Wendy Davis's Filibuster Sneakers Being Amazon Review‑Bombed

GOPers have wonderful cognitive facility connecting things that have no real-world association. Now they are writing Amazon reviews of the model of sneakers worn by Texas State Sen. Wendy Davis (D) during her successful filibuster of the draconian and almost certainly unconstitutional anti-abortion bill. TPM's Zoe Schlanger provides a couple of example, one favorable, one not:

...

Another popular 'review' reads: "I tried on a pair at the local mall and suddenly Texas Republicans started telling me what to do with my genitals. They started explaining reproduction to me like I was a seventh grader. Unfortunately, being male, I had no way to shut the whole thing down. I'm so confused..."

Anti-abortion Amazon 'reviewer' M. Angeli wrote: "I only have one concern about these shoes. The soles are made of rubber and will undoubtedly melt in the fires of hell, which is where people who murder babies will go."

...

For Democratic ladies who would like to make a fashion statement supporting Davis, the shoes are "a pair of pink and green Mizuno Women's Wave Rider 16s." The shoe's warranty does not include filibuster success, nor protection from the fires of Hell (nor even from Texas summers). But pink and green were my elementary school's official school colors; I've gotta love 'em...

Blogger Comments Flaky Lately

Blogger is apparently making changes to its commenting mechanism, possibly as part of merging Blogger comments and Google+ comments. I'm a Blogger user but not a Google+ user. Twice this week I've lost outgoing comments, one to ellroon a couple of days ago, one to Bryan just last night. To all appearances, they're gone forever, and the Blogger dashboard is behaving peculiarly and serving exceptions for breakfast today.

My advice: don't write your magnum opus in the comments here, or if you do, back it up somewhere else. We have to live with this fact: every app has bugs, but when Blogger has bugs, it affects millions of people. A word to the wise...

OK, Gay Californians Can Marry Now

The US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals lifted its stay on the rejection of Prop. 8. This means the Supreme Court ruling earlier this week applies immediately... even in California. Amazing!

War Houston Is Hell

Tomorrow it is forecast to reach 100°F in Houston inside Loop 610. At night, we're supposed to get a tiny amount of rain, and as a consequence the high on Sunday will be only 97°F. Jeebus, it isn't even July yet! Do you still want to try to convince me the climate isn't changing?

Robert Reich...

... appears to be blogging only on tumblr now. The old blog seems to have a persistent technical problem, so I'm changing the blogroll as soon as I publish this post.

UPDATE 6/30:  Reich's blog is back at robertreich.org; blogroll restored. Sigh.

‟Don’t Turn On Your Brother... Turn On Your Brother!″

That used to be merely a bad joke in the Sixties, when the sense of "turn on" mutated from "rebel against your brother" to "get your brother high." But that's not what is happening now in the federal bureaucracy, and not just in the apparatus of the security state (FBI, NSA, CIA, etc.), but also in agencies and departments you would never think of as urging their employees to rat out their coworkers whom they suspect of, well, improbably enough, treason (FDA, USDA, etc.).

Digby bases her post, "This really is Big Brother: the leak nobody's noticed" on a McClatchy article, "Obama’s crackdown views leaks as aiding enemies of U.S.." Together, the post and the McClatchy article are among the most deeply frightening things I've read this week, and it's been a week of stuff hitting the fan. Set your coffee down before you read any of it.

(H/T Avedon for the Digby ref. You may not want to inflict this material on any federal employee or contractor via their work email, and I'm not talking about its pr0n content, because there is none. The obscenity is of a different nature, but your friend who works for or contracts for the feral gummint could well get in trouble just for receiving it.)

ADDENDUM: Bryan of Why Now? has a post on a closely related subject.

DOMA Down

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 today that the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 is unconstitutional. The basis of the decision isn't rocket science; the only amazing things are that a) the Supremes followed through rather than looking for a way to keep the law, and b) they based it in part on a Fifth Amendment equal-liberty argument, which in my naive but not humble opinion, is exactly where it belongs.

Here's Justice Kennedy for the Court:

...

“DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment,” Kennedy wrote for the Court. “DOMA’s principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal.”

Kennedy’s opinion struck down DOMA in part on equal protection and due process grounds, and in part because marriage is a state issue, determining that Congress lacks a constitutional basis not to recognize definitions set by states.

...

As often happens these days, Justice Kennedy was the swing vote, the rest splitting along usual conservative/"liberal" lines (sorry for the scare quotes, but there are no genuine liberal justices on the Court today). If anyone tells you the judiciary is the nonpolitical branch of government, point them at... well, point them at just about any decision the Court makes these days, including this one.

This may simply shift the gay marriage battleground to individual state constitutions or laws. Even so, it seems nonsensical to me that a couple that is married in one state can be unmarried in another.

And I can't help having a "sufficient unto the day..." feeling about the law. Good riddance to DOMA. It was bad law from the beginning. It had only two bases, hatred and fear, and no measurable positive consequences for American society... none whatsoever. For those who "lost" this battle, what was the upshot? If you don't "believe in" same-sex marriage, you can still refuse to marry a partner of the same sex as yours. Oh, and by the way, if you're that committed to hate and fear, AFAIC, you can go straight to Hell, and soon would be good.

To my LGBTQ friends who have been unable to marry but wanted to do so... my heartfelt best wishes. Now you have a right... a right protected right there in the Bill of Rights... to marry. Just don't save me a piece of cake with icky sugar‑laden icing...

Everyone Knows It's Wendy! — UPDATED

Wendy Davis

State Sen. Wendy Davis (D-TX) successfully filibustered one of the most draconian anti-abortion bills to appear in any state legislature this year, a bill that would have all but banned abortion in Texas.

Davis spoke for over 11 hours, despite Republican attempts to shout her down and at least one warning for speaking off-topic. What off-topic subject did she address? SONOGRAMS. Yeah, right, sure; that's "off-topic," and all GOP legislators are legitimate sons of their fathers.

The best article I've found on the subject is Charles Kuffner's "Filibusted," but I also received a note from Planned Parenthood that there is a move afoot to run a woman for Governor of Texas. What a concept! Somewhere, the late Ann Richards is grinning from ear to ear...

AFTERTHOUGHT: This is of course not over. Gov. Goodhair can call one special session after another, without end, and GOPers have the votes to pass their Worst Nightmare for Women. But at least the bill is dead for the most recent special session, GOPers have a black eye on the national stage, and Wendy Davis is (quite rightly, from what I've seen of her career over the years) the new star of the Democratic Party, at home and elsewhere. She deserves your thanks... and, if you have the money to spare, your campaign donations.

UPDATE 6/27: Davis says she would, in fact, like to run for statewide office. I'm counting down the seconds before Lush Limpbough calls her a "slut" or a "prostitute" ...

UPDATE 6/27: Goodhair Perry slams Davis in public statement; Davis responds. Of course it's possible Perry is merely responding opportunistically, but it seems equally possible to me that Perry sees Davis as a potential rival in 2014.

The Right To Rule — DOGGEREL!

The Supreme Court eviscerates the Voting Rights Act of 1965...
(See previous post.)

The Right to Rule

The GOP proclaims it sport
To take advantage of the Court,
That what the Court (they knock on wood)
Could do, no legislation could.
The GOPers' silent prayer: "How great,
If only Courts could legislate!"

Since Marshall's time, the fact has been,
They can! No matter how obscene
Their transformation of a law...
What once was cabbage, now is slaw.
Five Justices one law can shred...
What once was law, is lately dead.

And so today, Scalia, who
(Alito, Roberts, Thomas too)
Was joined by Kennedy ("the swing")
To rule a sorry, damnéd thing:
The franchise is the right they smote...
"No universal right to vote!"

Thus states and counties pick and choose
Who has the right to vote, and whose
Intent to vote... surprise, surprise...
Was leaning toward those other guys,
And therefore, they must block. You see?
Dem "voters" ... they cannot ID!

- SB the YDD

Astonishing (To Me, At Least): Supreme Court Eviscerates Voting Rights Act Of 1965

You no longer have a right to vote... unless your state says you do. And your county. And your municipality. The right to vote is now enforced in about 13,000 voting districts around the country. Not since 1964 (and earlier) has "separate and unequal" done more damage to participatory democracy. But it's just too bad, say the five conservative Supreme Court Justices in Shelby County v. Holder... you have no constitutional right to vote. So say Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy. All those people who won't get to vote now? Too bad, so sad... the august body of conservatives on the Supreme Court hath spoken, democracy be damned. Democracy has been damned.

Needless to say, constitutional amendments are being proposed like wildfire. Stay tuned.

---

What Bill said. Oh, and... those who did this? fuck 'em with a corkscrew.

UPDATE: here is a bit more on Justice Ginsburg's scathing dissent. "Do not go gentle..."

UPDATE: Attorney General Eric Holder, denouncing the decision:

“This is not a partisan issue. This is an American issue,” Holder said, declaring that “the best way to defend a right is to go out and exercise it.”

I can only shake my head and palm my face. You cannot defend the right to vote by going out and voting, if in fact you are not permitted to vote...

Ethics Problems A 'Career-Ender' For Bachmann? Some Think So

Alex Seitz-Wald of Salon tells us all about it. I have my doubts: I've seldom seen a right-wing nut-job go down as the result of an ethics violation; their followers just don't care. If her acts don't rise to the level of outright criminality, I doubt voters will send Bachmann home.

Five Years

That's how long it took... at most... for President Obama to belie himself on warrantless wiretapping. Please read "Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me" back in January 2008. How quickly things change!

(H/T L'Enfant de la Haute Mer.)

More METROLift Musings

METROLift (for those who haven't visited this site in many moons, that's Houston's public transit system for the disabled) is changing in several ways. I am willing to accept the changes as good-faith efforts to improve the service, however annoyed I may be with the details on a particular day or trip.

For one thing, METROLift is obviously attempting to serve more riders per vehicle trip. On the whole, in principle, I approve: METROLift is, after all, a bus system adapted to the requirements of handicapped people, but a bus system nonetheless, and the more it follows a one-vehicle multiple-riders model, the more it can obtain the advantages of a bus system. There are some limits to the multiplexing... the service still has to pick up riders at their source locations (homes, workplaces, etc.) and drop them at, or very close to, their actual destinations (not blocks away, as buses do)... but modifying the scheduling algorithm has clearly allowed them to serve more passengers literally simultaneously, making better use of their half-bus-sized vehicles and less use of van-sized cabs which often carry one or two people at a time. On the downside, I seem to be living near the beginnings of a lot of routes, so that the half-bus comes to me first or second, then picks up another passenger, and another, and another, eventually drops off those riders at their destinations one-by-one, and finally drops me off after six or eight other stops... not necessarily close to my home or my destination. Yes, they have delivered me on schedule most of the time. Yes, the whole process drives the drivers stark raving crazy. Such, apparently, is the price of providing people with disabilities a service somewhat resembling public transit. It's certainly better than nothing, or pricey cab service, which is all disabled people had before the Americans with Disabilities Act in the early 1990's.

For another thing, I am using METROLift differently. Now I frequently schedule three stops in the course of what for me is a single trip... home A to grocer B to grocer C and back home, or home A to post office D to grocer B and back home. As long as I buy my frozen foods on the last leg of my run, everything works fine. On many days, though, it does involve a lot of waiting for late vehicles.

And I just have to report a recent conversation with a driver...

Driver:		(arrives at TIRR)
Steve:		(approaches vehicle)
Driver:		Hello!
Steve:		Hi! "Bates"?
Driver:		No, "Stepney."
Steve:		"Stephen Bates"?
Driver:		"Bates," yes, but it's "Stepney." Uh, "Stephanie."
Steve:		My first name is "Stephen" ... "S-T-E-P-H-E-N".
Driver:		That's how it's spelled here on the form, but that's not how you spell "Steven"!

If only someone had been around 64 years ago to tell my parents...

Espionage And Leaks... And Presidents Who Cannot Or Will Not Tell The Difference

Leak stopper

With the laying of charges of espionage against Edward Snowden, Barack Obama joins Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush in the exclusive group of presidents who have used the Espionage Act of 1917 as a club with which to beat leakers of information that embarrassed their administrations. Kevin Gosztola of FDL, who actually can tell the difference between espionage and leaks, explores the likely consequences if this course of action... so far used by Obama eight times, more often than by all other presidents combined... becomes common practice.

Leak stopper

Gosztola's article is long and thought-provoking, and I will not attempt to summarize it. If you give a damn about whether the American press and media are able to operate to the advantage of an open and democratic American government and a passionately motivated American people, you need to read the whole thing. If you don't, and if Obama succeeds where the other above-named presidents failed in establishing espionage charges as a default brickbat against leakers, you may be literally asking for the consequences Gosztola outlines, quoting Jonathan Alter's words from the latter's book The Promise:

Obama had one pet peeve that could make him lose his cool. It was a common source of anger for presidents: leaks. Complaints about loose lips became a constant theme of Obama’s early presidency. At his first Cabinet meeting he made a point of saying that he didn’t want to see his Cabinet “litigating” policy through the New York Times and the Washington Post. At a Blair House retreat for the Cabinet and senior staff at the end of July he devoted about a quarter of his comments to urging his people to keeping their disagreements within the family: “We should be having these debates on the inside, not the outside.” And during his twenty hours of deliberations over Afghanistan in the fall, he returned repeatedly to the theme. Naturally in Washington nearly every time he got upset about leaks it leaked.

For all his claims that he didn’t want yes-men around him, no one on his staff was brave enough to tell the president that obsessing over leaks was a colossal waste of time. (Aides should have recognized that the age-old problem in Washington isn’t managing leaks, but managing the president’s fury over them.) But it wouldn’t have mattered: leaks offended Obama’s sense of discipline and reminded him of everything he disliked about the capital. He was fearsome on the subject, which seemed to bring out his controlling nature to an even greater degree than usual...

I am increasingly convinced, notwithstanding all of Obama's mitigating virtues, that his essence is the stuff of which totalitarian leaders are made. He needs to be watched closely, and prevented to the extent possible by the counterbalance of other branches of our government from enforcing an un-American discipline on the world of American journalism. Our nation's survival as a free and open society may depend on it.

Journalism, including the release and publication of leaks, is not espionage: it is an essential element in the ongoing battle against the actions of controlling presidents and their governments. It must never be shut down or chilled out of existence by threats, applied through archaic laws, to the lives and freedoms of journalists.

Marcy Wheeler On Government Spying

The inimitable Marcy Wheeler (emptywheel), writing for The Nation, examines "Government Spying: Why You Can't 'Just Trust Us'". Indeed, you can't, and shouldn't. Wheeler examines the almost nonexistent results of spying in preventing terrorist acts since the programs began in the mid-2000s, and argues for repealing the secret laws that make secret broad-brush surveillance of American citizens available to the three-letter agencies. IMHO, this post is worth your time to read.

'Almost Overkill'

That's how Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) described his alternative to Sen. John Cornyn's (R-TX) border security bill, in an attempt to reassure border hawks. The phrase embodies an irony not lost on Mexican-Americans and their Mexican family members, the latter of whom are dying in record numbers in their attempts to cross the border illegally at increasingly dangerous locations.

As of this morning, Corker and Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND) announced they were closing in on a deal with the "Gang of Eight" senators (four Democrats, four Republicans) on a bill more moderate than Cornyn's. But nothing is ever simple, and the nut-jobs in the GOP (*cough* Cruz *cough*) want to exact their pound of flesh.

Border wall under construction

The problem is that, as many Texas farmers (including those who are conservative politically) are willing to admit, the arrangement between Texans and Mexicans is advantageous to both. Texans (and other Americans) get their crops picked cheaper; Mexicans make more money than they probably could at home, filling jobs Americans are in general not willing to do themselves. The solution to undocumented migrant workers is somehow to document them and systematize their seasonal appearance in the US, not to build higher border fences and otherwise make their crossing more dangerous.


But I would not bet on a successful outcome from this negotiation. After all, it has considerable Democratic support, and we all know that a Democrat in government is (in the opinion of many GOPers) an illegal non‑alien...

AP CEO Alleges DoJ Intimidation Of Sources By Seizure Of Journalists' Phone Records

Regular readers know I quote as little as possible from an AP story to avoid being harassed. So here is as little as possible from this story:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department violated its own rules when it secretly seized records for thousands of phone calls to and from journalists for The Associated Press as part of a leak investigation, the head of the company said Wednesday.

AP President and CEO Gary Pruitt told a luncheon gathering of journalists and others that the seizure was not only excessively broad, but that the department failed to notify AP in advance of the subpoena, as normally required. Department rules say a delay in notification is justified only if needed to protect the integrity of its investigation. Pruitt said that justification was unfathomable in this case.

...

Notwithstanding any fundamental guarantees to the contrary, any government has the raw power to manipulate the press's coverage of that government's actions. At some point, if the government exercises a sufficiently draconian influence (e.g., implicitly threatening to reveal a news organization's undisclosed sources to the public or to law enforcement, or implicitly threatening harassment of the undisclosed sources themselves), the press is no longer free to do its job, and the public lacks the ability to obtain information necessary to make intelligent decisions as it must in a free society. Are we there yet in America? I don't know, but it certainly seems to me that this seizure of journalists' communications records is a big step in a very wrong direction.

Has anybody noticed this is happening in a Democratic administration? "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..."

FBI Director Mueller To Congress: Yes, We Do Use Drones Within The US

It seems to me I remember being told the FBI doesn't do this, wouldn't do this, etc.:

At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday, FBI Director Robert Mueller told lawmakers that his agency currently uses drones for surveillance.

...

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) asked Mueller if the FBI uses drones on "U.S. soil."

"Yes," Mueller said. "Let me just put it in context. [In a] very, very minimal way. And very seldom."

Kind of reminds me of the Captain in Gilbert and Sullivan's HMS Pinafore on his seasickness, his propensity to curse, etc.:

Crew: What, never?
Captain: No, never!
Crew: What, never?
Captain: Well, hardly ever!

Look: our government is systematically lying to us about the nature and degree of actions it is undertaking within our borders, directed at our own citizens, actions which may be in violation of the Bill of Rights. I submit that is unacceptable, even if it happens "[h]ardly ever!" And I strongly suspect it may actually be a bit more frequent than that...

House GOP Stirs Pot, Passes Absurd Anti-Abortion Bill

For GOP Tea Party use only!

When history has passed its inevitable judgment on the actions of the Tea Party-dominated GOP House, it is possible that its verdict will be, "They stirred the pot." Passing manifestly unconstitutional legislation that will not pass the Senate or survive a presidential veto seems a pretty ineffective way to run the nation, but it doubtless riles the base, which actually is the purpose. And hence the GOP House passed the "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act." a bill that not only violates a woman's constitutionally protected right to choose abortion, starting at an absurdly early 20 weeks, but goes so far as to state its demonstrably false premise in the world's most awkward bill name.

Well, what do we expect of the Tea Party, anyway? Tea?

Senate Intel Committee Quashes Staffer's Interview On Oversight Process

We all know that when you enter the military, you check your fundamental rights at the door. But who knew the same was true for employees of the U.S. Senate. Brian Beutler of TPM:

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has taken the unusual step of actively blocking a former committee aide from talking to TPM about congressional oversight of the intelligence community. At issue isn’t classified sources and methods of intelligence gathering but general information about how the committee functions — and how it should function. The committee’s refusal to allow former general counsel Vicki Divoll to disclose unclassified information to a reporter was the first and only time it has sought to block her from making public comments, based on her experience as one of its most senior aides, since she left Capitol Hill in 2003.

...

Please note Ms. Divoll is prohibited from talking even about unclassified information.

The rest of the article does not reflect any better on the Committee. I suppose that's what one expects when the Senate has a committee focused on a topic it doesn't have any of. "Oh, the times, they are a-changin'..."