No matter how you feel about the vice president, politically speaking, you still want to see him run in 2016 because, duh, he’s Joe Biden. So here are some GIFs to help get the ball rolling — for the media’s sake.

View Entire List ›

It is so free thinking.

This is Senator Bernie Sanders. He is a self-described democratic socialist from Vermont.

Source: talkingpointsmemo.com

And this is what the ESTABLISHMENT wants you to think Bernie's hair looks like.

Source: en.wikipedia.org

But Bernie told them "I DO WHAT I WANT."

This is what Sander's hair looks like in its natural environment.

Source: theblaze.com

View Entire List ›

“It’s really crazy, I mean, I thought I would just be a minor office celebrity.”

View Video ›

Via:

Yesterday, Gabe Finger, a 16-year-old high school intern for the Daily Caller, asked if the White House would provide protection for George Zimmerman. White House press secretary Jay Carney called the question "ridiculous."

View Video ›

Via:

Finger responded on Twitter:

Via: twitter.com

View Video ›

Via:

View Entire List ›

“Do you have any personal knowledge of the White House digging through other people’s tax returns?” “No, sir I have none,” the IRS agent said.

Here's Oversight Committee ranking member Rep. Elijah Cummings reading the text of Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's ad to IRS revenue agent Elizabeth Hofacre, asking if she has any knowledge of what the ad claims is fact:

View Video ›

Via:

Here's McConnell's ad from May:

Source: youtube.com

On a 54-46 vote — with no support from any Republicans — the nomination of Thomas Perez to be Secretary of Labor was confirmed Thursday.

Via: Molly Riley / AP

WASHINGTON — No Republicans voted for the nomination of Thomas Perez to be Secretary of Labor Thursday, as he was confirmed on a 54-46 party-line vote for the position.

Following a supportive speech by Sen. Tom Harkin, the Senate voted on the nomination of the person who had served under Attorney General Eric Holder as the head of the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division.

On Wednesday, six Republicans had voted for cloture on Perez's nomination, allowing Thursday's vote to go forward: Sens. Lamar Alexander, Susan Collins, Bob Corker, Mark Kirk, John McCain and Lisa Murkowski. They all voted "no" on the confirmation vote Thursday.

In a statement, President Obama said, "I welcome today's confirmation of Tom Perez to serve as Secretary of Labor. Tom has lived the American dream himself, and has dedicated his career to keeping it within reach for hardworking families across the country. At the Department of Labor, Tom will help us continue to grow our economy, help businesses create jobs, make sure workers have the skills those jobs require, and ensure safe workplaces and economic opportunity for all."

Not mentioning Thursday's vote, Obama did reference the Wednesday vote that allowed Thursday's confirmation vote to go forward, saying, "I want to thank the Senate once again for agreeing to move forward on Tom and the other nominees who have waited far too long for the yes-or-no votes they deserve."

Earlier this year, another of Obama's second-term cabinet selections, now-Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, had faced similar resistance from Republicans. Come the final vote, though, three Republicans had joined the Democrats to vote for his confirmation.

[This post has been updated to include President Obama's statement.]

“Immediately, hip-hop artists did what artists have been doing for centuries – they opened my eyes up to a whole new world.”

Drew Angerer / Getty

Unlike most young, white teenagers growing up in the suburbs of Cincinnati, Ohio, my favorite musicians were hip hop artists, including rappers such as Eric B., Big Daddy Kane and Chuck D of Public Enemy.

As a young man listening to hip hop in the late 80s and early 90s, I was exposed to what was happening outside of my world of finely manicured lawns in the 'burbs. Before I bought my first Public Enemy cassette tape (kids, you can Google "cassette tape"), exotic food was Taco Bell and my exposure to different cultures came through the television. Now, I have backpacked, worked or lived in almost 50 countries and speak three languages. I owe part of that passion, love of people and different cultures directly to hip hop.

It was 1989. I walked off my school bus with my little brother. I set foot onto one of those finely manicured lawns. A cassette tape was on the curb, the top half cut off and unwound. Being a music lover, I took out my number two pencil and wound it up. We got home, and I played the tape. The opening line was "You are now about to witness the strength of street knowledge." It was NWA, the hardcore, gangsta rappers that rapped about life in Compton in graphic, graphic detail.

Of course, as a young, rebellious kid, I felt a thrill listening to this music. Immediately, the hip-hop artists did what artists have been doing for centuries – they opened my eyes up to a whole new world. NWA was doing what blues, folk and rock stars have been doing for generations- they were describing hardship and pain. They described their experience as young, black men coming of age during the crack epidemic, gang wars and violence in every direction. Where else could a sheltered suburban kid hear or learn about these issues in such a graphic way? Not the local library.

My love of hip hop never ceased and included the aforementioned Chuck D of Public Enemy. Chuck said it best, "our freedom of speech is freedom or death." This is a message we can all get behind, Republican or Democrat. I find a conservative message in "Fight the Power" because I believe when government expands it becomes a political tool meant to oppress. We see it when Chuck D addresses oppression and the Civil Rights movement or references the Black Panthers. We see it when NWA, or even old-school artists like Paris, address harassment from law enforcement. Targeting and oppression is happening today, from the IRS going after political groups to the government spying on journalists and everyday American citizens.

Liberty does not grow with government; they stand in contrast to one another. We have to vigilantly protect it, so we can continue to live in a free society. Music is and has always been another way to shed light where there is injustice. I am a Hip Hop Conservative, and that is not an oxymoron. It is the future of many others in my generation of 40 and below.

My goal as a Member of Congress is to connect and communicate the conservative message to people, cutting across cultural, generational and ethnic lines. My love for music has helped me do this, and as much as we may disagree philosophically, Public Enemy and NWA have helped me do this. Music has always been a way to bridge people together, whether its sharing a head nod to hip hop or having a jam session with a few Fenders.

We face monumental challenges as a nation and we are only going to find solutions if we find our common bonds, talk to each other, and work together to fight for this great country. I hope our generation can lead the way.

U.S. Rep. Trey Radel, R-Fort Myers, represents the 19th Congressional District of Florida.

Just like ancient Rome.

View Video ›

Via:

A scholar with the Family Research Council said Wednesday that America has entered the age of pagan sexuality.

Dr. Patrick F. Fagan, director at the Family Research Council's Marriage and Religion Research Institute, made the comparison a policy lecture titled "Porn in the Dorm."

"Basically porn is now everywhere," Fagan said.

"Particular for Christians, Catholic, evangelicals, and for Jews and Muslims too, the same thing holds. This is almost like our times are a time a bit analogous to pagan Rome, where Christianity first grew up," Fagan continued. "The sexuality of pagan Rome was pretty similar to what we restored here. So, what we really have outside is a pagan sexuality which is totally different from a Christian sexuality. And I don't think enough Christians have yet put that way starkly enough to themselves. What you're really being invited with all this is entry into pagan sexuality."

Fagan continued, linking homosexuality, abortion, infidelity, pornography, euthanasia to ancient Rome.

"There's a pagan sexuality which is a pan-sexuality which is the erotic. Abortion, homosexuality, infidelity, pornography, euthanasia, infanticide all of those things were just the common sexual practice of pagan Rome and Christians were not for being very different. Monogamous, faithful, struggling, etc...you know the chastity, purity."

“[T]he House now seeks leave to withdraw as a party defendant.” House Republicans stop defending statutes similar to the Defense of Marriage Act that ban recognition of same-sex couples’ marriages.

Via: J. Scott Applewhite / AP

WASHINGTON — House Republican leaders announced in a court filing Thursday that they will not defend remaining statutes similar to the Defense of Marriage Act that ban recognition of same-sex couples' marriages.

The move comes three weeks and one day after the Supreme Court ruled in Edith Windsor's case that the federal definition of marriage in DOMA was unconstitutional because it banned the federal government from recognizing same-sex couples' marriages.

"[T]he House has determined, in light of the Supreme Court's opinion in Windsor, that it no longer will defend that statute," lawyers for the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), controlled by House Republicans, wrote about veterans' benefits statutes that similarly ban recognition of same-sex couples' marriages.

"The document from the legal team speaks for itself," House Speaker John Boehner's spokesman, Michael Steel, told BuzzFeed, when asked for comment on the move.

Judge Richard Stearns had asked the parties in a lawsuit addressing the rights of service members and veterans and their same-sex spouses to give "any reasons why judgment should not enter for plaintiffs in this case," following the Supreme Court's June 26 decision striking down Section 3 of DOMA. The deadline for responding to Stearns' question is Thursday.

The plaintiffs in the case, filed in Massachusetts by Servicemembers Legal Defense Network and Chadbourne and Park, argued in a Wednesday filing in the case that the decision in Windsor's case controls the outcome in their case and that Stearns should decide in their favor.

In addition to challenging DOMA, the plaintiffs — led by Maj. Shannon McLaughlin, a judge advocate general in Massachusetts Army National Guard, and her wife, Casey — challenge two statutes in Title 38 of the U.S. Code regarding veterans' benefits that define "spouse" as "a person of the opposite sex."

House Republican leaders, which control the vote of the BLAG, have been defending Section 3 of DOMA and Title 38 in court challenges.

BLAG's lawyers on Thursday, however, wrote:

The Supreme Court recently resolved the issue of DOMA Section 3's constitutionality. See United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. __ (2013), 2013 WL 3196928 (U.S. June 26, 2013). The Windsor decision necessarily resolves the issue of DOMA Section 3's constitutionality in this case. While the question of whether 38 U.S.C. § 101(3), (31) is constitutional remains open, the House has determined, in light of the Supreme Court's opinion in Windsor, that it no longer will defend that statute. Accordingly, the House now seeks leave to withdraw as a party defendant.

[Update at 4:10 p.m.: The Human Rights Campaign's president called the news "historic" — while still taking a swipe at the expense of the defense of DOMA and similar laws.

"After millions of taxpayer dollars wasted defending discrimination, it's a historic sign of the times that the House leadership is dropping its pointless quest to maintain second-class status for lesbian and gay couples," HRC president Chad Griffin said.]

[Update at 4:45 p.m.: The spokesman for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, however, pushed for additional, immediate action.

"The Supreme Court's ruling is clear. Rather than trying to delay justice for particular married gay and lesbian couples and their families, Speaker Boehner should immediately file motions to end House Republicans' involvement in the remaining cases and stop spending taxpayer dollars to defend unconstitutional discrimination," Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill told BuzzFeed.

In addition to the McLaughlin case, there at least remains unresolved a case challenging similar statutes brought by Tracey and Maggie Cooper-Harris in federal court in California. Additional cases outstanding include Cardona v. Shinseki and Bishop v. United States.]

Read The House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group's Motion:

The suspense is killing me!

While the rest of the world waits for another monarch to be born, DC is eagerly anticipating the arrival of it's own royalty.

Via: Luke Macgregor / Reuters

But it will not look like this:

Source: country1067.com

It will look like this!!!

Source: hungeree.com

This is a titan arum (Amorphophallus titanum) and it is the largest unbranched blooming flower in the world.

Source: hungeree.com

View Entire List ›

Congresswoman Suzan DelBene is a Democratic Congresswoman from Washington, not Illinois as the press release says. To their credit, at least they got the state right in the headline.

Rep. Nick Rahall of West Virginia wants a constitutional amendment to end the debate. He joins 39 Republicans in the uphill effort.

Via: Jon C. Hancock, File / AP

WASHINGTON — West Virginia Rep. Nick Rahall has become the first Democrat to sign on to the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, which would define marriage in the U.S. as "only the union of a man and a woman."

"He apparently has a fondness for being on the wrong side of history," a Human Rights Campaign spokesman said Thursday evening.

Introduced by Rep. Tim Huelskamp of Kansas following the recent Supreme Court ruling striking down the part of the Defense of Marriage Act defining marriage in federal law, the House resolution has 39 co-sponsors, including Rahall. All the others, like Huelskamp, are Republicans.

Mississippi Rep. Gregg Harper and Rahall signed on as co-sponsors on Tuesday. None of the senior members of the House leadership have co-sponsored the measure and have, in a court filing Thursday, announced an end to their legal defense of laws like DOMA that ban federal recognition of same-sex couples' marriage rights.

The proposed amendment would read, "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

Human Rights Campaign vice president for communications Fred Sainz told BuzzFeed Thursday evening, "Congressman Rahall is signing on to a bill that luckily Speaker Boehner will never let see the light of day. Instead of standing up for hard-working West Virginia families, he's wasting valuable time and energy on an issue that's failed in Congress twice before. He apparently has a fondness for being on the wrong side of history."

A rare legal disagreement between LGBT advocates and the Obama administration.

Via: Susan Walsh, File / AP

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department has opposed a request by gay veterans and their spouses for judgment in their favor in an ongoing challenge to veterans' benefits statutes — a rare skirmish between LGBT advocates and the Obama administration on legal matters since 2011.

Citing procedural issues, Justice Department lawyers argued in a filing Thursday that a federal court in Massachusetts should not rule in favor of gay veterans and their same-sex spouses in regards to a pair of veterans' benefits provisions that define marriage to exclude same-sex couples.

The case — led by Maj. Shannon McLaughlin, a judge advocate general in Massachusetts Army National Guard, and her wife, Casey — challenges the federal definition of marriage in the Defense of Marriage Act and other provisions of federal law.

Following the Supreme Court's June 26 decision in United States v. Windsor striking down that part of DOMA, all of the parties in the Massachusetts case agree the plaintiffs in their case should win on the DOMA-related claims. In addition to challenging DOMA, though, the plaintiffs challenge two statutes in Title 38 of the U.S. Code regarding veterans' benefits that define "spouse" as "a person of the opposite sex."

"As for Plaintiffs' challenge to the definitional provisions of Title 38 regarding veterans' benefits, Defendants respectfully submit that judgment should not be entered on these claims," Justice Department lawyers wrote in a filing Thursday evening in McLaughlin v. Hagel.

Following the Windsor decision, Judge Richard Stearns had asked the parties in the McLaughlin lawsuit to give "any reasons why judgment should not enter for plaintiffs in this case."

The plaintiffs in the case, filed in Massachusetts by Servicemembers Legal Defense Network and Chadbourne and Park, argued in a Wednesday filing in the case that the decision in Windsor's case controls the outcome in their case and that Stearns should decide in their favor.

Earlier Thursday, the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group sought to withdraw from the litigation, with lawyers stating, "[T]he House has determined, in light of the Supreme Court's opinion in Windsor, that it no longer will defend that statute." They added, however, that "the House takes no position on whether 'judgment should . . . enter for plaintiffs in this case.'"

In Thursday evening's filing, Justice Department lawyers note that the government "will not defend Section 101(3) and (31) of Title 38 against challenges under the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause." This is the argument made by the plaintiffs in the case that, as with DOMA, defining marriage to exclude same-sex couples married under state law from receiving equal treatment by the federal government is unconstitutional.

The Justice Department, however, goes on to claim two reasons why the court should not rule in the veterans and their same-sex spouses on their claims regarding Title 38. The first is an argument that "no plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that he or she has applied for or would be entitled to veterans' benefits but for the definitional provisions in Title 38."

"We disagree with that and will be addressing that with the court," an attorney for the plaintiffs, Christopher Man with Chadbourne and Park, told BuzzFeed Thursday night.

The second reason, according to Justice Department lawyers, is that the court doesn't have "jurisdiction to hear any claim for veterans' benefits" because the Veterans' Judicial Review Act "provides an exclusive review scheme for veterans to pursue benefits claims, including raising constitutional challenges to statutes and regulations that govern veterans' benefits."

The Justice Department raised this jurisdictional issue previously, in a December 2012 filing in Cooper-Harris v. United States, which similarly challenges the Title 38 provisions in a federal court in California. According to the minutes from a February 25 hearing in Cooper-Harris, however, the judge rejected the arguments, per a notation that "[t]he Motion of the Federal Defendants to Dismiss is denied, formal order to follow."

Overall, regarding the filing, Man told BuzzFeed, "We appreciate that DOJ has agreed with us that each of the statutory provisions we challenged is unconstitutional, and are working with DOJ lawyers to find a solution that will provide our Plaintiffs with all the benefits they would have received if their application for benefits had not been unconstitutionally denied."

Read The DOJ Filing:

Can the man who would be New York City comptroller quell his, um, impulses? NY1 reporter Josh Robin looks back on his years of covering Spitzer to find an answer.

Via: Bethan McKernan, File / AP

Eliot Spitzer. What's the first image that comes to mind? Maybe black socks or something icky like that. Maybe his resignation in March 2008: his oversized grimace, his sheen of sweat, his wife Silda, with her colorful scarf and ashen face.

When I think of Eliot Spitzer, who is seeking to resurrect himself with a run for New York City comptroller, I remember watching him maniacally polish off a bag of Fritos when I interviewed him back in 2007 — a snack break that encapsulates all that simultaneously maddens and frightens and inspires people about the man.

First, the Fritos. It was while I was setting up for a one-on-one interview with him. Spitzer was governor, and I covered Albany for New York's cable news channel, NY1. I don't remember what I was asking. I do know that it wasn't unusual for me to get good access to Spitzer. Unlike our current governor, Spitzer was frequently available because he liked my station and because I had covered him for more than a year, from his campaign through his transition and into his stormy governorship.

I was getting ready just outside his office door at the Capitol. He emerged, a famished look slowly disappearing as he satisfied himself with what an aide had likely fetched him from a vending machine. He was scarfing the junk food. Crunch, crunch, crunch. He couldn't have taken longer than 15 seconds with the bag.

It startled me: Spitzer, after all, is a thin man. The most I'd ever seen him ingest was coffee. I realized it was probably the only thing he would eat that day. Spitzer seemed to function off pure adrenaline and, frankly, self-confidence (or ego, to his detractors). He survived on few hours of sleep each night. By the time he would report to work in the 7 a.m. range, Spitzer would have already had his run, read every paper, and formed his agenda that he had no doubt outlined in neat paragraphs in his prodigious mind.

I know this because Spitzer would talk about his bionic talents. He may have tacked on some false modesty. (Me: "You only sleep three hours a night, right?" Him: "Oh no, three and a half.") But like an athlete running up the score against a hapless opponent, Eliot Spitzer delighted in flaunting his otherworldly abilities.

And his capabilities impressed many. He was an Übermensch — a superman. The kind of person who could survive on Fritos and coffee.

***

As everyone knows, Spitzer couldn't quell all human impulses. He says he spent the five years following his prostitution scandal recognizing his humanity and atoning. He insists he is now different: less narcissistic, more reflective. "Hubris is terminal," is what he often says.

But those who have been close to him aren't sure. There was always a fine line between Spitzer's brilliance and energy — and his mania and carelessness. They wonder if this political foray is unleashing the demons. One even told me Spitzer is like an alcoholic and this latest campaign looks like a relapse. The concern isn't that he would hire prostitutes again. It's about whether he is acting with the same recklessness he exhibited in Albany, well before we knew anything about Client No. 9.

Their concern isn't misplaced. While questions about the prostitution scandal trigger appropriate remorse and reflection, Spitzer seems unwilling to acknowledge his other faults, like his time as governor. No one thinks it was a success. No one thinks it was even a mediocre stint. After Spitzer resigned, one of his best friends even wrote a tell-all titled Journal of the Plague Year.

Spitzer became governor with a mandate for changing a dysfunctional state. He says he finally funded New York City schools, began a stem cell research fund, and invested in infrastructure. Fair enough.

But all in all, one could argue he left Albany worse than when he entered. He sacrificed political capital with clumsily picked fights (including who to appoint as state comptroller, when Alan Hevesi was driven from office). He veered from one initiative to the next. Even longtime advocates of giving drivers licenses to undocumented immigrants begged him to hold off because its planning was so haphazard. His budget surpassed inflation, just as the financial crash was about to cause tax revenues to plummet. Most importantly, even as he broke the law, he didn't keep his lieutenant governor sufficiently briefed on crucial issues facing the state. It left David Paterson struggling for months to catch up.

And yet?

"I could not be prouder of what we accomplished," Spitzer told me a few days ago.

And what about the knock that the self-proclaimed steamroller doesn't play nicely?

"I worked stupendously with others, as attorney general, as governor," he told me a couple of days later. With a straight face.

This primary will be a referendum on Spitzer, and polls now show him with a double-digit lead over his rival. One poll says that 61% of voters don't know enough about Scott Stringer to form a favorable or unfavorable opinion. Stringer's numbers may improve as his campaign continues to remind voters that Spitzer can't be trusted with leadership.

"Look at the governorship," Stringer, the Manhattan borough president, told me the other day. Speaking of Spitzer, he added: "All that promise, all blew up. Because you couldn't work with people. You didn't understand how to manage people. And now you want to take a failed administration and bring it to the City of New York?"

Stringer says he won't talk about the prostitution scandal. He doesn't need to. He can campaign on Spitzer's erraticism, not his eroticism.

While Spitzer may not be the type to broadcast all his demons, he's probably only helping his rival by refusing to recognize that he's made a number of mistakes. His path to victory probably involves channeling the same passion of his days as state attorney general, with a recognition that even he could have been smarter.

***

Since I have divulged Spitzer's eating habits, it's only fair to report that I frankly don't know much about Stringer's. His girth suggests he doesn't starve himself. His spectacles and fraying tie suggest what one imagines a comptroller should look like. Or a character out of Gogol. And yet supporting Stringer has its cachet. He carries the enthusiastic endorsement of Scarlett Johansson, whom he knows through her grandmother, and Lena Dunham, through his campaign spokeswoman.

Stringer, 53, has a job carrying considerably less power than it did a generation ago, before a U.S. Supreme Court ruling forced the city to rejigger its hierarchy. Reports issued from his office on such topics as public housing and increasing access to fresh produce are seen as thoughtful, if of limited influence. Stringer is given credit as a reformer for his time as an assemblyman, most notably for helping to ban "empty seat voting" — that is, voting when you're not really there, through surrogates.

On the campaign trail, he often talks about his father's time as a deputy in the comptroller's office in the early '70s, under Abe Beame. It may not be the best name to drop. Beame would become mayor when the city just about went bust.

When the news broke that Spitzer was entering the race, Stringer had the look of a man who had just eaten sour cream that had turned. Until late last year, he was running for mayor, but he dropped out to run in what had been an unopposed primary for comptroller. His summer plans for an easy race ruined, he now looks determined.

Expect more talk from him about Spitzer's problems with "anger management." It will remind voters of the 14 months in Albany. One problem, though, is that Spitzer isn't running for another executive position, like mayor, where he'd need to deal with a legislature. He's running for comptroller, and a key part of that job is overseeing how the city is run by auditing city agencies. You can expect Comptroller Spitzer to offer a steady diet of meaty reports faulting various government agencies. These reports could expose flaws in how taxpayer money is spent. They could serve to raise Spitzer's profile at the expense of the new mayor's, preparing him for a possible 2017 run. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

The comptroller also oversees the city's $140 billion pension fund. Previous comptrollers largely left pension fund management to professionals promising nothing but the highest return — divesting only under strong political pressure. Not so with Spitzer. He will be an activist investor, intent on using the position's control to advance his societal goals for the city, and for capitalism in general. I'm not reporting that as a good or bad thing — it's just what we can expect he'll do. But he won't be able to do it unilaterally. Pensions are governed by a board of trustees.

"Eliot's going to have to recalibrate his work style in order to get work done," a former top comptroller aide told me.

***

The day after Spitzer announced his candidacy, he was in Union Square. It was billed as a chance to get voters to sign his ballot petition, but really it was to finally make a public appearance.

Scores of us showed up. Some carried microphone flags of foreign stations. Hecklers shouted about hookers and black socks and Howard Stern. It was sweltering, and the air amid the clutch of reporters pressing into the candidate must have swelled to more than 100 degrees.

Through it, I never saw Spitzer so much as dab the sweat glistening on his head. He kept his suit blazer buttoned much of the time, and rarely shed his smile. I could see it through the cracks between shoulders and hulky television cameras.

The Union Square Greenmarket was in the park that day, and during an hour-long walk, Spitzer passed rows of tables and carts swollen with fruits and juices and vegetables. Spitzer didn't drink or eat anything.

Josh Robin is a political reporter and anchor for NY1, New York City's all-news station. You can follow him on Twitter @joshrobin.

After 16 years, the proto-sports desk anchor for a generation of fans is back home. Why the pairing might actually work out this time.

Via: ESPN

Amid the groundswell of nostalgia and good feelings that have enveloped the return of Keith Olbermann into the ESPN family this week, it's hard to believe he was only at the network (which included a brief detour to launch ESPN2) for five years. By 1997, he and the network had parted ways, after Olbermann became frustrated with internal politics and his irascible persona had burned every bridge inside Bristol save for the one leading to the exits. Given that acrimony, when his new late-night ESPN2 talk show, set to debut in late August, was formally announced this week, it was somewhat odd that his return felt like a celebratory homecoming.

But that was because the original Olbermann fans never really cared about the internal politics of ESPN. And they were never all that invested in Olbermann's incarnation as an indignant liberal commentator on MSNBC or as a subject of inside-the-media gossip. No, to sports fans of a certain age, his Special Comments and feuds with Bill O'Reilly felt like a bad facsimile of the man who peppered SportsCenter highlight packages with an array of amusing catchphrases. There was no grandiosity in those days, just wry humor to complement an exhaustive sports knowledge and improv skills that could brighten the dullest program.

And so now that Olbermann has returned to ESPN 16 years later, people are rightfully wondering if we'll get The Big Personality, the one on full show during his the MSNBC years — and a subsequent run at Current TV from which he was fired — or the understated wiseass who charmed us all during his first tour of duty. The safe bet is some hybrid of the two, with the occasional big statement and gesture, since the battle to make noise and keep the upstart Fox Sports 1 network at bay will be a priority from the moment the channel hits the airwaves. Olbermann's debut on ESPN2 comes a week after FS1 goes live, but there are rumblings that Olbermann may be asked to host SportsCenter in the week running up to his show's first episode. (Although guest-hosting would presumably require going to Bristol, Olbermann's show will based in Manhattan, away from his old colleagues at HQ in Connecticut.)

Olbermann will show up five nights a week for an hour a pop, but the grind should be no issue for him. The New Republic's Marc Tracy writes this week about Olberman's triumphant cobbling-together of a Mickey Mantle obit under immense time constraints back in the day. Ideally, what we can expect is some more mature, seasoned version of the Olbermann who left in 1997 — one that combines the less ostentatious personality of his previous ESPN stint with the reporting and storytelling skills he's no doubt improved in his time as a news anchor. He'll also have more talent to work with, and more mediums in which to work, at ESPN, which has added countless reporters and online platforms like Grantland since he left. (Olbermann's recent baseball blogging has been a joy unto itself.) It's been a long road back to ESPN for Olbermann, but for old-time fans who can remember the days before political punditry wore down his public image, there's hope that the guy we used to meet for a few laughs every night at 11 is still in there somewhere.

Source: youtube.com

He also ribbed on Anthony Weiner and Eliot Spitzer.

View Video ›

Via:

“When you are raped it takes a piece of your soul.”

Here is Victoria Sanders, a U.S. Army veteran who was raped early in her service career, describing being harassed after reporting her rape:

View Video ›

Sanders was speaking before the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Health Friday. The hearing was on "Safety for Survivors: Care and Treatment for Military Sexual Trauma."

Via:

Here's Sanders' full statement to the committee:

View Video ›

“We’re trying to find out what’s going to happen before it happens,” Litt says.

Robert Litt, General Counsel in the ODNI.

Via: Jacquelyn Martin / AP

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration's top intelligence attorney aggressively defended the the use of widespread domestic spying operations Friday, arguing the programs disclosed by Edward Snowden are critical to the nation's safety.

Robert Litt, the General Counsel of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, has increasingly become the public face of the NSA as Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has stayed more in the background after being caught lying to Congress about the NSA's data collection activities.

On Friday during an hour-long speech at the Brookings Institution, Litt argued that the telephone records collection and the PRISM program are being held accountable by all three branches of government and defended the fact that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court's rulings are classified. Still, Litt refused to go into detail about some of the aspects of the surveillance state which have most confused the American public in the wake of Snowden's disclosures.

Litt defended the mysterious FISA court from allegations that it does little to scrutinize requests from the intelligence committee for surveillance warrants.

"I would like to correct the erroneous claim that the FISA court is a rubber stamp," Litt said. "Some people assume that because the court approves almost every application, that it doesn't give the applications appropriate scrutiny." This, Litt said, is not true.

Asked by an audience member why the FISA court has to be so secret, Litt said "the fact that it's secret is a necessary consequence of the fact that it's overseeing secret activities."

"One of the hurdles to declassification earlier was that the existence of the program was classified," Litt said.

Litt said that the intelligence community welcomes a debate about surveillance tactics but that this should have happened without the aid of Edward Snowden.

"Discussion of these authorities can and should have taken place without these disclosures," he said.

Litt said that it was "It is too early to tell" if Snowden's leaks would change the way terrorists conduct their communications methods in the long term, but hinted that discussion of the leaks was flawed because "the disclosures were made by people who did not fully understand what they were talking about." He also called the disclosures "reckless."

He said that 54 terrorist threats had been foiled by NSA's programs, including 41 abroad, and that this was proof that the intelligence community requires a broad mandate to sweep up data pre-emptively, as opposed to using probable cause to collect data.

"We're trying to find out what's going to happen before it happens," Litt said.

"We do not indiscriminately sweep up and store the contents of communications of Americans or the citizens of any country," Litt said.

Litt said that the PRISM and telephone data (which has been ordered from "several telecommunications companies") is kept in "secure databases," and said that there were other databases as well for other materials.

"I don't know what's in every one of NSA's databases," he said when pressed about what was in these databases.

Litt's speech comes as criticism is heating up in Congress about the surveillance programs; Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon), one of the top civil libertarians in the Senate, is giving a speech on the subject next week.

“If a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different.” President Obama makes a surprise appearance on Friday in the White House briefing room.

"Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago."

View Video ›

"If a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different."

View Video ›

Complete Video:

Source: youtube.com  /  via: White House

I wanted to come out here, first of all, to tell you that Jay is prepared for all your questions and is very much looking forward to the session. The second thing is I want to let you know that over the next couple of weeks, there's going to obviously be a whole range of issues -- immigration, economics, et cetera -- we'll try to arrange a fuller press conference to address your questions.

The reason I actually wanted to come out today is not to take questions, but to speak to an issue that obviously has gotten a lot of attention over the course of the last week -- the issue of the Trayvon Martin ruling. I gave a preliminary statement right after the ruling on Sunday. But watching the debate over the course of the last week, I thought it might be useful for me to expand on my thoughts a little bit.

First of all, I want to make sure that, once again, I send my thoughts and prayers, as well as Michelle's, to the family of Trayvon Martin, and to remark on the incredible grace and dignity with which they've dealt with the entire situation. I can only imagine what they're going through, and it's remarkable how they've handled it.

The second thing I want to say is to reiterate what I said on Sunday, which is there's going to be a lot of arguments about the legal issues in the case -- I'll let all the legal analysts and talking heads address those issues. The judge conducted the trial in a professional manner. The prosecution and the defense made their arguments. The juries were properly instructed that in a case such as this reasonable doubt was relevant, and they rendered a verdict. And once the jury has spoken, that's how our system works. But I did want to just talk a little bit about context and how people have responded to it and how people are feeling.

You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago. And when you think about why, in the African-American community at least, there's a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it's important to recognize that the African-American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that doesn't go away.

There are very few African-American men in this country who haven't had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me. There are very few African-American men who haven't had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me — at least before I was a senator. There are very few African-Americans who haven't had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off. That happens often.

And I don't want to exaggerate this, but those sets of experiences inform how the African-American community interprets what happened one night in Florida. And it's inescapable for people to bring those experiences to bear. The African-American community is also knowledgeable that there is a history of racial disparities in the application of our criminal laws — everything from the death penalty to enforcement of our drug laws. And that ends up having an impact in terms of how people interpret the case.

Now, this isn't to say that the African-American community is naïve about the fact that African-American young men are disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system; that they're disproportionately both victims and perpetrators of violence. It's not to make excuses for that fact — although black folks do interpret the reasons for that in a historical context. They understand that some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighborhoods around the country is born out of a very violent past in this country, and that the poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities can be traced to a very difficult history.

And so the fact that sometimes that's unacknowledged adds to the frustration. And the fact that a lot of African-American boys are painted with a broad brush and the excuse is given, well, there are these statistics out there that show that African-American boys are more violent — using that as an excuse to then see sons treated differently causes pain.

I think the African-American community is also not naïve in understanding that, statistically, somebody like Trayvon Martin was statistically more likely to be shot by a peer than he was by somebody else. So folks understand the challenges that exist for African-American boys. But they get frustrated, I think, if they feel that there's no context for it and that context is being denied. And that all contributes, I think, to a sense that if a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, that, from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different.

Now, the question for me at least, and I think for a lot of folks, is, where do we take this? How do we learn some lessons from this and move in a positive direction? I think it's understandable that there have been demonstrations and vigils and protests, and some of that stuff is just going to have to work its way through, as long as it remains nonviolent. If I see any violence, then I will remind folks that that dishonors what happened to Trayvon Martin and his family. But beyond protests or vigils, the question is, are there some concrete things that we might be able to do.

I know that Eric Holder is reviewing what happened down there, but I think it's important for people to have some clear expectations here. Traditionally, these are issues of state and local government, the criminal code. And law enforcement is traditionally done at the state and local levels, not at the federal levels.

That doesn't mean, though, that as a nation we can't do some things that I think would be productive. So let me just give a couple of specifics that I'm still bouncing around with my staff, so we're not rolling out some five-point plan, but some areas where I think all of us could potentially focus.

Number one, precisely because law enforcement is often determined at the state and local level, I think it would be productive for the Justice Department, governors, mayors, to work with law enforcement about training at the state and local levels in order to reduce the kind of mistrust in the system that sometimes currently exists.

When I was in Illinois, I passed racial profiling legislation, and it actually did just two simple things. One, it collected data on traffic stops and the race of the person who was stopped. But the other thing was it resourced us training police departments across the state on how to think about potential racial bias and ways to further professionalize what they were doing.

And initially, the police departments across the state were resistant, but actually they came to recognize that if it was done in a fair, straightforward way, that it would allow them to do their jobs better and communities would have more confidence in them and, in turn, be more helpful in applying the law. And obviously, law enforcement has got a very tough job.

So that's one area where I think there are a lot of resources and best practices that could be brought to bear if state and local governments are receptive. And I think a lot of them would be. And let's figure out, are there ways for us to push out that kind of training?

Along the same lines, I think it would be useful for us to examine some state and local laws to see if it — if they are designed in such a way that they may encourage the kinds of altercations and confrontations and tragedies that we saw in the Florida case, rather than diffuse potential altercations.

I know that there's been commentary about the fact that the "stand your ground" laws in Florida were not used as a defense in the case. On the other hand, if we're sending a message as a society in our communities that someone who is armed potentially has the right to use those firearms even if there's a way for them to exit from a situation, is that really going to be contributing to the kind of peace and security and order that we'd like to see?

And for those who resist that idea that we should think about something like these "stand your ground" laws, I'd just ask people to consider, if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman who had followed him in a car because he felt threatened? And if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, then it seems to me that we might want to examine those kinds of laws.

Number three — and this is a long-term project — we need to spend some time in thinking about how do we bolster and reinforce our African-American boys. And this is something that Michelle and I talk a lot about. There are a lot of kids out there who need help who are getting a lot of negative reinforcement. And is there more that we can do to give them the sense that their country cares about them and values them and is willing to invest in them?

I'm not naïve about the prospects of some grand, new federal program. I'm not sure that that's what we're talking about here. But I do recognize that as president, I've got some convening power, and there are a lot of good programs that are being done across the country on this front. And for us to be able to gather together business leaders and local elected officials and clergy and celebrities and athletes, and figure out how are we doing a better job helping young African-American men feel that they're a full part of this society and that they've got pathways and avenues to succeed — I think that would be a pretty good outcome from what was obviously a tragic situation. And we're going to spend some time working on that and thinking about that.

And then, finally, I think it's going to be important for all of us to do some soul-searching. There has been talk about, should we convene a conversation on race? I haven't seen that be particularly productive when politicians try to organize conversations. They end up being stilted and politicized, and folks are locked into the positions they already have. On the other hand, in families and churches and workplaces, there's the possibility that people are a little bit more honest, and at least you ask yourself your own questions about, am I wringing as much bias out of myself as I can? Am I judging people as much as I can, based on not the color of their skin, but the content of their character? That would, I think, be an appropriate exercise in the wake of this tragedy.

And let me just leave you with a final thought that, as difficult and challenging as this whole episode has been for a lot of people, I don't want us to lose sight that things are getting better. Each successive generation seems to be making progress in changing attitudes when it comes to race. It doesn't mean we're in a post-racial society. It doesn't mean that racism is eliminated. But when I talk to Malia and Sasha, and I listen to their friends and I seem them interact, they're better than we are — they're better than we were — on these issues. And that's true in every community that I've visited all across the country.

And so we have to be vigilant and we have to work on these issues. And those of us in authority should be doing everything we can to encourage the better angels of our nature, as opposed to using these episodes to heighten divisions. But we should also have confidence that kids these days, I think, have more sense than we did back then, and certainly more than our parents did or our grandparents did; and that along this long, difficult journey, we're becoming a more perfect union — not a perfect union, but a more perfect union.

Thank you, guys.

View Entire List ›

“Detroit’s not going into bankruptcy.”

Via: Carlos Osorio / AP

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder approved plans for Detroit to file for Chapter 9 bankruptcy Thursday. Snyder said "the fiscal realities confronting Detroit have been ignored for too long," adding bankruptcy was the "only reasonable alternative that is available."

The Michigan Governor, however, had previously vowed he would never let Detroit go through bankruptcy.

"Detroit's not going into bankruptcy," Snyder said to reporters in June 2011 at a meeting with three top bond rating agencies in New York. "We're going to work hard to make sure we don't need an emergency manager, and bankruptcy shouldn't be on the table."

"The goal isn't to go into bankruptcy," Snyder said in March during an appearance on CNN's The Situation Room. "The goal is to solve the problem. And that's the focus that Kevyn [Orr, Detroit's emergency manager] is going to have and that's one reason I was excited to get Kevyn onboard. He is one of the best restructuring bankruptcy people in the country and to make people know this is serious. But, again, the goal is to work together as a team, go to creditors, work through this in a constructive, positive process, as opposed to just running to bankruptcy."

"The goal is not to be in bankruptcy," Snyder said just this Tuesday. "Any actions where Kevyn can come to an agreement with creditors or action in terms of moving forward is a positive thing whether or not there's a bankruptcy. Again, the goal is not to be in bankruptcy. The goal is to get a resolution with creditors that allows Detroit to be successful."

On Thursday Detroit became the biggest U.S. city to file for bankruptcy.

The first black president explains what it’s like to be a black man in America.

Via: Larry Downing / Reuters

WASHINGTON — President Obama surprised the country Friday with some of his most frank comments about race in America since his famous race speech on the campaign trail in 2007.

In 20 minutes of remarks before the regularly scheduled White House press briefing unannounced by the White House staff beforehand, the president laid out a very personal case for why African-Americans are so outraged by the verdict in the George Zimmerman case — and said that despite the tensions following the verdict, America is on a long, winding path away from racism.

But the country isn't there yet, Obama said.

"When you think about why, in the African-American community at least, there's a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it's important to recognize that the African-American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that doesn't go away," he said. Growing up black and male in America is growing up under suspicion, Obama said, and that's why the Martin case resonated so strongly.

"There are very few African-American men in this country who haven't had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me," he said. "There are probably very few African-American men who haven't had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me — at least before I was a senator."

"There are very few African-Americans who haven't had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off," he added. "That happens often...I don't want to exaggerate this, but those sets of experiences inform how the African-American community interprets what happened one night in Florida."

Obama declined to weigh in on the verdict itself, saying only that the trial was "professional" and the jury "had spoken." Instead, in personal terms, Obama called on the case to be the starting point for a new conversation in America about black men and the struggles they face in modern society. Rather than be the nation's lawyer-in-chief when it came to the intricacies of the trial, Obama decided to be its racial educator-in-chief. It's a role he's played before, but seldom with the passion he brought to the conversation Friday.

"The African-American community is also knowledgeable that there is a history of racial disparities in the application of our criminal laws, everything from the death penalty to enforcement of our drug laws. And that ends up having an impact in terms of how people interpret the case," Obama said. "This isn't to say that the African-American community is naive about the fact that African-American young men are disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system, that they're disproportionately both victims and perpetrators of violence. It's not to make excuses for that fact."

Obama embraced Attorney General Eric Holder's call to reevaluate "Stand Your Ground" and similar self-defense legal constructs after the Zimmerman verdict, and called on the federal government to lead an effort to help state and local law enforcement agencies confront the skepticism they face from African-Americans. He suggested one way to do that would be through data collection, breaking down arrests and other interactions with the law along racial lines as he did with legislation in Illinois when he was state legislator.

"For those who resist that idea, that we should think about something like these 'Stand Your Ground' laws, I just ask people to consider, if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman, who had followed him in a car, because he felt threatened?" Obama said. "And if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, then it seems to me that we might want to examine those kinds of laws."

Beyond those comments, though, Obama said he sees America shifting away from the racial ugliness in its past, though he said the process is ongoing. He said it's time for Americans to ask themselves if they're helping that process move along.

"In families and churches and workplaces, there's a possibility that people are a little bit more honest and at least you ask yourself your own questions about, 'Am I wringing as much bias out of myself as I can? Am I judging people as much as I can based on not the color of their skin, but the content of their character?'" Obama said. "That would, I think, be an appropriate exercise in the wake of this tragedy."

Progress has been made, Obama said. But unless white and black America can have a real dialogue after events like the Martin killing, that progress will be slowed.

"Each successive generation seems to be making progress in changing attitudes when it comes to race. It doesn't mean we're in a post-racial society. It doesn't mean that racism is eliminated," Obama said. "But, you know, when I talk to Malia and Sasha and I listen to their friends and I see them interact, they're better than we are. They're better than we were on these issues."

"We have to be vigilant," he added. "And we have to work on these issues. And those of us in authority should be doing everything we can to encourage the better angels of our — nature as opposed to using these episodes to heighten divisions."

LINK: Related: Obama's Remarks on Trayvon Martin

View Entire List ›