Why Is There No "Higgs boson-gate?"

Last week, there was a headline-making Big Science discovery that had people variously amazed, dazed and confused. What on earth is a "Higgs boson," people were asking, and why should I care? The short answer: "The particle is the final piece of the jigsaw in the Standard Model, a theory explaining how the universe is built, and its existence would help scientists gain a better understanding of how galaxies hold together." As Joe Biden might say, that's a big f***ing deal!Anyway, what I heard last week in the discussion of the Higgs boson, aka the "God particle," was largely amazement and confusion. What I did NOT hear were voices of doubt, denial, skepticism, anger, outrage, etc. Zero. Nada. Zip. A wild contrast, in other words, to the skeptical, angry, outraged, tinfoil-hat-conspiracy-theory response we get whenever there's a new discovery, or yet another piece of evidence confirming the theory, or even discussion of the old pieces of evidence (we've now had over 100 years ofquantitative investigation on this subject) regarding climate science. Why the stark contrast? Why, in short, is there no "Higgs boson-gate," just like there was a contrived "climate-gate" controversy that even smart (albeit crazy) people like Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli latched onto (note that a federal court recently demolished Cuccinelli on this one, and rightly so)? A few points to ponder: First, as John Parnell of the group "Responding to Climate Change" writes, nobody is "raking over the neutrino incident" ("A few months later they confessed they'd just made a simple error, a mistake in a calculation or a fault with a GPS receiver were suggested. They duly corrected it and went about their business.") because particle physics "is a fairly non-politicised topic." But why is that? As a comment on that article notes, in part it's because "most of the public find CERN incomprehensible and irrelevant." In stark contrast, the concept of climate science is extremely simple to understand -- basically, if you can understand what the backyard greenhouse does, or why a thicker blanket keeps in more heat, you've largely got the concept -- so anyone and everyone feels free to discuss and debate it. Very different with Higgs boson, which almost nobody even comes close to truly understanding (chalk me up in that category). Second, and far more importantly, the big difference between Higgs boson and climate science is that the former doesn't threaten anyone or imply any major changes in our way of life (at least not anytime soon). In stark contrast, climate science threatens all kinds of powerful, wealthy, entrenched interests (think ExxonMobil, OPEC, the Koch brothers, the coal industry, pretty much anyone who produces, transports, processes, or relies on fossil fuels for their business model). In addition, the glaringly obvious implication of climate science is that if it's valid, which clearly it is in scientific terms (if not fully in public opinion), then major changes to the way we power our economy, and our lives, immediately jump out at us. Ultimately, what climate science is telling us if that we have to stop spewing carbon into the atmosphere. That, in turn, implies a rapid ramp-down of the carbon-based fuel industries, particularly the two worst offenders, oil and coal. Third, unlike with Higgs boson, climate science tells us that we need to (gasp!) make changes in the way we power our lives. Of course, if we scale up clean energy and energy efficiency, there's absolutely no reason why our quality of life can't be just as high, actually higher, than it is now -- and almost certainly at lower long-run cost, not even counting the vast, negative "externalities" (pollution, wars, massive expenditures on fuel, political instability and corruption, etc.) associated with fossil fuel production and consumption. Thus,Finally, it's important to point out that there are differences between the science that led to the Higgs-Boson discovery, and the science that led to the discovery and fleshing out of climate change/global warming. That's to be expected, as these are two significantly different types of science, investigating significantly different natural phenomena. Having said that, however, as Michael Levi, Senior Fellow for Energy and the Environment and Director of the Program on Energy Security and Climate Change at the Council on Foreign Relations explains, "Waiting for perfect knowledge is great when we're trying to understand the origins of the universe. It's downright dangerous when it comes to protecting ourselves from dangers at hand." In short, with Higgs boson, we could afford to waste our time with a "gate" or two, yet we're unlikely to ever have one for the reasons mentioned above. With climate science, we can NOT afford to waste time with a "gate" or two, not to mention reams of fossil-fuel-industry-funded "deniers" and "skeptics," yet we're very likely to keep having them, for the reasons mentioned above. In short, humans have this one completely backwards, with the future of our planet and possibly our species - not to mention thousands of other species - on the line. So far, we as a species are miserably failing the test, getting caught up in ignorance, idiocy, and flat-out greed, not to mention faux-"gates" and other supposed "scandals" that invariably turn out to be not worth wasting 2 seconds of our time on. Sigh... P.S. It's worth pointing out that there are also enormous business/economic opportunities -- many trillions of dollars in potential revenues - waiting out there for smart entrepreneurs who seize the opportunities implied by the climate-driven need for a rapid transition of our energy economy. That SHOULD be a countervailing force to the deniers, but unfortunately the fossil fuel industries are wealthy and entrenched, with strong political allies (bought and paid for, largely) to back them up. In sum, it's not a level playing field or a fair fight at this point, at least not economically or politically speaking.

Brian Moran Announces He's Quitting His Slimeball "Day Job," Staying on as DPVA Chair

I've got mixed feelings on this one. Yes, it's good that Brian Moran is quitting his slimeball day job -- suing the president, robbing military veterans and poor kids and putting them in the poor house for the rest of their lives. On the other hand, why on earth did it take this long? If anyone cared about ethics, Brian never would have been allowed to hold both jobs simultaneously in the first place, let alone stay in that untenable position for so long. Ridiculous.Also, I'm very curious whether Brian chose to do this of his own free will (highly doubtful, given his demonstrated lack of concern about ethics, appearances of impropriety, etc., although I have heard rumors for months that he's "unhappy" at said slimeball day job) or was pressured out by "the powers that be" (that's what I'm hearing, and also what I'd expect). By the way, I love the lame excuse that he's quitting APSCU "in order to focus more fully on doing my part to ensure that our Democratic campaigns are victorious in November." What a joke. As if Brian Moran will have anything whatsoever to do with Barack Obama's victory in November, or Tim Kaine's, or anyone else's. Whatever, dude. I'm also wondering whether Brian will stay on as DPVA chair, and if so for how long. I never hear anything positive about that organization under his "leadership" (using the word loosely), and I find it hard to believe that Terry McAuliffe would want him there once the 2013 Virginia gubernatorial race starts heating up after November. Anyway, lots of questions, few answers. For now, here's Brian Moran's statement for your discussion, analysis, entertainment etc. Dear friend,I want to make sure you are aware of an important development that I hope will improve my ability to serve you, our campaigns and our activists as Chairman of the Democratic Party of Virginia. Last week I notified my employer, the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities, that I will be resigning my position there effective August 1st, 2012 in order to focus more fully on doing my part to ensure that our Democratic campaigns are victorious in November. Continued on the "flip." Also, I'm well aware that the photo has Brian's last name misspelled, but I must say I find it amusing... There is no question that Virginia Democrats will play a critical role in this year's election more than we have in modern times, and I do not want to wake up on the morning of November 7th with any doubts about whether or not I gave everything I could to turning Virginia blue for President Obama, Governor Kaine and Democrats across the Commonwealth.I am already working with our staff and party leadership to make sure we make the fullest use of all of our resources over the next few months. I hope you will help me in that respect by suggesting events, meetings or other opportunities to engage with Democrats in your community about the importance of these upcoming elections and the need to work together to build an infrastructure that lasts into the future. My goal is to spend as much time as possible on the road recruiting volunteers, fundraising for our campaigns and for the party and being an active messenger about the importance of electing our Democratic candidates this fall. I want to thank you for your continued friendship and service to our party, I look forward to working closely with each of you as we move down the homestretch of these critical campaigns. Sincerely, Brian Moran

Credit Where Credit is Due: Thank You Dominion Virginia Power!

As readers of this blog, and Raising Kaine before it, are undoubtedly aware, we haven't exactly been big fans of Dominion Virginia Power, largely for reasons related to the company's lack of aggressiveness in moving away from dirty, carbon-and-other-pollutant-spewing fossil fuels. We are not retracting those criticisms, and in fact would redouble our argument following the horrendous "derecho" event the other day and massive heat wave we're experiencing here and around the country. As NBC Washington's Chief Meterologist Doug Kammerer said the other day, "If we did not have global warming, we wouldn't see this." And that global warming, of course, is being fueled (literally) by humanity spewing greenhouse gases, including CO2 from the combustion of coal and natural gas, into the atmosphere. That needs to stop, and soon, or we're all in deep, deep trouble (except a lot more heat waves and "derecho" type events, for instance).Today, however, I want to give credit where credit is due, which is to the superb, even heroic, efforts of Dominion Virginia Power's employees (and especially power crews!) in restoring electricity as rapidly as possible to hundreds of thousands of Virginians following the devastating series of storms that wreaked such havoc in our state on Friday night. Making Dominion's efforts even more impressive are several factors: 1) we're in the midst of an historic heat wave, which means that the company's resources presumably were already strained to the limit dealing with that when the "derecho" hit; 2) unlike a blizzard or hurricane that is predicted days in advance, these storms came on us suddenly, with essentially no warning as to their scope and severity, meaning that power companies like Dominion had almost no time to prepare in any way;  3) this was a widespread event over many states, meaning that there's a lot of competition for emergency power crews to come in and help us from out of Virginia; and 4) Dominion's power crews are having to work 10-hour shifts in the sweltering heat we're experiencing, which cannot be pleasant to put it mildly, and could even be dangerous without proper precautions, training, etc. (which apparently they have, as I don't believe there have been any reports of Dominion workers being hurt in all this).

So, what have the results been so far? For starters, Dominion has now restored power to more than 70% of the 1 million or so of their customers who lost power in Friday night's vicious storms (about 60 hours later, 244,332 customers remain without power). That compares favorably to Pepco, which reports that it "has restored power to about half of the more than 440,000 customers who lost power as a result of Friday's storm."In addition, Dominion has done a great job using social media to communicate with people during this situation. I checked Dominion's Twitter feed (with over 16,000 followers, for instance, and there have been hundreds of tweets since the storm hit, providing all kinds of useful information, even responding to individual customers with questions. Same thing with Dominion's Facebook page (15,271 "likes") and YouTube channel (see above for the latest). Great job on the social media front! This type of response clearly just doesn't "happen;" instead, it's got to be the result of tremendous planning, effective management, hard-working and motivated employees, lots of factors really. I've worked on energy issues for over 20 years now, and I can definitely say that the vast majority of people don't realize how complex these systems are, from production to processing to generation to transmission to emergency response  and contingency planning, the list goes on and on. So, in this case kudos to Dominion Virginia Power, and of course the crews who are out there right now sweltering in the heat and humidity while working to restore the remaining 30% or so of customers still without power. From the crew at Blue Virginia, we'd just like to say, "thank you!"

Starting Today, VA Republicans Mandate (aka, "Force") Women to Have Ultrasounds Prior to Abortion

At least in theory, the Republican Party is strongly against the government "mandating" that people do something. In recent years, we've heard this particularly strongly when it comes to health care, in the heated, over-the-top ("DEATH PANELS!!!) hysteria over what they call "Obamacare."  Of course, the not-the-brightest-bulb Tea Party types apparently don't remember, or can't comprehend, that it was conservatives (aka, look in the mirror, guys!) who came up with the "individual mandate" for health care, then pushed for it for decades before turning 180-degrees against it the second Democrats agreed to incorporate it into their health care reform plan.Why did conservatives like the individual mandate? Simple, it was all about personal responsibility, making freeloaders who were ripping off people like you and me pay their freakin' way in the health care system. Plus, the individual mandate was better, in the corporations-uber-alles Teapublican Party's worldview, than burdening poor, fragile businesses like ExxonMobil (earning some of the greatest profits in the history of mankind, quarter after quarter) with the requirement to provide theirserfs with health care coverage. But more than anything, you hear Teapublicans screaming (literally) hysterically about government supposedly telling them what to do about their health care decisions, which in their view should be between themselves, their families and their doctors (and their private, for-profit, care-rationing health insurance companies, of course, but god forbid Republicans point the finger at their corporate overlords). Given all this, you'd think that Teapublicans like Ken Cuccinelli would be screaming bloody murder today. Not at the Supreme Court's decision on the Affordable Care Act, we've already heard their rantings on that issue. No, today they should be out in the streets in their crazy costumes, carrying their even crazier signs, about a law that kicks into gear starting today, one conceived (no pun intended) by Republicans, passed by Republicans, and signed into law by a Republican governor. What is this horrible law that Republicans should be outraged about, but strangely are almost completely quiet about? Here you go.

lowkell :: Starting Today, VA Republicans Mandate (aka, "Force") Women to Have Ultrasounds Prior to Abortion

Arguably the most controversial legislation passed this year, House Bill 462 requires all women to undergo an ultrasound before receiving an abortion. The original version of the legislation would have required an invasive vaginal ultrasound, but was amended following massive protests to be a noninvasive imaging procedure. The ultrasound is not mandatory if the woman having the abortion has reported being the victim of rape or incest. That's right, starting today, a law with almost pure Virginia Republican pedigree kicks into gear, in which the supposedly evil government mandates (aka, forces) women to undergo a medical procedure most of them don't want, certainly don't want to pay for, and isn't medically necessary in the vast majority of cases. It also forces medical professional to perform said procedure. Oh, and it would have been even more invasive ("transvaginal") if the supposedly "get government off our backs" Republicans had their way, but fortunately they were stopped by the other party, the one that supposedly is the "big government" party. Of course, Republicans have zero appreciation for irony, but if they did, they might get a good, irony-savoring laugh out of this one. Of, perhaps they might just be consistent for once, and get OUTRAGED!!! (one of the main - only? - things they seem to be good at) about Virginia's mandatory ultrasound law, which takes affect (once again ironically?) just 3 days before the holiday which celebrates our Declaration of Independence from tyranny.Fortunately for Republicans, they're not bothered by irony, nor are they a particularly reflective lot, so they will proceed along their merry ways, utterly oblivious to their glaring hypocrisies and internally inconsistent arguments. In short, if ignorance is bliss, then Virginia Republicans are undoubtedly among the most blissful folks on earth today. Virginia's women, on the other hand, should be anything but blissful...

"But There is No Global Warming" (Not!): Look in on Neighbors, Then Share Your Storm Stories

by KathyinBlacksburg

[Note: Blue Virginia, other Soapblox blogs, and many other sites, were down throughout the day today. Netflix, Pinterest and other sites were down as well. Most of all our thoughts are with those who remain without power on a day when new heat records are expected to be broken. Please make sure to check in on each other.]Even in the wake of profound evidence to contradict them, science deniers abound. Yet there is little doubt that historic storms such as the one sweeping into the Mid Atlantic last night, are the result climate change. Millions lost power as the 600-mile wall of rain and strong winds swept into the region from the Midwest. Experiencing winds gusting between 80 and 100 miles an hour, many haven't seen winds like that--ever. The storm-exfoliation and toppling of trees will itself have an impact on global warming. That is to say, it will make it worse in a spiral of violent storms of which last night's was a foreshadowing. If you live in NOVA, and have power you will want to check on others who do not.  Similarly, a half a million in Southwest Virginia have no power on a day predicted to be 98 degrees. Please help them get through the outage. The story is the same throughout the path of the storm from Illinois to Virginia and Maryland. Where I am, in NC where heat was predicted to top 108 today, we are well, having only gotten the tail end of last night's storm and none of its punch. Chapel Hill, however had numerous downed trees and some power outages. Here is a list of warnings and advisories for today. What have you seen where you are? (Discuss)

UPDATE: Supreme Court Upholds "Obamacare": America Wins, Ken Cuccinelli Big-Time LOSER!

UPDATE 10:17 am: @SCOTUSblog says - "...entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government's power to terminate states' Medicaid funds..."UPDATE 10:19 am: SCOTUSblog tweets: "From the Court: The mandate max be regarded as a tax. 'That is sufficient to sustain it.'" Also, "CJ Roberts' fifth #SCOTUS vote saved the #ACA" and "#SCOTUS upholds #ACA individual mandate." UPDATE 10:24 am: ‏@AmandaMarcotte tweets: "Wait, it's 5-4? That means Kennedy broke to the right and Roberts to the left?" Yep, that seems to be what happened. Craaaaazy, did NOT expect that! UPDATE 10:27 am: Shoq tweets, "BREAKING: Millions of Americans with serious pre-existing health conditions just exhaled." UPDATE 10:28 am: According to SCOTUSblog, "The Court holds that the mandate violates the Commerce Clause, but that doesn't matter b/c there are five votes for the mandate to be constitutional under the taxing power." Also, "Justice Ginsburg makes clear that the vote is 5-4 on sustaining the mandate as a form of tax. Her opinion, for herself and Sotomayor, Breyer and Kagan, joins the key section of Roberts opinion on that point. She would go further and uphold the mandate under the Commerce Clause, which Roberts wouldn't. Her opinion on Commerce does not control." UPDATE 10:29 am: According to SCOTUSblog, "In opening his statement in dissent, Kennedy says: 'In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety.'" UPDATE 10:31 am: ‏@SCOTUSblog tweets "Bottom line from #SCOTUS, Obama Administration wins. Challenge to #ACA fails." UPDATE 10:33 am: According to SCOTUSblog, "In Plain English: The Affordable Care Act, including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn't comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding." UPDATE 10:39 am: Here is the electronic version  (PDF) of the Supreme Court decision. Read it and weep, Kookinelli!!! LOL UPDATE 10:43 am: By the way, I need to add that as much as I'm impressed (and pleasantly surprised!) with the overall ruling by the Roberts Court, I strongly disagree with Chief Justice Roberts' reasoning on the Commerce Clause. As do many leading conservative judges and scholars. Yet another reason to reelect President Obama, to hopefully replace a couple of the radical right-wing, confederalist justices (Scalia, in particular) with sane, sober constitutionalists. UPDATE 10:52 am: Our fanatic, wildly misguided Attorney General calls the Supreme Court ruling "a dark day for the American people, the Constitution, and the rule of law...a dark day for American liberty." As usual, with Ken Kookinelli, take the EXACT OPPOSITE of what he says and it's very close to the truth. UPDATE 10:55 am: Bob McDonnell says "Today's Supreme Court ruling is extremely disappointing for Virginia and for America." Uh, no.

That's right, back in 2006 (ancient history, apparently), Willard "Mitt" Romney said: With regards to the mandate, the individual responsibility program which I proposed, I was very pleased to see that the compromise from the two houses includes the personal responsibility principle, that is essential for bringing health care costs down for everyone, and for getting everybody the health insurance they deserve and need. So I was very pleased with that development. So, remind me again why 6 years later, Romney and his fellow Teapublican'ts are suddenly against the individual mandate that they came up with, and which has been a cornerstone of their "personal responsibility" view of health care reform for decades?Also, please feel free to use this as an open thread on the ExxonMobil/Koch Industries Supreme Court's@copy decision on the Affordable Care Act, including the conservative "individual mandate," around 10 am. The big question: will the Supreme Court definitely prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they are a bunch of radical right-wing political activists in robes, or will they shock us and actually do their jobs? I'm guessing the former, how about you?

Tags: (All Tags) :: Add/Edit Tags on this Post

Tom Perriello Argues the Real "Obamacare" Battle is "Constitutionalists vs. Confederates"

With the ExxonMobil/Koch Industries Supreme Court© set to rule tomorrow morning on the constitutionality of what has come to be known, ridiculously if you ask me, as "Obamacare" (as if this is about any particular individual, as opposed to whether we start revamping our flawed, for-profit health insurance system), it's a great time to take a broader, historical view of what's really at stake here. Fortunately, we've got former Rep. Tom Perriello's brilliant article in The Atlantic to do that for us. Here's an excerpt (bolding added by me for emphasis): ...As our country anxiously awaits the Supreme Court's verdict on health-care reform, the media has reduced the case to the narrow terms of a political horserace. This characterization ignores the enormous significance of this case -- a shift from the modern fight between liberal and conservative Constitutionalists back to an older and more nationally divisive debate between Constitutionalists and Confederates.From the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution of the Confederate States of America to the Lochner-era Supreme Court, confederationists have long believed in a United States consisting of states loosely united by a small, weak central government, and they have fought for more than 230 years to prevent, undermine, and erode the Constitution. While the term "Confederate" rightly conjures up America's sin of slavery and the racially charged movements for states' rights and state nullification,the present-day confederationists include conservative libertarians and corporatists who support a central government too weak to regulate or tax commerce. This vision of a tiny, powerless central government has always been at odds with the U.S. Constitution, a document our nation's founders wrote explicitly to reject and replace the Articles of Confederation... Coincidentally, I'm currently about 3/4 finished reading Ron Chernow's magisterial, definitive biography of Alexander Hamilton, which goes into great depth bringing these very same arguments to life. As the book explains, the fight between "federalists" like Hamilton, Washington and Adams on the one hand; and anti-federalists/"Republicans" like Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe  -- and, bizarrely, "Federalist Papers" co-author James Madison! -- were incredibly heated back in the late 1790s, with accusations flying around about treason, monarchy, you name it. Back then, the core of the differences resolved around no less than diametrically different visions for America: 1) the Jefferson/Madison vision of a primarily agrarian (aka, slave-based) nation, with a relatively weak executive branch and federal government vis-a-vis the states, and few if any modern financial instruments like banks, credit, etc. (also, the U.S. was to be allied with France, whose bloody revolution Jefferson admired, believe it or not); and 2) the Washington/Hamilton/Adams vision of a vibrant economy of both manufacturing and agriculture, plus modern methods of finance and trade (including a strong economic relationship with Great Britain), a relatively strong federal government promoting national economic, political, diplomatic and military strength, etc. (basically, this is the vision of America that won out, although it took the bloody Civil War to settle it once and for all, or so we were taught in school...).Today, however, those same old arguments, which many had thought long settled (certainly since FDR's, if not since TR or earlier) have flared up again, led by radical anti-constitutionalists (as much as they like to say they are "strict constructionists" relying on "first principles," in fact they are nothing of the sort, but are violently opposed to those very principles they falsely claim to support!) like Ken Cuccinelli, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia, who clearly want to roll back most of history since the Civil War (including the Progressive Era, the New Deal, the Great Society, and many/most Supreme Court rulings on federal power over the past century). Tomorrow, as Tom Perriello explains, we will see whether the Supreme Court is willing to rule in a way that some of the top conservative legal minds in the country have described as "in either the text of the Constitution or Supreme Court precedent." Instead, we may find out tomorrow that Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts have essentially taken our Constitution and ripped it to shreds, sending us lurching backwards to the Articles of Confederation. Stay tuned...

Ken Cuccinelli: Loser

by Kindler

Not since the Chicago Cubs has anyone assembled as impressive a losing streak as Ken Cuccinelli.  With his reverse Midas Touch, every major case that Virginia's chief legal officer champions just ends up swirling down the judicial toilet.  The latest flush came today, as the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit rejected his baseless challenge of the US EPA's scientific finding that greenhouse gases represent a threat to human health.  If the man were capable of embarrassment, now would be a good time to show it. This, of course, is not the first time he's been thrown out of court on a climate change case. No, actually it's the THIRD time.  First, Albemarle County Circuit Court Judge Paul M. Peatross Jr. ruled in August 2010 that Cuccy didn't have any "objective basis" for his witch hunt against former U-VA climate scientist Michael Mann.  Bravely, our Ayatollah General then took his case to the Virginia Supreme Court -- which in March of this year ruled that he had read the law wrong and didn't even have jurisdiction to challenge U-VA in the case. This of course is on top of the smackdowns that Cuccinelli received from the courts in his challenge to President Obama's health care law.  After somehow winning his first round on the issue, he lost his next two. In September 2011, a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously found that he lacked standing to even bring the suit, derisively commenting that allowing standing in such cases would "convert the federal judiciary into a forum for the vindication of a state's generalized grievances about the conduct of government."

kindler :: Ken Cuccinelli: Loser

The next month, the Supreme Court left Cuccinelli's health care appeal off its docket, even as it took on other state attorneys general's cases on the matter.  One of the striking things about Cuccy's loss record is how often his position is struck down on basic, threshold issues that you would expect a wet-behind-the-ears legal intern to get right.  Basic issues of who has standing to sue, what sorts of entities are subject to the laws in question, etc. are matters that you'd think a man with a position as important as his might spend a few minutes on Wikipedia to double-check. You may say that none of this matters to Cuccinelli or his rabid supporters -- it's not about winning, it's about going down fighting!  Well, fine and dandy, but a habitual loser is generally not what Americans admire.  The man has lost so many times because he takes positions that make no sense legally, logically or morally -- and then fights them, unbending, to the death. Perhaps that's the rebel spirit of the Confederacy, but what does it get you? Just another reason to be pissed off and blame the commie socialist pinkos who nefariously run the world, I guess.  (Never mind that many of the judges who've laughed Cuccinelli out of court have been Republican appointees.) Meanwhile, the hero of the tea party courageously continues his quixotic quest, proclaiming, like the Black Knight of Monty Python fame: "It's just a flesh wound!"

Live Stream: UVA Board of Visitors Meeting [UPDATE: Board Unanimously Reinstates Pres. Sullivan]

"There will be a special meeting of the Board of Visitors on Tuesday, June 26, 2012 at 3:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the Rotunda, to discuss possible changes in the terms of employment of the President."FYI, a good Twitter feed to follow is #UVA. Here's an interesting tweet by Washington Post reporter Anita Kumar, for instance: "#UVA Rector Dragas called President Sullivan at 2 and offered to walk her to BOV meeting from Carr's Hill." UPDATE 3:05 pm: As the meeting is about to get underway, over 9,000 people are watching on the live stream. UPDATE 3:07 pm: ‏@UVA tweets: "#UVa Pres. Sullivan and Rector Dragas just entered Rotunda together, we are hearing from the Lower West Oval Rm" UPDATE 3:09 pm: @scontorno tweets: "Dragas: "The buck stops right here with us. What we do today will indeed be the final word on the subject." #BOV #UVA" UPDATE 3:15 pm: @amasays tweets: "#Fralin: "The process was flawed." #UVA" @UVA tweets: "Fralin: We can't question integrity of those who supported decision to have Sullivan resign. #uva" @amasays tweets: "#Fralin: "No one knows what the vote would have been... I apologize to the University community that I did not think of this sooner." #UVA" UPDATE 3:17 pm: Fralin offers resolution to reinstate Teresa Sullivan as President of UVA. It is seconded. UPDATE 3:19 pm: Dragas says UVA had a "near-death experience to get here." References "a mob mentality," "vitriolic" communications the board has been subject to. "The garden of my inbox also has a lot of fertilizer in it as well." Dragas says she met with Sullivan and concluded it was time to bring UVA family back together. "We've always respected each other on a personal level." "It is clear this board wants to come together." "We look forward to working with President Sullivan...to rebuild a sense of mutual trust." Therefore, "I support the resolution." UPDATE 3:25 pm: Roll call vote. Dragas and the rest of the board unanimously (15-0) vote to reinstate President Sullivan. The board now moves to support Dragas and affirm her integrity. The board approves that resolution unanimously (again, 15-0). Can we say "one big happy family?" ;) UPDATE 3:30 pm: President Sullivan thanks board, asks for everyone's support to "help us move forward together," says she's grateful to have "this renewed opportunity." Says nothing should be swept under the rug, but that issues should be discussed candidly/frankly. ‏@cvillenewscom (Waldo Jaquith) tweets: "The crowd is thrilled. Cheering, I see people crying." UPDATE 4:26 pm: Coy Barefoot/WINA has a podcast of the meeting.

ExxonMobil/Koch Industries Supreme Court Rules: Democracy for Sale to Highest Corporate Bidder

This morning's Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling striking down Montana's 100-year-old limits on corporate political spending and upholding the Court's disgraceful "Citizens United" decision demonstrates three important things.First, that this court's "conservative" majority is anything but "conservative;" in fact, the four wingnuts on the court - Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, Alito - are activist, right-wing, radical judges (so much for stare decisis!) running amok. Second, those four wingnuts clearly believe that our Democracy is, and should be, for sale to the highest (corporate and/or billionaire) bidder. Third, that the Supreme Court should be a huge issue in the 2012 election cycle; just imagine a President Romney (shudder) having the ability to appoint 1, 2, or more Justices in the mold of Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts? If that happens, you can kiss a lot of things goodbye in this country, first and foremost being our democracy. You can also welcome our new corporate overlords, because that's exactly who will be in charge. P.S. I strongly agree with the dissent by Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan, which correctly states that "Montana's experience, like considerable experience elsewhere since the Court's decision in Citizens United, casts grave doubt on the Court's supposition that independent expenditures do not corrupt or appear to do so." UPDATE: With regard to the Arizona case, 5 Justices "struck down criminal restrictions that would have barred those in the U.S. illegally from seeking work or being in Arizona without proper documentation" and "said the final answer on the centerpiece of the law -- a requirement that local police officers check the immigration status of people they suspect might be in the country illegally -- will depend on how the provision is enforced." Of course, the three hardest-core right-wing radical judges (Scalia, Alito, Thomas) disagreed, which once again demonstrates the crucial importance of having a Democratic president fill the next few vacancies on the Court. UPDATE #2: Justice Scalia utterly contradicts himself on these two rulings, while demonstrating that he's nothing more than an enraged, "GET OFF MY LAWN!!!" Teabagger at heart. On the one hand, Scalia wrote that "If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State." On the other hand, Scalia voted to prevent the supposedly "sovereign state" of Montana from writing its own campaign finance laws. So which is it, Justice Scalia?