Month: December 2012

I recently called filibusters "an attack on our Constitution" because senators can grind the legislative process to a halt by merely threatening to speak. Patrick Sharma imagines how the Senate could reform the laws to stop it:

One option would be to prevent the "most boring relay race" scenario by requiring an increasing number of minority senators to be present in the chamber as a filibuster progresses. Another would be to reverse the cloture rule and put the burden on the minority to deliver 41 votes in order to continue debate.

But many senators are reluctant to pursue filibuster reform. Some are traditionalists and believe the rules should be left untouched. Others want to have the silent filibuster at their disposal when they eventually end up in the minority. And some worry that any change to the rules will be framed in the media as a "power grab” or “cheating."

However, history shows that when minority obstruction reaches peak levels, the Senate changes its rules in response. The question isn’t whether this is going to happen again — it’s when.

Like South Park, it's funnier with the bleeps:

A reader writes:

Should you find yourself looking for something to write about, I just found out that one of the greatest benefits available to every servicemember – from a Private who has only been in the military for a few months to a General who has devoted 30 + years of his life in service to his country – is not available to me, a currently serving military officer with more than 20 years of service. Because our marriage is not recognized by the Federal Government, my husband and I are not eligible to apply together for a VA home loan.

Someday, the full benefits we have earned in the service of this nation will be realized. But until that day, please wish us continued patience as we navigate the treachery of the so-called Defense Of Marriage Act and the far-reaching unconstitutionality of legislation developed in ignorance and motivated by bigotry. Our bank (Wells Fargo, an ally to the gay community for years) are livid and are working to find other ways to accommodate us. But, they shouldn't have to.

The indignities of bad public policy are far reaching and gay and lesbian servicemembers – and their families – have no end in sight to this separate treatment.

June, maybe?

This video of an eagle picking up and dropping a young child, which made the rounds yesterday, is fake:

But there are historical accounts of large birds going after children. Forrest Wickman is skeptical:

Even the largest North American birds—such as the bald eagle, the golden eagle, and the great horned owl—don’t commonly attack humans, and can’t lift much more than a few pounds. (When large birds are shown attacking wolves and knocking goats off of cliffs in videos, they’re moving or dragging the animals, not lifting them.) Moreover, when these birds swoop in to attack larger prey, they usually kill the animal on the spot, often by crushing it with their claws, and might eat it right there. This is because flying away with a large animal that’s struggling to get free is usually too much of a risk.

Dan Nosowitz points out that an eagle that went extinct in the 1400s could have definitely handled the job:

The golden eagle, which is very common, has been known to hunt wolves and deer. It is a fearsome and formidable hunter. And it was about half the weight of a Haast's eagle, and nowhere near as powerful. The golden eagle hunts deer? Pretty impressive. The Haast's eagle hunted 12-foot-tall monster birds, striking at estimated speeds of 50 mph with the force of a cinder block dropped from an eight-story building. It didn't carry off prey, like that likely-fake Montreal golden eagle, but instead used its talons—the same size as a tiger's claws—to kill on the ground. One talon would grab the monster bird by the pelvis, and the other would deliver a crushing blow to the neck and head. The Haast's eagle's genus name is Harpagornis—a combination of Greek words meaning "grappling hook" and "bird." Yeah.

Jonathan Cohn examines the state of the fiscal cliff negotiations:

What happens now? Obama has sent a strong signal that he’s done with major concessions. The administration apparently imagined that its most recent offer was close to its final one—that the debate had come down to the numbers and that, in relative terms, the two sides were not that far apart. Obviously that was not the case. And whether Obama made the compromise offer because he is a lousy negotiator or because, given the economic and political alternatives, he felt compelled to pursue seriously a major deal—the two explanations are not mutually exclusive—it’s hard to imagine him budging much from his current position. Republicans, also prone to misjudging the contours of negotiations, may be skeptical. That would be a mistake—if only because, if Obama tries, the liberals who have supported him will go into open revolt. As they should. 

Steinglass believes that Obama may succeed in "dividing and weakening the Republican Party":

Fostering the civil war in the Republican Party is crucial to Mr Obama's chances of getting any part of his agenda passed over the next four years. The top items on that agenda are climate-change legislation, immigration reform, and (suddenly) gun control, along with keeping up some measure of progressive stimulus until the economy is fully recovering. But if the Republican faction in the House stays as united as it has been for the past 18 years, only immigration reform has any chance of passing. If Mr Obama can crack Republican party discipline on taxes, he may be able to press the other items on his agenda as well. Alternatively, he can look forward to elections against a divided, angry GOP in 2014, and hope to go into the last two years of his term with a stronger position in the House.

(Chart of all the fiscal cliff proposals and counter-proposals from Dylan Matthews)

Aaron Carroll, a pediatrician, advocates for more mental health services:

I've seen mental health illness in children, and our system is ill-equipped to handle it. I've seen families struggle with it. One of my greatest frustrations with clinical practice is that there are far too many times when I lack the tools necessary to care for children who need help. It's relatively easy to cure an infection or an acute physical ailment. It's so much harder to take a mental health issue. There are rarely pills that will do the job. Even when they are, they almost never work perfectly to eradicate the problem.

Studies show that more than 10% of children in the United States might benefit from some sort of mental health treatment. Most don't get it.

Reader thoughts on mental illness here.

A reader writes:

I've also been thinking a lot about this question. Isn't rushing the gunman what Sandy Hook principal Dawn Hochsprung essentially did?  We see how well that worked out for her.

Another:

Surely the question of whether or not to rush a gunman depends entirely on your proximity to him. I was involved in aborting a robbery in New York about twenty years ago when several people and I rushed a mugger on the 125th Street elevated subway platform. But he was less than ten feet from me and I had no idea whether he had a gun or not (he did have a knife, which we wrestled away from him). If he were farther down the platform and pointing a firearm at me I can tell you I probably would not have taken that action.

Do we even know what happened in the halls of Sandy Hook Elementary? Perhaps the school principle and the psychologist did this very thing. And perhaps they're dead today because of it. We just don't know, and anyone who argues for some course of action as if that's the obvious answer to such an incredibly volatile situation is living in a dream world.

Another:

Your reader who cited Marine Corps tactics is correct, but his analogy is off.

The react to near or far ambush battle drill we practice in the military does indeed state that the ambushed unit is supposed to counterattack immediately (and violently). This is because the tactical situation rightly assumes that anyone caught lingering in the kill zone will be dead in mere seconds. But an active shooter situation is not the same as a military ambush – active shooters target the unarmed, and the unarmed can't provide covering fire for the counterattack.

If I was caught in an active shooter situation unarmed, I'd seek cover and concealment and wait for the first responders to arrive. Police doctrinally are supposed to rush into an active shooter situation as soon as they get two or three officers on scene and take out the threat, so it wouldn't be long after the 911 call went out. The only situation in which I'd rush a shooter, unarmed, was if they were out of ammo or if they were experiencing a weapons malfunction and can't perform immediate action in the time it take for me to tackle them.

Another references the above video:

Mythbusters did an episode on this, though the actual question was should you bring a knife to a gun fight?  They were obviously not using a semi automatic weapon.  They started the experiment like a gun fight from an old Western, with the two parties about 50 feet apart.  The finding was that if you started rushing the shooter as he started to reach for his gun, you would be able to strike with the knife before he could draw and shoot.

Another:

I have not seen you cite an obvious drawback in the "rush the gunman" strategy: suppose the gunman could have been talked down. By rushing him, isn’t that likely to lead him to pull the trigger a few times, and kill a few people? In a school setting, I would guess a fair percentage of those who bring guns and wave them in a threatening way can be talked down without casualties. So the rush the gunman strategy seems likely to lead to more deaths rather than fewer, even if teachers and schoolchildren were following it perfectly.

Another ties in a somewhat related post:

I know that you post the Malkin Awards so that we can all shame the dumbassery that prevails in some corners of the Internet, and I normally think that's great.  But that statement by Charlotte Allen of the NRO puts me in such a rage that I wish you hadn't publicized it by reposting.  It really makes me think I ought to just give up the Internet altogether, because then I wouldn't have to be confronted with the notion that people are reacting to this horrible event by suggesting that it could have been prevented if we told "burly 12 year olds" that it was ok to channel their natural "male aggressiveness" into tackling an armed grown man, or if there had been a janitor with a penis present to throw a bucket of sudsy water at the armed grown man than lives would have been saved. Or maybe if there had been a great big manly teacher who would choose, rather than sacrifice himself to protect the young people he was responsible for, to rally his burly twelve year olds to rush at the armed grown man.  

The notion that these very small children just needed to be more manly is disgusting.  The suggestion that these amazingly brave women who did just what all these armchair critics are suggesting, and rushed the gunman, would have been more successful if they were men is enraging.

And even if it didn't denigrate the women and children who were murdered, as well as those who survived, it would still be a really fucking stupid thing to say.  This all happened within 20 minutes! Within 20 minutes a classroom of sixth graders down the hall is supposed to figure out what's happening, organize themselves and run to rush the gunman?   Everyone can only hope to be as fucking ballsy as these women were.

Beinart wants the White House to stand up for Hagel:

Throw one high-profile foreign policy nominee to the wolves and you look ruthlessly pragmatic. Throw two in the space of a few weeks and you look like an administration that can be rolled.