Member since: Sat May 15, 2010, 04:48 PM
Number of posts: 4,894
Number of posts: 4,894
- 2014 (56)
- 2013 (172)
- 2012 (102)
- 2011 (8)
- December (8)
- Older Archives
. . . Are you all proud of yourselves?
Posted by markpkessinger | Wed Jan 8, 2014, 09:14 PM (136 replies)
Posted by markpkessinger | Wed Jan 8, 2014, 06:34 PM (6 replies)
" . . . who swore she hadn't put my instructions in an e-mail."
Posted by markpkessinger | Wed Jan 8, 2014, 06:10 PM (0 replies)
Top Christie Staff Sought Lane Closings as Revenge
By KATE ZERNIKE JAN. 8, 2014
Newly released emails and text messages show that Gov. Chris Christie’s office was closely involved with lane closings on the New Jersey side of the George Washington Bridge in September, and that officials closed the lanes as retribution against the Democratic mayor whose town was gridlocked as a result.
The growing scandal around the bridge threatens Mr. Christie at the moment he assumes an even larger position on the national stage, as chairman of the Republican Governor’s Association and a leading candidate for his party’s presidential nomination in 2016.
In the documents, obtained by The New York Times and other news outlets on Wednesday, Bridget Anne Kelly, a deputy chief of staff in Mr. Christie’s office, gave a signal to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to close the lanes about two weeks before the closings occurred.
“Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee,” she emailed David Wildstein, Mr. Christie’s close friend from high school, and one of his appointees at the Port Authority, which controls the bridge. Mr. Christie and some officials at Port Authority have said the closings were done as part of a traffic study, but they caused havoc for days, backing up traffic for hours.
< . . . . >
Posted by markpkessinger | Wed Jan 8, 2014, 04:23 PM (3 replies)
. . . Why, he outsources the selection of five judicial vacancies on the federal bench in Georgia to Republicans, of course, like any other President would do! Oh, wait . . .
FFS! God forbid this President should actually use an advantage Congressional Democrats handed to him!
Democratic Members Of Congress Slam Obama For Massive Cave To Republicans On Judges
BY IAN MILLHISER JANUARY 6, 2014 AT 3:53 PM
Last November, Senate Democrats invoked a procedural maneuver that allowed them to confirm judicial nominees by a simple majority vote, thus cutting off the GOP’s ability to maintain control over a key federal appeals court by simply refusing to permit anyone to be confirmed. So it’s a bit odd that, just over a month after Senate Republicans effectively lost their ability to veto nominees from the minority. President Obama decided to outsource selecting nominees to most of the open judicial seats in Georgia to two Republican senators.
Presently, five judicial vacancies need to be filled in Georgia. Yet, 2013 wound down, Obama agreed to a deal that would place most of these seats in Republican hands. As we explained in September when this deal was under consideration,
Sens. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA) would agree to stop blocking attorney Jill Pryor’s nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit — a nomination that they have effectively held up for well over 1000 days. In return, Obama would nominate a George H.W. Bush-appointed judge — Chief Judge Julie Carnes of the Northern District of Georgia — to the other open seat on the Eleventh Circuit, creating a fourth vacancy on this federal trial court. Chambliss and Isakson would then be allowed to select three of the four attorneys named to these seats.
Now that Obama has formally nominated this Republican slate of judges, his usual allies in Georgia’s congressional delegation are not happy. Shortly after the nominees were announced, civil rights legend Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) warned that these nominees “do not adequately reflect the diversity of the northern district and that the selection process lacked meaningful community input,” and that “several nominees include persons who have advocated in favor of Georgia’s voter ID laws and for including the Confederate Battle Emblem as part of the Georgia State Flag.” He was joined in his complaint about these nominees by several of his fellow civil rights leaders, as well as Reps. Hank Johnson (D-GA) and David Scott (D-GA).
< . . . . >
Posted by markpkessinger | Mon Jan 6, 2014, 06:42 PM (84 replies)
(An excerpt from the editorial, followed by the text of my published comment to it.)
Indoctrinating Religious Warriors
By CHARLES M. BLOW
Published: January 3, 2014
In 2009, the gap between the share of Republicans and Democrats who believed in evolution was just 10 percentage points, 54 percent and 64 percent, respectively. Last year, that gap widened to a whopping 24 points because as the percentage of Democrats who believed in evolution inched up to 67 percent, the percentage of Republicans believing so plummeted to 43 percent. Now, more Republicans believe that “humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time” than believe in evolution.
< . . . . >
But I believe that something else is also at play here, something more cynical. I believe this is a natural result of a long-running ploy by Republican party leaders to play on the most base convictions of conservative voters in order to solidify their support. Convince people that they’re fighting a religious war for religious freedom, a war in which passion and devotion are one’s weapons against doubt and confusion, and you make loyal soldiers.
There has been anti-science propagandizing running unchecked on the right for years, from anti-gay-equality misinformation to climate change denials.
< . . . . >
And here is my published comment:
Mark Kessinger New York, NY
For many of those who newly espouse doubts about evolution, this isn't really about religious conviction at all. The fact is that disbelief in evolution, along with climate change denial and the recent, newly acquired opposition to birth control by evangelicals who heretofore had non particular objection to it, has become yet another conservative dog whistle. These various right-wing dog whistles are really about tribal identity as much as anything. Conservatism, it seems to me, has always required an enemy, but not just any enemy. No, to sustain itself, conservatism requires an enemy that cannot readily be pinned down, one that may be hiding under every rock, lurking around every corner and ready to rear its ugly head in the person of any fellow citizen, friend or even family member. And it must be an enemy conservatives can convince themselves is intent upon destroying the world as they know it. These various dog whistle then become a convenient means to identify these crafty, stealthy enemies, and also to make sure they themselves are not so identified. It's all pretty pathetic, really.
Jan. 4, 2014 at 8:13 a.m.
Posted by markpkessinger | Sat Jan 4, 2014, 01:24 PM (5 replies)
An editorial in today's New York Times applauds the eight people for whom it was announced last week that President Obama has decided to either pardon or to commute their sentences, even as it calls him out for being stingier than any other President in recent times in granting such pardons and/or commutations. The stats are really quite disturbing, particularly when so many are locked up for staggeringly long periods for non-violent offenses. Here is a list of Presidents from Eisenhower forward, showing the time in office and the number of pardons/commutations granted by each:
Eisenhower - 8 years - 1,157
Kennedy - just under 3 years - 575
Johnson - 4 years - 1,187
Nixon - 5.5 years - 926
Ford - 2.5 years - 405
Carter - 4 years - 566
Reagan - 8 years - 406
G.H.W. Bush - 4 years - 77
Clinton - 8 years - 459
G.W. Bush - 8 years - 200
Obama - 5 years - 61
This is really quite appalling, in my view, and all the more so this year because the President isn't standing for re-election. Where is your compassion, Mr. President?
Here is an excerpt of and link to the Times's editorial:
A Small Step Toward More Mercy
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Published: December 22, 2013
President Obama’s decision on Thursday to commute the outrageously long drug sentences of eight men and women showed a measure of compassion and common sense. But it also served to highlight the injustice being done to thousands of prisoners under federal sentencing laws.
In issuing the commutations, Mr. Obama blamed the “unfair system” that is keeping thousands behind bars solely because they were sentenced before August 2010, when Congress reduced the vast disparity between the way federal courts punish crack cocaine and powder cocaine offenses. The three-year-old federal law, the Fair Sentencing Act, allows prisoners to petition a judge to shorten their sentence, but it does not apply to nearly 9,000 prisoners who were already serving time when it was passed. While Congress is considering legislation to make the law retroactive, any such fix is far from assured.
< . . . >
It is important to recognize that while Mr. Obama showed mercy to these eight people, his administration has been the least merciful in modern times. The power to mitigate an overly harsh sentence is squarely in his hands, and yet in nearly five years he has commuted just nine sentences and issued 52 pardons. (A commutation lessens the severity of a punishment, while a pardon forgives the offense itself and restores the rights people lose when they go to prison.)
There is no excuse for this lack of compassion. The risk to public safety is often used to justify denials of clemency, but a preliminary report issued in July by the United States Sentencing Commission found that the recidivism rates for the more than 7,300 prisoners who received sentence reductions under the Fair Sentencing Act were similar to those for inmates who served full sentences.
< . . . . >
Posted by markpkessinger | Mon Dec 23, 2013, 02:06 PM (4 replies)
Iran Sanctions Bill From Sens. Bob Menendez And Mark Kirk Could Endanger U.S. Negotiations
WASHINGTON -- Sens. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) are threatening to push the United States toward war with Iran, circulating and planning to introduce a sanctions bill despite warnings that it could derail nuclear negotiations at a delicate moment.
International observers and both parties to the negotiations have repeatedly pleaded with Congress to allow the talks to unfold -- warnings that Kirk and Menendez, the chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, appear intent on ignoring. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) is also part of the effort, though much of the final decision rests with Menendez.
"The White House doesn't want a bill, that's true. Menendez and Kirk are working on it and trying to build the list of cosponsors. Likely to be introduced soon," said a Senate Democratic aide involved in the effort.
The lawmakers are circulating a draft sanctions bill that would target the Iranian petroleum and mining industries, and set up unilateral guidelines for what would constitute compliance.
< . . . >
Posted by markpkessinger | Thu Dec 19, 2013, 02:38 PM (5 replies)
God save the Queen indeed!
Queen Elizabeth II gives royal stamp of approval to same-sex marriage
LONDON — Britain on Wednesday legalized gay marriage after Queen Elizabeth II gave her royal stamp of approval, clearing the way for the first same-sex weddings next summer.
Lawmakers cheered as House of Commons Speaker John Bercow said royal assent had been given – one day after the bill to legalize same-sex marriage in England and Wales cleared Parliament.
The law enables gay couples to get married in both civil and religious ceremonies in England and Wales, provided that the religious institution consents. The Church of England, the country’s official faith, is barred from performing such ceremonies.
It also will allow couples who had previously entered into civil partnerships – which were introduced in 2005 and carry similar rights and responsibilities to marriage – to convert their relationships to marriage.
< . . . >
Posted by markpkessinger | Thu Dec 19, 2013, 12:51 PM (3 replies)
So there's this guy I know on Facebook -- we met through mutual Facebook acquaintances -- who I met a couple of years ago. Younger guy, early 30s, father of two young children, lives in the same Pennsylvania county in which I grew up. Like me, he posts a lot of political commentary. Unlike me, he was self-identified as a libertarian (albeit not a fan of the Ron and Rand Paul pseudo-Libertarian cult). But we have often found areas of substantial agreement, and often commented on one another's postings. On issues of civil liberties, LGBT issues and issues of racial injustice, we were typically in complete agreement. He is a pretty outspoken atheist, having grown up as the son of a fundamentalist pastor and having at one time embraced his father's ultraconservative religious worldview, but having come to view such views as emotionally and psychologically toxic based on his own life's journey. But when it came to issues of economics, he was still more inclined to a more conservative, libertarian point of view (but, refreshingly, never dogmatically so).
From when we first became acquainted, however, I noticed a difference between him and most others who don the "libertarian" mantle. The thing that struck me about him initially was his willingness to grapple with issues and engage in civil argument in a consistently honest way, at times calling out some of his much more extreme libertarian acquaintances on the absurdity of some of their arguments. He was certainly atypical in that his thinking was far more complex and nuanced than anybody I've ever met who called himself or herself a libertarian. Thus, even when we disagreed, I enjoyed my exchanges with him. During the earlier stages of the 2012 campaign, he urged me to look at Gary Bauer's website. I did. I reported back to him that while I appreciated some of Bauer's stances on social issues, when it came to economics, I saw little daylight between him and any of the Republican candidates. He conceded I had a point.
More recently, I've noticed an increasing tone of compassion -- and passion -- in his posts. Increasingly, I've notice a greater and greater concern for issues of social and economic justice, a greater level of criticism directed at the assumptions of capitalism that too often go unchallenged, and a growing, profound concern for the kind of planet his children will grow up in. And I noticed he was departing from the views of some of his libertarian acquaintances more and more sharply and with greater frequency. I had a pretty good idea that his politics were evolving. Then, the other night, I logged onto Facebook to find this status update from him (which I share with his permission):
Well, I went and did it. After all those warnings from conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, I got in touch with my liberal bleeding heart. It was a little rough at first weeding out all those political cobwebs in my mind that I had let take up residence because of my background both culturally and demographically, but I managed.
What I have discovered in my transition from christian conservative to atheist devil worshiping liberal is that the difference between liberalism and conservatism on a psychological level is the level of empathy involved in decision making. Conservatives, like the religion of their heritage, prefer to govern by arbitrary rules set into motion by other men but codified as an objective standard for our society both politically and morally.
Liberals, on the other hand, realize that even those standards were subjective and the only true guide to policy is how it impacts our fellow human beings. The criticism of conservatives is often targeted at this quality which is humanity's only true moral compass: empathy.
Conservatives and many Americans who agree with them on economic issues, tell us we need to have an emotional dissonance with policy regarding the markets. They see this as an element that would interfere with the market and our economy...well, that's what they say, anyway. What is really happening is we are divorcing our moral compass from our economy, from our justice system, and from nearly every aspect of our government.
And we wonder why things are so corrupt? What do you expect when you detach the source of your morality as a species from the execution of its governmental actions toward one another? How could we ever expect anything less than the devaluation of our humanity for immoral gain and greed when we shut out the only barometer we have for judging right and wrong actions?
Could we really be this emotionally ignorant of not only ourselves, but the Hell we are creating for our fellow human beings? As someone who has wandered over from the other side, I have to say, yes, we most certainly are.
What a joy, and how utterly gratifying, to watch a friend so completely and thoroughly "get it," as this friend has! Privately, he told me that our conversations had been "a comforting respite from the debates with my now former libertarian colleagues." That made me feel really good. And the whole thing has served as a reminder to me of how important it can be to maintain civil dialogue, even with those whose politics seems to be very different from our own, whenever possible, because it might just be the case that the person is, much like my friend, in the process of evolving.
Posted by markpkessinger | Thu Dec 19, 2013, 11:25 AM (7 replies)