Skip to content

Month: July 2012

No control needed, by @DavidOAtkins

No control needed

by David Atkins

This seems reasonable:

Unhindered by federal background checks or government oversight, the 24-year-old man accused of killing a dozen people inside a Colorado movie theater was able to build what the police called a 6,000-round arsenal legally and easily over the Internet, exploiting what critics call a virtual absence of any laws regulating ammunition sales.

With a few keystrokes, the suspect, James E. Holmes, ordered 3,000 rounds of handgun ammunition, 3,000 rounds for an assault rifle and 350 shells for a 12-gauge shotgun — an amount of firepower that costs roughly $3,000 at the online sites — in the four months before the shooting, according to the police. It was pretty much as easy as ordering a book from Amazon.

He also bought bulletproof vests and other tactical gear, and a high-capacity “drum magazine” large enough to hold 100 rounds and capable of firing 50 or 60 rounds per minute — a purchase that would have been restricted under proposed legislation that has been stalled in Washington for more than a year.

Mr. Holmes, a graduate student in neuroscience with a clean criminal record, was able to buy the ammunition without arousing the slightest notice from law enforcement, because the sellers are not required in most cases to report sales to law enforcement officials, even unusually large purchases. And neither Colorado nor federal law required him to submit to a background check or register his growing purchases, gun policy experts said.

Of course, it’s a totally unpreventable tragedy, the work of a madman over which we have no control.

Clearly, nothing could possibly have been done to throw up any roadblocks that might have stopped this massacre. Freedom, after all, isn’t free. Sometimes it has to be paid for with the blood of random moviegoers.

.

He stood his ground

He stood his ground

by digby

Being armed and hyper-vigilant has a price:

A New York police officer killed his son after thinking he was an intruder and shooting him.

Michael Leach, of Rochester, was staying at the Clark Beach Motel in Old Forge, Wyoming County.

The 59-year-old and his son were part of a group of police officers who had driven to the area on motorcycles for a long-weekend getaway.

‘It was just a group of guys coming to have a good time,’ motel owner Dan Rivet Jr told uticaod.com.’We have very little violence in Old Forge.’

Leach was disturbed by someone coming into his room shortly after midnight.
Believing the disturbance to be an intruder Leach grabbed his police department-issued .45-caliber Glock handgun and opened fire.

After realising his error the 59-year-old called 911 and reported the shooting.
37-year-old Matthew Leach was pronounced dead at St Elizabeth’s Hospital and his father was taken to St Luke’s Hospital for mental support.

He stood his ground.

Why he felt he needed to have a loaded gun near his bed is a question someone would ask in a sane country. But here, it’s evidently become routine to be armed to the teeth and ready to shoot to kill at a moment’s notice.

Here’s an interesting little bit of context on this:

In November 1975, Michael Leach, then a 22-year-old officer in the Rochester Police Department, shot and killed Denise Hawkins, an 18-year-old who was coming toward him with a knife in the basement of an apartment building.

The incident led to extensive protests from black community leaders and a grand jury investigation. The shooting was ruled to be justified.

He’s got another notch on his belt.

.

“A revolution is not successful unless it succeeds in preserving itself”

“A revolution is not successful unless it succeeds in preserving itself”

by digby

Oh fergawdsakes:

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) is floating legislation that would name most U.S. coastal waters after former President Ronald Reagan.

Issa reintroduced his bill Wednesday to rename the country’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), which generally extends from three miles to 200 miles offshore, as the Ronald Wilson Reagan Exclusive Economic Zone.

I haven’t written about this recently, but it’s time to revisit it. Most people associate Grover Norquist with the anti-tax pledge. But his other “accomplishment” is the “Reagan Legacy project” which I wrote about some time back:

It may be apocryphal, but the bin Laden family’s good friend and everybody’s favorite Leninist right wingnut, Grover Norquist, is reported to have said back in the 1980’s:

“We must establish a Brezhnev Doctrine for conservative gains. The Brezhnev Doctrine states that once a country becomes communist it can never change. Conservatives must establish their own doctrine and declare their victories permanent…A revolution is not successful unless it succeeds in preserving itself…(W)e want to remove liberal personnel from the political process. Then we want to capture those positions of power and influence for conservatives. Stalin taught the importance of this principle.”

I think he’s been damned successful so far. You can’t fault the guy for thinking small.

Inspired as he is by all things totalitarian, Norquist went on to do a number of things that Uncle Joe would be proud of, one of which was The Legacy Project.

Here’s what Mother Jones had to say about it:

Win one for the Gipper? Hell, try winning 3,067 for the Gipper. That’s the goal of a group of a powerful group of Ronald Reagan fans who aim to see their hero’s name displayed on at least one public landmark in every county in the United States.

A conservative pipe dream? The intrepid members of the Ronald Reagan Legacy Project don’t think so. Launched in 1997 as a unit of hard-line antitax lobby Americans for Tax Reform, the project’s board of advisers reads like a who’s who of conservatives; it includes, among others, staunch GOP activist Grover Norquist, supply-sider Jack Kemp, and Eagle Forum chief Phyllis Schlafly. To this crew, the Great Communicator is the man who almost singlehandedly saved us from the Evil Soviet Empire, made Americans proud again, and put the nation on the road to prosperity through tax cuts that helped the poor by helping the rich help themselves.

Buoyed by an early success in having Washington National Airport renamed in Reagan’s honor in 1998, the project started thinking big. In short order, they convinced Florida legislators to rename a state turnpike. From there, it was a logical step to the push for a Reagan memorial just about everywhere. “We want to create a tangible legacy so that 30 or 40 years from now, someone who may never have heard of Reagan will be forced to ask himself, ‘Who was this man to have so many things named after him?'” explains 29-year-old lobbyist Michael Kamburowski, who recently stepped down as the Reagan Legacy Project’s executive director.
[…]
…it was the Gipper’s ho-hum performance in a 1996 survey of historians that apparently triggered the right’s recent zeal to enthrone him in the public eye. It was in that year that presidential historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr., in The New York Times Magazine, asked 30 academic colleagues and a pair of politicians to rank all US presidents, and when conservatives saw their undisputed hero languishing in the “average” column, they were aghast. Appearing on the heels of Clinton’s landslide victory over Bob Dole, the Schlesinger article seemed a slap in the face, a challenge to the GOP to stake its claim on recent history.

The charge was led by the Heritage Foundation — a conservative think tank that helped devise the Republican Contract with America. In the March 1997 issue of the foundation’s magazine Policy Review, the editors charged that Schlesinger’s survey was stacked with liberals and New Deal sympathizers, and presented opinions from authors more appreciative of the Gipper. (The 40th president has always fared better with the general public than with the pointyheads: In a recent Gallup poll, respondents rated Ronald Reagan as the greatest American president, beating out second-place John F. Kennedy and third-place Abraham Lincoln.)

Two issues later, for its 20th anniversary, Policy Review ran a followup cover story: “Reagan Betrayed: Are Conservatives Fumbling His Legacy?” For its centerpiece, the magazine invited soul-searching by prominent Reagan acolytes including senators Phil Gramm and Trent Lott, representatives Christopher Cox, and Dick Armey, then-Christian Coalition head Ralph Reed, Gary Bauer, and Grover Norquist. Soon after the cover story appeared, Norquist launched the Reagan Legacy Project as an offshoot of Americans for Tax Reform, which he had founded a decade earlier to further Reagan’s fiscal policies.

And tonight, Grover won the very first Ronald Reagan Award from the Frontiers of Freedom Foundation. Check out the sponsors, a veritable who’s who of GOP luminaries. How sweet it must have been for these lovers of freedom to be able to celebrate successfully repressing a “docu-drama” about their Dear Leader without even having seen it. After all, “a revolution is not successful unless it succeeds in preserving itself.”

I have no doubt that they all stood up at the gala tonight and proudly proclaimed “Thank You Comrade, Norquist!”

By now, of course, they just do this stuff out of habit. Naming the oceans after Reagan is pro-forma.

.

It’s the guns, stupid

It’s the guns, stupid

by digby

Via TPM:

Conservative columnist George Will said Sunday that the Aurora, Colo. shootings have little to do with the nation’s gun laws, describing it as the product of an isolated, deranged individual.

“That’s what the problem is – an individual’s twisted mind,” he said on ABC’s “This Week” roundable. “There is a human itch in the modern age to commit sociology as soon as this happens and to piggy-back various political agendas on a tragedy. And I just think we ought to resist that. … There are deranged people in the world.”

Mass murder is as natural as the sun coming up in the morning and there’s nothing anyone can do about it:

Since 1982, there have been at least 36 mass murders* carried out with firearms across the United States. We have mapped them below, including details on the shooter’s identity, the date of the event, and the number of victims injured and killed. We do not consider the map comprehensive (and there are countless incidents of deadly gun violence in America, of course). We used the following criteria to identify incidents of mass murder:

• The killings were carried out by a lone shooter (except in the case of the Columbine massacre, which involved two shooters).
• The shootings happened during a single incident and in a public place (except possibly in the case of a deer hunter in Wisconsin who killed his victims after a trespassing dispute).
• The shooter took the lives of at least four people (an FBI crime classification report identifies an individual as a mass murderer—as opposed to a spree killer or a serial killer—if he kills four or more people in a single incident, and typically in a single location).
• If the shooter died or was hurt from injuries sustained during the incident, he is included in the victim count.

Click over to see the map.

Let’s just say that there have not been 36 mass murders in that period not committed with firearms. So I think there’s at least some correlation. Yes, murders have always happened and mass murder is a feature of human kind. But there’s something very new about what we’re experiencing now:

Although gun proponents are correct when they contend that firearms are not to blame for the behavior of mass killers, guns do make their attacks far bloodier. The availability of high-powered, rapid-fire weapons is surely a large part of the reason why the death tolls in mass murders have been so large in the recent past. Three-quarters of the deadliest mass murders in the United States have occurred since 1980, most of which involved firearms as the exclusive or primary weapon.

It would have been nearly impossible for the Tucson gunman to kill and wound so many with a knife or his own hands. In addition to the greater lethality of the firearm, guns also distance the attacker psychologically from his victims. It is possible that the shooter may not have been emotionally able to kill a young girl had he had any physical contact with her. But with a gun, he could dispassionately shoot down innocent strangers, along with his primary target, as if they were moving objects in a video game.

Notwithstanding the worn-out slogan that “guns don’t kill, people do,” guns do make it easier for people to commit murder. And semi-automatic guns, like the Tucson assailant’s out-of-the-box spanking-new Glock, make it easier to commit mass murder.

I guess we’re just supposed to accept this as an inevitable result of “progress.” But it’s sick. Blithely defending the idea that some kid can legally get a hold of automatic weapons that can take down 75 people in a quick spray is about the most irresponsible thing I’ve ever heard. George Will is a bit of a psychopath himself, I’m afraid.

.

One born every minute

One born every minute

by digby

If you wanted proof that some people have completely lost their common sense:

Fire officials said 21 people at an event hosted by motivational speaker Tony Robbins suffered burns while walking across hot coals and three of the injured were treated at hospitals.

The injuries took place during the first day Thursday of a four-day event at the San Jose Convention Center hosted by Robbins called “Unleash the Power Within.” Most of those hurt had second and third degree burns, said San Jose Fire Department Capt. Reggie Williams.

Walking across hot coals on lanes measuring 10 feet long and heated to between 1,200 to 2,000 degrees provides attendees an opportunity to “understand that there is absolutely nothing you can’t overcome,” according to the motivational speaker’s website.
[…]
“I just heard these screams of agony,” he told The Associated Press. “People were in pain. It sounded like people were being tortured.”

Participant Sahar Madani told KTVU-TV that attendees were warned that they might get burns or blisters.

“The intention of the event is to get your focus and your attention away from that and look into the power within yourself and focus on just walking on the fire,” she told the station.

Right. Just don’t focus on the 3rd degree burns on the bottom of your feet.

.

If you build it, they will use it: “counternarcotics” edition

If you build it, they will use it

by digby

In this case it’s a global anti-terrorist machine that has taken on a life of its own:

In a significant expansion of the war on drugs, the United States has begun training an elite unit of counternarcotics police in Ghana and planning similar units in Nigeria and Kenya as part of an effort to combat the Latin American cartels that are increasingly using Africa to smuggle cocaine into Europe.

The growing American involvement in Africa follows an earlier escalation of antidrug efforts in Central America, according to documents, Congressional testimony and interviews with a range of officials at the State Department, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Pentagon.

In both regions, American officials are responding to fears that crackdowns in more direct staging points for smuggling — like Mexico and Spain — have prompted traffickers to move into smaller and weakly governed states, further corrupting and destabilizing them.

The aggressive response by the United States is also a sign of how greater attention and resources have turned to efforts to fight drugs as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have wound down.

“We see Africa as the new frontier in terms of counterterrorism and counternarcotics issues,” said Jeffrey P. Breeden, the chief of the D.E.A.’s Europe, Asia and Africa section. “It’s a place that we need to get ahead of — we’re already behind the curve in some ways, and we need to catch up.”

Hey, we’re geared up for a GWOT. Be a shame to waste it.

Why anyone thinks we should spend even one penny trying to interdict cocaine going into Europe is beyond me. Don’t they have their own forces to do that sort of thing? “Counternarcotics” issues are stupid anyway, but involving the DEA in Africa just because they have a lot of toys they’d like to use is lunacy.

.

Winning the future

Winning the future

by digby

Your depressing read of the morning is this series in the LA Times about the population explosion:

How many children to have is an intensely personal matter, often a source of family debate. But the decisions made by Ramjee, Mamta and others their age will have repercussions far beyond their own families and villages.

They are members of the largest generation in history — more than 3 billion people worldwide under the age of 25. About 1.2 billion of them are adolescents just entering their reproductive years.

If they choose, collectively, to have smaller families than their elders did, the world’s population — now 7 billion — will continue to grow, but more slowly.

According to United Nations projections, the number will rise to 9.3 billion by 2050 — the equivalent of adding another India and China to the world.

That’s an optimistic scenario, one that assumes the worldwide average birthrate, now 2.5 children per woman, will decline to 2.1.

If birthrates stay where they are, the population is expected to reach 11 billion by midcentury — akin to adding three Chinas.

Under either forecast, scientists say, living conditions are likely to be bleak for much of humanity. Water, food and arable land will be more scarce, cities more crowded and hunger more widespread.

On a planet with 11 billion people, however, all those problems will be worse.

The outcome hinges on the cumulative decisions of hundreds of millions of young people around the globe.

The relentless growth in population might seem paradoxical given that the world’s average birthrate has been slowly falling for decades. Humanity’s numbers continue to climb because of what scientists call population momentum.

So many people are now in their prime reproductive years — the result of unchecked fertility in decades past, coupled with reduced child mortality — that even modest rates of childbearing yield huge increases.

“We’re still adding more than 70 million people to the planet every year — which we have been doing since the 1970s,” said John Bongaarts, a leading demographer and vice president of the nonprofit Population Council in New York. “We’re still in the steep part of the curve.”

Think of population growth as a speeding train. When the engineer applies the brakes, the train doesn’t stop immediately. Momentum propels it forward a considerable distance before it finally comes to a halt.

U.N. demographers once believed the train would stop around 2075. Now they say world population will continue growing into the next century.

In India, a country of 1.2 billion people, women have an average of 2.5 children each, and the birthrate is projected to fall to 2.1 by 2030. At that point, parents will merely be replacing themselves.

But even then, India’s population will continue to grow because of momentum. It is on track to surpass China’s and is not expected to peak until 2060, at 1.7 billion people.

Momentum isn’t the only factor in population growth. In some of the poorest parts of the world, fertility rates remain high, driven by tradition, religion, the inferior status of women and limited access to contraception.

Population will rise most rapidly in places least able to handle it: developing nations where hunger, political instability and environmental degradation are already pervasive.

The African continent is expected to double in population by the middle of this century, adding 1 billion people despite the ravages of AIDS and malnutrition.

Even under optimistic assumptions, the toll on people and the planet will be severe.

Today, about 1 in 8 people in the world lives in a slum. By midcentury, with the population at more than 9 billion, the ratio would be 1 in 3, assuming poverty and migration to cities continue at their current rates.

Now nearly 1 billion people are chronically hungry, according to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, and at least 8 million die every year of hunger-related illnesses.

By midcentury, there will be at least 2 billion more mouths to feed, and no one can say where the food will come from.

It’s not just that the population will be larger. It’s that hundreds of millions of newly affluent people, mostly in Asia, will want to add dairy products and grain-fed beef and pork to their diets.

To meet the projected demand, the world’s farmers will have to double their crop production, according to calculations by a team of scientists led by David Tilman, a University of Minnesota expert on global agriculture.

William G. Lesher, a former chief economist for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, said the brightest minds in the field haven’t figured out the solution.

“We’re going to have to produce more food in the next 40 years than we have the last 10,000,” he said. “Some people say we’ll just add more land or more water. But we’re not going to do much of either.”

Gosh, I sure hope that global warming thing doesn’t pan out.

Enjoy your day …

Bill McKibben issues a dire warning about climate change, by @DavidOAtkins

Bill McKibben issues a dire warning about climate change

David Atkins

Bill McKibben delivers the goods on the latest climate change math at Rolling Stone:

If the pictures of those towering wildfires in Colorado haven’t convinced you, or the size of your AC bill this summer, here are some hard numbers about climate change: June broke or tied 3,215 high-temperature records across the United States. That followed the warmest May on record for the Northern Hemisphere – the 327th consecutive month in which the temperature of the entire globe exceeded the 20th-century average, the odds of which occurring by simple chance were 3.7 x 10-99, a number considerably larger than the number of stars in the universe.

Meteorologists reported that this spring was the warmest ever recorded for our nation – in fact, it crushed the old record by so much that it represented the “largest temperature departure from average of any season on record.” The same week, Saudi authorities reported that it had rained in Mecca despite a temperature of 109 degrees, the hottest downpour in the planet’s history.

Not that our leaders seemed to notice. Last month the world’s nations, meeting in Rio for the 20th-anniversary reprise of a massive 1992 environmental summit, accomplished nothing. Unlike George H.W. Bush, who flew in for the first conclave, Barack Obama didn’t even attend. It was “a ghost of the glad, confident meeting 20 years ago,” the British journalist George Monbiot wrote; no one paid it much attention, footsteps echoing through the halls “once thronged by multitudes.” Since I wrote one of the first books for a general audience about global warming way back in 1989, and since I’ve spent the intervening decades working ineffectively to slow that warming, I can say with some confidence that we’re losing the fight, badly and quickly – losing it because, most of all, we remain in denial about the peril that human civilization is in.

When we think about global warming at all, the arguments tend to be ideological, theological and economic. But to grasp the seriousness of our predicament, you just need to do a little math. For the past year, an easy and powerful bit of arithmetical analysis first published by financial analysts in the U.K. has been making the rounds of environmental conferences and journals, but it hasn’t yet broken through to the larger public. This analysis upends most of the conventional political thinking about climate change. And it allows us to understand our precarious – our almost-but-not-quite-finally hopeless – position with three simple numbers.

Read the whole article for the gruesome truth. And yet it barely registers as an issue in the presidential election.

Sometimes I wish there truly were posthumous punishment for the world’s greedy and evil people.

.

Saturday Night at the Movies: the winds of Var

Saturday Night at the Movies

The winds of Var
By Dennis Hartley




















Mistral maiden: The Well Digger’s Daughter

There is an unbilled co-star stealing nearly every scene in the latest film adaptation of Marcel Pagnol’s novel, La Fille du puisatier; it’s the immutable breeze that rustles the verdant forests, fields and groves of France’s Provence region. It’s no coincidence that this is the very same intoxicating locale that informed two of the most acclaimed Pagnol film adaptations, Claude Berri’s Jean De Florette and Manon of the Spring. It’s also no coincidence that the first-time director helming The Well Digger’s Daughter is veteran actor Daniel Auteuil, who portrayed one of the major characters in Berri’s 1986 diptych.
Auteuil casts himself as the father of the eponymous young woman of the title. The story begins on the eve of WW I. Pascal is a working class widower with six daughters, quite literally scraping to get by. His eldest, 18 year-old Patricia (Astrid Berges-Frisbey) has in essence filled her late mother’s shoes, selflessly devoting herself to attending to the welfare of her father and younger sisters. Patricia is special in another way as well. When she was 6, a wealthy (and childless) Parisian woman on a countryside visit was so taken with the angelic young girl that she offered to take her back to the city and become her guardian. Seeing this as an opportunity for at least one of their daughters to have a shot at a better life, her parents agreed. But when her benefactor died, Patricia returned home at 15, now carrying herself with a certain air of refinement that set her apart from her peers.
Patricia’s trifecta of beauty, carriage and saintliness has certainly not been lost on at least two potential suitors. One is Felipe (Kad Merad). Felipe, a kind-hearted bachelor in his mid-40s, is Pascal’s closest friend and sole employee (Merad’s characterization reminded me of Karl Malden’s turn as the quietly desperate, romantically awkward but well-meaning Mitch in A Streetcar Named Desire ). When Felipe begins dropping not-so-subtle hints about his intentions, Pascal gives his blessing, mostly for pragmatic reasons; Felipe’s house is nearby, so he wouldn’t “lose” his beloved daughter, and it would be one less mouth for him to feed. Still, it would be up to Patricia, who, while fond of Felipe, has no romantic feelings for him. Patricia’s introduction to her second suitor is straight out of Red Riding Hood. While cutting through unfamiliar woods one day to bring some lunch to her father and Felipe at their well dig, she encounters a somewhat over-confident (yet undeniably seductive) young man (Nicolas Duvauchelle) who introduces himself as the son of a local well-to-do storeowner. It’s love at first sight; although Patricia doesn’t realize it yet. By the time she does, the young man, a military pilot, is called to serve at the front, and she is left with a child on the way and a disappointed and conflicted father.
If that sounds like the setup for an old fashioned romantic melodrama, you would be 100% correct in that assumption. And I mean that in the best possible way (as I have never had an opportunity to see Pagnol’s own original 1940 film version, which doesn’t seem to be readily available on any home video format, I can’t address comparisons). This is a magnificent “old fashioned romantic melodrama” in the tradition of Ryan’s Daughter ; a beautifully acted, sensitively directed, emotionally resonant film, with lushly photographed scenery (by Betty Blue DP Jean-Francois Robin) that becomes a palpable character in the story. Auteuil plays his Noble Peasant (a Pagnol staple) with a sense of aplomb that reminded me more than a little of Gerard Depardieu’s performance as the put-upon hunchback in Jean de Florette (I did have to chuckle though, when I remembered the late Pauline Kael’s droll assessment in her original review: “…Depardieu wears ‘GOOD MAN’ in capital letters across his wide brow; in smaller letters we can read: ‘He has poetry in his soul.’). As a bonus, Berges-Frisbey (radiantly lovely) and Duvauchelle (vibing the young Alain Delon) sure do make great eye candy. Tired of superheroes, aliens and car crashes? This is your cure for the summertime blues.
.

The singing candidates

The singing candidates

by digby

So, someone noticed that the Mitt “response” to the Obama “American the beautiful” ad was a little bit odd:

Viewed from a tactical standpoint, I was surprised that the Romney camp used Mr Obama’s performance. I could see why Mr Obama featured Mr Romney in his commercial; the Republican’s warbling suggested a lack of harmony between his rhetoric and his record in government and the private equity business. But unlike Mr Romney, Mr Obama sang quite well, raising the question of why the opposition would show him off to his advantage, even in this limited sense.

One of the better answers I have found comes from a well-known supporter of Mr Romney – Suzy Welch, former editor in chief of the Harvard Business Review, and wife of Jack Welch, former CEO of General Electric. In an appearance on CNN with her husband, Mrs Welch suggested that Mr Obama’s personal style and choice of musical material define him as a member of a “different America”. I would imagine this is why Mr Romney’s campaign included the snippet of Mr Obama singing “Let’s Stay Together” at the Apollo Theater in Harlem. They hoped it would convey his otherness.

“It’s the difference between the songs that they’re singing,” Mrs Welch said. “Mitt Romney didn’t exactly do a beautiful job on that song, but think about what he’s singing, OK? I mean it’s that patriotic song and he goes all the way through it. Then you’ve got the very cool Barack Obama singing Al Green. That is the two different Americas. Isn’t it?”

Putting aside the question of what this kind of thinking means for America (I’ll stick to the singular), I think it spells trouble for Mr Romney’s strategic effort because you have to be really old – or, I guess, spend a lot of time with someone really old – to hear “Let’s Stay Together” and think of it as a symbol of a “different America”.

Al Green’s song topped the US pop charts more than four decades ago, in 1972, meaning people who bought the record as children are eligible for membership in the AARP (American Association of Retired Persons).

The song – a paean to monogamy, whether times “are good or bad, happy or sad” – is so middle-of-the-road it has become part of that canon of 1960s and 1970s hits that are frequently performed on popular television shows such as America’s Got Talent and American Idol. It was a sign of the times that after Mr Obama sang “Let’s Stay Together” at the Apollo, he received a tongue-in-cheek invitation to reprise the song with Mr Green on American Idol.>

What’s funny about this is that the author obtusely insists that the “two Americas” she’s talking about is generational rather than racial. I think most of us understand very well what she meant by that.

.