Morning Must Reads: June 17

In the news: Obama to Belfast, the security industrial complex, Iran's new president, the South's economy, President Rand Paul, and Revlon.

  • Share
  • Read Later
Mark Wilson / Getty Images

The early morning sun rises behind the US Capitol Building in Washington, DC.

363 comments
MementoMori
MementoMori

Hey GOP, how's that outreach to women going?

Rick Perry vetoes pay equity for women, raising Democratic prospects in Texas

For Texas women seeking fair pay, the meaning is clear: The only way to achieve pay equity is to elect a Democratic governor. For American women seeking fair pay, the meaning equally clear: Elect a Democratic president, a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House. 

Oh. Never mind.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/state-a-local-politics/305947-rick-perry-vetoes-pay-equity-for-women-raising-democratic-prospects-in-texas#ixzz2WW8gvSFT 


ahandout
ahandout

You can sum up this article:  Liberal policies are a failure; here's proof.

 http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/17/as-the-north-rest-on-its-laurels-the-south-is-rising-fast.html

People, or should I say working people, are voting with their feet:

The hegira to the sunbelt continues, as last year the region accounted for six of the top eight states attracting domestic migrants—Texas, Florida, North Carolina, Tennessee, South Carolina, and Georgia. Texas and Florida each gained 250,000 net migrants. The top four losers were New York, Illinois, New Jersey, and California.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

Marco Rubio’s awful day 

It was big news that Sen. Marco Rubio wouldn’t say he backed his own immigration reform bill on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday. He told Jon Karl it was “an excellent starting point,” oddly passive language for someone who’s a co-sponsor. Obviously Rubio is keeping his promise to the right to push for even tougher border-control in the final bill, but his wishy-washy response didn’t seem leader-like.

Luckily or not, Rubio’s wimpy reply was overshadowed by reaction to a deeply reported New Yorker piece by Ryan Lizza that placed the Florida Republican at the center of the Gang of Eight negotiations. It featured a choice quote dissing American workers from an anonymous Rubio aide, explaining why his boss backed the Chamber of Commerce over the AFL-CIO when it came to a guest worker agreement (they eventually compromised): “There are American workers who, for lack of a better term, can’t cut it. There shouldn’t be a presumption that every American worker is a star performer. There are people who just can’t get it, can’t do it, don’t want to do it. And so you can’t obviously discuss that publicly.”

That made the Tea Party favorite look like a tool of Big Business (which of course he is), and Rubio (the only gang member who didn’t participate in the Lizza profile) was forced to issue his own statement: “The quote attributed to a member of my staff was a description of one argument used against big labor’s opposition to a guest worker program. It is not my view in any way. I could not disagree with it more.”

Still, Ann Coulter is howling, and on the National Review Online, immigration opponent Mark Krikorian quickly penned “Americans: High-immigration Republicans are just not that into you.” Krikorian suggests that if such “a high-immigration Republican” gets the 2016 nod – and we all know Rubio’s thinking about it — he use the slogan, “Survival of the fittest: Vote GOP.”

I would suggest anyone who gets the GOP nod in 2016 will be able to use that slogan, but that’s another story.

Before the flap over Rubio’s aide’s comment, what I thought was most interesting about Lizza’s piece was the length Rubio’s fellow gang members have gone to placate him. On the record, Sen. Chuck Schumer told Lizza: “[Rubio’s] the real deal. He is smart, he is substantive. He knows when to compromise and when to hold. And he’s personable.’” Wow, Chuck, you left out handsome! But wait: according to Lizza, an aide to New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez said “if the Gang were a group of high-school students, Rubio would be the cool jock and the captain of the football team, with whom everyone wanted to hang out.”

Um, OK, I guess that underscores that the Gang of Eight is all male.

But Lizza’s story was quickly followed by Politico’s counter-narrative, “Marco Rubio’s angling provokes some Gang of Eight angst.” Some of Rubio’s colleagues are apparently frustrated with the cool jock and captain of the football team playing both sides of the issue. They say Rubio has undermined the public perception of unity by turning down requests for joint press conferences and appearances with his fellow gang members, and more substantively, by seeming to side with Sen. John Cornyn on impossibly strict border security measures that are likely to kill the deal with Democrats and moderates.

Right now it seems like both sides are most concerned with whether they’ll have the upper hand in the spin cycle assuming the bill fails. White House folks told Lizza “If the Republicans try to scuttle it, we’re the ones who can communicate to the Latino community who scuttled it.”

It’s beginning to look as though Rubio doesn’t necessarily want a bill, either, as long as he can blame its failure on unreasonable Democrats. Meanwhile, House Speaker John Boehner may be unwilling to break the Hastert rule and let a bill come to the floor without a majority of Republicans supporting it (presumably, a decent immigration bill could pass with heavy Democratic backing and a minority of Republicans, just like the fiscal cliff deal in January.) Several Boehner aides told the Washington Examiner’s David Drucker that “there’s no way in hell” the speaker will let the bill pass without majority Republican support. If that’s true, there’s no bill, and the side with the best way to spin the loss becomes the winner.

But Rubio’s making himself a lot of right wing enemies along the way, people who won’t be mollified if the bill fails. Right wing Iowa talk radio host Steve Deace says “Marco Rubio shouldn’t even bother showing up in 2016” in the first caucus state given his role in the Gang of Eight. Rubio’s 2016 hopes may be fading faster than his bill’s chances.

In the end, Rubio’s worst sin may not be backing immigration reform, but angling around it so blatantly that he winds up looking wishy-washy, not resolute – an image that won’t go away even if the bill does. In an editorial headlined “Rubio’s Folly, Cont” the National Review blasts his maneuvering as having “all the subtlety of the WWE” and concludes: “It is worth noting that the two sides in this immigration debate are being led by Hispanic Republican senators: Marco Rubio for the Gang of Eight, Ted Cruz for the opposition. One of them, needless to say, is making more sense than the other.”

retiredvet
retiredvet

John McCain, Real Man Of Genius

"... there is nothing left to American politics, especially on the very conservative side, except sideshow freaks, and that John McCain should not be hired to pick out a barber on his own."

MementoMori
MementoMori

This is what "pro-life" really looks like.

Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes.

For 75 years, Finland's expectant mothers have been given a box by the state. It's like a starter kit of clothes, sheets and toys that can even be used as a bed. And some say it helped Finland achieve one of the world's lowest infant mortality rates.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22751415

kbanginmotown
kbanginmotown

@MementoMori Heh. And here I've been told that all of the US "Dropout Factories" are in Democratic, Inner Cities... 

MementoMori
MementoMori

@ahandout From the article (that you probably didn't read):

...lack of unions, lower wages, and less stringent environment laws...

That's just great. If you don't mind a few fertilizer plants blowing up every so often. The rightwinger is right about one thing, though. This is what happens to you when you vote for Republicans.


fitty_three
fitty_three

@ahandout 

I know what you're thinking but 'domestic' doesn't necessarily translate to...

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@ahandout Or you can look at which states take more federal dollars than they pay and laugh at all the GOP leaning states.

Sue_N
Sue_N

She says that like it's a bad thing.

forgottenlord
forgottenlord

@retiredvet 

She's right.  The caveat is that they will never again have a Republican President if Immigration Reform fails.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@retiredvet Correction. You will never have a Republican president while dim bulbs like you are perceived as the standard bearers of your party.

outsider
outsider

@mantisdragon91  

Rubio has screwed himself; Or the push for Immigration reform has.  If this is the best he has to offer 2016 is going to be a riot to watch.

kbanginmotown
kbanginmotown

@forgottenlord @Tero @outsider2011 I'm a soccer parent. My oldest son has suffered a broken leg, my youngest son has had several bloodied noses and bruises. My daughter has had knees and ankles on ice. All the result of hard play. Not, ever, as the result of on-field fighting. The Michigan State Youth Soccer Association has a zero-tolerance policy regarding on-field fighting as well as abusive behavior by coaches and parents. Violence is *never* part of the game of soccer.

Until the NHL, and by extension, local hockey clubs, decide that fighting is *NOT* part of the sport, you'll continue to have these discussions about "how hard it too hard"? Ejections, Suspensions and Prosecutions are needed. stat.

To your story, forgottenlord, I'd say juvenile prison, because the kid's obviously got issues. But, then, maybe (sadly) it's the norm... 


Tero
Tero

@forgottenlord @Tero @outsider2011 

I think if it qualifies as assault off the ice, it should qualify as assault on the ice. There is a line between rough play and assault; this kid crossed it when he decided to hold down the other player and punch him 10 times in the head. This kid should be charged with assault but only given a light punishment with no permanent record. IMHO

Ivy_B
Ivy_B

OMG, a country that cares about a child outside the womb!

outsider
outsider

@mantisdragon91 @ahandout  

Honestly - it's like he likes getting shown up. 

That one was low hanging fruit. 

I can picture him sticking his tongue out and saying, your side sucks, nenner, nenner, nenner. 

Handy is such a simpleton. The fact that it was GOP policies that caused the crash, combined with the inequality of payments to the red states - it just makes his statement that much more entertaining. 

Keep trying, Handy. Maybe, by accident, you might stumble into a good argument. I doubt it, cause you're on the wrong side - but who knows?

sacredh
sacredh

They've lost 5 out of the last 6 popular votes for president. They're not getting the hint that the majority of Americans don't support them or their policies. They're doubling down and seem even more determined to shrink their base. It couldn't happen to a more deserving group of people.

forgottenlord
forgottenlord

@kbanginmotown

1) Violence is a part of hockey.  We accept it - even embrace it - and while there are large national debates about it, it is what it is.  We can't set the standard based upon another sport with a very different culture nor can we hold the players to the standard of said sport.  That's not going to change anytime soon

2) Even if the kid did that in some random field, I would not want him to go to prison.  There are several intermediate steps before that.  I'm fairly sure our legal system would agree - we don't see prison as a solution, just a punishment and punishments don't help people who have "issues".  Not to mention that considering the aforementioned culture, it would be unreasonable to say he has issues when it's likely his actions were promoted by his coach

3) This isn't a discussion of "how hard is too hard" - the line on this one is pretty clearly red.  The question is "should legal systems get involved within the world of hockey"

outsider
outsider

I'm inclined to agree. Hockey is a tough sport, and fights sometimes have a place - when you can both defend yourselves.

The idea that he held a kid down so he could wail on him took it out of the realm of sports.

This became assult. If he was an adult there wouldn't be a question; see Mcsorely and Bertuzzi.

No perm record - but at least a year of suspension - to send a message. And something appropriate civilly, like community service. Or whatever a childs equivalent is.

ahandout
ahandout

@Ivy_B  Are you saying that American mothers don't care about their children?

sacredh
sacredh

Sounds commie to me.

fitty_three
fitty_three

forgottenlord

It's not a joke. It's an unfinished sentence for @ahandout to finish.

You have to think like him to finish it correctly:)

sacredh
sacredh

I don't feel sorry for them either. They get rejected and then swing further to the right. They've thrown up every roadblock they could think of to keep the economy from improving and almost every "good" idea they have for improving the economy is to cut taxes on the wealthy. They have nothing in common with the people anymore.

Sue_N
Sue_N

@sacredh I agree. I used to feel sorry for "moderate" (read: sane) Republicans, because I figured it had to be hard watching your party spiral into ignorance and insanity.

Now? Not so much. They let this happen. They invited the crazy in, cultivated it and then turned it loose. They handed their party over to the Religious Right, then to the Tea Party, they've abandoned any principles they once might have had just for the sake of partisan politics, they've allowed racism to come out of the cellar and into the living room, they wage war on the poor and are determined to set women back to the '50s (1950s or 1650s, take your pick).

I hope they all go down in flames.

forgottenlord
forgottenlord

@outsider2011

Actually, the variation I've heard that I buy more is the plastic pads which came in the late 90s - the shoulder pads increased impact force while almost completely negating feedback on the person doing the check making it so that delivering a hit provided no disincentive - particularly for cowardly wimps - and making it harder to gauge just how hard you actually hit the other player.

As for pests, everything is a gradual.  The pests might've started in Gretzky's era, but the gradual race for the bottom escalated later during the 90s and naughts.  Kinda like how Wall Street's excess and its roots can be found in the 80s....but the late 80s outrageous $3.7 million executive riding his corporation to the ground sounds downright reasonable in today's age with $100 million executives riding corporations to the ground everywhere.

outsider
outsider

@forgottenlord @outsider2011  

Also, i've heard it argued that the equipment  eroded respect. I'm not sure how i feel about that - but the argument goes, when everyone played without a helmet, everyone was careful not to take cheap shots at the head (though of course i happened); since the helmets came in, no one worries about head shots. 


I'm not sure i buy into that, but it's worth thinking about.

outsider
outsider

@forgottenlord @outsider2011  

I think that finished up rather nicely.  Though with regards to the times and the players, don't forget Kenny Linsman was playing when Gretz was. And so was Dale Hunter. Two pests. 

Neither of whom wanted any part of Semenko. 

Though ironically the rat did play for the oilers at some point.

forgottenlord
forgottenlord

@outsider2011

Gertzky didn't have to worry about a Bertuzzi incident because he wasn't some two-bit third line forward who had to agitate to survive in the NHL  Bertuzzi did that before the instigator rule existed.  I'm not sure which genius came up with the idea of having a pest that everyone loves to hate but the decline in respect is far easier to trace to that invention than the instigator - that's the guy who's JOB it is to show no respect to the other team.  Arguably, the instigator rule was brought in because of the pest and the declining respect in hockey - because players stopped respecting the fact that stars are stars and a two-bit third liner shouldn't try to take a star out of the lineup (speaking of Cooke...).

I don't think I've got anything further to contribute

outsider
outsider

@forgottenlord @outsider2011  

I like your argument about Bertuzzi and why the league took care of it. The work place being safe - but that's a whole other argument - which leads back to my instigator rule comment. 

 Gretz never had to worry about an attack like Bertuzzi - Semenko would have put an end to it. Same as Bure never had to worry, when Odjick had his back. 

But now, because of that rule, the work place is less safe; and there is less respect. 

 Sorry, tangent, but i had been thinking about that today - and when i read your comment about a safe work place, i thought of it. 

 It's funny that you mentioned boxing; i thought of that example too - but i believe you are mistaken. Even if there is a death in the ring, and no one is charged, the police still investigate. They have to. Where the gloves used, regulation? Was there any foreign objects inserted? 

 I boxed, amateur, of course, but we were under constant scrutiny to maintain a level of safety. And if something unfortunate happened (i never, ever witnessed even a serious knockout, much less death), then there was oversight. 

 And that brings me back to your point about the leagues. Of course you're right, with regards to who actually runs the leagues - even the minors have adults running them; that's a valid point. But i was just discussing your point about intentions. The kid is too immature to understand his intentions, beyond asserting his will. 

A grown man, by extension has a plan. In the Bertuzzi case, i do not, not for one second suspect he wanted to hurt Moore the way he did; i just can't believe that of the man. BUT, i will say, i think he fully intended to hurt him, to teach him a lesson. 

So the intent to injure was there. That goes beyond the written rules; It ceased being a hockey play, and became a case of assault (to me). So in my opinion, it was ok that the cops go involved. 

As i said - personally, my heart says let the players sort it out themselves, because if i was a professional athlete, i would like to think i could handle the situation myself. 

But as a father, who's young one might be the person on the receiving end, i can't accept the same conditions. That may be a personally failing, but i can't set aside the responsibility i feel for them, him/her.

And in the bigger picture, we have countless examples of people who ought to be able to police themselves; but humans are flawed, and so you can't rely on them to police themselves. 

Does that make it a double standard (my thinking i could handle it, but not trusting someone else to)? Maybe; but as i said, it's  a feeling, vs a thought. 

 It's an interesting debate. 

forgottenlord
forgottenlord

@outsider2011

I'm actually hoping to continue this debate not necessarily to convince but to feel out positions and get a more thorough understanding.

An interesting comparison is boxing.  In boxing (as I understand it), there are occasional deaths but police only get involved if betting shifted in a way that makes them suspicious.  Otherwise, it's hands off - a consequence of the violent nature of the sport.  Degree of injury, IMO, should not be a factor.

As for the distinction that minors don't understand as well as adults what they're doing, I don't feel that's relevant.  My reasoning is that regardless of whether the kids do or do not understand the motivations, the league is still being run by presumably mentally competent adults who should be able to assess appropriately whether it was right within the context of the game and the appropriate punishment for such.  The argument of minors vs majors is far more about spotlight - minor leagues derive their funding and popularity from their own membership far more than from the outside.  Major leagues garner far more of their funding from people who attend games, sponsorship and TV agreements.  They're held to public scrutiny and are therefore far more aware of when a player crosses a clearly red line.  The NHL dealt with Bertuzi because of their dependence upon the fans while this league's funding model is from the players within the league itself.  Throw in that one group finds its primary form of income this league and thus willingly expose themselves to risk to get said income while the other is a form of recreation and enjoyment that should not require undue risk beyond a normal recreational activity and thus should be policed as such. (Counter argument: but workplaces are also supposed to be safe)

outsider
outsider

@forgottenlord @outsider2011  

I like your argument, but intentions are hard to determine. One persons statement vs anothers, right?

As for the scenario, i agree the checker shouldn't be punished - but by virtue of a death, it has to be investigated by the authorities. The checker may get off (and i think in the case i mentioned it should be the case, as the OHL case you mentioned) - but the police would still have to be involved. So that was why i asked the question, how serious does it have to be to have the police involved? Even if the case is dismissed, or no charges pressed, it would still have to be investigated. 

And you are right with regards to my distinction of leagues vs criminal code - however, the criminal code is there precisely because it's unrealistic for a kid to grasps the depths of what he's doing the same way an adult should. 


I'm not sure i'm articulating this well; lemme try it this way:

Do you think the kid (who held the other down) was more cognizant of what he was doing than say Bertuzzi was?


I don't think he grasped what he was doing as well as Bertuzzi did - intellectually. 


I assume the kid (because i can't know for sure) was just thinking hey, i'm beating this kid, hahaha. Whereas Bertuzzi was thinking (again, assumption on my part), Moore has to pay, because of the hit on Naslund. Cooke didn't make him pay enough, so i will. 


That is why i think it's more feasible for the big league to police itself. Though, if we're going that way, get rid of the instigator rule, and let the league actually police itself. 


Maybe we just have to agree to disagree with regards to police intervention. I dunno. I'm stating an argument - but i FEEL the same way you do - that it should be self-contained. But if you go down that road, the Gov't shouldn't be accountable to the people, it should be able to police itself. 


Where do we draw the line? That's why i agree it's very complex. There is no easy, or hard and fast answer.


forgottenlord
forgottenlord

@outsider2011

First: a clarification: aside from Chara/Patches, none of the cases I've mentioned were hockey plays, IMO.  However, all of them were in the context of hockey *actions* insofar as they were taken within the realm and from the motivations of hockey.  Basically, the difference is a hockey play should not result in a suspension - but there's a huge range of things between that point and the point where police should get involved.  So my definition is hockey action is something where the context of motivation is within the rink and the actions were taken within the rink - the realm where the Sheriffs are the referees.  If one or the other isn't the case (a fight at the buses or a continuation of bad blood from some other context), that's not a hockey action.

Honestly, if it's a check that results in a crushed esophagus, I don't believe the checker should get punished.  There was a case two years ago in the OHL where two players fought and one got knocked out, fell to the ice and died when his head landed first.  Another one is the various cases of skate blades ticking up into people's throats - considering how many jugulars have been cut in the NHL alone in the last few years, it is nothing short of a miracle that no one has died.

And the distinctions you've made don't really distinguish between leagues - they just take advantage of distinctions already inherent in Canada's criminal code.

outsider
outsider

@forgottenlord  

You're entirely right when you say it's complex. I think in the case of Patches and Chara, the cops should not have been involved. As a Habs fan, i hated to see it. And i wanted Chara punished, dearly. 

 But i wanted the league to do it. It was a hockey play that had an unfortunate outcome (and history from that goon, but i digress :) ). 

But i disagree about Bertuzzi. Moore had already fought Cooke and won. That's what upset Bertuzzi. And if you had ever watched the attack, there is no way in hell you can call it a hockey play. He attacked him from behind. And that too, IMO, moved from a hockey play to an assault. 


And McSorely was even more guilty. There is a reason you're supposed to drop the sticks in a fight - because instead of a "clean" hockey fight, you suddenly have a weapon - and people can lose eyes, or incur much more serious injury than you would get form a fight. 


By the reasoning above, if someone checked another player, and an elbow hit a throat, and crushed the receiving players esophagus, and the player died, would the cops be involved? Maybe the player who made the check could be acquitted (if charged) with manslaughter instead of murder, as it was an accident (or reckless endangerment). But either way, the authorities would have to be involved simply because of the death. 


If that is too extreme an example, then you get into the issue of defining what is serious enough to have the cops engaged. Bertuzzi was charged, and Moore was almost a paraplegic. How serious does it have to be? And who decides?

As for the differences between the leagues, i think that's relevant too, in that a kid who's playing Midget cannot reason the same way a grown adult can. 

They both know the rules of the game, but there is a reason why there is a legal age in society; because at 15, while you may THINK you know everything, as an adult you're more responsible for what you do (at least legally). 

As you said; it's very complex, and there is no easy answer. 

But holding a kid down on the ice and beating him is not a hockey play; standing toe to toe is. 

IMO.

forgottenlord
forgottenlord

I guess my problem is that I have a tough time with legal systems getting involved in Hockey systems.  Take the Bertuzzi incident/  The incident was entirely within the realm of the game - motivation had everything to do with the game and the actions took place on the ice even though it was well beyond the realms of the rules - and was handled (and handled appropriately) by the league.  Legal system shouldn't have gotten involved, IMO. Another comparable is Chara/Pachioretti which Montreal police investigated even though the league said it was not intentional and within the rules in their opinion.  These were hockey incidents that took place in the world of hockey and addressed by hockey people - for better or for worse.

And that's where I have a problem with this incident.  The league clearly mishandled it or possibly misunderstood it - it was a completely one sided assault and therefore should not have been treated as a fight with offsetting suspensions.  A lengthy suspension should have been levied against the attacker as well as fines against the player and the club for the unsportsmanlike behavior.  They didn't do that, but then should police get involved?  Is it appropriate that when an aggrieved party doesn't like the call at one level, that they get to bring in a different body?  I'm not comfortable with that.

Even more complex, IMO, is that there is a rational argument that the rules should be different depending on what level you're playing at.  A professional league like the NHL and possibly its feeder leagues like the CHL and AHL might deserve to be allowed to govern themselves and determine whether these things are legal or not.  Members of the league work within the bounds of the league and live under the rules and laws of the league while working there.  Meanwhile minor leagues such as this one which have no prospect of feeding to the majors be given less control - we're already seeing a general move in the tertiary leagues that reduce checks and fights.

Yeah....

forgottenlord
forgottenlord

@ahandout

No....she's saying American politicians don't care about anyone else's children.

Tero
Tero

@ahandout @Ivy_B 

No, she is saying that you and your fellow baggers don't care about children. And she'd be right!