Store recommendation tool.
Hello, Chair submitted Appsaurus to Apple this week and nervously awaits Apple’s approval. The team is hoping it does not face the same outcome as Podcaster, an app Apple rejected in September 2008. The Podcaster app enabled the iPhone to download podcasts and listen to them on the fly. Apple rejected Podcaster, saying it “duplicates the functionality” of the iPod. However, the iPhone didn’t have this feature when Podcaster was submitted. Only after rejecting Podcaster did Apple introduce a podcast downloader through its iTunes app.
Alex Sokirynsky, who developed Podcaster, said he had spent four months learning the iPhone’s programming language, and he was “heartbroken” by Apple’s rejection of Podcaster.
“Apple has a very tight hold on everyone in the App Store,” Sokirynsky told Wired.com. “They could pull any app for any reason, and the developer has no say. This could ruin a new company.”
This Goliath-stomps-on-David scenario isn’t unique to Apple, either. Etienne Baratte, a software engineer, was developing an app for the Google Android platform called Jamdroid, which would provide real-time traffic information anywhere on the globe. Baratte entered Jamdroid in Google’s Android Developer Challenge, a contest inviting developers to submit app prototypes for a chance to win awards. Jamdroid received an honorable score in the competition — but Google in August 2009 announced it was working on almost the exact same traffic-analysis tool.
Baratte was dismayed: He’d been working on Jamdroid since November 2007 with a few partners. He killed his project when Google rolled out its traffic service in August.
“There’s no competition possible at all,” Baratte said in a phone interview. “I can’t say they stole my idea. They’re in their right to implement such a service, and in fact, in a way I am quite happy that they did so…. But I spent all my free time on this.”
Hello, Chair hasn’t given up on Appsaurus, however. When Apple introduced App Store Genius, Jacobs and his team proceeded to add more features to Appsaurus to make it better than Apple’s recommendation system. When making recommendations, App Store Genius only takes into account the apps currently installed on a user’s iPhone. Appsaurus, Jacobs said, will use an interactive algorithm that allows users to rate and modify suggestions in real-time. The app will also make app recommendations based on other apps people have purchased, similar to Amazon’s “Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought” feature.
Record Highs Far Outpace Record Lows Across U.S.
Spurred by a warming climate, daily record high temperatures occurred twice as often as record lows over the last decade across the continental United States, new research shows. The ratio of record highs to lows is likely to increase dramatically in coming decades if emissions of greenhouse gases continue to climb.
Results of the research, by authors at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, CO, Climate Central, The Weather Channel, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), have been accepted for publication in the American Geophysical Union journal Geophysical Research Letters.
"Climate change is making itself felt in terms of day-to-day weather in the United States," says NCAR scientist Gerald Meehl, the lead author. "The ways these records are being broken show how our climate is already shifting."
The research was funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), NCAR's sponsor, the U.S. Department of Energy, and Climate Central.
"This intriguing study provides new evidence of climate change," says Steve Nelson, NSF program director for NCAR. "And it's change that's affecting our daily lives."
If temperatures were not warming, the number of record daily highs and lows being set each year would be approximately even. Instead, for the period from January 1, 2000, to September 30, 2009, the continental United States set 291,237 record highs and 142,420 record lows, as the country experienced unusually mild winter weather and intense summer heat waves. A record daily high means that temperatures were warmer on a given day than on that same date throughout a weather station's history.
The authors used a quality control process to ensure the reliability of data from thousands of weather stations across the country, while looking at data over the past six decades to capture longer-term trends. This decade's warming was more pronounced in the western United States, where the ratio was more than two to one, than in the eastern United States, where the ratio was about one-and-a-half to one. The study also found that the two-to-one ratio across the country as a whole could be attributed more to a comparatively small number of record lows than to a large number of record highs.
This indicates that much of the nation's warming is occurring at night, when temperatures are dipping less often to record lows. This finding is consistent with years of climate model research showing that higher overnight lows should be expected with climate change.
In addition to surveying actual temperatures in recent decades, Meehl and his co-authors turned to a sophisticated computer model of global climate to determine how record high and low temperatures are likely to change during the course of this century. The modeling results indicate that, if nations continue to increase their emissions of greenhouse gases in a "business as usual" scenario, the U.S. ratio of daily record high to record low temperatures would increase to about 20-to-1 by mid-century and 50-to-1 by 2100. The mid-century ratio could be much higher if emissions rose at an even greater pace, or it could be about 8-to-1 if emissions were reduced significantly, the model showed.
The authors caution that such predictions are, by their nature, inexact. Climate models are not designed to capture record daily highs and lows with precision, and it remains impossible to know future human actions that will determine the level of future greenhouse gas emissions.
The model used for the study, the NCAR-based Community Climate System Model, correctly captured the trend toward warmer average temperatures and the greater warming in the West, but overstated the ratio of record highs to record lows in recent years. However, the model results are important because they show that, in all likely scenarios of future greenhouse gas emissions, record daily highs should increasingly outpace record lows over time.
"If the climate weren't changing, you would expect the number of temperature records to diminish significantly over time," says Claudia Tebaldi, a statistician with Climate Central who is one of the paper's co-authors. "As you measure the high and low daily temperatures each year, it normally becomes more difficult to break a record after a number of years. But, as the average temperatures continue to rise this century, we will keep setting more record highs."
The study team focused on weather stations that have been operating since 1950. They found that the ratio of record daily high to record daily low temperatures slightly exceeded one to one in the 1950s, dipped below that level in the 1960s and 1970s, and has risen since the 1980s. The results reflect changes in U.S. average temperatures, which rose in the 1950s, stabilized in the 1960s, and then began a warming trend in the late 1970s.
Even in the first nine months of this year, when the United States cooled somewhat after a string of unusually warm years, the ratio of record daily high to record daily low temperatures was more than three to two. Despite the increasing number of record highs, there will still be occasional periods of record cold, Meehl notes.
"One of the messages of this study is, you still get cold days," Meehl says. "Winter still comes. Even in a much warmer climate, we're setting record low minimum temperatures on a few days each year. But, the odds are shifting, so there's a much better chance of daily record highs instead of lows."
The study team analyzed several million daily high and low temperature readings taken over the span of six decades at about 1,800 weather stations across the country, thereby ensuring ample data for statistically significant results. The readings, collected at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center, undergo a quality control process at the data center that looks for such potential problems as missing data, as well as inconsistent readings caused by changes in thermometers, station locations or other factors.
Meehl and his colleagues then used temperature simulations from the Community Climate System Model to compute daily record highs and lows under current and future atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.
Painted ladies fly to ISS
In a project known as Butterflies in Space, the Atlantis space shuttle will next week carry a butterfly habitat containing monarch and painted lady adults and larvae to the International Space Station.
Painted ladies fly to International Space StationThe idea is that thousands of schoolkids across the US will be able to study the effects of space travel on the little astronauts, comparing them with examples reared in their own classroms. The children will be able to monitor their progress via still and video images.
"One of the most exciting things about this project is that we can use the International Space Station to bring spaceflight experiments into classrooms around the country," said BioServe Director Louis Stodieck, principal investigator on the project. "Our continuing goal is to inspire K-12 students around the country in science, technology, engineering and math."
The butterfly payload has been designed and built by BioServe Space Technologies in CU-Boulder's aerospace engineering department and will carry two butterfly habitats containing monarch and painted lady butterfly larvae and enough nectar and other food to support them as they develop.
Painted ladies fly to International Space StationThe idea is that thousands of schoolkids across the US will be able to study the effects of space travel on the little astronauts, comparing them with examples reared in their own classroms. The children will be able to monitor their progress via still and video images.
"One of the most exciting things about this project is that we can use the International Space Station to bring spaceflight experiments into classrooms around the country," said BioServe Director Louis Stodieck, principal investigator on the project. "Our continuing goal is to inspire K-12 students around the country in science, technology, engineering and math."
The butterfly payload has been designed and built by BioServe Space Technologies in CU-Boulder's aerospace engineering department and will carry two butterfly habitats containing monarch and painted lady butterfly larvae and enough nectar and other food to support them as they develop.
Apple outflanks Psystar in crushing legal victory
Apple has finally managed to outflank Psystar after fighting a bloody and protracted legal battle against the infamous Mac clone manufacturer.
Victory came in the form of a ruling by US (Northern California) District Judge William Alsup, who determined that Psystar had infringed Apple's "exclusive right" to create derivative works of Mac OS X by replacing original files with unauthorized software.altAccording to Alsup, Psystar executed three primary unlawful modifications:* Replacing the Mac OS X bootloader with an alternative to run unauthorized copies of Mac OS X to run on Psystar's computers.
* Disabling and removing Apple kernel extension files.
* Adding non-Apple kernel extensions.
"Psystar contends that this did not amount to creating a derivative work, because Apple's source code, object code, or kernel extensions were not modified. This argument is unavailing. Psystar admittedly replaced entire files within the software while copying other portions," opined Alsup.
Apple OS X
"This resulted in a substantial variation from the underlying copyrighted work. In fact, if the bootloader and kernel extensions added by Psystar were removed, then the operating system would not work on Psystar's computers. The inclusion of the copyrighted Mac OS X with the above-described additions and modifications makes Psystar's product an infringing, derivative work."
Unsurprisingly, Alsup's ruling against Psystar was termed a "total massacre" by Internet legal site Groklaw.
"Psystar just got what's coming to them in the California case. It's a total massacre. Psystar's first-sale defense went down in flames. Apple's motion for summary judgment on copyright infringement and DMCA violation is granted. Apple prevailed also on its motion to seal, [while] Psystar's motion for summary judgment on trademark infringement and trade dress is denied.
"So that means damages ahead for Psystar on the copyright issues just decided on summary judgment, at a minimum. In short, Psystar is toast, [their] only hope now is [the] Florida [legal system] and frankly I wouldn't bet the house on that one. The court's message is clear: EULAs mean what they say; if you don't want to abide by its license, leave Apple's stuff alone.
Nasa's LCROSS mission proves once and for all there is water on the Moon
A new chapter in space exploration has been opened up after Nasa confirmed that their mission to bomb the Moon had found "significant quantities" of frozen water
Scientists said the "exciting" findings had gone "beyond expectations" as fully formed ice was found in a crater on the planet.They said that the ice – thought to be in granules mixed with grains of Moon dust – heralded a major leap forward in space exploration and boosted hopes of a permanent lunar base.
The water was found in one mile high plume of debris that was kicked up by the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) last month when it crashed into the Cabeus crater near the Moon's south pole.
"We are ecstatic," said Anthony Colaprete, project scientist and principal investigator for the £49 million space mission.
"Indeed, yes, we found water. And we didn't find just a little bit, we found a significant amount."
He said in a "eureka moment" analysis of the plume of debris sprayed up by a 30 ft crater showed the equivalent of "a dozen two-gallon buckets" of water was thrown up by the impact.
"This is a great day for science and exploration," said Doug Cooke, associate administrator of LCROSS. "The remarkable results have gone beyond our expectations. It is incredibly exciting."
The identification of water-ice in the impact plume is important for purely scientific reasons, but also because a supply of water on the Moon would be a vital resource for future human exploration.
The findings, which completely contradict previous beliefs that the Moon was a dry arid place, justify the controversial mission.
It also reignites mankind's dreams of colonising Earth's only satellite.
"We're unlocking the mysteries of our nearest neighbour and, by extension, the Solar System," said Michael Wargo, chief lunar scientist at Nasa's headquarters in Washington DC.
The mission took place on 9th October and was watched by millions across the globe live on the internet.
One rocket slammed into the Cabeus crater, near the lunar southern pole, at around 5,600 miles (9,000 kilometres) per hour.
The impact sent a plume of material billowing up from the bottom of the crater, which has not seen sunlight for billions of years.
The rocket was followed four minutes later by a spacecraft equipped with cameras to record the impact. At the time the crash seemed to be disappointing as the "plume of debris" was not visible to Earth based satellites.
However analysis of the huge amount of data the spacecraft collected and from satellite's spectrometers provided definitive evidence about the presence of water.
A spectrometer examines light reflected from a substance and is able to identify their composition.
Over the last decade, scientists have found some hints of underground ice on the moon's poles, mainly in the form of compounds of hydrogen but this is the best evidence yet.
The discovery is expected to have major implications for the future of lunar exploration, and a ready supply of water could help set up lunar bases or launch missions to Mars.
Mr Colaprete said that it should be possible to purify the water for drinking even though it appeared to mixed with poisonous methanol.
Only 12 men, all Americans, have ever walked on the Moon, and the last to set foot there were in 1972, at the end of the Apollo missions.
But Nasa's ambitious plans to put US astronauts back on the moon by 2020 to establish manned lunar bases for further exploration to Mars under the Constellation project are increasingly in doubt.
Nasa's budget is currently too small to pay for Constellation's Orion capsule, a more advanced and spacious version of the Apollo lunar module, as well as the Ares I and Ares V launchers needed to put the craft in orbit.
A key review panel appointed by President Barack Obama said existing budgets are not large enough to fund a return mission before 2020.
As well as a possible site for a base, the permanently shadowed regions could hold a key to the history and evolution of the solar system, much as an ice core sample taken on Earth reveals ancient data. In addition, water, and other compounds represent potential resources that could sustain future lunar exploration.
Clearwire ditches plans to produce phones, satisfied Sony Ericsson drops logo lawsuit
We thought Clearwire might have had a chance at legal victory against Sony Ericsson, but the wireless carrier has apparently dropped out of the ring. Clearwire told a federal court it no longer plans to produce a smartphone
-- which basically nullified Sony Ericsson's worry that upcoming Clearwire handsets would oh-so-similar swirling orb logo. As a result, Sony Ericsson's reporting today that it's dropped the trademark infringement lawsuit, which sounds good for all involved, except it leaves Clearwire not producing
-- which basically nullified Sony Ericsson's worry that upcoming Clearwire handsets would oh-so-similar swirling orb logo. As a result, Sony Ericsson's reporting today that it's dropped the trademark infringement lawsuit, which sounds good for all involved, except it leaves Clearwire not producing
Imogen Mary Thomas
Selected as a housemate in the seventh series of the Channel 4 TV series, Big Brother, up to week 5, Thomas was not allowed to participate in nominations. In week 1 she was in the Big Brotherhood, and there were no nominations. In weeks 2 and 3, she was banned from nominating for discussing nominations. In week 4, only Susie was permitted to nominate, and in week 5, as punishment for yet again discussing nominations she was forced (along with 4 other rule breakers) to nominate one fellow rule breaker in front of the group. On Day 84, Imogen moved with fellow nominee Richard into the House Next Door, where she remained until she was evicted on Day 86 with 62% of the public vote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)