Left Side of the Aisle #98 - Part 5

Guns

The topic of guns and gun control was never intended to be a weekly feature; it was meant more as a series to cover various aspects of concern about the issue, including such as the facts about gun violence, the legal and Constitutional background, and the pushback against the gun nuts, all of which I've discussed over the past weeks.

So this is going to be the last of the series for now. I'm sure I'll be coming back to the issue, but for now I'm going to wrap up the series with just two quick things.

One is that it was discovered by someone that in September of 2012, the Nutzoid Rabbit-brains of America's - the NRA's - Institute for Legislative Action published on its website an enemies list, consisting of hundreds of organizations, celebrities and other national figures, corporations and CEOs, and publications and media outlets that have taken "anti-gun," that is, pro-gun control, stands. The list included dozens of medical, nursing, and health groups - which should have told them something about the effects of gun violence - both the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association, some police organizations, a number of church and religious groups, and most most major mainstream media outlets, both print and television.

Gun control advocates began taking some delight in pointing out the existence of this list, one which proves how radically right wing the NRA has become.

The list has been taken down, removed from the site. It's not there anymore. They have run away from their own list.

The other thing I'm going to mention is that as of March 7, based on an on-going compilation of newspaper accounts, at least 2,517 people in the US have been killed by guns since Newtown; 15 of them in Massachusetts.

Sources:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/02/good_lord_is_this_awesome.php?ref=fpblg

Left Side of the Aisle #98 - Part 4

Clown #2: Brian Camenker of MassResistance

Our other clown this week is Brian Camenker of MassResistance, a collection of anti-gay bigots who, unhappily, prove that Massachusetts is not immune to that particular infection.

On Feb. 15, the Massachusetts Department of Education issued a new set of rules for teachers on how to handle transgender student issues, such as bathroom use and sports team affiliation. Among the guidance is that teachers shouldn't confront a student's parents because, as noted by Carlos Maza of Equality Matters,

[s]tudies have shown that over half of all transgender people experience family rejection, with roughly 20 percent becoming the victims of domestic violence from a family member after coming out.

In response, Camenker put on his big red nose and likened LGBT-friendly school administrators to guards at Nazi concentration camps.

In an interview, he told a Christian radio station

These school administrators, you know I mean you think of them as what the Nazi concentration camp guards must have been like where they are doing this horrible evil and they are just taking orders or something, they believe in it.

This kind of thing is not new for him: Last May, apparently floundering for a way to make support for gay rights the same as racism, he made a totally befuddling equation of diversity training with Jim Crow laws.

Still, this time he reached for the Nazi meme. There is an informal notion on the internet that during a flame war, the first person who brings up the Nazis automatically loses. Which on this issue would make Brian Camenker the loser - and a clown.

Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/01/bill-oreilly-on-transgender-equality-guidelines-madness_n_2783809.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/28/brian-camenker-lgbt-advocates-schools-nazi-camp-guards_n_2776172.html

Left Side of the Aisle #98 - Part 3

Clown #1: Missouri state representative Rick Brattin

The Clown Award, given weekly for acts of meritorious stupidity. This week we have a tie! I couldn't decide which of these was more clownish.

The first big red nose goes to Missouri state representative Rick Brattin, a self-proclaimed "huge science buff," who recently introduced a bill to require that the bogus notion of "intelligent design" and what the bill calls "destiny" get the same educational treatment and textbook space in Missouri schools as does the theory of evolution.

Now, that's not enough for the Clown Award; lots of bozos - or, in this case, Bozo-wanna-bes - have done much the same thing. Indeed, there is another bill in the Missouri House which tries to do the now-standard end run around the Constitutional ban on introducing religion into public school classrooms by requiring "exploration of strengths and weaknesses of various theories." And there's one in Oklahoma that even says teachers would not be allowed to penalize students who turn in work insisting that some other explanation - that is, other than evolution - is the true one.

No, Brattin's claim to the big red nose rests on two points: The first is that he argues that there are "numerous college professors within biology, school science teachers" who are "banned from the science community" because they want to teach creationism instead of evolution. To which I say, good.

That, however, is a single. This is a home run:

First, you have to understand that in science, a hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an effect or process which is based on observation and can be tested by further observation and experiment. It can be thought of as an educated, or better yet well-informed, guess.

In Brattin's bill, a hypothesis is defined as something that reflects a "minority of scientific opinion and is philosophically unpopular." 

A scientific theory, on the other hand, is an explanation for scientific data that has been well-established through repeated observation and experiment and which usually unites different effects or processes under a single explanation.

But in Brattin's bill, a scientific theory is "an inferred explanation...whose components are data, logic and faith-based philosophy."

Finally, the bill refers to what it calls "the events and processes that define the future of the universe, galaxies, stars, our solar system, earth, plant life, animal life, and the human race." You know, all those things that scientists would call chemical, biological, and physical processes. Oh no, according to our "huge science buff"'s bill. No, all that, it says, is "destiny."

Rick Brattin's destiny is to be a clown.

Sources:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/02/intelligent-design-missouri-evolution

Left Side of the Aisle #98 - Part 2

Good news #2: Infant cured of HIV

A second bit of good news is that it appears that a baby born with the AIDS virus has been what doctors are calling "functionally cured." In the words of Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health, if it's not a cure, "it's about as close to a cure as we've seen."

The case involves a child from Mississippi, whose mother was not diagnosed as being HIV-positive until she was in labor. When the child was born with the virus, it was immediately treated aggressively. The child is now 2-1/2 and has been off medication for about a year with no signs of infection; after sophisticated testing, all that was found was inactive traces of the virus's DNA, which were not replicating.

It's important to note that this is not a "cure" in the colloquial sense: It will not help people who have already developed AIDS. Rather, it's a means to keep the virus from getting established in the body in the first place and is of particular use to infants. However, it does provide another real avenue of research.

Even with the limiting adjective "functional," this still would mark only the world's second reported cure. The other is Timothy Ray Brown of San Francisco, has not needed HIV medications in the five years since undergoing a risky a bone marrow transplant from one of the rare people who is naturally resistant to HIV.

About 330,000 children were born with HIV in 2011, mostly in poor countries where only about 60% of infected pregnant women get the treatment that can keep them from passing the virus to their fetuses. In the US, such births are rare and have declined by 90% since the mid-1990s because HIV testing and treatment have become a standard part of prenatal care - care which, it should be noted, this woman did not get. Apparently, she was rural and poor, two big strikes against adequate health care of any sort.

Which is why screw Obamacare. We need a national health care system that doesn't depend on private insurance - or, frankly, on insurance at all - and will focus on who is under-served rather than who is under-insured.

Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/05/health/hiv-cure-global-hope/index.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/03/baby-cured-of-hiv_n_2803041.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/04/hiv-cure-is-breakthrough-seems

Left Side of the Aisle #98 - Part 1

Good news #1: VAWA renewed

Two bits of good news this week.

One is that, as I expect you heard, the Violence Against Women Act has finally been renewed after having been stalled for over a year.

The Violence Against Women Act was originally passed in 1994 and was renewed in 2000 and 2005, always with bipartisan support. But this time, the reactionaries objected to the fact that this latest version sought to protect more women. Specifically, this time it included protections for women in same-sex relationships, Native American women, and undocumented immigrant women. As a result of that opposition, the law died with the end of the last Congress and had to start over with this one.

However, the Senate quickly reintroduced and passed the renewal with - believe it or not - bipartisan support: The vote was 78-22. But the House wasn't interested as the right wingers petulantly stamped their feet over the expanded coverage.

However, it rather quickly became apparent that this was a real loser for them and that there is an intensity of political reality which can penetrate ever their skulls. So the GOPper leadership in the House engineered a way to give the real wingnuts a way to say they supported the Act without actually having to do it: They held a vote on a stripped-down version of the Act, one without the protections for same-sex partners, Native Americans, and undocumented immigrants, knowing it would fail - as it did, by a vote of 166-257.

With enough of the wackos having been given some means to cover their butts, the House then voted on the Senate version of the bill, the one with the added protections, and it passed by 286-138. Obama signed it on March 7. And that is good news.

There is one sidebar to this: In the House, 257 members voted "No" on the first version and 138 voted "No" on the second. Allowing for the fact that 11 or 12 members didn't vote, it means that - do the math - a minimum, an absolute minimum, of 102 members voted against both versions. Add the 22 Senators who voted "No" and it means that an absolute minimum of 124 members of Congress - and hypothetically as many as 171 - are opposed to, would do away with, would eliminate, the Violence Against Women Act, even though it helped reduce sexual violence against women by 64% over a decade. And that is not good news. You may have come a long way, baby, but we've still got miles to go before we sleep.

Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Against_Women_Act
http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/03/01/op-ed-vawa-refresh-one-step-right-direction-native-american-women
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/01/us/politics/congress-passes-reauthorization-of-violence-against-women-act.html
http://www.salon.com/2013/02/28/house_passes_violence_against_women_act/
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/07/politics/obama-violence-against-women-act/
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57573120/justice-dept.-violence-against-women-fell-64-over-decade/

Left Side of the Aisle #98

Left Side of the Aisle
for the week of March 7-13, 2013

This week:

Good news #1: VAWA renewed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Against_Women_Act
http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/03/01/op-ed-vawa-refresh-one-step-right-direction-native-american-women
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/01/us/politics/congress-passes-reauthorization-of-violence-against-women-act.html
http://www.salon.com/2013/02/28/house_passes_violence_against_women_act/

Good news #2: Infant cured of HIV
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/05/health/hiv-cure-global-hope/index.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/03/baby-cured-of-hiv_n_2803041.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/04/hiv-cure-is-breakthrough-seems

Clown #1: Missouri state representative Rick Brattin
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/02/intelligent-design-missouri-evolution

Clown #2: Brian Camenker of MassResistance
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/01/bill-oreilly-on-transgender-equality-guidelines-madness_n_2783809.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/28/brian-camenker-lgbt-advocates-schools-nazi-camp-guards_n_2776172.html

Guns
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/02/good_lord_is_this_awesome.php?ref=fpblg

RIP: Hugo Chavez
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/venezuela/9911642/Hugo-Chavez-Venezuelans-mourn-death-of-charismatic-leader.html
http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/opinion/editorials/2013/03/a_despot_has_departed
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2004/06/interesting-conundrum.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2004/04/election-preamble.html
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2010/04/another-way-good-liberals-prove-theyre.html
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2007/08/hugo-go-go.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/chavez-death-could-lead-to-lower-oil-production-in-the-short-term-but-increases-in-the-future/2013/03/06/cd62b014-8623-11e2-a80b-3edc779b676f_story.html

Outrage of the Week: SCOTUS expected to strike down Voting Rights Act
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/supreme-court-may-put-voting-rights-act-on-trial/
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/14059113/#.UTZL2FdWCsZ
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/01/rachel-maddow-scalia-jon-stewart_n_2789126.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/27/voting-rights-act-supreme-court_n_2768942.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/02/john-roberts-voting-rights-act_n_2797127.html
http://www.salon.com/2013/02/27/supreme_court_racism_deniers/
http://www.salon.com/2013/02/28/scalia%e2%80%99s_ugly_racial_cynicism/

Something I never thought I'd be saying

I never expected these words would pass my lips (or, more accurately, my fingers), but here they are:

Right on, Rand Paul.

I do not, I cannot, understand why we are supposed to be psyched about the prospect of John Brennan heading up the CIA.

Why? Because the GOPpers are against him? Screw that; I'll make my own decisions about who deserves my support without counting the political points scored for and against like governing was the sports event we regularly slam the media for treating it as.

Why? Because PHC*, the Amazing Mr. O, wants him? Double screw that; and repeat my previous comment.

We've now got a president whose Justice Department claims he has the authority to use military force to kill American citizens on American soil**, nominating for CIA Director someone who was involved in either bungling or deliberately distorting intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq War, endorsed torture, and is the architect of Obama's drone policy (which he defended as "ethical and just").

There is no reason in hell why anybody on the left should support this nomination and every reason why we should condemn it if only to establish some moral distance between ourselves and an administration that is showing clear signs of megalomania.

So right on, Rand Paul.

*PHC = President Hopey-Changey
**Eric Holder, in making the claim, said it would only apply in "extraordinary circumstances" such as the attack on Pearl Harbor and 9/11 - both of which, it seems I recall, actually occurred without the president at the time dropping drones on American citizens.

Oh yeah? Well, you know who else is against same-sex marriage?

This is for everyone who has been hit with one of those arguments that run "You know who else supported [fill in with the progressive idea at issue]? Hitler/Stalin/Karl Marx/whoever!"

You don't like same-sex marriage? You know who else is against same-sex marriage? Al-Qaeda!

No, seriously. They are. And they are very disappointed in Barack Obama for supporting it. So there, National Organization for Marriage.

More stuff you already know

However, there is, again, a point.

Marco McMillian, 34, was found dead on Wednesday near a Mississippi River levee. Police have charged 22-year-old Lawrence Reed with murder in the case. No motive has been established.

McMillian, who is both black and openly gay, was considered a viable candidate for mayor of Clarksdale, Mississippi, a town of 20-something thousand in the northwest corner of the state, mostly known for some significance in the history of the blues.

Upon hearing the news, my first reaction was - as was the reaction of at least some others - "oh please don't let this be what it looks like." Let it be a robbery gone bad, let it be some kind of if you'll pardon the expression "ordinary" tragedy, let it be something else and not the vicious hate crime that immediately springs to mind.

As I write this, it's still unknown if that hope, that bizarre hope that hopes for a murder to have been driven by this sort of base motive rather than that sort of base motive, is to be borne out. But I have to say that in the course of this, a phrase kept turning over and over in my mind:

An openly gay black man was a viable candidate for mayor in Mississippi.

An openly gay black man was a viable candidate for mayor in Mississippi.

An openly gay black man was a viable candidate for mayor in Mississippi.

We know - oh, how we know - that we still have a long, long way to go :cough: Trayvon Martin :cough: but sometimes it's good to stop for a moment to realize how far we have come.

You already know this but...

...it bears repeating: Antonin Scalia is a thoroughgoing scumbag.

Rachel Maddow tagged him as a troll, as "the guy on your blog comment thread who is using the n-word."

When we're all shocked that he said something so blatantly racially offensive while talking about the cornerstone of the federal Civil Rights Act, he's thinking, "Oh yeah!"

Which is true, but there's more. When he dismissed Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and therefore the equal right to vote as "racial entitlement" and said that Congress renewed the act in 2006 only because there wasn't anything to be gained politically from voting against it [Sidebar: The vote was 390-33 in the House and 98-0 in the Senate.], he was revealing his real concern, which is partisan or more exactly ideological advantage. It's not about the law, it's not about the Constitution, and it sure as hell isn't about justice. It's about how the reactionaries can turn back the clock.

I mean, really, have you actually read any of his decisions? I can't imagine how he got this reputation as a great legal mind. The guy is a dork! Sure, he can quote case law - which would seem to be a baseline requirement for competency for a Supreme Court justice - but his arguments often read like a concoction of sloganeering and non sequiturs.

In the immortal words of Bugs Bunny, what a maroon.

Left Side of the Aisle #97 - Part 6

Economy: Arguing over which way to screw ordinary people

I haven't talked about the economy recently; I promise I will get back to it next week, but did want to mention something important now.

You been hearing about the sequester, probably until your ears ache. The idea was to have a deadline after which these harsh, immediate cuts in both domestic and defense spending would be instituted. Since neither party would want to see these cuts happen since it would be politically disadvantageous to them, they would be forced to cooperate on a longer-term plan for dealing with the dreaded deficit monster.

That was the idea. Obviously, it hasn’t worked so well.

But here’s the thing: The longer term, these longer-term proposals to “deal with the deficit,” all also involve massive cuts in domestic spending, even deeper that the sequester, and they don’t really touch military spending. In other words, what they are actually arguing over is different ways to screw you.

Different ways to cut government services. Different ways to cut health services; environmental protection; Food Stamps; housing assistance; roads, rails and bridges; jobs programs; the arts; local aid to firefighters, cops, teachers, sanitation, libraries. Most of these proposals also involve cuts to Social Security and Medicare, cuts in Medicaid.

All of this, all of this, all of this - what they’re arguing about is different ways to cut what government provides, different ways to give you less, different ways to take things away from you, different ways to leave you more and more on your own.

To put it bluntly, what they are trying to decide is which way to screw you: fast and hard or slow and long. In the whole discussion of the sequester and the alternatives, that is what they are arguing over. And don’t you ever forget it.

Left Side of the Aisle #97 - Part 5

Guns: More pushback against the gun nuts

From one outrage to another: gun. Our discussion of guns this week will be a short one mostly about more cases of pushback against the gun nuts.

However, first, let's take a moment to remind ourselves just how wacko these people are.

There is, of course, Wayne LaPepeLePew, CEO of the Nutzoid Rabbit-brains of America, who recently claimed that limiting access to semi-automatic weapons limits people's "ability to survive." Because if someone is invading your house, well, you just can't be expected to be limited to six shots. You've got to have 15. Or 50. Or 100.

This was right around the time he also insisted that he didn't care what anybody said, the real purpose of background checks is for some kind of government plot against gun owners and besides, the checks don't work because of the opposition of the incredibly powerful “mental health lobby.”

Then there was the blogger who said "Mass shootings always get lots of press coverage. But what about mass shootings that are thwarted when a bystander pulls his/her gun and ends it?" and then went on to cite a case where an off-duty cop shot a would-be mass shooter before he was able to shoot more than one person. Sure, this twit said, it was an off-duty cop, but it just as easily could have been just anybody with a gun.

And sure, the cop used a gun, but it just as easily could have been a slingshot. Or a pie.

Writing at "National Review," Charlotte Allen complained that the Newtown massacre happened because it was a "feminized setting" without enough testosterone-fueled aggression around and wondered what might have happened if "some of the huskier 12-year-old boys had converged on" the shooter.

Columnist Megan McArdle didn't wonder: She wrote at "The Daily Beast" that children should have it "drilled into them" that "the correct thing to do is for everyone to instantly run at the guy with the gun."

We've got Rep. Steve Stockman of Texas, who wondered aloud if the victims of gun violence invited by Obama to the State of the Union were "useful idiots" and suggested Obama supporters are using fake Twitter accounts to send pro gun-control tweets to members of Congress.

But my personal favorite came from Sen. Lamar Alexander, who said on MSNBC on January 30 that "I think video games is a bigger problem than, than guns because video games affects people."

Unlike, apparently, getting shot.

That is the way these people think - but there is pushback and there is a shift in attitudes.

California already has among the country's toughest gun laws - but according to a new statewide poll, by overwhelming margins residents of the state favor making them tougher. Support for new proposed measures ranges from 61% to 83%.

In Maryland, 85% support a proposal by the governor to require gun buyers to submit to fingerprinting, safety training, and more background checks while 63% support tougher gun control laws overall.

Nationwide, 54% support tougher laws, 44% do so "strongly."

In a legal victory, one all too rare these days, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver has ruled that permits allowing people to carry concealed weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment. “In light of our nation’s extensive practice of restricting citizen’s freedom to carry firearms in a concealed manner, we hold that this activity does not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment’s protections,” the judges ruled.

There are legal technicalities in the case related to reciprocal recognition of permits between states, but none of that takes away from the importance of that sentence.

Finally on this, last week I mentioned the primaries in Chicago to replace former Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. The winner of the Democratic primary and therefore almost assuredly of the general election, is former state Rep. Robin Kelly, the woman who touted her "F" rating from the NRA. She got 52% of the vote in what was essentially a three-way race.

One last quick thing: A brand-new study by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence has told ou what you already knew: States with the most restrictive gun laws have lower rates of gun-related deaths, while states with few limits on firearms have the highest rates. Which is the same thing that other studies have found.

By the way, when the study was released last month, the San Francisco Chronicle forwarded it to four pro-gun groups for comment. Not one responded.

Sources:
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/lapierre-access-to-semi-automatics-is-about-survival
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/02/wayne-lapierre-fox-news-sunday.php
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/man-attempts-shooting-spree-at-the-hobbit-movie-premier-stopped-by-gun-carrying-audience-member/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/sandy-hook-solutions-megan-mcardle_n_2324045.html
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2012/12/Oh-Husky-12-Year-Old-Boy-The-National-Review-Weighs-in-on-the-Newtown-Shooting
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335996/newtown-answers-nro-symposium#
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/26/steve-stockman-useful-idiots_n_2764856.html?ref=topbar
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/25/rep-stockman-obama-machine-used-fake-twitter-accounts-to-send-gun-control/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/25/colorado-lawmakers-get-th_n_2760325.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuiDBr0WnZU
http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_22666985/field-poll-california-voters-feel-new-gun-controls
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/washington-post-poll-finds-support-for-stricter-gun-control-laws-in-maryland/2013/02/26/71fdabc0-7f98-11e2-8074-b26a871b165a_story.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/12/17/National-Politics/Polling/question_9271.xml
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/us/court-finds-no-right-to-conceal-a-firearm.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0
http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Appeals-court-upholds-concealed-weapons-ruling-4300811.php
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/clout/chi-2nd-congressional-district-jackson-20130226,0,4718425.story
http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Tough-gun-laws-linked-to-fewer-deaths-4145605.php
tinyurl.com/cj5x6vq

Left Side of the Aisle #97 - Part 4

Outrage of the Week: SCOTUS gives cops even wider latitude

The outrage of the week is one that demonstrates - if demonstration was needed - just how fragile and limited your "freedom" is when the police invoke the magic word "drugs."

The 4th amendment to the Constitution reads: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Notice it refers to "persons, houses, papers, and effects." It doesn't say anything about your car. Courts have long held that driving is a "privilege," not a "right," so the state can put any restrictions on it which it wants, restrictions which you, in the course of recognizing that having a driver's license is often a necessity in today's society, "willingly accept." And Courts then have used that supposed willing acceptance to turn your car into what defense attorneys often call a "4th amendment free zone."

The Supreme Court recently ruled in a case involving a drug-sniffing dog. A Florida cop had stopped the same guy twice, walked his drug-sniffing dog around the guy's truck both times. Both times the dog alerted to the presence of drugs, giving the cop probable cause to search the truck. Both times no drugs were found.

The Florida Supreme Court ruled that both searches were illegal. In order to use a dog's alert to justify a search, the court said, police must demonstrate more than that the dog was trained and certified, but also that it was reliable. This was in keeping with the US Supreme Court's own standard, which was that cops have the right to search property if "a well-trained and reliable dog" indicates the presence of illegal drugs.

But in considering this case, the Supreme Court unanimously - and I emphasize unanimously - ignored its own standard and reversed the Florida court, declaring that courts should consider a dog sniff as reliable if the animal has passed a certified training program that includes controlled performance tests. That this dog had a clear record of being unreliable in the field didn't matter because a requirement of actually being able to demonstrate reliability "defies common sense." I expect we could call this faith-based judicial reasoning: We must have faith in the dog.

The point here is that to justify a search in the context of a routine traffic stop, police need probable cause to believe that the person stopped is committing a crime that justifies the search. Police dogs hitting on suspects like this guy will now become a proxy for probable cause which is an open invitation for police to search - and the dog does not even have to be a reliable one. History says that if you give cops an open invitation to search they will take it - and history also says that the effects of such invitations invariably falls most heavily on the poor and communities of color. There’s no reason to think that will change now.

What's more, there's an outrage underlying the outrage. This case involves what's called "an external canine sniff." That has been held by the Supreme Court to not be a search - it is what they call a "4th amendment non-event."

Now here’s the question I want answered: How is this not a search? The dog is tool, a tool the cop is using to extend their capabilities, to detect things which they cannot see or hear or, in this case, smell. The dog is a tool.

What’s the answer you get? “Oh, no, the dog is not searching for smells. The dog is merely a ‘passive receptor’ of the smells that are there.”

Yeah, whatever, the point is, it’s not the dog that’s active, it’s the cop. The dog is not just wandering around a field or something, the cop is actively leading this dog on a lead to your car, to sniff here, sniff there, to see if they can find anything.

There are these new things, they’re not in practical form yet, but they are being developed. They’re called drug-sniffers. They’re like a wand you can hold that are both more sensitive and more discriminating than a dog’s nose in detecting smells. If a cop had one of these wands and went around your car, waving it around, seeing if it lit up for anything, is that a search? Is it going to be argued that the wand is merely a “passive receptor” of smells? If not, why not? If the use of a dog is not a search, how can the use of the wand be one?

This is inane. The whole purpose of a tool, of any tool, down to a hammer or a lever or whatever, the purpose of a tool is to enable you to do things you otherwise could not do. Cops have long been allowed to deal with things “in plain sight” - or plain hearing, or plain smell. In this case, that "plain sight" doesn’t exist: The cop is using a tool to extend their capabilities beyond those of a human being. How is doing that not a search?

If the Court is going to follow its own logic in this, the Court is going to have to say that the only area where you have privacy, the only area you are free from these kinds of searches, the only area where the Fourth Amendment does reach is that area where our latest, most advanced technologies do not.

And the fact that the logic of the Court leads inescapably to that conclusion is an incredible outrage.

Sources:
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2005/01/and-so-we-bid-fond-sad-farewell-to.html
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2004/04/when-sniff-makes-sniffle.html
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am4.html
http://www.npr.org/2013/02/19/172431555/latest-supreme-court-decisions-give-police-one-victory-one-loss
http://www.care2.com/causes/drug-dogs-at-traffic-stops-scotus-says-go-for-it.html

Left Side of the Aisle #97 - Part 3

Clown Award: OK state Rep. wants to ban insurance coverage of contraceptives

The Clown Award, given as always for meritorious stupidity.

I had so many aspirants for the big red nose this week that I was having trouble choosing - and some will be held over for consideration next week. But then I came across this. So the winners this week are Oklahoma state Sen. Clark Jolley and self-declared "women’s health researcher," Dr. Dominic Pedulla of Oklahoma City.

The state of Oklahoma already bars insurance plans from covering abortions, forcing women to purchase a separate rider. But that's not enough for this pair. Jolley has introduced legislation saying “no employer shall be required to provide or pay for any benefit or service related to abortion or contraception through the provision of health insurance to his or her employees.” [Emphasis obviously added.] First, the fact that making it harder for women to get contraceptive services will increase the number of unwanted pregnancies and therefore the number of abortions seems lost on him, which itself would be enough to get the award. But wait, there's more!

Jolley said he introduced the measure as the result of a request from Pedulla who says he is morally opposed to birth control and complained of the difficulty of finding a cheap group plan that didn't cover it.

In fact, Pedulla says women are worse off with contraception because it suppresses and radically contradicts who they are. You see, “Part of their identity is the potential to be a mother.” So apparently women who have gone through menopause have stopped being women. But, even so, I suppose those woman who are no longer women still have it better than those women on birth control, who are "poisoning their bodies” in their radically contradictory efforts to avoid being baby factories.

What actually makes this less amusing is that the bill passed out of the Senate Business and Commerce Committee on a 9-0 vote with no debate.

On the other hand, what makes it more amusing is that Jolley's bill opens with the phrase "Notwithstanding any other provision of state or federal law." Apparently, Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution, which says that the Constitution and federal laws are "the supreme law of the land" and states are bound by them, has not penetrated the hallowed halls of the legislature of Oklahoma.

Sources:
http://www.care2.com/causes/oklahoma-may-deny-women-affordable-birth-control-because-it-poisons-their-bodies.html
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/02/22/1627441/oklahoma-birth-control-poison/
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=504&articleid=20130222_16_A1_CUTLIN363111

Left Side of the Aisle #97 - Part 2

Global warming protest draws 40,000

Something I didn't get to last week for lack of time so I wanted to do it early this week to make sure I got it in.

On Sunday, February 17, the largest climate protest ever occurred in Washington, DC. Some 40,000 people from 30 states along with Canadian indigenous rights activists turned out on a cold, blustery day to demand that Barack Obama reject the Keystone XL oil pipeline and live up to his pledges to act on climate change.

Four days earlier, on February 13, 48 environmental, civil rights and community leaders - including Julian Bond, Robert Kennedy, Jr., Bill McKibben, and Daryl Hannah - blocked a sidewalk in front of the White House in an act of civil disobedience around the same issues.

A significant addition to that number was Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club. It was important because it was the first time in its 120-year history that the Sierra Club had taken part in civil disobedience, an indication of how much importance the group attaches to the issue.

I talked about the Keystone XL pipeline before: It's intended to carry tar sands from Alberta, Canada to refineries in Texas. There are two big problems with the plan: One is the danger of leaks, spills, and other threats to local environments, including wildlife and water supplies. In fact, the risk is likely bigger than you think. Look at the picture to the right. I know it's hard to see, but notice the thin light line.

In early December, three activists locked themselves inside a segment of the pipeline located in Winona, Texas. In the morning, they found sunlight had illuminated gaping holes in the pipe left behind by faulty welding. The photograph was taken from inside the pipeline and the light is daylight coming through what is supposed to be a water-tight, air-tight pipe.

The three protesters were arrested and held for 24 days in prison. An hour after the arrest, TransCanada, the corporation that wants to build the pipeline, took that segment of pipeline and put it in the ground where it can't be seen. The pipeline is supposed to be checked by independent inspectors, but "independent" apparently has as much meaning here as does the requirement that superPACs don't "coordinate" with a political candidate's campaign does in campaign finance: TransCanada pipeline contractors are permitted to choose their own inspectors.

But here's the other problem, the even bigger one: Tar sands is about the dirtiest, most environment-fouling, air-polluting, greenhouse gas-generating, global warming-pushing way of producing oil there is. Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org, one of the groups organizing the climate rally along with the Sierra Club and the Hip-Hop Caucus, says development of tar sands means "game over" on climate change and likened it to lighting a "carbon bomb."

The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the pipeline will boost annual US carbon emissions by up to 27.6 million metric tons, the equivalent of adding nearly six million cars on the road. In fact, Oil Change International says those estimates are too low because they don't take into effect the full range of effects. The group says the pipeline and the associated boost to the tar sands industry will raise total emissions by at least 13 percent.

Which only emphasizes the point that the rally was, again, about more than the Keystone XL alone; it was about the whole threat of climate change and a demand that the Amazing Mister O live up to his promises to act.

We can't avoid the truth of climate change, we can't escape it except by willful self-delusion: The more time goes by the higher the mountain of evidence becomes.

For example, in November, the World Meteorological Organization, an agency of the United Nations, reported that the volume of greenhouse gasses went up by 30% in 2011, with the gasses ranked most harmful - carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide - all reaching record high concentrations.

Bill McKibben's group, 350.org, gets its name from the fact that atmospheric scientists say that 350 parts per million is the "safe upper limit" for concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to head off significant climate change. Current concentrations of CO2 are above 395 parts per million and rising.

Michel Jarraud, Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organization, noted that until now, carbon sinks such as trees and, significantly, the oceans have absorbed nearly half of the carbon dioxide humans emitted into the atmosphere but there are clear signs - such as the increasing acidity of the oceans - that those sinks may be reaching the limit of their ability to take up carbon.

More recently, last month the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued its annual State of the Climate Report, which noted that 2012 was the hottest year on record for the US. Just days later, the National Climate Assessment Development Advisory Committee published its draft of the nation's third climate assessment report, intended to be a comprehensive review of the latest and best peer-reviewed science on the extent and impacts of global warming on the United States. It was put together by a group of 240 scientists. The final report, after a period of public comment, is due next year.

For those of us who have been following the issue, that report doesn't tell us anything we didn't know - but it is still sobering, even depressing, reading. It says that evidence is stronger and clearer than ever that the climate is rapidly changing, even more rapidly than predicted, primarily as a result of human activities, including the use of fossil fuels. Weather extremes are on the rise, and the evidence for a connection between such events and climate change is stronger than ever.

Scientists say that we need to keep the overall increase in world temperature below 2C (3.6F) to head off the worst effects of climate change. The bad news is that right now we are on track to hit a 4C increase - or more - by the end of the century. The good news is that according to the latest research, it is still possible to stay below that 2C increase. The bad news is that doing so will require worldwide emissions to peak in 2016 and then decline 5% per year for the next 34 years.

Let me be blunt: With current international negotiations on climate change hoping to have a deal by 2015 which won't go into effect until 2020, I really doubt we're up for it.

And here's part of the reason why:40,000 people marched in Washington. The largest climate demonstration in US history. And the major network newscasts - CBS, NBC, and ABC - could barely be aroused to notice. CNN did some live coverage, but we tend to forget that the Big Three evening newscasts still swamp cable outfits in terms of numbers of viewers. And people can't care about what they don't know about.

Sources:
http://rt.com/usa/news/us-biggest-keystone-xl-458/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/17/us-usa-climate-keystone-protest-idUSBRE91G0GZ20130217
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/02/keystone-pipeline-protest-rally-climate-change-washington
http://www.care2.com/causes/activists-find-literal-gaping-holes-in-keystone-xl-pipeline.html
http://www.juancole.com/2013/02/against-thousands-washington.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/17/forward-on-climate-rally_n_2702575.html
http://ecowatch.org/2013/48-leaders-engage-in-historic-act-of-civil-disobedience-to-stop-keystone-xl-pipeline/
http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_965_en.html
http://www.care2.com/causes/stop-dooming-the-rest-of-us-climate-change-deniers.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/national-climate-assessment-global-warming_n_2458905.html
http://ncadac.globalchange.gov/
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/11/nation/la-na-climate-assessment-20130112
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/13/climate-change-study-emissions-limits_n_2467995.html
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1793
http://fair.org/take-action/media-advisories/media-and-the-keystone-march/
http://www.fair.org/blog/2012/01/25/usa-today-keystone-job-cops/

Left Side of the Aisle #97 - Part 1

Good news: White House files brief calling DOMA unconstitutional

Last Friday, February 22, the Obama administration filed a brief with the Supreme Court urging the justices to strike down the Defense Of Marriage Act as unconstitutional because it violates, the brief says, "the fundamental guarantee of equal protection."

"The law denies to tens of thousands of same-sex couples who are legally married under state law an array of important federal benefits that are available to legally married opposite-sex couples. Because this discrimination cannot be justified as substantially furthering any important governmental interest, Section 3 is unconstitutional."

DOMA, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman, has been found unconstitutional by lower courts. Oral arguments before the Supreme Court on one of those cases are scheduled for March 27.

There is another case, a closely-related one, to be argued right around the same time. This is on a suit brought to overturn California's infamous Proposition 8, or PropHate as it came to be known, that stripped away a right to marriage from same-sex couples. That case has seen a surprising development:

At least 75 top Republicans have signed an amicus - a friend of the court - brief to be submitted to the Supreme Court this week, arguing that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marriage.

With the exception of two current members of Congress, Reps. Richard Hanna and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, most of the signers are former officials, but the list is impressive nonetheless. Among the signers are former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, former Rep. Deborah Pryce, former Massachusetts Govs. William Weld and Jane Swift, former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman, Bush national security adviser Stephen Hadley, Carlos Gutierrez, a commerce secretary under Bush; James Comey, a top Bush Justice Department official, David Stockman, President Ronald Reagan’s first budget director, and former Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman.

The Court is expected to render decisions on both cases in early summer.

Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/22/obama-supreme-court-doma_n_2745594.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/26/republicans-gay-marriage-supreme-court_n_2764743.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/us/politics/prominent-republicans-sign-brief-in-support-of-gay-marriage.html?_r=0

Left Side of the Aisle #97

Left Side of the Aisle
for the week of February 28-March 6, 2013

Good news: White House files brief calling DOMA unconstitutional
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/22/obama-supreme-court-doma_n_2745594.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/26/republicans-gay-marriage-supreme-court_n_2764743.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/us/politics/prominent-republicans-sign-brief-in-support-of-gay-marriage.html?_r=0

Global warming protest draws 40,000
http://rt.com/usa/news/us-biggest-keystone-xl-458/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/17/us-usa-climate-keystone-protest-idUSBRE91G0GZ20130217
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/02/keystone-pipeline-protest-rally-climate-change-washington
http://www.care2.com/causes/activists-find-literal-gaping-holes-in-keystone-xl-pipeline.html
http://www.juancole.com/2013/02/against-thousands-washington.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/17/forward-on-climate-rally_n_2702575.html
http://ecowatch.org/2013/48-leaders-engage-in-historic-act-of-civil-disobedience-to-stop-keystone-xl-pipeline/
http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_965_en.html
http://www.care2.com/causes/stop-dooming-the-rest-of-us-climate-change-deniers.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/national-climate-assessment-global-warming_n_2458905.html
http://ncadac.globalchange.gov/
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/11/nation/la-na-climate-assessment-20130112
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/13/climate-change-study-emissions-limits_n_2467995.html
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1793
http://fair.org/take-action/media-advisories/media-and-the-keystone-march/
http://www.fair.org/blog/2012/01/25/usa-today-keystone-job-cops/

Clown Award: OK state Rep. wants to ban insurance coverage of contraceptives
http://www.care2.com/causes/oklahoma-may-deny-women-affordable-birth-control-because-it-poisons-their-bodies.html
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/02/22/1627441/oklahoma-birth-control-poison/
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=504&articleid=20130222_16_A1_CUTLIN363111

Outrage of the Week: SCOTUS gives cops even wider latitude
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2005/01/and-so-we-bid-fond-sad-farewell-to.html
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2004/04/when-sniff-makes-sniffle.html
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am4.html
http://www.npr.org/2013/02/19/172431555/latest-supreme-court-decisions-give-police-one-victory-one-loss
http://www.care2.com/causes/drug-dogs-at-traffic-stops-scotus-says-go-for-it.html

Guns: More pushback against the gun nuts
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/lapierre-access-to-semi-automatics-is-about-survival
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/02/wayne-lapierre-fox-news-sunday.php
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/man-attempts-shooting-spree-at-the-hobbit-movie-premier-stopped-by-gun-carrying-audience-member/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/sandy-hook-solutions-megan-mcardle_n_2324045.html
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2012/12/Oh-Husky-12-Year-Old-Boy-The-National-Review-Weighs-in-on-the-Newtown-Shooting
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335996/newtown-answers-nro-symposium#
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/26/steve-stockman-useful-idiots_n_2764856.html?ref=topbar
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/25/rep-stockman-obama-machine-used-fake-twitter-accounts-to-send-gun-control/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/25/colorado-lawmakers-get-th_n_2760325.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuiDBr0WnZU
http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_22666985/field-poll-california-voters-feel-new-gun-controls
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/washington-post-poll-finds-support-for-stricter-gun-control-laws-in-maryland/2013/02/26/71fdabc0-7f98-11e2-8074-b26a871b165a_story.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/12/17/National-Politics/Polling/question_9271.xml
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/us/court-finds-no-right-to-conceal-a-firearm.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0
http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Appeals-court-upholds-concealed-weapons-ruling-4300811.php
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/clout/chi-2nd-congressional-district-jackson-20130226,0,4718425.story
http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Tough-gun-laws-linked-to-fewer-deaths-4145605.php
tinyurl.com/cj5x6vq

Economy: Arguing over which way to screw ordinary people

Left Side of the Aisle #96 - Part 7

And Another Thing: the Higgs boson and the fate of the universe

To finish up this week, we have an edition of And Another Thing, our occasional foray into things not expressly political and usually, like today, about some cool science thing or another.

Sometime back I told you that scientists believed they may have discovered the Higgs boson, which some nicknamed the God particle because it could answer one of the most fundamental questions in all of physics: Why do things have mass?

Put another way, all the fundamental particles which make up matter are "point particles" - which means they essentially all have the same dimensions of basically zero. So why do they have such enormously different masses? (For example, a proton has over 1800 times the mass of an electron.) Indeed, how can they have mass at all? The Higgs boson (and the associated Higgs field), if it actually has been observed, would provide the answer.

It's still not certain that the Higgs has been observed, and work on related particles, which is necessary for confirmation, continues - but it does seem that confidence is growing.

With that in mind, scientists are starting to consider what it means for the future of the universe for a particle to have the characteristics of the Higgs boson.

Well, according to theoretical physicist Joseph Lykken

If you use all the physics that we know now and you do what you think is a straightforward calculation, it's bad news. It may be that the universe we live in is inherently unstable and at some point billions of years from now it's all going to get wiped out.

The idea is, assuming of course this is all correct, which Lykken would be the first to remind you is still an assumption at this point, but if it's correct, at some point in time a little bubble of what you might think of as an "alternative" universe will simply appear somewhere and then will expand out and destroy this universe.

Which raises an interesting, if likely unanswerable, question for me: Did our universe destroy some earlier universe in its expansion?

That aside, if you're concerned, don't be: For one thing, this bubble will expand at the speed of light. Since information can't be transmitted faster than the speed of light, you wouldn't know about the event until it happened to you, and then you wouldn't be there to know about it. It's kind of like when Bill Cosby said his grandfather told him not to worry about getting senile because "when it happens to you, you won't know it."

The other thing is that when this happens, if it happens, you will be long dead - and so in fact with the Earth, which will be burnt up by the expanding Sun about 4.5 billion years from now. So you can make plans for the weekend.

Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/19/universe-lifespan-finite-unstable-higgs-boson_n_2713053.html

Left Side of the Aisle #96 - Part 6

Guns: States and individuals push back against the gun nuts

The Clown Award leads right into this week's discussion about guns, which will focus on the fact that there is pushback against the gun nuts and that they no longer are the only voices being heard.

It comes against a backdrop of yet another multiple shooting, this one in Orange County, California, where 20-year-old Ali Syed killed a woman in his home, sped off in his parents' car, and went on an hour-long rampage of carjackings and shootings that left two more people dead and two wounded, and several more targeted but unhurt, before he killed himself.

But yes, there is pushback. Both legislators and the public are starting to fight back against our modern Murder, Incorporated.

On the federal level, there is some prospect for a few touch-ups around the edges: Arizona Senator John McPainInTheButt said on Sunday that support is coalescing around a bipartisan plan whose centerpiece is an expansion of background checks on gun purchasers. However, prospects for anything more substantial, such as a renewed assault weapons ban, appear to be small. Note that in his State of the Union speech, Obama didn't say a bill to renew the assault weapons ban should be passed but that it "deserved a vote," which says pretty clearly that even getting a floor vote on the measure will be a battle.

That was predicted from the start; you may remember that several weeks ago I accused gun control advocates in and out of Congress of what I call pre-emptive capitulation, of giving up even before the battle was joined. With Harry "Macho Man" Reid, who is against - against - an assault weapons ban saying he'll only deal with legislation that has a chance of passing the House, well, do the math.

But just as it was on the state level, not the federal level, where the real attacks on sanity occurred, so it is on the state level, rather than the federal level, where the move to restore sanity is being felt the most. Out of more than 190 gun-related bills filed in statehouses the first few weeks of this year, three-fifths looked to strengthen gun regulations.

As you may have heard, New York has enacted the toughest gun control law in the nation. It has a stricter assault weapons ban, limits on high-capacity magazines, requires instant background checks for ammunition sales, and has provisions to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill who make threats.

In Maryland, Gov. Martin O'Malley has offered proposals, now before the legislature, that would include banning assault weapons, limiting the size of magazines, instituting what he called "common sense" licensing requirements, including mandatory fingerprinting, background checks, and gun safety training, and improving mental health services and school safety.

Delaware Governor Jack Markell and state Attorney General Beau Biden have announced a series of gun measures, including background checks for sales at gun shows and curbs on both high-capacity magazines and assault weapons.

Legislators in Massachusetts and Connecticut have also announced plans for stricter gun controls. In fact, such proposals are even appearing in places you would not have expected, such as Virginia and Colorado.

In fact, on Monday, the Colorado House of Representatives passed a package of gun-control measures. They were passed by a narrow margins, but they passed. The bills limit the size of ammunition magazines, require background checks on all gun purchases, including those purchased online, and allow colleges and stadiums to ban concealed firearms.

And this came after the state Senate rejected a bill that would allow teachers to carry concealed weapons on school grounds.

Governor John Hickenlooper supports most of the measures. The bills face another fight in the state Senate - but remember, not long ago the idea that they would get this far seemed unthinkable.

Even in Missouri, there is pushback against the NRA zombies. There is one bill in the state General Assembly to require that all sales or transfers of firearms be done through a licensed firearms dealer. Another would ban assault weapons and large capacity magazines. Admittedly, there isn't much chance for either bill to pass, but the fact that they exist, that the gun lovers have to respond to them rather than just push their own mad agenda forward, has meaning.

Individuals, too, the general public, they are moving. Last month, in rallies in several cities around the country, thousands of people demonstrated at Walmarts. Petitions with more than 300,000 names were delivered to Walmart headquarters, demanding the corporation live up to a promise it made years ago to stop selling assault weapons and ammunition.

And even back in DC, there is hope: Personally, in terms of public safety and reducing the daily carnage in this country, I think that what's more important than banning assault weapons is limiting the size of magazines. And while the former - banning assault rifles - is still, bizarrely, regarded as politically toxic, lawmakers seem increasingly open to a ban on high-capacity magazines - and even conservatives have to admit that a ban on large magazines is well within even this Supreme Court's expansive view of a personal right to firearms.

But this, this may be the real thing to note: There is a special election in Chicago coming up to fill the seat left open by the resignation of former Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. The party primaries are next Tuesday, February 26. It's a heavily Democratic district, and whoever wins the Democratic primary is very likely to win the seat.

So it's worth noting that just nine days before the primary, one of the leading contenders on the Democratic side, State Sen. Toi Hutchinson, dropped out of the race after being hit with an ad criticizing her for having an "A+" rating from the NRA. And instead of endorsing the person who had been thought the front-runner, former US Rep. Debbie Halvorson, who also has an "A" rating from the NRA, she endorsed ex-state Rep. Robin Kelly, who has been loudly and proudly touting her "F" rating from the Nutzoids and is the strongest challenger to Halvorson, who has been desperately trying to run away from her past support of and from the NRA.

Yes, it's Chicago and yes, Chicago has seen a lot of gun violence of late, which may have impacted the way people view things - but seriously, ask yourself, when was the last time a candidate for federal office actively ran away from the NRA?

Finally for this week, amid all the past failures and present frustrations, something else to help keep hope alive:

A big reason why the Nutzoid Rabbit-brains of America, acting on behalf of its paymasters, the gun manufacturers, is so keen on preventing a new assault weapon ban is that the industry's customer base is shrinking. Thirty years ago, about 50% of households had a gun. Now it's less than a third. Thirty years ago, about 30% of the population owned guns. Now, it's just 20%. So the only way to keep profits up is to sell more - and more expensive - guns to that shrinking number of people. I don't know how long it will take or how many will die needlessly in that time - but it does appear that time and truth are on our side.

Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/19/orange-county-shooting-spree_n_2717219.html
http://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/article/Shooting-spree-across-Calif-county-leaves-4-dead-4289852.php
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder%2C_Inc.
http://www.house.mo.gov/billsummary.aspx?bill=HB187&year=2013&code=R
http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills131/sumpdf/HB0545I.pdf
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Wire/2013/0219/Which-gun-control-measures-are-gaining-momentum-in-Congress-video
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/14/us-usa-guns-congress-idUSBRE90C0DK20130114
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/harry-reid-assault-weapons-ban.php
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/19/gun-control-bills_n_2507219.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/15/new-york-state-gun-laws-first-united-states-newtown-sandy-hook-shooting_n_2478418.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-guns-20130115,0,5165926.story?track=lat-pick
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/19/colorado-house-passes-gun_n_2713669.html
http://www.craigdailypress.com/news/2013/feb/19/state-house-passes-four-gun-control-measures/
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2013/February/Colo-House-Narrowly-Passes-Four-Gun-Control-Bills/
http://www.coloradoan.com/viewart/20130218/NEWS11/302180033/Colorado-House-passes-gun-control-measures-narrow-vote
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/29/gop-bill-that-would-allow_n_2573498.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/19/walmart-assault-weapons-protest_n_2507314.html?ref=topbar
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/us/politics/lawmakers-look-at-ban-on-high-capacity-gun-magazines.html
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/02/18/17003570-dem-forced-from-congressional-race-over-nra-support
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/clout/chi-hutchinson-expected-to-drop-out-endorse-kelly-in-jackson-jr-contest-20130216,0,5885704.story
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/vp/50829055#50829055
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/gun-ownership-hits-new-lo_b_854564.html

Left Side of the Aisle #96 - Part 5

Clown Award: MO state Rep. Mike Leara wants to make it a felony to propose gun control

The Clown Award, given weekly for acts of meritorious stupidity.

The winner of the big red nose this week is Mike Leara, a member of the Missouri House of Representatives. Missouri is the state that threatens to move ahead of Kansas on the list of states that embarrass the rest of the country the most. Last April, the House actually passed a bill that made it a crime for any federal official to try to enforce the Affordable Care Act in the state. And for the third year in a row, the legislature is debating a bill that would claim the right to nullify - that is, to just ignore - federal laws the state doesn't like. In at least one of those three years, the bill passed the House.

Mike Leara is doing his part to maintain that level of stupidity. He has introduced a bill that would make it a felony punishable with up to four years in prison for any legislator to "propose a piece of legislation that further restricts the right of an individual to bear arms, as set forth under the second amendment of the Constitution of the United States."

In other words, it would be a felony to propose any gun control laws. Truly, truly, a complete and utter clown.

By the way, as a footnote to this: In the summer of 2007, Missouri repealed a law requiring gun buyers to get a license before purchase. In 2008, the gun homicide rate went up 34% over the pre-repeal average.

Sources:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-missouri-gun-control-felony-20130219,0,1787720.story
https://www.stlbeacon.org/#!/content/29474/leara_gun_bill_reaction?coverpage=2749
http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/2-12-13WebsterTestimony.pdf