As you ought to know, lead is a very dangerous chemical. Children exposed to it—mostly due to lead paint—have lower IQs, greater learning disabilities, and more behavioral problems. As Kevin Drum reported in February in Mother Jones, America’s Real Criminal Element: Lead. The reason that people are pretty certain about this link is that crime just kind of shot up in the 1960s and then shot down in the 1990s. And we know it wasn’t because of more enforcement (Giuliani’s famous crackdown on the squeegee men) or economics or drugs or any of the more esoteric explanations like legal abortions.

The main thing about this is not that the lead explanation is certainly right. The fact is, like any scientific explanation, it can be shown to be wrong. But there are a lot of data supporting it and it is currently a highly regarded theory. What’s more, even if lead has nothing to do with crime, getting it out of our lives (especially the lives of children) is a very important goal. We don’t need more stupid and ill-behaved people. So what is the government doing?

As a whole, the Congress and President Obama decided to cut funding for lead remediation. Because of Sequestration, we have cut funding for this extremely important program by 5% from $120 million this year to $114 million. But that is apparently not good enough for the House Republicans. Yesterday, they passed a budget that cut funding down to $50 million. Regardless of what you think of all this, you must understand how shortsighted these cuts are. They will be overwhelmed simply by lost economic productivity in the future because of our stupider workforce.

This morning, Ed Kilgore made a great point about this. Republicans are very big on fighting crime. Here they are gutting what is likely a good crime fighting bill in the name of reducing the federal budget by less than 0.002%. It’s crazy. He concludes that it is just the Republicans’ “stubborn lack of interest in any crime-fighting strategy that doesn’t involve guns and prisons.” There is certainly much to that. So much of the Republican policy platform comes down to a contest of who has the biggest dick. Educating poor kids will help reduce crime, but it isn’t macho so they aren’t interested. Ditto with lead remediation.

But the problem is bigger than this. I know that I have a bad attitude toward conservatives generally—or at least what passes as a conservative today. But when I think of lead in paint, I remember a PSA from my childhood that showed a small black child sucking on the lead paint covered wood around a window. It had something to do with programs for removing lead from living areas. To me, the image has endured as heartbreaking. I suspect that the current House minority has the same image in their minds. But instead of “heartbreaking” they think “undeserving.”

Kevin Drum goes even further, “Of course, lead removal programs mostly benefit poor people and non-whites, and the Republican Party has made it extra clear lately that they don’t care about either group. I guess the only real surprise here is that they didn’t cut the program to zero.” But I don’t think that’s quite it. I don’t think they are actively trying to cause brain damage in poor children. They just don’t care. Besides: they can zero it out later.

John Stanton wrote a very interesting article over at Buzz Feed, No, Congressman, You Probably Won’t Lose Your Job for Voting for Immigration Reform. But I think he has missed the larger issue. He argued that that there isn’t going to be big money in the Republican primaries against House members who vote in favor of immigration reform. That is certainly true. Most of the big money in the Republican Party is in favor of immigration reform. The problem is with the base that largely votes against their own economic interest in the name of other things—one of which is a generalized dislike of brown skinned people.

It is true that in a general sense, Republicans are supportive of some kind of path to citizenship. According to a recent Basswood Research poll, there is 65% support among people who at one time or another have voted in Republican primaries. But when you look a little deeper, you see that older white people, the bedrock of Republican primaries, are clearly against any path to citizenship. Despite their claims to being fiscally conservative, they have no problem throwing hundreds of billions of dollars at border security. But normalizing undocumented residents, which would save the country money, is right out. These people really think that the dark hoards are coming for their stuff and they want to stop that from happening.

Even still, immigration reform shouldn’t be that big a deal. But it has come to represent far more than just another policy. All the talk in the Republican Party about the “real America” is wrapped up in this issue. That’s what the new southern strategy is about. That’s what the de rigueur support for foreign wars is about. (We’re number one!) And that is what immigration is about. As I’ve noted before, despite what they sometimes say, Republicans are not just against illegal immigration; they are against legal immigration too. The immigration issue is a big part of the Republican war to protect the real America.

But think about this on the micro scale. There are always lots of well connected people who would like to become members of Congress. (I hear they have a great dental plan!) An incumbent only has to leave a small wound. In a campaign, that wound can be torn open. It can be used to paint even a radically conservative person as slightly to the left of Nancy Pelosi. It’s like I often mention: I don’t have a problem finding common ground with most conservatives. It is only if Fox News or campaign advertising is pushing a particular line that conservatives lose all perspective.[1] And House Republicans should open themselves up to this for what reason? Because people outside their districts really care about the issue? That just doesn’t make sense.

As good as Stanton’s reporting and analysis is, I’m afraid it is still part of the Happy Horseshit Caucus (HHC). It’s too focused on national trends and the mistaken idea that the Republicans really care about national elections. The facts are that Representatives have much to lose and little to gain by supporting immigration reform. We’re seeing some movement in the Senate, because red states are slowly turning purple. But in the House, there are purple states that are overwhelming represented by Republicans. They currently have little to fear from a general election and much to fear from a primary.

I don’t like this any more than any other liberal—including all of the HHC. But it doesn’t help to keep pretending that Republicans don’t have completely rational reasons for how they behave. We can’t control Republicans and we shouldn’t try. We can, however, destroy them. And the first step in doing that is to fix our own party. The constant pandering to ever more conservative demands from the Republicans only makes matters worse. We will eventually get immigration reform when the make-up of Congress is better. We will not get it by insisting that Republicans really should be for it.

[1] Democrats act the same way. But for some reason, the conservative movement is far better at whipping up its base into a frenzy.

When I was first introduced to the Magna Carta when I was in school, it made no sense to me. I just couldn’t get my head around the idea that at one point, the King of England was literally beyond the law. Because that’s basically all that the Magna Carta says: you can’t just kill us. (“Us,” of course, being the feudal lords, not the “little” people.) This is interesting, because I often argue that today, the United States is moving toward a feudal system. But at least we have rights and no one is above the law, right? Well, maybe not.

After O. J. Simpson was acquitted of murder, many people I knew groused about how he only got off because of his million dollar legal defense. I was not a fan of Simpson, but I countered this argument. The problem was not that Simpson got a great legal defense; it was that not all defendants get that kind of legal defense. Under normal circumstances, it is the prosecution that basically has unlimited resources. It was really nice to see things evened up and that is the way it should always be.

That subject has come up again in the trial of George Zimmerman. Matt Yglesias wrote a brilliant article, What if George Zimmerman Had a Public Defender? His conclusion is that in that case, Zimmerman wouldn’t have even gone to trial. He would have done as 94% of all those with state charges have done: he would have pleaded down and taken a manslaughter charge. His point is not that justice would have been done in that case or even that it was done with his good defense. No, his point is more general about the state of our justice system.

Yglesias asks the question, “Why has no one been indicted for the financial crisis?” And the answer is basically: because those guys won’t plead. If you thought the defense that Zimmerman bought for $300,000 was good, you ought to see the kind of defense that $10 million would buy. And the truth is that our “justice” system is not set up to deal with defendants who can mount a vigorous defense. On the federal level it is even worse: 97% of the cases are pleaded.

This makes me wonder if we aren’t further toward a feudal system than I had previously thought. It isn’t that the rich can’t be convicted of crimes. It is just that the government doesn’t even much try. Our laws and institutions have grown so long in the tooth that they simply can’t handle prosecuting people who don’t lay down. And the only people who can afford to fight back are the rich. So we are left with a system where we have rights and opportunity in theory. But as a practical matter, we are no better off than we were in the 13th century.

I have a normal evolution regarding political writers. At first, I am in their thrall. Slowly, I begin to disagree with them more and more. And eventually I reach the point where they annoy me more often than not. The most recent example of this is Greg Sargent. With regards to policy, I think we very much agree. But I just can’t take his optimism in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I first started noticing it with the gun control legislation but it has continued through the debt ceiling (which he claims is solved but is not) and most recently comprehensive immigration reform.

Well, I’ve started a new relationship; this time it is with the Washington Times‘ Ed Kilgore. I can’t say where our relationship will go from here, but I think we are starting at a better place. For one thing, having read him on and off for a long time, I already know that I don’t always agree with him. But when it comes to temperament, we are very much alike. For example, on the issue of filibuster reform, he has wanted to see actual reform the whole time. Early this morning, he published, May Cooler Heads Not Prevail. That was nice to read after so many liberals were gloating that Democrats got what they wanted without actually improving the broken Senate. All morning I’ve been reading slight variants on, “And if the Republicans don’t behave, the Democrats still have the nuclear option!” Yeah, but they could just fix the problem instead. As Kilgore noted, “This is not time for sticky sentimentality about the Senate’s sacred traditions, which (a) are not at all “sacred” and (b) in the case of the filibuster, have been twisted beyond recognition in the last few years.”

The last thing Kilgore wrote today was music to my ears, Uh, Yeah, This Is a Different GOP. In it, he defended himself against other liberal writers who say that he is wrong to constantly be a naysayer about these deals that the Democrats are supposedly going to get with the Republicans. I’ve been hammering this same line since last year’s election when everyone was talking about how the Republicans had to be more reasonable since they lost. How was that? The Republicans still in Congress won their election. How should Obama’s victory change the way they thought? No one really had an answer, but I still hear that kind of logic from people like Steve Benen.

Kilgore noted that the threat of losing presidential elections is not likely to change the Republican Party any time soon. He rightly noted that the anti-choice coalition in the Republican Party thinks that it is doing God’s work. Unborn children are being murdered. If you see it that way, you aren’t going to moderate your opinions for the sake of political expediency. And they are right to act as they do if that’s how they feel.[1] Kilgore completely sums up what is going on:

I would go further. The conservatives do think in terms of winning wars. Politics is not about winning elections; it is about getting your policies enacted. The greatest recent conservative victory was the presidency of Bill Clinton. The Democratic Party has done and continues to do most of the work for the conservatives. So who cares if Hillary Clinton is the next president when she is going to push policy that will be well to the right of Ronald Reagan?

I suppose what I like about Kilgore is that he is rationally cynical. This is an infinitely better position than that of the Happy Horseshit Caucus. The problem is that all the happy talk allows people to avoid the reality that we really aren’t making progress. The conservatives are still the ones framing the debate. And we have elected officials who are far more conservative than the people they supposedly serve. It is only with this recognition that we can make any real progress.

[1] It is another matter that these beliefs are based on very technical and uncompelling theological theories about the soul. I doubt one out of one hundred really understands this. So the movement as a whole is a bunch of people who have simply been told God hates it. That makes these people sheep, but not irrational.

This morning, NASA announced that another moon was discovered circling Neptune. And that’s cool. But you have to ask, “Didn’t we go there?” Indeed we did. And why didn’t we noticed it? Because it is tiny! This is Neptune’s 14th moon, and just like with each new child Michelle Duggar pops out, you have to ask why we care. At just 20 km across, this moon is roughly the size of Mars’ two spectacularly unimpressive moons. Of course, I’ve always had a problem with moons of these sizes. All planets (And moons!) have space garbage orbiting them. And this new moon—with its romantic name S/2004 N 1—would not even qualify as a significant asteroid.

I understand that this is quite a scientific accomplishment. Detecting a tiny moon orbiting a huge planet is a great accomplishment. Mark Showalter is to be congratulated. He was studying Neptune’s rings when part of it diverged. That says a lot about what a tiny object this moon is: it was obscured by Neptune’s pathetic ring system. By looking at several years of data, he was able to determine orbital parameters like the fact that it is located way out at 100,000 km from Neptune.

According to NPR, many people are are looking to name this glorified piece of space garbage. Some have even suggested that this shriveled orbital should be named—God save me!—Vulcan. Luckily, William Shatner was around to set everyone straight about how these things get named:

The fact remains, there is an endless quantity of cosmic debris floating around the solar system. People discover it all the time. The fact that one managed to get attached to Neptune is about as exciting as the next season of Dancing with the Stars. But that doesn’t mean I’m not keen to enter the name debate. My candidate: Tweety. You see, Tweety Bird is both small and annoying. Plus, Tweet Bird is one of the water deities.

Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn, a man so great we know him by his first name, was born on this day in 1606. Under normal circumstances, I would have given the day to him. But it is hard to do that when Google has spent the whole damned day hocking their doodle of him. He is unquestionably great, and I really like his work. However, I prefer Vermeer. It isn’t that I think Vermeer is better. From a technical standpoint, Rembrandt is certainly better. To me, he is very similar to the best of the High Renaissance, which is a very great compliment. But there is a certain magic in the way that Vermeer uses light that I find very compelling. Rembrandt is undoubtedly more realistic. But what does my opinion matter? You’re reading a man who is most inspired by pre-perspective religious painting.

The Italian composer Giovanni Buonaventura Viviani was born in 1638. His work is pre-Baroque. You can definitely hear where it is headed. Here is one of his sonatas played by the Chicago Early Music Consort with period instruments:

The American composer Jack Beeson was born in 1921. He is that fairly rare creature: a modern composer who wrote operas. Here is the second act of his opera Lizzie Borden, which is in English, but is demanding music:

Linda Ronstadt is 67 today. She is such a fine pop singer. Here she is in the video for her version of Bob Haggart’s and Johnny Burke’s “What’s New”:

Wrestler and iconoclast Jesse Ventura is 62. Guitarist Joe Satriani is 57. I admire him, but often think of the line from Amadeus, “Too many notes.” Still, here he is with “Flying In A Blue Dream,” which is quite nice once he gets into it:

And actor Forest Whitaker is 52.

But the day belongs to one of my favorite lyricists Dorothy Fields who was born on this day in 1905. She is best known for the songs “I Can’t Give You Anything But Love”, “On the Sunny Side of the Street,” and, of course, “The Way You Look Tonight.” Here is the original version of that last song sung by Fred Astaire. It is not my favorite version at all, but what matters is the song. It is always great:

Happy birthday Dorothy Fields!

Politico reports this morning, Reid digs in as Senate Nears Nuclear Option Showdown. While it is good that Reid is indeed moving forward, that isn’t what the article is about. Rather, it seems that some Republicans are trying to pitch a new “Gang of Umpteen” to Reid. I am not in favor of this.

Right off the top, I’m skeptical because the Gang of 14 disappeared as soon the Democrats got control of the Senate. Why was that? I thought the whole idea of that group was not just to stop the Republicans from using the nuclear option, but also to make filibuster use more responsible and rare. And the way the Gang of 14 worked was pretty much that the Republicans got whatever they wanted. Pretty much every nominee who would have been filibustered was pushed through by the Gang of 14. In other words, the Republicans might as well have used the nuclear option, there were only a very small number of nominees who the Gang stopped. So the question is whether the new Gang of Umpteen would function the same and allow pretty much all nominees through.

Ha ha ha! Wait, I have to catch my breath… My, but that was a doozy! Of course that isn’t going to happen.

As usual, what the Republicans are offering the Democrats is the weakest of tea. This is bad in a couple of ways:

First, this doesn’t even deal with the problem generally. McCain is suggesting that if they can deal with just these seven nominees, all should be well. But he isn’t even offering up-or-down votes on them; he’s offering to find replacements. Replacements?! Sure! Why don’t we put John Bolton in charge of the National Labor Relations Board. I’m sure that the Republicans in their infinite charity would allow that.

There is a theory out there that it must be hell to be a Republican. By this theory, Republicans don’t really want to stand for everything that is wrong and ineffective. But they have to or else they will lose their primary to an even more radical challenger. The problem with this theory is that it doesn’t explain the filibuster. Not filibustering a nominee is not the same as voting for him. I don’t see how the details of Senate procedure would be an effective challenge in an election. So that leaves us with a Republican Party that really is for everything that is wrong and ineffective.

This provides us with things like the recent spectacle of Eric Cantor announcing a new DREAM Act. And we see it here. Rather than legislating like normal politicians, these people think they can game and finesse everything to their advantage. But they’ve become so ideologically ossified that now they can’t even effectively do that. Find replacements? Really?!

Afterword

Of course, I have little confidence that the Democrats won’t go along with this pathetic attempt at a compromise. For all I know, Reid will give up the whole thing in exchange for McConnell’s word that he won’t use the nuclear option when he’s in the majority. Time will tell.