Interesting essay. Can you relate?
Here’s yet another random, totally non-political threat:
Police in Arlington, MA this week seized a “large amount” of weapons and ammunition from local businessman Travis Corcoran after he wrote a blog post threatening U.S. lawmakers in the wake of the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ). In a post on his blog (which has since been removed) titled “1 down and 534 to go” — 1 referring to Giffords and 534 referring to the rest of the House of Representatives and the Senate — Corcoran applauded the shooting of Giffords and justified the assassination of lawmakers because he argued the federal government has grown far beyond its constitutional limits. “It is absolutely, absolutely unacceptable to shoot indiscriminately. Target only politicians and their staff and leave regular citizens alone,” he wrote in the post.
“We certainly take this as a credible threat,” Arlington police Captain Robert Bongiorno told reporters, adding that “multiple federal law enforcement agencies” were involved. Authorities also suspended Corcoran’s gun license, though he is currently not facing any charges.
Corcoran calls himself “an anarcho-capitalist” and while his blog has been taken down, based on his Twitter page, he appears to hold views similar to those of many in the anti-government libertarian wing of the conservative movement, like many tea party activists. Anarcho-capitalism is a radical subset of libertarianism, and is often referred to as “libertarian-anarchy.” For example, echoing calls frommany on the right, Corcoran tweeted, “it is unconstitutional for the Feds to even run a department of education.”
In a Twitter exchange with reporter Laura Leslie, Corcoran lays out a conventional anti-government philosophy, and explains in depth why he views assassination as legitimate:
“I assert that the US federal gov has grown unconstitutionally large, and the legislature exceeds the powers delegated to it by the people,” Corcoran wrote. “As per the Declaration of Indep, when a gov becomes destructive those ends, it may be abolished,” he continued, “and the most moral approach is that which spares the maximum number of lives. Thus, assasination is a legitimate tool.”
He goes on to further justify assassination as “morally legitimate,” citing “Catholic Just War doctrine” among other theories, and explains, “It’s illegal, yes, but it’s not un-American. America was founded on the idea of shooting gov officials. Lexington Concord!” In another tweet, he writes, “I disagree with murder. …but shooting politicians who pass illegitimate, unconstitutional laws is not murder.” And in case there’s any doubt about his sincery, he writes, “Nope, it’s not a joke. I’m 100% serious.”
He also appears to be a fan of Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), re-tweeting a positive message about him in May: “Lefties: Before you start fringe-baiting Rand Paul, note that he’s better on civil liberties than most Democratic senators. And Obama.” He seems to dislike liberals, writing, “You so-called liberals make me laugh – you’re all for free speech until someone disagrees, then it’s ‘report him!’” He also accuses the Daily Kos of “Stalinism.”
From the New Jersey Law Journal (subscription only):
A West Berlin attorney claims in a putative class action that Wells Fargo & Co. has refused to process direct mortgage payments so that it can collect late fees and surcharges. The lender has insisted that mortgage payments be made via cashier’s checks or money orders as part of a “scheme” to impede transactions and collect money above that owed on the mortgage, according to the complaint in Guralnick v. Wells Fargo & Co., 11-cv-373. Wells Fargo allegedly would not accept wire transfers, online banking payments and other direct payments even from its affiliate, Wachovia Bank, according to Mark Guralnick and his wife, who are Wachovia customers who have a Wells Fargo mortgage on their home in Voorhees. The suit, in behalf of a putative class of 1,000 or more New Jersey homeowners, was filed on Nov. 29 in Camden County Superior Court and removed to federal court on Jan. 20.
Pushing back the healthcare law and further restricting abortion rights. Your Republican majority!
My chiropractor was talking about the snow and the other extreme weather, and I told him I blamed all the people who voted Republican. “No matter what issue you think you’re supporting by voting for these people, you’re really voting for corporate dominance, the erosion of public services and the restriction of civil liberties,” I said.
“People think they’re voting to save unborn babies, and instead they’re driving a steamroller over the ones who are already born.”
Ezra Klein on the Senate’s failure to change filibuster rules:
So why did Senate Democrats agree, in principle, that simple majorities can’t change the Senate’s rules, and even exceedingly modest changes to the filibuster are out-of-bounds? Easy: They’re a simple majority now, but someday soon, they’ll be a simple minority. When that happens, they want to be able to mount constant filibusters as well.
To borrow David Brooks’s schtick for a minute, there’s an easy behavioral explanation for this preference: Loss aversion. Study after study shows that human beings fear the consequences of loss much more than they value the benefits of gains. And so too in the Senate, where the two parties think about the rules in terms of “what happens when I lose” rather than “what happens when I win?”
But if you really think you’ve got a great agenda and that the voters would agree, that would imply a fantastic upside to rules that allow you to make good on your campaign promises: Either the American people would get to judge you on all the great stuff you want to do, as opposed to all the great stuff you got stopped from doing, or they’d get to judge the other party on all the awful stuff they did, and which you could then reverse with a simple majority vote. That’s a coherent theory of the way accountability encourages good ideas and wise governance in American politics. A world in which you can’t enact your ideas or govern effectively and so the voters end up thinking you as feckless as the folks across the aisle isn’t. That’s a world in which the rules of the Senate, and not the policies of the parties, drive outcomes, and thus drive elections. That’s a world where voters never know whose ideas are best because neither side can ever enact their agendas. But that’s the world the Senate apparently prefers to inhabit.
This is just plain unacceptable. Nurses are often left with really bad back injuries and end up having to stay on serious pain medication for much of their lives — mostly because hospitals won’t pay for enough equipment and staff to prevent it. Now the Obama administration’s going to keep them from filing OSHA reports that will document later claims? Bah.
National Nurses United (NNU) is sharply criticizing the Obama administration for a decision by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) Tuesday to withdraw a rule requiring employers to report musculoskeletal injuries to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
“This is a disturbing sign that the Obama administration may be putting the economic interests of employers ahead of the safety of nurses and other working people,” says Karen Higgins, RN, co-president of the 160,000-member nurses union.
The decades-old rule was pulled by the DOL at the request of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, according to NNU.
“Nursing is one of the most dangerous occupations in the U.S., and nurses are especially subject to serious back and other musculoskeletal injuries,” says Higgins. “One step we can take to keep nurses safe and at work is to have an accurate picture of when and how they are hurt on the job.”
Serious back injuries typically are caused by nurses lifting and turning patients, and can lead to permanent disability.