black holes and gray matter. in one thousand tangos.

             

“SENATORS say they fear the N.R.A. and the gun lobby. But I think that fear must be nothing compared to the fear the first graders in Sandy Hook Elementary School felt as their lives ended in a hail of bullets. The fear that those children who survived the massacre must feel every time they remember their teachers stacking them into closets and bathrooms, whispering that they loved them, so that love would be the last thing the students heard if the gunman found them.

On Wednesday, a minority of senators gave into fear and blocked common-sense legislation that would have made it harder for criminals and people with dangerous mental illnesses to get hold of deadly firearms — a bill that could prevent future tragedies like those in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., and too many communities to count.

Some of the senators who voted against the background-check amendments have met with grieving parents whose children were murdered at Sandy Hook, in Newtown. Some of the senators who voted no have also looked into my eyes as I talked about my experience being shot in the head at point-blank range in suburban Tucson two years ago, and expressed sympathy for the 18 other people shot besides me, 6 of whom died. These senators have heard from their constituents — who polls show overwhelmingly favored expanding background checks. And still these senators decided to do nothing. Shame on them.”

Gabrielle Giffords: A Senate in the Gun Lobby’s Grip

“Apparently Barack Obama is a very unforgiving person. In his first term, he pardoned 22 people. In FDR’s first term, he pardoned about 600, with a hell of a lot fewer inmates to choose from. During Clinton’s two terms, he pardoned or commuted the sentences of 459; George W. Bush: 200.

Obama commuted the sentence of only one person in his first term. According to ProPublica’s Dafna Linzer, who’s done a lot of great work on this, “Under Reagan and Clinton, applicants for commutations had a 1 in 100 chance of success. Under George W. Bush, that fell to a little less than 1 in 1,000. Under Obama, an applicant’s chance is slightly less than 1 in 5,000.”

Why is he so stingy? Does being the first black president make him overly afraid of having a Willie Horton situation on his watch? Because he’s gotta get over that shit. I mean, I’m not asking him to do a prison break, but couldn’t he be at least half as merciful as George W. Bush, a man famous for putting people to death and not giving a shit? 

There are about 219,000 people in federal prison (presidents can pardon only federal crimes), almost half on non-violent drug offenses. If he can’t find a few slam-dunk cases of innocence there, he’s not trying hard enough. One case that’s pending is a guy named Clarence Aaron, who’s been sentenced to three life terms for introducing drug dealers. Not buying, selling, or supplying. Introducing. Both the prosecutor and the judge in his case sought immediate commutation of his sentence. Obama knows this. So what’s taking him so long to give the poor guy a break? […]

Keep in mind this is a president who’s admitted to at one point in his life being a huge stoner and doing cocaine. He must know how lucky he was not to have his life and career ruined by our stupid drug war. Doesn’t he owe a debt to the unlucky?

I was hoping he’d get better in the second term, so I was happy to read a headline earlier this month that he pardoned 17 people, almost as many as in his entire first term. Then I looked at the details, and 12 of those people weren’t even serving jail time. It’s a big nothing, and his record on this is still deplorable.

When he nominated Sonia Sotomayor, he was eloquent about the need for empathy in a Supreme Court justice. Somebody ought to remind him that’s a pretty important quality for a president, too.”

Bill Maher

“Let the record show: that you can be a United States senator for 21 years, you can be 79 years old, you can be the Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and one of the most recognizable and most widely respected veteran public servants in your nation. But if you are female while you are also all of those other things, men who you defeat in arguments will still respond to you by calling you hysterical and telling you to calm down. They will patronize you and say they ‘admire your passion, sweetie,’ but of course they only deal in facts, not your silly girly strong feelings. It is inescapable, you can set your watch by it.”
Rachel Maddow, discussing Senator Ted Cruz’s condescending lecture to Senator Dianne Feinstein during a Senate debate on gun control. March 14, 2013.

(via apsies)

monsterbeard: First I have to say what a beautiful 13 hours Rand Paul’s filibuster was.  I think it’s a strong reminder of how incredible our way of governance can be and how important it is to give “voice to the voiceless”, in a way.  I don’t agree with Rand Paul on much of anything, but the fact that he spent 13 hours yesterday drawing enormous attention to the issue of using drones to attack American citizens has earned my utmost respect. If nothing else, something like this brings light to the fact that we NEED voices of opposition in this world.  Last night and throughout John Brennan’s confirmation, we’ve had Democrats and Republicans basically completely flipped on their positions, probably out of a lot of political posturing, but we also got a lone stubborn Senator to actually stand for something and do it for hours.  That kind of thing takes courage, no matter who you are.  I wish every member of Congress could be that independent, instead of always following the party line, because a plurality of voices and opinions generally can lead to some pretty great compromises. But also can we just take a look at this letter right here?  This simple guarantee is all Rand Paul wanted and it somehow took the White House more than an entire day just to express it.  I mean, read that question!  Think of all the terror and destruction and violation held in that one question.  And the AG couldn’t answer it?  Our President of Hope and Change and Yes We Can couldn’t immediately say the most obvious thing in the world: no, no one has that authority. I could rant on about American history, but all I know is that it took them such an incredibly long time, and a very public filibuster, to answer that question, and that terrifies me. Photo via Think Progress, h/t Kateoplis

monsterbeard:

First I have to say what a beautiful 13 hours Rand Paul’s filibuster was.  I think it’s a strong reminder of how incredible our way of governance can be and how important it is to give “voice to the voiceless”, in a way.  I don’t agree with Rand Paul on much of anything, but the fact that he spent 13 hours yesterday drawing enormous attention to the issue of using drones to attack American citizens has earned my utmost respect.

If nothing else, something like this brings light to the fact that we NEED voices of opposition in this world.  Last night and throughout John Brennan’s confirmation, we’ve had Democrats and Republicans basically completely flipped on their positions, probably out of a lot of political posturing, but we also got a lone stubborn Senator to actually stand for something and do it for hours.  That kind of thing takes courage, no matter who you are.  I wish every member of Congress could be that independent, instead of always following the party line, because a plurality of voices and opinions generally can lead to some pretty great compromises.

But also can we just take a look at this letter right here?  This simple guarantee is all Rand Paul wanted and it somehow took the White House more than an entire day just to express it.  I mean, read that question!  Think of all the terror and destruction and violation held in that one question.  And the AG couldn’t answer it?  Our President of Hope and Change and Yes We Can couldn’t immediately say the most obvious thing in the world: no, no one has that authority.

I could rant on about American history, but all I know is that it took them such an incredibly long time, and a very public filibuster, to answer that question, and that terrifies me.

Photo via Think Progress, h/t Kateoplis

“Chavez, no matter how many times the corporate media and the cheerleaders of the status quo call him a dictator, was elected repeatedly with overwhelming majorities. No matter how many times this slur is moronically or mendaciously repeated, people know the truth. No less than Jimmy Carter certified Venezuela’s elections as amongst the most fair and transparent his organization has ever observed. And the voter turnouts that elected Chavez were usually far, far higher than those in the U.S. The voices that cheer and mock the death of Hugo Chavez are in fact mocking democracy and the people of Venezuela, who elected him and who have re-elected him time and time again — most recently by a decisive majority in October, 2012.”
Hugo Chavez, Undefeated (via azspot)

(via azspot)

The real problem with the sequester is that it unfairly targets the poor | Guardian

Selective math obscures the fact that upcoming cuts will hurt millions of Americans, possibly for years to come

“Skeptics have downplayed the likely impact of “sequestration” – the $85bn cut in federal funding that’s slated to begin Friday – noting that it equals just 2.4% of total federal spending this year and that spending will continue to grow despite the cut. But this math obscures the harm that sequestration will do, not just to Americans across the country but also to the economy as a whole. 

First, let’s examine the 2.4% figure. While accurate, it’s meaningless because the cuts aren’t occurring across the entire federal budget. Some programs, notably social security, are exempt, and the cuts to Medicare are strictly limited. Instead, the cuts are concentrated in what’s known as “discretionary” programs, because Congress funds them on an annual basis (unlike “entitlement” programs, like social security, which have permanent funding). About half of discretionary spending is for defense; the other half is for a wide range of activities including education, medical and scientific research, law enforcement, environmental protection, international aid programs, and support for low-income individuals and families.

Discretionary spending accounts for about 35% of total spending, but it will bear roughly 80% of the cuts under sequestration. […]

Millions of Americans will feel the impact. To cite just a few examples, we at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimate that the WIC nutrition program for low-income pregnant women, infants, and young children will have to turn away 600,000 to 775,000 children and new mothers by the end of the fiscal year. We also estimate that more than 100,000 low-income families will likely lose housing assistance that helps them afford rent.”

“Pablo Escobar said to me: ‘One shot to the head isn’t enough. It has to be two shots, just above the eyes.’”

Jhon Velásquez, nicknamed “Popeye,” is sitting on a white plastic chair in the prison yard. “You can survive one shot, but never two. I cut up the bodies and threw them in the river. Or I just left them there. I often drove through Medellín, where I kidnapped and raped women. Then I shot them and threw them in the trash.”

Three guards are standing next to him. He is the only prisoner in the giant building. The watchtower, the security door systems, the surveillance cameras — it’s all for him. The warden of the Cómbita maximum-security prison, a three-hour drive northeast of the Colombian capital Bogotá, has given Popeye one hour to tell his story.

The experience is like opening a door into hell.

Popeye was the right-hand man of Pablo Escobar, head of Colombia’s Medellín cartel. Until his death in 1993, Escobar was the most powerful drug lord in the world. He industrialized cocaine production, controlled 80 percent of the global cocaine trade and became one of the richest people on the planet. The cartel ordered the killings of 30 judges, about 450 police officers and many more civilians. As Escobar’s head of security, Popeye was an expert at kidnapping, torture and murder. […]

“I’ve killed about 250 people, and I cut many of them into pieces. But I don’t know exactly how many,” Popeye says. “Only psychopaths count their kills.”

Global Support Grows for Legalizing Drugs | Spiegel

The Emancipation of Barack Obama

In early 1861, on the eve of the Civil War, the Georgia politician Henry Benning appealed to the Virginia Secession Convention to join the Confederate cause. In making his case, he denounced the “Black Republican party” of President Abraham Lincoln, arguing that his election portended “black governors, black legislatures, black juries, black everything.” The predicted envelopment surely took longer than he thought, but by 2008, Benning looked like Nostradamus. After the black governors, the black legislators, the integrated juries, Benning’s great phantom—“black everything”—took human form in the country’s 44th president, Barack Obama. […]

You could be forgiven for looking at African American history as a long catalog of failure. In the black community, it is a common ritual to deride individual shortcomings, and their effect on African American prospects. The men aren’t doing enough. The women are having too many babies. The babies are having babies. Their pants are falling off their backsides. But November’s electoral math is clear—African Americans didn’t just vote in 2012, they voted at a higher rate than the general population.

The history of black citizenship had, until now, been dominated by violence, terrorism, and legal maneuvering designed to strip African Americans of as many privileges—jury service, gun ownership, land ownership, voting—as possible. Obama’s reelection repudiates that history, and shows the power of a fully vested black citizenry. Martin Luther King Jr. did not create the civil-rights movement any more than Malcolm X created black pride. And the wave that brought Obama to power precedes him: the black-white voting gap narrowed substantially back in 1996, before he was even a state legislator. The narrowing gap is not the work of black messiahs, but of many black individuals.

The second chapter of the Obama presidency begins exactly a century and a half after Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation took effect. Much like the proclamation, the Obama presidency has been a study in understated and reluctant radicalism. The proclamation freed no slaves in those lands loyal to Lincoln and was issued only after more-moderate means failed. Yet Lincoln’s order transformed a war for union into a war for abolition, and in so doing put the country on a road to broad citizenship for its pariah class. The 2012 election ranks among the greatest milestones along that road. We are not yet in the era of post-racialism. But the time of “black everything” is surely upon us.

Ta-Nehisi Coates

©2011 Kateoplis