Friday Open Thread [1.25.13]
What is with Republican leaders speaking the truth these days? Yesterday it was Boehner and today it is McConnell:
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) responded to President Obama’s [..] inaugural address by declaring, “The era of liberalism is back.”
You’re right, Mitch.
Wow. President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will sit down for a joint interview to air on 60 Minutes this weekend. That will be must see TV. Is Obama endorsing her for 2016 already?
Wanna close the revolving door of lawmakers becoming lobbyists immediately upon their departure from the General Assembly? Then sign this petition and urge the passage of Rep. John Kowalko’s reform bill.
In the chart above, Vote View tracks the Republican lurch to the right, as compared to the Democrats, who are split in Northern and Southern factions to show the difference between Southern Democrat’s relative conservatism versus Northern Democrats’ liberalism:
We have previously written about asymmetric polarization, arguing that the primary driver of contemporary partisan polarization has been the steady movement of congressional Republicans to the right. This trend appears to have continued through the 112th congress. House Republicans – despite a large majority earned in the 2010 midterm elections – have continued their rightward drift, adding more conservative members than moderate members. Senate Republicans also became a more conservative group in the 112th Congress, while Senate Democrats remained mostly ideologically static.
“We Must Stop Being the Stupid Party.”
Says Bobby Jindal, who just tried to ban Medicaid from paying for hospice care, and whose school voucher program was thrown out as unconstitutional. For starters.
So there seems to be a reason why the widely expected Bibi Netanyahu/conservative win never happened. Like Mitt Romney, they were skewing their polling data too:
Not one post about Markell’s proposed budget? Really!? Just going to pretend it doesn’t exist? Classy.
You’re not the boss of me.
Cassandra, wild right? The willingness of conservatives to be deluded has morphed into an an absolute eagerness to live within their own reality.
This is what “we create our own reality” looks like. Being battered and bruised by the real reality.
This is hopeful (to me) — a large British youth group no longer makes its members take a religious oath. Apparently,
Both the Boy Scouts and Girl Guides (Girl Scouts) are looking at new pledges that acknowledge that not all kids have religious affiliations or beliefs.
Both the Boy Scouts and Girl Guides (Girl Scouts) are looking at new pledges that acknowledge that not all kids have religious affiliations or beliefs.
Years ago (the late 1960s-early 1970s) I was one of the non-religious kids in scouting. As long as you didn’t make any issue out of not saying the oath or memorizing the “laws” nobody cared–until you got to your Board of Review for Eagle Scout. Then, on the form, there was a place that had to be signed by your minister, priest, or rabbi recommending you. I recall going into that BoR with scoutmasters I had known for years, and one of them suddenly said, “Where’s your minister’s signature, Steve?”
I told him I didn’t have one, that our family didn’t attend church, and that I wasn’t sure what I believed. I had known a minister as a family friend who would have signed it for me to avoid the issue, but after I talked it over with my Dad (who had been Scoutmaster until the previous year) that seemed like lying to us, so we didn’t do it. I guess I decided to see if the adults really wanted to be adults.
After about two minutes of silence, the oldest man in the room said, “Ah, the hell with it, we’ve known him for years. Send the damn form in without the signature and see if they try to make an issue out of it.”
Apparently they didn’t, but I have always wondered if one of them didn’t simply scrawl something unintelligible in that space so there wouldn’t be any questions. I never asked.
This was Virginia in the late 1960s, and the question that I never asked until a good decade later was not about religion, but was this: in a county where over 40% of the boys between 11-15 were African-American, why were none of them in any of our scout troops?
Last year I sent my Eagle Scout award back to the BSA with a lot of other former scouts in protest of their continuing decision to exclude gay scouts.
So color me skeptical that there is anything more behind this move by the Boy Scouts than trying to stave off non-existence.
Scouting is like any other civic organization and is all too reflective of the society that the parents create. The Boy Scout and Girl Guide rethink is being done in the UK, who have a wholly different relationship to religion than we do. I’ve no doubt that at least the US Boy Scouts aren’t rethinking a thing.
That said, great story about your scouting experience, Steve. Congratulations on sending your Eagle Scout award back.
That’s what “we create our own reality” looks like.
OUCH! A two week later call back. I am smacked down.
And it looks like the Grifter’s Grift is coming to an end:
Sarah Palin is out at Fox Noise.
Gun Laws and the fools of Chelm. Nice article, even if you don’t agree with it, very informative.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/01/28/gun-laws-and-the-fools-of-chelm-by-david-mamet.html
And another responsible gun owner heard from.
Cassandra, your link isn’t working.
Sorry P, it’s fixed now.
@cassandra–something fishy about the story you linked to: unless the guy has a Federal firearms license and AK-47 is illegal to own, but the story doesn’t suggest anything like that. It suggests he purchased it. Either the weapon was misidentified or something else is wrong with the story.
No. An AK- is not illegal to own….
This ban expired on September 13, 2004, as part of the law’s sunset provision, making all domestically produced semi-automatic AK-47s legal
SEE BELOW: for the full text
Semi-automatic AK-type rifles are legal and easily obtainable in most states of the United States, however they may or may not be legal to own or possess depending on state, county, city, and local laws and ordinances. Persons interested in owning one of these types of rifles are strongly encouraged to research the laws where they reside or plan to keep and use the weapon. The 1989 Semi-Automatic Rifle Import Ban (18 USC 925(d)(3)) and the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban specifically banned the AK-47 by name, and many other such weapons (including obvious clones of AK-47’s) manufactured after 1994 had to be modified to the letter of the law (removal of barrel threading, bayonet lug and folding stock).
This ban expired on September 13, 2004, as part of the law’s sunset provision, making all domestically produced semi-automatic AK-47s legal.
The import of AK pattern rifles with certain features (i.e. WASR rifles legally are imported with the low capacity single stack magazine) is still banned. However, certain states such as California, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts have specific restrictions which effectively ban new purchases of many semi-automatic rifles, with some mentioning AK-pattern firearms by name.
AK types are legal, like the AR-15 type similar to the M-16, but a real AK-47 is a fully automatic weapon; possibly this is just a lack of clarity in the story
Yup…like ur post…lack of clarity…..
With all due respect. 😉
Ahhhh -Rand Paul having another “moment” at the March for Life in DC
“Our nation is adrift, adrift in a wilderness where right and wrong have become subservient to a hedonism of the moment,” Paul said. “I believe our country is in need of a spiritual cleansing.”
Would that cleansing be by Aqua Buddha? Rand? Or did you have someone else in mind?
@Steve — The thing that could be fishy about the story is that is looks like the original complaint was made by a social worker from the school who clearly got the story from the kid. Either of them could certainly misidentify the gun — the social worker never saw it and who knows how well the kid could ID it. I can’t find any update on this story. But still — pointing a gun at your kid over bad grades isn’t exactly responsible adult behavior.
LOL – Paul, the libertarian savior is going all out for the Christianist nutbag primary voter. He is on a mission fram Gawd! Go get ’em Rand!
@cassandra
Wasn’t disputing the insanity (culpable) of pointing a weapon at your own child… Just bemused by the fact that the author of the story either didn’t know or didn’t take the time to get it right.
Back in my younger days there was only one absolutely ironclad rule of firearms–do not point it (whether you believe it is loaded or not) at anything you are not willing to shoot. Threatening a minor child with a firearm (assuming it is proven) is justification for taking the child away from the parents.
The author of this story is reporting on charges made to the police — which means that it is still in the hands of the police to work out the actual facts of the case.
Hmm, why not ban all guns, and when one gets used in a crime, charges can then be filed; the gun can then be confiscated as contraband… When one is safe with a gun, (never showing up on a police blotter) he is treated just as is a person perpetually speeding, who never gets seen doing it by any law enforcement person, and therefore never gets a ticket. It will reflect the “no-text law” applied to guns.
The Secretary shall forthwith revoke the firearm license and/or shooting privileges of any person convicted of a violation of any code specified by the State of Delaware, including minor traffic violations, or any offense under the laws of any other state or the United States or local jurisdiction or the District of Columbia. Upon acknowledgement of any person’s conviction of any known law, that said person can no longer legally harbor any firearms in his possession, and must immediately turned those said firearms over with no reimbursement to the law enforcement agency in charge of the jurisdiction in which he resides….
What’s the big deal? You can always appeal