While Katz may very well be correct here about the internal NYS Senate Democratic Conference (such that it is) politics, the title of her piece is just bizarre.
Last year every Latino in the State Senate was in the Majority and Chaired a committee; now none of them do.
So the truth is exactly the opposite: thanks to Sampson, Latinos have not gained power; they have lost it. Latino Dems gaining power in state Senate; new caucus may be hobbled www.nydailynews.com
I'm not saying that Klein and company are monuments to purity (though given what they rebelled against, it's hard to look bad in comparison), but Ruben Diaz, as he so often does, elevates his divine delusions over the concrete facts. Diaz and his co-conspirators made out like bandits–even controlling the Finance Committee. By contrast, Klein, et al, are, at best, getting a slightly higher quality grade of bread crumbs. Capitol Confidential » Klavinuccilesky still waiting for TPPP (video added)
Schneiderman the liberal Vacco? (item #2)–Whodda thunk? (Only everyone who ever really knew him). Cuomo sets up reform summit www.nypost.com
Hertzberg: Original Intent = No Filibusters. Hendrik Hertzberg: Alexander Hamilton Speaks Out (I): The Filibuster www.newyorker.com
I rarely discuss the Second Amendment with my friends, because I have the somewhat controversial opinion that the plain meaning of words is exactly that, so the regrettable Second Amendment means people can own guns, subject to regulation. I don't particularly care for that, but I don't like equal representation in the US Senate either.
Further, because the one issue voters are so fervent on this issue, and put their money and votes where their mouth are, even the fights over constitutional regulations are generally not worth the effort. Good intentions are not a political sucide pact. So, I do not have much enthusiasm for pushing for even those regulations (concealment, waiting periods, etc) which I think do pass constitutional muster and are well merited.
That being said (and that being sad), Collins is right –the founding father did not intend civilians (even sane ones) to have the right to keep and bear semi-automatic killing machines or taactical nuclear weapons.
This is a fight worth winning, and in fighting it, we might actually succeed in getting the NRA to show to all concerned that they are not "the gun lovers' lobby," but the "gun nut's lobby". A Right to Bear Glocks? www.nytimes.com
I pray that her brain damage is limited, not least of which so I won't be tempted to make a tasteless Michelle Bachmann joke. Brain Injury Treatment Is a Long, Uncertain Process www.nytimes.com
Money Quote: "A call to cool inflammatory speech can be just that—a call to cool inflammatory speech. It is by no means interchangeable with a call to ban certain words. Shafer is missing the distinction between a rule or a law, on the one hand, and a norm. I would oppose a law preventing people from uttering words like “targeting” and “destroying.” I would love to see a norm governing political rhetoric in which prominent public figures refrain from the casual, massively hyperbolic use of highly incendiary language…” How The Giffords Tragedy Made Me Anti-Anti-Anti Political Hate Speech | The New Republic www.tnr.com
Republican political correctness; we used to be amazed that they couldn't bring themselves to denounce birthers–now they won't even go on the record to criticize importuning violence Profile In Courage Watch – The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com
Slick LD: Do you really want to cripple rhetoric because of a few shizophrenics? Who knows what their triggers are?
GATE: I do not advocate any legal crippling of rhetoric; in fact, I strongly oppose it. But frankly, social regulation of rhetoric is far more important than legal regulation and already exists; this example of political correctness proves it. Very few dare to say what their target audience does not want to hear. And some things can and will be discouraged in such a manner. I myself have my own prejudices concerning what is out of bounds, and in the marketplace of ideas, I generally do not patronage those who go there. My condemnation and exposure of such things is also Freedom of Speech. Why do you think it is OK to chill my freedom but not that of those who advocate Second Amendment remedies?
Beinart asks the musical question of what we'd all be saying if someone just as batshit crazy had an Arabic name. Based on recent history (like Fort Hood) I think we know the answer already. Gabrielle Giffords Shooting Proves the Tea Party's Homegrown Terror Blind Spot www.thedailybeast.com
Weisberg very eloquently and logically makes the case for blaming the right Jared Loughner, Gabrielle Giffords, and the Tea Party www.slate.com
The case against blaming the right: no one in their right mind can take their rhetoric seriously (which, of course, begs the question about everyone else) Tone Versus Substance | Politics | The American Scene theamericanscene.com
Judis channels Gatemouth The Tucson Shooter And Arizona Politics | The New Republic www.tnr.com
Times Editorial Board channels Gatemouth (a year too late). Mayor Bloomberg Shovels Out www.nytimes.com blog.timesunion.com
Just to keep things in perspective, the 1969 Mayoral candidate who ran first in the Borough of Queens was named John Vliet Lindsay
Good news on Iran, if such a thing is possible. A Major Victory for President Obama on Iran – Jeffrey Goldberg – International – The Atlantic www.theatlantic.com