Friday punditry.

Eugene Robinson:

The 14th Amendment is a mighty sword, and U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker used it Wednesday to slice and shred all the specious arguments -- and I mean all of them -- that are used to deny full marriage rights to gay and lesbian Americans. Bigotry has suffered a grievous blow...

One decision by one federal judge does not settle the controversy over gay marriage. But Walker's 136-page ruling lays down a formidable marker because it changes the terms of the debate. He frames gay marriage as a question involving the most basic, cherished rights that the Constitution guarantees to all Americans. In doing so, he raises the stakes sky-high: Are gays and lesbians full citizens of this country, or are they something less?

Walker stepped up to the plate and swung for the fences. He hit a home run.  

Maybe, but bigotry hasn't exactly gone away.

Jonathan Capehart:

Republican Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Judd Gregg (N.H.), Richard Lugar (Ind.) and Olympia Snowe (Maine) all defied their party leaders to confirm Kagan.

Surely, Kagan thanks them. As does President Obama, who said his second appointee to the court earned respect "across the political spectrum." And so do I.

Bipartisanship is the ideal. Take it when you can get it, and do it on a party line when you can't.

Mark Blumenthal follow-up on PPP polling for Daily Kos:

Tom Jensen, PPP's polling director, provided this reaction for The Huffington Post:

We're very excited for the opportunity, especially because Daily Kos has shown such a strong interest in surveying 'under polled' races over the years. We're looking forward to getting data out there in states like Delaware, where we're kicking off, that don't usually see a lot of public polling. We're also glad in a time when a few bad apples have cast a shade over the polling industry to let people see that we're really doing our work. We really appreciate Markos' commitment to transparency and are happy to partner with him on that.

What makes these ads different than the Andy Griffith one – but similar to the ad about the 2003 law - is that the current ad takes a stand, as opposed to just telling seniors to seek more information. Here's the script for the current ad:

"1965. A lot of good things came out that year, like Medicare. This year, like always, we'll have our guaranteed benefits and, with the new health care law, more good things are coming. Free checkups. Lower prescription costs and better ways to protect us and Medicare from fraud. See what else is new. I think you're gonna like it."

Let's take the ad on the merits and what the White House has said about it.

Does anyone really doubt that seniors were subjected to "a major misinformation campaign" during the health reform debate? Death panels, anyone?

Paul Krugman:

One depressing aspect of American politics is the susceptibility of the political and media establishment to charlatans. You might have thought, given past experience, that D.C. insiders would be on their guard against conservatives with grandiose plans. But no: as long as someone on the right claims to have bold new proposals, he’s hailed as an innovative thinker. And nobody checks his arithmetic.

Which brings me to the innovative thinker du jour: Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.  

Greg Sargent calls out David Broder:

The words "Mitch McConnell" don't appear in Broder's article. The words "Harry Reid," however, do appear in passing, when Broder writes that Reid "threw in the towel on energy legislation." Broder points to this as another sign of Senate dysfunction. But he doesn't say anything about the lockstep GOP opposition to energy legislation that was partly responsible for forcing Reid to throw in the towel.

Yes, Republicans said Dems were to blame for GOP opposition to energy reform because Dems didn't do this, that or the other thing. Maybe Broder agrees with this. Maybe he thinks Republican opposition was indefensible. The point is, he doesn't say.

Joe Klein:

The idea that it was our right and responsibility to rid Iraq of a terrible dictator — after the original casus belli of weapons of mass destruction evaporated — turned out to be a neocolonialist delusion. The fact that Bush apologists still trot out his "forward strategy of freedom" as an example of American idealism is a farce. That feckless exercise in naiveté brought us a Hamas government in Gaza, after a Palestinian election that no one but the Bush Administration wanted. It raised the hopes of reformers across the region, soon dashed when the Bush Administration retreated, realizing that the outcome of democracy in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia would be the installation of Islamist parties that might prove more repressive than the dictatorships they would replace. Freedom may well be "God's gift to humanity," as Bush insisted, radiating a simpleminded piety that never reflected another of God's greatest gifts — the ability to doubt, to think difficult thoughts and weigh conflicting options with clarity and subtlety. But I'm pretty sure God never designated the U.S. to impose that freedom violently upon others.

Another cut at the Bush legacy. Anyone want to go back and do it again?

In case you're one of the people wondering why so many of us want the straight-talking Elizabeth Warren to head up the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, here's about as succinct a rationale as you can find. Right from her own lips last March at the Make Markets Be Markets conference put together by the Roosevelt Institute:

Elizabeth Warren on Consumer Protection (MMBM) from Roosevelt Institute on Vimeo.

Some Senators no doubt would prefer to have lobbyist Thomas J. Donohue at the BCFB reins. They're all for advocacy except when it's advocacy that exposes and shackles the misbehavior of their leading campaign contributors.

Sen. Chris Dodd said July 19 that it's not clear whether Warren can be confirmed by the Senate for the BCFP post. There's difference of opinion over whether he was trying to sandbag her nomination or just point out the screwed-up reality of the Senate's filibuster rule. Mike Konczal, a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, doesn't mention Dodd by name nor take note of rumored but unproven opposition to Warren's appointment at high levels on the White House team. But he, like Matt Yglesias and others, takes issue with the idea Warren might not be confirmable. At New Deal 2.0 Thursday, Konczal wrote:

I’m not much of a political analyst, but I’d note that I think Republicans would have a hard time going hard against her. I’m not sure if the Republicans could [oppose] her as a block. Shahien Nasiripour reports about the waffling inside the Republican camp already.

A nomination battle in which the GOP ... blasts Elizabeth Warren is going to hurt them with women voters, voters they are looking to test out strategies to reach. For a GOP looking to bring on women voters who like Sarah Palin, the idea of them yelling "who cares about a fee that is only $30?" or "$1,000 in medical costs? That’s chump change!" at Warren would probably not work that well with women voters who fight to make sure the budget lasts the whole month.

And remember the Credit Card Bill of early last year passed the Senate 95-to-5. This was May, 2009, so we were already into GOP Waterloo territory on the Obama domestic agenda. That’s a lot of votes for the Senate; I think Republicans can’t quite defend this part of the financial sector in the same way that they work to get expanded derivatives loopholes.

And the GOP managed to make the financial bill much weaker and then voted against it anyway. And it’s not going to cost them anything that they did this. So turning up the heat with this nomination battle has to look good for voters.

The unlistened-to Christina Romer will soon be out the door in the Obama administration. Bad news that gives Larry Summers an even tighter grip on the President's ear. And the likelihood is less than minimal for the new appointee at the Council of Economic Advisers to be Joe Stiglitz, Bill Black or Lawrence Mischel.

To be sure, having Warren at the BCFB would not solve the problem of having little but the conventional economic wisdom spoken aloud at the White House. But, especially since she would be the first chief of the new protection bureau, setting its tone and behavior in its earliest days, Warren would make a difference where and when it counts. Not only would she have an economic impact if confirmed, just the fact of her nomination, as Matt Yglesias has written, would also have a political impact by sending an I-hear-you message from the White House to liberals.

= = =

^{[Green diary rescue returns Sunday]}

This evening's Rescue Rangers are Rexymeteorite, Louisiana 1976, HoosierDeb, YatPundit, Got a Grip, and shayera with shayera editing.

• Stranded Wind shares his experience in 1,123 Days Of Homelessness6. (shayera)
• Avenging Angel reminds us that "there's likely only one Justice who matters" when it comes to Prop 8 in Justice Kennedy's Past and the Future of Prop 8. (YatPundit)
• Benintn does an interesting Candidate Interview: George Erdel for Congress, TN-6 so you don't have to. (Got a Grip)
• Touchingly vc2 has posted the online birthday card To my dad, on his 80th birthday. (Louisiana 1976)
• billlaurelMD brings us News from the Arctic: Belated from weekend of 31 July. (Got a Grip)
• Pax Amicus tells about finding a sea turtle nest in the beautifully illustrated photo-essay Hope is a flippered thing. (Louisiana 1976)

jotter has High Impact Diaries: August 4, 2010.

Ed Tracey has Top Comments: A-Bombs to Data Mining edition.

Enjoy and please promote your own favorite diaries in this open thread.

Why defense contractors are on the catfood commission is a question for another day, but for now, ponder this:

Though most of the commission's work occurs behind closed doors in small working groups, early reports indicate that the GOP's unwillingness to support any significant tax increases are pushing the group toward proposed entitlement slashes and larger budget cuts.

And while Americans might expect that the commission would look at all spending, some members are seemingly using their positions to advance professional interests. A source familiar with the proceedings of the working group on discretionary spending tells TPM that some commissioners, including one military contractor, would prefer to save money by freezing military pay and scaling back benefits, rather than by eliminating waste in defense contracting.

The source said that different members of the commission come down on different sides of the issue. The discussion group is led by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), whose primary aim is trimming fat on the contractor side, but, according to the source, David Cote, the Honeywell CEO who was appointed to the panel by President Obama, is pushing to find savings elsewhere.

"Coburn raised concerns about all of the cost overruns and redundant weapons system," the source told TPM. "Cote made excuses for it all."

According to the source, Cote and other members, including the commission's co-chair Alan Simpson, are focusing instead on "freezing military pay, making military people pay for their health care."

Yep, in the middle of two wars, in which our soldiers and their families have been stretched beyond their limits with multiple deployments, cut their pay and scale back their benefits. Make them pay for their own health care. All so the likes of Blackwater--and Honeywell--can continue to suck at the public teat.

The GOP's unwillingness to support any significant tax increases should be cause to dissolve the whole damned debacle as irresponsible and unrealistic. Any recommendation that the men and women in our military be asked to sacrifice even more should be enough to kill it.

Well, this is refreshing:

Pasting a photograph of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) onto a human-looking figure and putting a noose around its neck was OK, police told protesters. But beating it with a stick they had brought with them was not.

Why is Randall Terry, terrorist and founder of the group Operation Rescue, protesting against Lindsey Graham?

Lindsey Graham has committed ethical and political treachery against the babies, the voters of North Carolina, and the Laws of God. Our political satire pales in the light of the millions of babies who will be butchered due to his votes for Sotomayor and Kagan. God may forgive him; we will not.

Ah. Right. Graham is betraying the fetuses of North Carolina because he is supporting Elena Kagan's appointment to the Supreme Court. Well, then, I guess Terry's protest is perfectly reasonable. And besides, it's not like he wishes actual harm on Graham.

Outside the Senate building, Terry was careful to say that it was the senator's political career — and not the man himself – that he wanted to see hung.

"We don't want Senator Graham to fear for his safety," he said. "We want him to fear for his political career."

Alas, thanks to the Capitol police, Terry will have to be satisfied with merely hanging Graham in effigy. But beating him with a stick would just be going too far.

Glad we got that cleared up.

The night of the Bush v. Gore decision stands out as one of the worst days of my life. Not only was a severe miscarriage of justice performed by an activist Supreme Court specifically to strip the rightful winner of the Presidency of his victory, but on that same evening I was also in the hospital with an unrelenting case of food poisoning, and I had a college final the next morning that I absolutely could not miss. It was a combination to be vividly remembered for all the wrong reasons.

From that moment on and for many years thereafter, the name of Ted Olson, the Solicitor for George W. Bush in the Bush v. Gore case, was anathema. The mere mention of his name brought feelings of severe anger and resentment. Yes, I'm referring to this Ted Olson:

Ted Olson addresses a crowd of marriage equality supporters in West Hollywood after Judge Walker's ruling on August 4 striking down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional

And if you had told me that this same Ted Olson, less than a decade later, would be feted with adulation by an adoring crowd in one of the most progressive cities in America and treated, in the imagery of David Dayen, to a receiving line in the fashion of a victorious candidate, I would have told you outright that you were crazy.

But it happened. I was there to see it. And nothing could be more symbolic of the history that was made yesterday by Judge Vaughn Walker's unequivocal excoriation of Proposition 8, which sought make discrimination against the LGBT community a permanent blight on the landscape of California's constitution.

Once the question is settled whether Judge Walker will issue a stay of his decision pending appeal, marriage equality will once again be the law of the land in California. But even though LGBT couples were able to marry legally in California before, something feels different now. Previously, the protracted fight for marriage equality felt like a series of struggles for budding piecemeal gains that were usually crushed by concerted campaigns from the opposition.

Not any more. Ted Olson joined with his archrival David Boies--the solicitor for Al Gore in that other infamous case--to form a legal dream team that crossed ideological lines in its shared pursuit of the American value of equal protection under the law. Supporters of marriage equality should be grateful enough that this dedicated pair of brilliant legal minds convinced Judge Walker that the discrimination inherent in Proposition 8 was a violation of the 14th amendment--but the true measure of their accomplishment runs deeper than that. In so doing, Olson and Boies systematically annihilated every single possible argument brought forth by opponents of equality that there is a compelling state interest in marriage discrimination.

The fact is, there is no such compelling interest. We may have known this already in our hearts. We may have tried to communicate this to voters who in some states have held the fate of marriage equality in their hands. But now it's a matter of public record, in the form of a devastating 138-page legal opinion from a federal judge appointed by George H. W. Bush. And the major point is this:

There is no rational basis for marriage discrimination.

Yesterday was a truly historic day. Not just because the side of equality came away victorious from a battle in this protracted fight. Not just because an unlikely pair of lawyers banded together to make it possible. But simply because yesterday--to paraphrase the immortal words of Dr. Martin Luther King--we saw the long moral arc of history bend irrevocably a little more towards justice. And that's what progressive history is all about.

And the conservatives' "we're the real victims" war rages on. Via TPM:

Tea Party Nation is asking its membership to tell the "true story about illegal immigration" and any abuses they've seen. In a new posting to members that is likely to make pro-immigration reform advocates cringe, Tea Party Nation asks about "The Horrors of Illegal Immigration."

By "true story," they don't mean the way immigrants are targeted by blatantly racist laws like Arizona's SB 1070. (Or Virginia's new "We can do it too" policy.)

No, they're looking for stories about Americans who have suffered because of the "illegals":

If have been the victim of a crime by an illegal, or if your business has gone under because your competition uses illegals, or if you have lost your job to illegals, we want to know about it.

If you have photos and videos of illegals or their supporters doing outrageous things (like burning the American flag or putting the Mexican flag above ours, or showing racist posters), please share those as well. We need to get the true story out about illegal immigration and we need your help to do it.

And yes, you read that right. Teabaggers are looking for photos and videos of "racist posters." Seriously. Fortunately for them, they won't have far to look.

Good news from the FCC, in the wake of mutliple reports of a Verizon/Google deal in the works. From Free Press:

WASHINGTON — FCC Chief of Staff Edward Lazarus called off closed-door negotiations with major ISPs and Internet companies on Thursday, pledging "to seek broad input on this vital issue." The announcement comes in the wake of news that Verizon and Google are hatching plans to abandon open Internet protections. Both the corporate deal-making and the closed-door meetings have generated widespread public outrage.

After today’s FCC meeting, Chairman Julius Genachowski said: "Any outcome, any deal that doesn't preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet for consumers and entrepreneurs will be unacceptable."

That's very good news for the Internet. Free Press's research director Director S. Derek Turner responds:

"Now the FCC must match the chairman’s words with decisive actions. We need our leaders in Washington to make the tough decisions and take on the difficult task of standing up to entrenched interests and pushing forward strong rules that will protect Internet users everywhere. Today, Julius Genachowski and the FCC took a big step back from the brink and gave everyone who cares about the free and open Internet reason to be hopeful that they still might do the right thing."

This is first, and welcome, step to the FCC taking back the reins to protect an open Internet.

More of Elon's great stuff can be found at his website, This Week in Blackness.

Nice.

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee and it's new affiliate, the P St. Project, will launch a public campaign this week with the help of Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) to whip up support in the Senate for Elizabeth Warren's nomination and confirmation to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

PCCC, in partnership with the progressive group CREDO, rounded up 200,000 petition signatures in support of Warren, and will now team up with Franken to urge members to publicly commit to voting for her.

"Elizabeth Warren has proven that she is willing to stand up to Wall Street on behalf of consumers and is the logical choice to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau," Franken said. "If appointed by President Obama, I would vote to confirm Elizabeth Warren to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau."

The first head of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will play a strong role in determining whether the recently passed law will have teeth, or whether it'll be defanged for the benefit of Wall Street. It shouldn't be a difficult call.

Yesterday, government scientists released their official estimate of the total amount of oil that leaked from BP's deepwater disaster: 4.9 million barrels, or 206 million gallons. Of that total, they estimated that about half had either been either contained, evaporated, or dissolved, that 24% had dispersed into tiny droplets in the ocean, and that 26% had either come ashore, been buried in sand, or remained in the Gulf as tar balls.

The New York Times reports that many people, particularly on the Gulf Coast, are concerned that these new estimates represent an attempt to whitewash the damage of the spill. But as the Times points out, these new estimates show that an enormous amount of oil -- twenty times more than spilled from the Exxon Valdez -- spilled into the Gulf.

By a process of elimination, the researchers concluded that only 26 percent of the oil had come ashore or was still in the water in a form that could, in principle, do additional shoreline damage. And much of that was breaking down quickly in the warm waters of the gulf, the report said.

Of course, that 26 percent equals more than 53 million gallons of oil, five times the size of the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska.

"One way of looking at it is to say that 26 percent of the world’s largest oil spill is still out there," said Greg Butcher, director of bird conservation for the National Audubon Society. "And that is a lot of oil."

Let's assume for a moment that these estimates are accurate. If so, you'd be making a huge mistake to conclude that the spill wasn't a big deal because three-quarters of it never made landfall. First of all, about a third of the oil that didn't make landfall is still in the water column dispersed into tiny droplets, much of it mixed with dispersants. While much of that dispersed oil is likely to biodegrade, we still don't know what its long-term effects will be. As the report argues:

Even though the threat to shorelines, fish and wildlife, and ecosystems has decreased since the capping of the BP wellhead, federal scientists remain extremely concerned about the impact of the spill to the Gulf ecosystem. Fully understanding the impacts of this spill on wildlife, habitats, and natural resources in the Gulf region will take time and continued monitoring and research.

Even if we set aside the all the oil that didn't hit the shoreline or doesn't pose a threat to the shoreline, to say that "only" one-quarter of the oil impacted the shoreline would be a peculiar use of the world "only." After all, 25% of a big number is still a big number, and it's hard to see how anyone can look at that report and determine that it shows the BP oil spill was no big deal, especially coming so soon after the leak was finally capped.

It's important to remember that even if it ultimately turns out that the BP spill wasn't as bad as our worst fears, it would be a huge mistake to conclude that deepwater drilling is safe. The mere fact that we might consider ourselves "lucky" that only 53 million gallons of oil came ashore is testament to the inherent riskiness of deepwater drilling -- and the desperate need a new national energy policy to develop clean, secure, affordable, and renewable sources of power.

Mitch McConnell doubled down on the need for hearings into birthright citizenship and says he is "not aware of anyone who's come out for altering the 14th Amendment."

Steve Benen has an alert for him:

Maybe McConnell should give Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) a call.

"Birthright citizenship I think is a mistake.... We should change our Constitution and say if you come here illegally and you have a child, that child's automatically not a citizen."

Asked how intent Graham is on introducing the amendment, the South Carolina Republican responded: "I got to."

McConnell isn't aware of "anyone who's come out for altering the 14th Amendment"? When a high-profile member of his own caucus told a national television audience on the Republicans' own cable news network "we should change our Constitution," that seems to qualify.

Yeah, I'd say it qualifies.

It's been a rough month since the Research 2000 fraud was exposed, but we're now ready to jump back into the polling game.

We've settled on two separate pollsters -- one to do our election horserace polling, and one to do our weekly State of the Nation national polling.

We're still not ready to announce the latter, since we're still dealing with some last minute negotiations. But we can announce our horserace pollster: Public Policy Polling (PPP).

We obviously wanted a credible firm to excise the ghost of R2K, but we also wanted an accurate one. Well, according to Nate Silver's pollster rankings, PPP was among the most accurate. Strip out the firms that focus on a single state (like U Cincy, Field, etc), and it's top 10.

But Nate penalizes PPP for not being part of an industry-wide transparency project. Mark Blumenthal stripped away that penalty, and here were the results:

SUSA couldn't do horserace polling because of exclusivity contracts with other media organizations. ABC/Washington Post can't be hired out, obviously. Field Poll only does California. Blum and Weprin is out of business. Ciruli and BRC are regional Mountain West firms, the Ohio Poll is obviously just Ohio, Selzer owns Iowa and little else, while Montana State is obviously a Montana outfit. I'd never heard of Davis & Hibbits and I wanted to work with a firm I already knew and trusted.

So that left Mason-Dixon and PPP as the top horserace pollsters we could hire.

PPP, right off the bat, was game to releasing the raw data -- something NO other pollster has ever done. And I've got to admit, I love the work they've done.

We'll be announcing our other pollster in a few weeks. They have also agreed to release raw data. We still have to figure out HOW we'll do that, and in what format. There's also a technological challenge in integrating data in different formats from the two pollsters. So we won't have full functionality and raw data access available right away.

But long term, having access to the raw data will also allow us to do some pretty awesome shit, like creating widgets that allow you guys to insert your own weighing to reshape the numbers to reflect how YOU (or anyone else) thinks the electorate will look like. Access to raw data will also give everyone an unprecedented look at how pollsters massage data and better educate the public as to the art of polling, and its inherent limits.

I'm so excited about all of this I can barely contain myself. While the R2K mess has been a nightmare, it has opened up new possibilities -- the ability to work with some of the most accomplished pollsters in the biz, and break new ground by providing unparalleled transparency.

We'll ramp up slowly, but we hope to be back up to pre-scandal polling frequencies by September.

First up next week? Delaware. Then Missouri.

Elena Kagan's nomination to be associate justice of the Supreme Court was just approved by the full Senate, in a 63 to 37 vote. The Senators sat in their appointed desks on the Senate floor, Rising to deliver their votes, in a more formal and stately process than is generally seen in that body.

There were few surprises in the voting. Republicans voting yes were Collins, Graham, Gregg, Lugar, and Snowe. Ben Nelson voted no. She was confirmed with a larger margin than Alito, who was confirmed 58 to 42, and Thomas, who was confirmed 52 to 48, but with fewer votes than the remaining justices, a reflection of the heightened and toxic political environment this election year.

Ruth Bader-Ginsberg, for one, is enthused by Kagan's appointment, only the fourth woman to be approved for the position.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says the prospect of three women on the Supreme Court is exhilarating, and she intends to stay around and enjoy it.

After the death of her husband and her own treatment for cancer, there was speculation that the 77-year-old justice would step down. But she told The Associated Press on Tuesday that she plans to remain on the court for the foreseeable future and still wants to match Justice Louis Brandeis, who retired at age 82.

• Ha ha!
• One of Alan Grayson's potential opponents has a great plan to fix America's economy: Tax evasion.
• So, how much would the world miss the mosquito if it was completely eradicated? Sure, people would rejoice, but what about the ecosystem?

  And so, while humans inadvertently drive beneficial species, from tuna to corals, to the edge of extinction, their best efforts can't seriously threaten an insect with few redeeming features. "They don't occupy an unassailable niche in the environment," says entomologist Joe Conlon, of the American Mosquito Control Association in Jacksonville, Florida. "If we eradicated them tomorrow, the ecosystems where they are active will hiccup and then get on with life. Something better or worse would take over."

• A guide to the post-Citizens United GOP shadow groups that aim to pump tens of millions of unregulated secret dollars into this November's elections.

  This made me laugh:

  American Action Network: Modeled in part after the liberal Center for American Progress, this 501-c4 group is headed up by former Sen. Norm Coleman and managed day-to-day by Rob Collins, a former top aide to House Minority Whip Eric Cantor.

  The Center for American Progress was modelled after the conservative Heritage Foundation. The conservative's problem isn't a lack of think tanks. They've dominated that realm forever.

• Rep. Luis Gutierrez wants to call the GOP's bluff on their 14th Amendment bullshit.

  Imagine a United States where every birth initiates an investigation to determine the citizenship and immigration status of each parent. Let’s have the hearing so we can take careful notes when the Republican’s witness explains how this government intrusion into maternal and child health — burdening our health care system and discouraging pregnant women from seeking medical care (while perhaps discouraging claims of paternity) — is justified to secure our borders and protect the core liberties of America. I would love to hear the opening remarks of Judiciary Committee Members Lindsey Graham in the Senate or Lamar Smith in the House broadcast live from coast-to-coast on C-SPAN. I can hear it now. “Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my support for a full federal background check and proof of citizenship for every precious human life.”

Really, it turns out conservatives hate the Constitution. The only part they like is the 2nd Amendment. The rest of it can go to the shredder for all they care.

• Howie is giving Rep. John Boehner a headache.
• Auditing Newsweek's budget.

  Newsweek has just 122 journalists, both print and digital. They make up just more than a third of the magazine’s total employees. We’re not told what the average Newsweek journalist makes, but the average employee there gets $123,000 in salary and benefits.

  That’s probably a good number for the journalists, too. If so, its newsroom labor costs it just $15 million. Overall labor is $42 million.

  The mag took in $165 million in revenue last year (to look at it one way, that’s $1.4 million per journalist).

  The problem, of course, is it spent $222 million and lost $28 million (it benefited from a big pension credit). It costs a lot of money to print and distribute a magazine (not to mention to get subscribers).

  And then there's the rent:

  Newsweek is paying $13 million a year in rent, which is way, way too high.

  Even allowing for an extremely generous 250 square feet of office space per employee (there are 341 left there), that works out to a whopping $158 per square foot in rent. That’s nearly four times the going rate for Manhattan office space of about $42 a foot, according to Cushman & Wakefield via The Real Deal. Even accounting for the 150 or so extra employees it used to have, the number still is well above $100 a foot for a pretty big office.

  To put it another way, for $13 million a year, you could get 305,000 square feet of Manhattan office space—or about 1,000 square feet per Newsweeker. That’s nuts.

• Dear God. You couldn't make this shit up.

  In two posts on Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment website, Dr. Kevin Pezzi smears Shirley Sherrod as a racist, claiming that "if someone deserves to be put on a pedestal for overcoming racism, it isn't Sherrod." The racism criticism is ironic coming from Pezzi, who has repeatedly used racial epithets like "Japs" and "Chinks," and claimed Native and African Americans should have been grateful for their subjugation by whites.  

  Pezzi, who says that "Breitbart asked me to write for BigGovernment.com," has a peculiar self-described history. Pezzi claims to be responsible for "over 850 inventions" and schemes such as a "magic bullet" for cancer, a "robotic chef," and sexual inventions like "penile enlargement techniques" and "ways to tighten the vagina" (because "men like women with tight vaginas"). Pezzi has started multiple websites, from term paper helpers to a sexual help site that answers "your questions about sexual attraction, pleasure, performance, and libido" (Pezzi is qualified to do so because "No doctor in the world knows more about sexual pleasure than I do").

  Pezzi also claims to have "beaten Bill Gates" on a math aptitude test, turned down a blind date with Katie Couric, and says he's "bigger than some porno stars."

The various reports swirling in the news, from the NYT to the WSJ, to Bloomberg, WaPo and Politico, all point to some kind of deal between Google and Verizon in the works. Google has a partial denial via Twitter: "@NYTimes is wrong. We've not had any convos with VZN about paying for carriage of our traffic. We remain committed to an open internet."

Note what Gizmodo points out about Google's denial:

It's notable that the Google denial says very specifically that Google has not had discussions about paying for carriage of Google and YouTube. But that doesn't mean they haven't spoken with Verizon about creating a framework that would undermine net neutrality generally. The WSJ report seems to support that interpretation.

All of which leads to one conclusion as reiterated by Congressman Ed Markey, author of H.R. 3458, the Internet Freedom Preservation Act and the leading proponent for Net Neutrality in Congress. The FCC needs to act. Markey:

"The potential deal between two broadband behemoths underscores the need for the FCC to act quickly to protect the free and open Internet. In the absence of such action, it's increasingly clear that cozy cooperation between communications colossi will reign on the Internet.  No one should be surprised that such companies will seek to slant the playing field in their favor, a result that will stifle the next generation of Internet innovators and short-circuit the economic benefits needed to power our economy in the 21st century.  It is time for the FCC to step in to protect consumers, innovation, and fair competition."

This is not a decision that should be ceded to the telecoms. The FCC needs to act to protect Net Neutrality, and do it quickly.

Last week, Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner slammed House Republicans for killing legislation that would have provided health benefits to 9/11 heroes, singling out GOP Rep. Pete King for blocking the legislation. The legislation, which Democrats hoped to pass through a fast-track process, would required a two-thirds vote to pass; it failed despite receiving nearly unanimous support from Democrats because virtually every Republican voted against it.

Seems pretty clear that Republicans killed the legislation, right? Apparently not, at least if you are GOP Rep. Pete King.

King sees it a bit differently. He pointed his finger at Democrats for requiring a 2/3 majority to pass the bill – King said it should've been passed with the standard 218.

"I’m saying to Anthony Weiner and the Democrats, unless you want to have cops and firefighters die, bring this back up in September and require a simple majority, the way they’ve done for every other important vote," King said on "Morning Joe."

Watch:

The bottom-line is this: all but four Democrats supported the legislation and all but 12 Republicans opposed it. It will probably eventually get passed because Democrats hold the majority, but despite the urgent need to enact the legislation, Republicans took advantage of House rules to block the bill. And now they are claiming it's all the Democratic Party's fault. Oh, how strange it must be to live in their bizarre little world.