Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

March 2015

Posted by Amy Miller on March 16, 2015 11 Comments
Our long international nightmare (daydream?) is over---Vladimir Putin is back in action. Putin's 10 day absence from the public eye launched the international media into a frenzy of rumors, speculation, and justified nervousness on the part of Putin's political enemies. Some speculated that he had fallen ill, others that he had died. Still others believed that he was in Switzerland to celebrate the birth of his love child with former gymnast Alina Kabaeva. Yet today he resurfaced, by all accounts looking bright eyed and bushy tailed---and amused at the rumor mill he set in motion. From The Times of Israel:
Kyrgyz President Almazbek Atanbayev, who met with Putin Monday in St. Petersburg’s ornate Konstantin Palace, referred to the swirling rumors about Putin’s condition, saying that the Russian leader is in good shape. Atanbayev said that Putin drove him around the palace’s park before the talks, adding that “the president of Russia not only walks, but speeds around.” “It would be dull without gossip,” Putin retorted with a smile. ... Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov greeted reporters Monday with sarcastic remarks: “So, have you seen the president paralyzed and seized by the generals? He has just come back from Switzerland where he attended the delivery.” Peskov added on a more serious note that the Kremlin has grown tired of refuting speculation about Putin’s condition. “The more we talk about it, the more intense (the speculation) becomes,” he said.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on March 16, 2015 13 Comments
Yes, we have to do this... again. Perpetual media malpractice requires searchable rebuttals to even the dumbest of mistruths, like the latest one about Ted Cruz. Speaking to the Strafford County Republican Committee in New Hampshire yesterday, Cruz was critical of the administration saying, "the Obama-Clinton foreign policy of leading from behind... the whole world's on fire!" (managing to slide in a not so subtle Clinton dig). A little girl named Julia Trant was supposedly frightened by Cruz's statement and asked mid-speech, "The world is on fire?!" according to Adam Smith, political editor for the Tampa Bay Times, who attended the event. Senator Cruz took a moment from his speech to assure the little girl that Mommy was taking care of everything, "the world is on fire, yes! Your world is on fire. But you know what? Your mommy's here and everyone's here to make sure that the world you grow up in is even better." Ted Cruz has two young daughters of his own. The video was posted by Raw Story with the headline, "Ted Cruz scares the hell out of a terrified little girl in New Hampshire." CNN, New York Magazine, Bloomberg, Gawker, Salon and others had similar headlines. Ed Kilgore of Washington Monthly mused that Cruz was using coded language and really meant Obama is the anti-christ or at the very least, one of his minions. Because referencing a "world on fire" is clearly an anti-christ dog whistle. Yes, seriously.

Posted by Leslie Eastman on March 16, 2015 32 Comments
The California "mega-drought" has officially gained the attention of the regulatory community. Recently, a NASA administrator pushed the panic button hard... by saying the Golden State had less than a year of water in its reserves and that it needs to start water rationing now!
California will run out of water in 12 months, according to a NASA scientist. The state only has one year of supply left in its reservoirs due to persistent drought and is also running out of backup groundwater, Jay Famiglietti, senior water scientist at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, wrote. The drought means that total water storage in California, which has been in decline since 2002, has been sapped by the need to use the resource for farming, he said in the Los Angeles Times. ...Famiglietti suggested immediate water-rationing measures, which are being considered in southern California, across the state.
Color me skeptical, in a nice golden brown shade. The last time a NASA scientist chimed in on the climate, it turns out the temperatures used to tout the "hottest year ever" were chalk full of errors. Why should I trust any government scientist's interpretation about climate policy matters when there are money and regulations to be made? In fact, following the money in this instance is the most logical step to take! It turns out that our state's legislators are mulling over water rate hikes.

Posted by David Gerstman on March 16, 2015 15 Comments
The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday (Google link) that Secretary of State John Kerry is still upset about the open letter Sen. Tom Cotton (R - Ark.) wrote last week that was signed by 46 other Republican senators arguing that it was Congress' role to review treaties.
Mr. Kerry said on Saturday in Egypt that these American lawmakers were “wrong.” “It is almost inevitable it will raise questions in the minds of the folks with whom we’re negotiating as to whether or not they are negotiating with the executive department and the president, which is what the constitution says, or whether there are 535 members of Congress,” Mr. Kerry told reporters in the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh. “Let me make clear to Iran…that from our point of view, this letter is incorrect in its statements,” he added. “As far as we are concerned, the Congress has no ability to change an executive agreement.”
It strikes me as odd that Kerry is doubling down on his non-binding argument. An executive agreement is not binding, unlike a treaty, and therefore not subject to Congressional review. It's also odd that he claims, "as far as we are concerned." Shouldn't the Constitution be the standard by which the Republican claims are judged? Finally, there's Kerry's famous declaration at the time the Joint Plan of Action was signed in November 2013 that the agreement was not based on trust. So if the agreement is not based on trust and it's non-binding what "mechanism" will there to be verify that Iran isn't overtly or covertly pursuing an illicit nuclear program? More and more I'm convinced that Cotton's reason for writing the letter was to smoke out the administration on this point.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on March 16, 2015 16 Comments
The broken clock at Vox.com is right about something. Al Gore should run for president:
To many Democrats, the fight the party needs is clear: Hillary Clinton vs. Elizabeth Warren. But the differences between Warren and Clinton are less profound than they appear. Warren goes a bit further than Clinton does, both in rhetoric and policy, but her agenda is smaller and more traditional than she makes it sound: tightening financial regulation, redistributing a little more, tying up some loose ends in the social safety net. Given the near-certainty of a Republican House, there is little reason to believe there would be much difference between a Warren presidency and a Clinton one. The most ambitious vision for the Democratic Party right now rests with a politician most have forgotten, and who no one is mentioning for 2016: Al Gore. Gore offers a genuinely different view of what the Democratic Party — and, by extension, American politics — should be about. Climate change is a real and growing threat to the world's future.... No one really knows what that kind of temperature change — a swing that approaches the difference between most of human history and the Ice Age — would mean for humankind. The World Bank says that there is "no certainty that adaptation to a 4°C world is possible." Income inequality is a serious problem. But climate change is an existential threat.
Don't think Vox is alone.  Last July Salon.com was pushing Gore as the single-issue candidate we need

Posted by Amy Miller on March 16, 2015 9 Comments
Two weeks ago, the FCC voted along party lines to change the internet as we know it. They did it in the name of "fairness," and "equality," and "adapting to a rapidly changing internet landscape." A lot of meaningless platitudes boiled down to one simple idea: the necessary and inevitable takeover of the internet by government. Last week, the FCC released the rules. Here's the short and sweet version:
The FCC's Net neutrality order boils down to three key rules: No Blocking. Simply put: A broadband provider can't block lawful content, applications, services or nonharmful devices. No Throttling. The FCC created a separate rule that prohibits broadband providers from slowing down specific applications or services, a practice known as throttling. More to the point, the FCC said providers can't single out Internet traffic based on who sends it, where it's going, what the content happens to be or whether that content competes with the provider's business. No Paid Prioritization. A broadband provider cannot accept fees for favored treatment. In short, the rules prohibit Internet fast lanes.
Sound straightforward? Not so fast. We have 400 pages of rules written ostensibly to govern and oversee the internet, and yet the FCC still can't tell us exactly what they plan on doing with their newly-gained authority. The agency has already waffled on how exactly they'll handle key areas of the new regulatory scheme:

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on March 16, 2015 13 Comments
Last week, Senator Tom Cotton and 46 other Republican Senators penned an open letter to Iranian leaders, reiterating Congress's constitutionally-guaranteed roll in negotiations with foreign powers. Democrats responded by mounting their high horses and leading the charge against the '47 Traitors.' But that was last week. A peek behind the curtain of political theatre reveals a different play altogether. Yesterday, Burgess Everett of Politico reported that a dozen Senate Democrats are prepared to support legislation that could undermine the President's Iran deal. Although, the Democrats responding to Politico wanted to make clear that THEY DO NOT SUPPORT THE GOP's LETTER TO IRAN. In a fabulous turn of events that could only transpire within the D.C. Beltway, that whole '47 Traitor' thing was revealed as nothing more than a political play; an opportunity for the administration to take bipartisan support for Congressional power and drive a wedge between Democrats and Republicans. President Obama's "don't you know who I am?!" gig wasn't a total loss though. Senate Republicans served up a chance for the President to spike the ball firmly within partisan territory. While the public relations front was a loss for Senate Republicans (just Google 'senate' and 'Iran' and enjoy the numerous headlines painting Senate Republicans as veritable Benedict Arnold doppelgangers), what comes next will likely be an even greater embarrassment for President Obama than any letter. Obama's Congressional sidestep is at risk of being shoved back in line by 'traitors' and a bevy of Democrats who agree with them. Political math indicates that 54 Republicans + 12 Democrats = veto proof majority the 60 day Congressional review mandate. As we discussed last week, Congress has little say in the current Iran deal because the Obama administration has opted to negotiate a non-binding agreement. Non-binding agreements hold the same type of power as an executive order. Where Corker's bill becomes a problem for the President is that, “An executive agreement never overrides inconsistent legislation and is incapable of overriding any of the sanctions legislation,” says David Rivkin, a constitutional litigator with Baker Hostetler, LLP who served in the White House Counsel’s Office in the Reagan and George H. W. Bush Administrations. “A treaty that has been submitted for Senate’s advise and consent and if it’s self-executing could do that,” Armin Rosen of Yahoo News reported last week.

Posted by Mike LaChance on March 15, 2015 7 Comments
As we recently noted, every problem for Democrats is ultimately spun as the fault of Republicans and Obama's policy on Iran is no exception. The panel on today's edition of Face the Nation began laying the groundwork for talking points which will soon become all too familiar. Ryan Lovelace of National Review:
CBS Panel Is Ready to Blame GOP Sen. Tom Cotton If Obama’s Foreign Policy Toward Iran Fails The panel on CBS’ Face the Nation appears ready to blame Arkansas senator Tom Cotton if the Obama administration’s negotiations with Iran fall through. Cotton, along with 46 other Senators, penned a letter warning the Iranian regime not to rely on any agreement with President Obama that did not have the approval of Congress. “Yes, Cotton is well intentioned in doing this, but it’s backfiring,” said Dana Milbank of the Washington Post. “If the Ayatollah is going to give out the Ayatollah’s Medal of Honor this year, I think Cotton’s going to be a finalist because it gives them an excuse if they pull away from the agreement now.”
Watch the exchange below:

Posted by Amy Miller on March 15, 2015 22 Comments
The Texas legislature has a reputation for creating headlines, and HB 2918, authored by Dallas-area state Representative Jason Villalba (R-HD 114), might just be the "lege" scandal that we've all been waiting for. Texans don't like it when you mess with their right to hold government accountable---especially when it comes to police action---and Villalba's HB 2918 appears to do just that. Citizens, advocates, and journalists alike are coming out in opposition to a bill that would restrict the rights of everyday citizens and bloggers to film the actions of police officers. The Dallas Republican is even taking heat from his own caucus, with colleagues speaking out publicly against the bill's filing: Screen Shot 2015-03-15 at 8.13.49 PM Villalba’s “cop watching” bill amends and adds to Section 38.15 of the Texas Penal Code, which applies a criminal negligence standard to civilian interference with police business. The problem is that the Villalba bill characterizes the filming or documenting of police action as "interference." Here’s the controversial language (emphasis mine):

Posted by William A. Jacobson on March 15, 2015 4 Comments
We have been tracking the descent of the American Studies Association into an anti-Israel political operation ever since the ASA's boycott of Israel was proposed in late November 2013. Scroll though our American Studies Association Tag for the full history. The ASA move was part of the larger Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement academic, cultural and economic boycott of Israel. Most recently, we covered the ASA's discriminatory admission policy at its Annual Meeting in November 2014, which by ASA written policy was to exclude representatives of Israeli academic insitutions and was to apply a discriminatory litmus test to Israeli faculty members. After a threat of legal action against the hosting hotel under California's anti-discrimination laws, the ASA changed its policy and announced that even Bibi Netanyahu was welcome at the annual meeting. There was some small hope that the ASA would reconsider or at least moderate its academic boycott ways, but that seems highly unlikely in light of recent elections of a new president-elect and governing national council. The ASA's 2015 Election Results solidified the grip of the BDS movement on the supposedly educational tax-exempt organization.

Posted by Mike LaChance on March 15, 2015 38 Comments
James Carville has returned to his role of defender of all things Clinton. Appearing on ABC's this week, hosted by his former fellow Clinton staffer George Stephanopoulos, Carville sought to dismiss the email scandal as a non-story. His defense was more revealing than he intended. Daniel Halper of the Weekly Standard:
Carville: I 'Suspect' Hillary Used Private Email to Avoid Congressional Oversight "What this is, is the latest in a continuation, and if you take it all and put it together, and you subtract 3.1415 from pi, you're left with not very much. And that's -- at the end of the day, so the Republicans can't pass a budget, alright, we got another investigation, just like we had the Whitewater, just like you go through the filegate, you go through travelgate, you go through seven or eight different congressional committees. And you wonder why the public is not following this? Because they know what it is. "It was something she did. It was legal. I suspect she didn't want [Republican congressman] Louie Gohmert rifling through her emails, which seems to me to be a kind of reasonable position for someone to take. It amounts to -- just like everything else before it, it amounts to nothing but a bunch of people flapping their jaws about nothing." The comment about Gohmert going through emails suggests Carville thinks Hillary Clinton set up the private email server to avoid congressional oversight.
Here's the video:

Posted by Miriam Elman on March 15, 2015 12 Comments
On Tuesday Israel’s people will elect the 34th government of their country’s short 67 year history. PM Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu’s bid for reelection once looked rock solid, his Likud party guaranteed to come out ahead of the pack. Now, his political future is hanging on a thread. His main rival, the Zionist Union—a new party with a pretentious-sounding name (as if only Isaac (Buji) Herzog and Tzipi Livni are the true Zionist heirs)—now has a considerable four seat edge in final media polls released on Friday. A four day legally required moratorium on polling has kicked in, so that’ll be the best guess until the election returns start coming in on Tuesday night. Netanyahu is feeling the heat. Last Thursday he acknowledged that there’s a “real danger” he’ll be ousted if the Likud can’t close the gap. He’s already indicated that he’ll resign as party leader and withdraw from political life if the Likud ends up with less than 18 seats. This would be a tragic career finish for someone who in the last few months has done so much to advance the cause of Israel and the Jewish people, the Middle East region, and the free world.

Posted by New Neo on March 15, 2015 3 Comments
United States officials report that ISIS has lost 25% of the territory it once held. Although it would be good if that were true---and perhaps it is---the announcement sounded a bit hesitant:
...a U.S. assessment...determined that Kurdish fighters are responsible for the majority of the territory retaken from ISIS in northern Iraq. “We assess ISIL’s front lines have been pushed back in northern and central Iraq,” Pentagon spokesman Col. Steve Warren said at a Pentagon briefing today, referring to the militant group also known as ISIS. “ISIL no longer has complete freedom of movement in roughly 25 percent of populated areas of Iraqi territory where they once operated freely.”... Warren said the term "freedom of movement" equates to losing territory “if they don’t have freedom of movement they don’t control it.”... But he cautioned that the assessment was “not an exact science,” pointing to what he described as the “fluid battleground” inside Iraq.
Note the emphasis on Kurdish fighters. As for Iranians, Warren denies that the US is working with them, although he admits there's an "alignment of some interest between ourselves and Iran" in fighting ISIS. Note, also, how Warren uses the administration-approved term "ISIL" in referring to the group rather than the more generally used "ISIS."

Posted by William A. Jacobson on March 15, 2015 32 Comments
While it's way too early to assess the overall damage to Hillary Incorporated from the email, now document destruction, scandal, is does appear to be hurting Team Billary in ways that are hard to change: Public perception of a politician. While Billary is dreadfully tiresome and transparently faux in its lack of transparency, to much of the electorate Billary is simply a nice old lady with a grandchild. Well, she does have a grandchild, but that's about where the nice ends.  And that unhappy end product of a secretive, controlling, fear-mongering, basically incompetent presidential candidate is coming into public view and that view may be hard to change. Jonah Goldberg hits the Billary on the head when he says:
If you want to know what Hillary Clinton would be like as president, you’re seeing it right now.
Maureen Dowd wrote an Open Letter to Billary:
It has come to our attention while observing your machinations during your attempted restoration that you may not fully understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our democracy: The importance of preserving historical records and the ill-advised gluttony of an American feminist icon wallowing in regressive Middle Eastern states’ payola. You should seriously consider these characteristics of our nation as the Campaign-That-Must-Not-Be-Named progresses. If you, Hillary Rodham Clinton, are willing to cite your mother’s funeral to get sympathy for ill-advisedly deleting 30,000 emails, it just makes us want to sigh ....
So how did this all happen? Ed Klein at The NY Post says Valerie Jarrett leaked key details of Billary's intrigue:

Posted by Leslie Eastman on March 15, 2015 4 Comments
In the wake of the Ebola Czar stepping down and a presidential commission laying part of the blame for the spread of Ebola on this country, news comes that nearly a dozen Americans are heading home after potential exposure to the deadly virus.
At least 10 US citizens possibly exposed to the deadly Ebola virus were being flown to the US from Africa for observation, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said on Saturday. The individuals were set to be transported by non-commercial air transport, on their way to be housed near the University of Nebraska Medical Center, the National Institutes of Health in Maryland, or Emory University Hospital in Atlanta, the CDC said. It said none of the individuals had been identified as having Ebola. A US healthcare worker who tested positive for Ebola while in Sierra Leone arrived at the NIH on Friday and was in serious condition, the NIH said. CDC spokesman Thomas Skinner said 10 people who may have been exposed to the unidentified Ebola patient or who had a similar exposure to the virus as the patient were being flown to the US. But he said the investigation was continuing and there could be more Americans evacuated from Africa. A CDC statement said the individuals would follow the center’s recommended monitoring and movement guidelines during a 21-day incubation period.
One intrepid American headed to Honduras after a stay in an Ebola-striken area, and now that country is hosting a 21-day quarantine period:

Posted by Mike LaChance on March 14, 2015 31 Comments
A higher minimum wage means more money for low level workers... in theory. The trouble is that raising the minimum wage directly affects the ability of job creators to offer more workers more money. It looks great on paper but doesn't work well in reality. For example, we recently reported on a San Francisco book store that's shutting its doors over a higher minimum wage. Now, some are citing restaurant closings in Seattle as collateral damage resulting from the city's new minimum wage hike going into effect next month. Shift WA reported, hat tip to the great Jazz Shaw of Hot Air:
More Seattle restaurants close doors as $15 minimum wage approaches Seattle’s $15 minimum wage law goes into effect on April 1, 2015. As that date approaches, restaurants across the city are making the financial decision to close shop. The Washington Policy Center writes that “closings have occurred across the city, from Grub in the upscale Queen Anne Hill neighborhood, to Little Uncle in gritty Pioneer Square, to the Boat Street Cafe on Western Avenue near the waterfront.” Of course, restaurants close for a variety of reasons. But, according to Seattle Magazine, the “impending minimum wage hike to $15 per hour” is playing a “major factor.” That’s not surprising, considering “about 36% of restaurant earnings go to paying labor costs.” Seattle Magazine, “Washington Restaurant Association’s Anthony Anton puts it this way: “It’s not a political problem; it’s a math problem.”
MORE POSTS
Accessibility by WAH