232 years ago today, the Continental Congress, meeting in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, issued a Declaration of Independence:

The victims this time were Rachel Maddow AND Hillary Clinton. The context was Obama's "inartful" use of the word "refine" regarding his Iraq policy. TChris covered that controversy. Maddow was arguing the Obama argument and Joe Scarborough was not happy about Maddow's laughing as a reaction to Joe's commentary. The result was yet another episode of sexism at NBC:

Yet more guffaws from Maddow.

MADDOW: You're so wrong, I can't even hold it together. You're so wrong.

SCARBOROUGH: You might support Obama but you've got the Clinton cackle down, Rachel. I'm proud of ya.

(Emphasis supplied.) Maddow has been silent and cowardly on the issue of sexism and misogyny at NBC and in general, so you might be tempted to feel some schadenfreude. Resist it. Sexism is wrong whenever it occurs and whomever it is directed at. NBC should suspend Scarborough for this blatant bout of sexism.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

I've come to look for America...
They've all come to look for America.

Simon and Garfunkle version here.

One more, Bon Jovi, Miss Fourth of July

This is an open thread. Song suggestions for tomorrow (4th of July) welcome.

Funny headline:

Target: Barack Obama. Strategy: What Day Is It?

The McCain campaign's shotgun attack strategy would be more effective if the campaign had any ammunition with which to load the gun. Today's attack:

On Thursday McCain aides and the Republican National Committee pounced on a comment by Mr. Obama that he would be willing to “refine” his long-held plan to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq within his first 16 months in office.

Because an inflexible unwillingness to respond to changing conditions, even at risk of further endangering lives, is principled? Obama's response:

Time for an open thread. Anyone around?

Here's Obama reaching out to the evangelical right. The Associated Press reports:

In an interview this week with "Relevant," a Christian magazine, Obama said prohibitions on late-term abortions must contain "a strict, well defined exception for the health of the mother."

Obama then added: "Now, I don't think that 'mental distress' qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term."

Obama made no such distinction last year:

Last year, after the Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on late-term abortions, Obama said he "strongly disagreed" with the ruling because it "dramatically departs form previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women."

NARAL leaders ought to feel like idiots. [More...]

Nihilists! F##k me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.

-Walter Sobchak

At corrente, I wrote a guest post on developing a blogosphere ethos. I won't repeat it here, but I want to put a question to supporters of the Clinton/Edwards vision of a mandate for universal health care. Suppose for a moment that Barack Obama changed his position (aka flip flopped) on the issue and embraced mandates. Would you consider that a good thing?

A corollary to the question, what if he changed his position due to political pressure as opposed to a good faith change of mind - would that make a difference? To understand why I ask these questions, read my post at corrente.

Speaking for me only

Link:

I want to take this opportunity to speak directly to those of you who oppose my decision to support the FISA compromise.

This was not an easy call for me. I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush Administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. That's why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate. [MORE . . . ]

[Photo from the DEA Gift Shop]

The Drug Enforcement Administration turns 35 this week. Here is a little history :

It was created by executive order of President Richard Nixon and went live on July 1 1973.

At its outset, the DEA had 1,470 Special Agents and a budget of less than $75 million. Furthermore, in 1974, the DEA had 43 foreign offices in 31 countries. Today, the DEA has 5,235 Special Agents, a budget of more than $2.3 billion and 86 foreign offices in 62 countries.

Since 1973, drug arrests have tripled: [more...]

Philip Alston, a special investigator with the U.N.'s Human Rights Council, has some harsh words for the State of Alabama's "refusal to even discuss the possibility that the state's capital punishment system is in need of improvement."

"(Alabama) officials seem strikingly indifferent to the risk of executing innocent people and have a range of standard responses, most of which are characterized by a refusal to engage with the facts," Alston wrote in the report, released Monday.

The Birmingham News agrees: [more ...]

Apparently the U.S. isn't alone in shamefully detaining suspected immigration policy violators.

Latin American leaders on Tuesday voiced their "deep rejection" of the immigration policy adopted recently by the European Union (EU).

Presidents of the Common Market of the South (Mercosur) "member states and associate states reject any attempt to criminalize the irregular migration and the adoption of restrictive immigration policies, in particular against the most vulnerable sectors of society, namely, women and children," said a statement at issued Mercosur summit.

The EU policy goes into effect in 2010 and allows authorities to detain improperly or undocumented immigrants for up to 18 months before deporting them.[More...]

Matt Yglesias writes today:

I don't think anyone can seriously dispute that the current President of the United States violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act . . . . I wasn't alive in 1973-74 [when Nixon was forced to resign]. I have a vague sense that at that time America's elites operated with some sense of conscience and dignity, and it was taken for granted even among Republican leaders that one couldn't just break the law. . . . I don't really know what changed, or why David Broder and other gatekeepers of elite consensus can't see that something's gone wrong here, but I'm not happy about it.

Nicely put. But then he writes in his VERY NEXT POST: