Georgia's U.S. Senate hopefuls gathered in Atlanta for their latest debate last night, and viewers saw a striking encapsulation of contemporary politics.
Michelle Nunn (D), echoing her usual message, emphasized the need for compromise. "I just don't believe that it's one party or the other. I think it has to be both sides coming together," she said. "I think that we do have a very clear contrast in terms of how we see breaking through that dysfunction. I don't think it's about prosecuting the other party; I think it's about problem-solving."
"I disagree," Perdue answered. "When you have a failed presidency, you have to prosecute it," he said.... "When we look at the direction of this country, we've got to make a hard right-hand turn."
Those 31 words are arguably the most emblematic I've heard in a while of the current partisan divide. The Democrat struck a non-partisan tone, emphasizing governing and problem-solving, while the Republican forcefully rejected such an approach, insisting instead on a "hard right-hand turn." Every pundit who likes to maintain the fiction that "both sides" are to blame for Capitol Hill dysfunction should keep this exchange in mind.
Benjy Sarlin reported overnight, "Perdue told reporters after the debate that the 'hard right-hand turn' was 'a metaphorical statement, not a political statement.'"
I honestly have no idea what that means. A Senate candidate appeared at a debate. His opponent said policymakers should focus on governing. He said he disagreed and demanded the United States take a "hard right-hand turn."
Obviously, it was metaphorical -- David Perdue wasn't giving anyone driving directions -- but for the far-right candidate to argue his comments weren't "political" is so hopelessly ridiculous, it's alarming that the Republican said this with a straight face.
Americans first learned back on June 24, more than four months ago, about the House Republican plan to file a lawsuit against President Obama. Two weeks later, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) announced the basis for the case: the GOP would sue to implement an obscure provision of the Affordable Care Act, which Republicans don't actually want to see implemented.
When the case was announced, congressional Republicans made it seem as if they were headed to court as part of a bold move to preserve our constitutional system of government against the tyrannical moves of a lawless presidency. But four months later, it looks as if Boehner & Co. got lost on the way to the courthouse.
Josh Gerstein reports that the case hasn't even been filed yet.
It takes about 10 minutes to walk from the Capitol to the federal courthouse just down the hill, but House Republicans haven't managed to make that trip in the four months since they announced they'd be suing the president.
House Speaker John Boehner came out swinging hard last June when he announced that his chamber would take President Barack Obama to court. The suit, charging that the president grossly exceeded his constitutional authority by failing to implement portions of the Obamacare law, was billed as an election-season rallying point for aggrieved Republicans. But days before the midterms, the House's legal guns seem to have fallen silent.
Lawyers close to the process said they originally expected the legal challenge to be filed in September, but now they don't expect any action before the elections.
Republicans not only won't file the case, they also refuse to say why they won't file the case -- party officials refused to explain the delay when asked by Politico for comment.
"I thought this was a constitutional crisis and the republic was in jeopardy because Obama overstepped his bounds. Now, they can't even get around to filing it?" former Democratic House Counsel Stan Brand told Gerstein. "It, to me, emphasizes the not-serious nature of it."
On Friday, Kaci Hickox, a Doctors Without Borders nurse, arrived back in the United States after helping treat patients in West Africa. It was not a happy return: after arriving at an airport in New Jersey, officials put her in quarantine.
Hickox's isolation is the result of a new policy endorsed last week by Govs. Chris Christie (R) of New Jersey and Andrew Cuomo (D) of New York, who announced new guidelines requiring 21-day quarantines for those arriving from West Africa -- whether they're showing symptoms or not.
The result is a scenario that seems hard to believe: New Jersey has effectively detained a nurse in a tent with no shower, not because she's showing symptoms of the Ebola virus, but because officials fear she might at some point show symptoms of the Ebola virus.
Christie defended the mandatory quarantine, saying the nurse was "obviously ill." This was apparently obvious only to the governor -- who has no background in medicine or public health -- and was clearly not obvious to Hickox herself.
Christie boasted on one of the Sunday shows yesterday, "I absolutely have no second thoughts about it," adding that he expects his policy to soon become "a national policy." A few hours later, however, second thoughts emerged.
Facing fierce resistance from the White House and medical experts to a strict new mandatory quarantine policy, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo said on Sunday night that medical workers who had contact with Ebola patients in West Africa but did not show symptoms of the disease would be allowed to remain at home and would receive compensation for lost income. [...]
After Mr. Cuomo's announcement, Mr. Christie issued a statement saying that, under protocols announced on Wednesday, New Jersey residents not displaying symptoms would also be allowed to quarantine in their homes.
The shifts came on the heels of White House pressure on Cuomo and Christie, urging them to adopt policies more in line with science. It's unclear whether the revised approach will allow Hickox to leave her state-mandated tent.
There are a few angles to this to keep in mind, not the least of which the dubious legality of New Jersey imposing a mandatory quarantine on a woman who's reportedly asymptomatic. Forcing medical professionals to remain in their homes for 21 days is marginally better, at least with regards to their personal convenience, but remains problematic. Indeed, by the same reasoning, states would have to impose similar penalties on doctors and nurses treating an Ebola patient in the United States.
This stunning new image taken by NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope shows stars actively being born over 33 million light-years away. Spitzer is one of NASA's Great Observatories, focused on the infrared part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Infrared is light that has less energy and a longer wavelength than the red light our eyes can see. Discovered in 1800 by William Herschel (an astronomer), it's somewhat analogous to thermal radiation. You've probably seen it visualized many times in movies and on TV by characters using night-vision goggles. By comparison, Spitzer is like night-vision on steroids.
In the universe, infrared radiation comes primarily from gas and dust. People often think space is completely empty between stars and between galaxies, and while it's true the density of particles drops off dramatically, there is still a considerable amount of gas and dust floating around. This material is important to astronomers because it acts as fuel for star formation and hungry black holes, both of which influence how galaxies grow and evolve.
This image from Spitzer shows active star formation in a galaxy known as NGC 1291 (creatively named as the 1291st object in the New General Catalog). The colors in this image represent wavelengths and not what our eyes would actually see. Shorter infrared wavelengths (closer to red light in the visible spectrum) are blue and longer infrared wavelengths (closer to microwave radiation) are red. The blue areas therefore represent actual stars (stars give off infrared light at higher frequencies) while the red areas represent concentrations of gas and dust.
The concentration of blue in the center tells astronomers that the stars in the central bulge are older and have long exhausted their supply of gas and dust for making new stars. Conversely, the bright red ring shows that large amounts of gas and dust are now concentrated in the outskirts of the galaxy, which will lead to a burst of star formation and millions of new stars. The timeline for when star formation shifts from the center to the outer regions of a galaxy depends strongly on the structure and dynamics of each individual galaxy. So observations like this are not only gorgeous to look at, but are valuable new data points for astronomers working in the field of galaxy evolution.
First up from the God Machine this week is a story out of Alabama, where voters will decide on Election Day whether to change the state Constitution in a provocative way.
This year's "Amendment One" in Alabama, on the surface, may seem uncontroversial. Its text seeks to prohibit "the application of foreign laws" that may violate "a right guaranteed by the Alabama Constitution or of the United States Constitution." At first blush, it seems hard to object to a measure like this.
But taking this one step further, a question arises: since when does Alabama apply foreign laws that violate Americans' existing rights? If that's never happened -- and it hasn't -- then why change the Constitution to address an imaginary threat?
The amendment’s text never explicitly references Sharia, but as the Greene County Democrat reports, it’s merely the latest incarnation of anti-Sharia legislation in the state. It’s also the brainchild of State Sen. Gerald Allen (R-Tuscaloosa), who sponsored the original, failed version of the bill in 2011. Critics panned Allen for being unable to name any examples of Alabama Muslims attempting to enforce Sharia. His bill received another major blow when the Anniston Star revealed its text had been partially plagiarized from Wikipedia.
Ah, yes, now it makes sense. This isn't just about prohibiting "the application of foreign laws"; this is about anti-Muslim paranoia. In recent years, the threat of "creeping Sharia law" has been common in right-wing circles -- it was even an element of Newt Gingrich's 2012 presidential platform -- and now Alabama voters are being asked to change their state Constitution to enshrine that paranoia into law.
If this sounds at all familiar, in 2010, voters in Oklahoma easily approved their own anti-sharia state constitutional amendment. Its chief sponsor, Republican Rex Duncan, described his measure as a "preemptive strike," which struck me as a clever euphemism for "addressing a threat that does not exist."
Federal courts soon after rejected the measure. Don't be too surprised if Alabama's proposal meets a similar fate.
Rachel Maddow contrasts the response to Ebola by responsible public officials with the irresponsible panic-pushing of some Republicans who deliberately undermine confidence in public health authorities with made-up disinformation. watch
Dr. Irwin Redlener, of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness, talks with Rachel Maddow about balancing policy between what science calls for and what may ease public anxiety without being necessary, as N.Y. and N.J. tighten quarantine rules. watch
Rachel Maddow reports on a school shooting in Washington, north of Seattle, where police had previously practiced response drills and the local hospital had also run drills should their school ever join the list of sites of tragic gun violence. watch
Rachel Maddow debunks right wing hysteria over video of a man dropping off absentee ballots in Arizona, and highlights Republican Governors Association chair, Chris Christie, speaking plainly about the advantage Republicans have in Republican-run... watch