June 17, 2013 at 8:46 am #90855
Sixteen months after the death of Trayvon Martin, jury selection has finally begun for George Zimmerman’s trial. Kamau… shares his thoughts in ways that can’t be summed up in a video description box. Executive Producer Chris Rock sneaks his thoughts in for good measure.
As you begin a new week, don’t forget JJP at TWIB.
Drop those links. Engage in debate.
Give us trivia and gossip too.
And always, have a peaceful day.June 17, 2013 at 9:04 am #90856
Good Morning, EveryoneJune 17, 2013 at 9:30 am #90857
The First Family Arrives in IrelandJune 17, 2013 at 9:30 am #90858
President Obama’s Belfast Waterfront Hall speech in full: Michelle Obama introduces her husbandJune 17, 2013 at 9:38 am #90861
Daytime Emmys: Complete Winners List
by Lynette Rice
Days of Our Lives, George Lucas and Dr. Oz were among those honored at the 40th Annual Daytime Emmy Awards, broadcast live on Sunday from Los Angeles on HLN.
The Daytime Emmys recognize network and syndicated programming. Game show icons Monty Hall and producer Bob Stewart were also given Lifetime Achievement Awards during the telecast that included a few surprises (Days won the top prize for the first time since 1975, Ricki Lake won for her canceled talker) and some embarrassing flubs (the ladies of The Talk were given the wrong envelope). But presenter Carrie Fisher did talk about dropping acid when presenting Lucas with a golden statue.
And the winners are:
OUTSTANDING DAYTIME DRAMA
Days of Our Lives, NBC
OUTSTANDING TALK SHOW HOST
Ricki Lake, syndicated
OUTSTANDING YOUNGER ACTRESS IN A DRAMA SERIES
Kristen Alderson, General Hospital, ABC
OUTSTANDING YOUNGER ACTOR IN A DRAMA SERIES
Chandler Massey, Days of Our Lives, NBC
OUTSTANDING LEAD ACTOR IN A DRAMA SERIES
Doug Davidson, The Young and the Restless, CBS
OUTSTANDING GAME SHOW
The Price Is Right, CBS
OUTSTANDING GAME SHOW HOST
Ben Bailey, Cash Cab, Discovery
OUTSTANDING ORIGINAL SONG
“Good Afternoon,” theme song for Good Afternoon America, ABC
OUTSTANDING TALK SHOW / INFORMATIVE
The Dr. Oz Show, syndicated
OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTOR IN A DRAMA SERIES (Tie)
Scott Clifton, The Bold and the Beautiful, CBS
Billy Miller, The Young and the Restless, CBS
OUTSTANDING DRAMA SERIES WRITING TEAM
The Bold and the Beautiful, CBS
OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTRESS IN A DRAMA SERIES
Julie Marie Berman, General Hospital, ABC
OUTSTANDING CULINARY PROGRAM (Tie)
Best Thing I Ever Made, Food Network
Trisha’s Southern Kitchen, Food Network
OUTSTANDING CULINARY HOST
Lidia Bastianich, Lidia’s Italy, PBS
OUTSTANDING LEAD ACTRESS IN A DRAMA SERIES
Heather Tom, The Bold and the Beautiful, CBS
OUTSTANDING TALK SHOW / ENTERTAINMENT
Ellen DeGeneres, The Ellen DeGeneres Show, syndicated
OUTSTANDING DRAMA DIRECTING TEAM
The Bold and the Beautiful, CBS
OUTSTANDING SPECIAL CLASS ANIMATED PROGRAM
Star Wars: The Clone Wars, Cartoon Network
OUTSTANDING MORNING PROGRAM
CBS Sunday Morning, CBSJune 17, 2013 at 9:40 am #90862
The Morning Plum: Marco Rubio’s epic challenge on immigration
By Greg Sargent, Published: June 17, 2013 at 9:21 amE-mail the writer
submit to reddit
As I keep telling you, the prospects for immigration reform may turn on a key question: Are Republicans prepared to accept a path to citizenship that is not pre-conditioned on the meeting of hard border security metrics as “triggers” for citizenship to proceed? There is no papering over this question. The answer is either Yes, or No.
But don’t take my word for it. In a new interview with the Washington Examiner, Marco Rubio — who is key, since many Republicans are taking their cues from him – tacitly admits this to be the case. Rubio’s words need to be parsed closely, because they perfectly capture the challenges that lie ahead.
Rubio is set to introduce an amendment to the gang of eight bill that, he hopes, will strengthen its border security provisions in ways that will win over Republicans. But, notably, he carefully places some distance between himself and John Cornyn, who has insisted that citizenship must be contingent on hard security triggers. Rubio:
“It’s critically important that we detail in the bill what the border plan and the fence plan is, because there’s just no trust…So, what I’m arguing is that we should make that plan detailed. Let’s detail what the border plan is, so when members vote for this bill, they’re not voting for the promise of coming up with a border plan in the future, they’re voting on a border plan that we have seen, that we have talked to border patrol agents about and that we actually know how many miles of fence, how many sensors, how many cameras, what we’re actually asking them to complete before the green card process can start.
“The second aspect of it that we’re going to have to have a debate about is: How can we measure? So, not just input based. But how do we measure on the back end how the program is working? How do we measure whether it’s successfully been implemented?
“[The Democrats] don’t want anything to make the path to citizenship uncertain. But it already is conditioned. The path to citizenship in this bill — the path to that green card — it’s already conditioned on the full implementation of E-Verify. It’s already conditioned on the full implementation of the entry-exit tracking system. And, the last thing is, it’s got to be fully conditioned on the completion of the specific border plan that we detail.”
This is critical. Rubio’s amendment will focus on developing a specific plan for border security up front, rather than leaving that in the hands of the Department of Homeland Security, as the gang of eight proposal stipulates. Rubio knows that this is acceptable to Democrats, while setting hard triggers at the back end isn’t.June 17, 2013 at 10:14 am #90870
This Week in God
By Steve Benen
Sat Jun 15, 2013 9:59 AM EDT.
First up from the God Machine this week is a look at the Faith & Freedom Coalition’s big event in Washington — this year’s not-so-subtle theme: “Road to the Majority” — where activists from the religious right movement heard from all kinds of political and theological leaders about the need for an ongoing culture war.
But of particular interest were remarks from Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), whose libertarian views do not always dovetail with the social conservative worldview, but who also thought of a way to present his agenda in a way the religious right finds appealing.
For those who can’t watch clips online, Right Wing Watch, which posted the video, also provided a transcript:
“It saddens me to see these countries that are supposedly our allies that they continue to persecute Christians. It angers me to see my tax dollars supporting regimes that put Christians to death for blasphemy against Islam, countries that put to death Muslims who convert to Christianity and countries who imprison anyone who marries outside their religion, I say no more money to countries that are doing that to Christians. There is a war on Christianity, not just from liberal elites here at home, but worldwide. And your government, or more correctly, you are having to pay for it. You are being taxed to send money to countries that are not only intolerant of Christians but openly hostile.
“In Egypt, in Pakistan, they burn our flag — I say not one penny more to countries that are burning the American flag.”
So, the United States already devotes a very small percentage of our budget to foreign aid, and the Kentucky Republican wants to make it much smaller. But to sell this idea to the Faith & Freedom Coalition, Paul has to put a specific spin on his preferred approach: we shouldn’t just cut off aid for libertarian principles, we should cut off aid to Muslim countries.
But what I saw as the funny part was Paul’s contention that countries that burn American flags shouldn’t get American aid. The trouble with that argument? Americans can and occasionally do burn American flags — and Paul might have trouble cutting off all domestic aid.June 17, 2013 at 10:17 am #90871
Remember who passed the WARN Act?
By Steve Benen
Mon Jun 17, 2013 10:00 AM EDT
The right was pretty worked up over the weekend about something called “Wireless Emergency Alerts.” Far-right blogger Jim Hoft, for example, published this item, which in turn was promoted by Drudge, both on his site and his Twitter feed
Just in case you want more Obama in your life…
AT&T is loading iPhones with emergency alerts from Barack Obama…
That you can’t switch off.
The unnecessary ellipses, by the way, were in the original.
The story, which has also drawn the attention of Alex Jones, among others, refers to this Engadget piece, which says AT&T “has begun rolling out Wireless Emergency Alerts updates for iPhone 4S and 5…. Once installed, AMBER and Emergency alerts are automatically sent to your phone unless you switch them off via Settings. However, should you be tired of Obama, just know that there’s no way to switch off Presidential alerts.”
Now, as you might have guessed, these “presidential alerts” are really just part of a national system to let the public know about natural disasters and related emergencies. It’s not like the administration will start texting you about immigration reform against your will.
But there’s another angle to this that the right overlooked. Steve M. flagged this item from the FCC on why the public can’t block the government’s Wireless Emergency Alerts. “In passing the WARN Act,” the FCC explained, “Congress allowed participating carriers to offer subscribers the capability to block all WEAs except those issued by the President.”
And what kind of big-government socialists passed the Warning, Alert and Response Network (WARN) Act? Funny story: it was approved in 2006 by a Republican House, Republican Senate, and Republican White House. As Steve M. concluded, “So, yeah, this is more Obama fascism that was actually a Bush-era idea.”
We’ve pretty much reached the point at which it’s safe to assume that if the far-right is freaking out about a story, it’s probably not what it seems to be.June 17, 2013 at 10:21 am #90872
‘The stupidity is simply staggering’
By Steve Benen
Mon Jun 17, 2013 9:30 AM EDT
House Republicans are set to vote on another culture-war bill this week, as Rep. Trent Frnaks’ (R-Ariz.) proposal to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy reaches the House floor. It has not, however, emerged from the committee process unscathed.
It’s worth noting that not everyone in the GOP caucus is pleased with the party’s priorities. Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.), widely seen as a top Democratic target in 2014, said last week, “I discouraged our leadership from bringing this to a vote on the floor. Clearly the economy is on everyone’s minds, we’re seeing very stagnant job numbers, confidence in the institution of government is eroding and now we’re going to have a debate on rape and abortion. The stupidity is simply staggering.”
The stupidity looked even worse when the bill advanced after Franks inexplicably and falsely claimed, “The incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low.”
It led House GOP leaders to give the bill a little touch-up.
Rep. Trent Franks’s (R-Ariz.) bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks nationwide now includes an exception for rape and incest after his remarks about rape and pregnancy created an uproar.
And it’s not Franks’s bill anymore — or more precisely, he won’t be managing his own bill when it goes to the House floor Tuesday. He’s being replaced with a high-profile House GOP woman.
And including rape and incest exceptions might make the proposal slightly less offensive in a culture-war context, but problems remain. For one thing, the bill would require a woman to prove that she has reported her rape before she can exercise her constitutional right to terminate the unwanted pregnancy. For another, Franks’ original version also banned abortions in “medically futile pregnancies,” involving fetuses so badly compromised that they have no chance of survival. If this provision remains intact, it’s still intended to force women to carry such pregnancies through to the doomed birth.
But even putting these details aside, I get the sense Republican leaders are missing the pointJune 17, 2013 at 10:31 am #90873
Wait, why does Snowden need “the help of Glenn Greenwald” to answer questions? RT @Glinner: Live Snowden Q&AJune 17, 2013 at 12:22 pm #90884
Florida’s Governor Signs Business-Backed Bill Banning Paid Sick Leave
By Bryce Covert on Jun 17, 2013 at 9:38 am
Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) signed a bill on Friday that blocks local governments from implementing paid sick leave legislation, the Orlando Sentinel reports. He made his decision quickly, only taking four of the 15 days he legally had to review the bill before he signed it.
In signing the bill, Scott sided with big business interests including Disney World, Darden Restaurants (owner of Olive Garden and Red Lobster), and the Florida Chamber of Commerce. The bill is part of a national effort to pass so-called “preemption bills” that would block paid sick leave legislation that is backed by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a right-wing group that coordinates conservative laws across states. The state’s House Majority Leader, Steve Precourt (R), who was instrumental in putting forward the preemption bill, is an active ALEC member.
The bill has made moot a 2014 referendum in Orange County that would have decided whether to require paid sick leave. More than 50,000 voters had tried to get the measure on the November 6 ballot but the County Commission voted it off. It made it on the ballot in 2014 thanks to a three-judge panel.
Florida follows a rash of preemption bills in the states, which cropped up in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Mississippi. These bills are part of ALEC’s efforts to weaken wage and labor standards: Since 2011, 67 such ALEC-affiliated bills have been introduced in state legislatures, 11 of which had been signed into law before Scott signed this bill.June 17, 2013 at 12:24 pm #90885
Marco Rubio’s Epic Fail as the Aspiring Hero of 2016
By: Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Jun. 17th, 2013
It hasn’t been a good week for Republican Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL). First, Ann Coulter called him the Doctor Kervorkian of the Republican Party for supporting immigration reform.
Then, on Sunday, Rubio embarrassed himself – badly – by suggesting a Bushian Syria policy that depends on finding the good guys and working with them.
That wasn’t all, for another hammer was about to fall, this wielded by fellow Republican, California’s Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, who said, “Rubio is so mixed up and so confused. I think he has given up his rightful place to advise any of us in Washington what to do, and he’s given up any right to be trusted by the American people.”
That’s language usually reserved by Republicans for President Obama.
Seriously, criticism by a Republican doesn’t get any worse than that.
Rubio’s mistake was saying,
Let’s be clear. Nobody is talking about preventing the legalization. The legalization is going to happen. That means the following will happen: First comes the legalization. Then come the measures to secure the border. And then comes the process of permanent residence.
Rohrabacher did a Coulter in response to this:
This is just a lot of weasel words that Rubio and these people are throwing in. They’re going to legalize the status of people here illegally. Once they do that, that is an amnesty. And once they do that, there will be no border security improvements. It’ll all be a facade.June 17, 2013 at 12:26 pm #90886
This all-Black, all-male high school has a 100% college acceptance rate for the 4th year in a row: http://bit.ly/13UtvDuJune 17, 2013 at 12:29 pm #90887
Trucking Recruiters Shift Into High Gear
[....] A shortage of truck drivers in the U.S. is expected to worsen when new federal regulations drastically reduce the time drivers can be on the road. On July 1, truckers will have to pull over after 70 hours of driving a week, vs. the 82 hours they can log today. They will be able to “reset” a weeklong work period, but not before getting 34 consecutive hours of rest spanning two nights.[....] [....] The burgeoning economy is also providing truckers better job
Turnover among long-haul drivers was almost 100 percent last year, its highest rate since 2007, according to ATA. The renaissance of homebuilding, in particular, has hurt recruiting and retention. The threat to margins is so great, in fact, the industry sued to head off the coming rules, though it is looking increasingly unlikely that there will be a ruling in the case before the July 1 deadline.June 17, 2013 at 12:32 pm #90888
Drugmakers Opened to ‘Pay for Delay’ Suits by High Court
By Greg Stohr – Jun 17, 2013 11:13 AM CT
Drugmakers can be sued for paying rivals to delay low-cost versions of popular medicines, the U.S. Supreme Court said in a decision that rewrites the rules governing the release of generic drugs.
The 5-3 ruling is largely a victory for the Federal Trade Commission and the Obama administration, reversing a lower-court ruling that had effectively insulated pharmaceutical companies from liability. The FTC says those “pay for delay” accords cost drug purchasers as much as $3.5 billion a year. The industry says the deals are legitimate patent settlements.
The ruling may lead to lawsuits by wholesalers, retailers, insurers and antitrust enforcers. Bayer AG (BAYN), Merck & Co. (MRK) and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (BMY) units already have faced claims. The FTC says 40 pay-for-delay accords, also known as reverse payments, were reached in fiscal 2012 alone.
“A reverse payment, where large and unjustified, can bring with it the risk of significant anticompetitive effects,” Justice Stephen Breyer said in the court’s majority opinion.
Breyer stopped short of adopting the FTC’s proposal that such agreements should be presumed anticompetitive. He said the accords should be evaluated under a longstanding antitrust test known as the “rule of reason.”
A federal appeals court had said pharmaceutical companies can’t be sued unless the patent litigation is a sham or a generic-drug maker agrees to delay introduction even after the patent has expired.
“The Supreme Court’s decision is a significant victory for American consumers, American taxpayers, and free markets,” FTC Chairman Edith Ramirez said in a statement. “The court has made it clear that pay-for-delay agreements between brand and generic drug companies are subject to antitrust scrutiny.”
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.