Chris Dodd says that he wants to move on financial reform as early as Wednesday, but with President Obama set to deliver his own Cooper Union speech on financial reform on Thursday, it's unlikely the bill will go to the floor before then.

Dodd is still talking tough about forcing Republicans to choose between Wall Street and America.

"I don't really believe Republican members want to be with their leaders when they're talking about filibustering a bill that would allow us to address [Wall Street reform]," said Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd at a press conference this morning. "So I'm going to work on the assumption that the glass is half full, that when we bring this bill up later this week that we'll have the votes across the board...to allow us to debate this legislation, consider amendments, and move forward."

....

"On Wednesday or Thursday, Democrats and Republicans in the United States Senate will get a chance to decide which side of the equation are they on," Dodd said. "For change? For establishing the laws and regulations that will protect us? Or on the other side that said no, status quo.

Dodd has also said that he won't commit to eliminating the $50 billion fund that has been the target of the Republicans' "permanent bailout" talking points.

"If there are other options to that, fine, we'll consider them," Dodd said. "But the irony of ironies is the suggestion about this came from the Republicans. Now, we agreed with it, because it made some sense to have a prepayment system for large institutions, much as we have for small ones."

....

"Obviously, the events of the last week or so, including a major investment firm in New York — without getting into the decision, a legal matter — let there be no doubt in my mind, our bill would have prevented that kind of events from happening, in my view, and that's what the public needs to know," Dodd said. "By not enacting our legislation, by filibustering it, stopping it, we leave the American public vulnerable once again to the kind of — the kind of shenanigans that have occurred in our large financial institutions across this country."

Given the polling on financial reform and the unease in at least one Republican over the hard line the Republicans are locking themselves into, Dems need to hold firm, not make concessions to weaken reform and take on both Wall Street and the Republicans.

Making concessions isn't likely to bring Republican votes, anyway, if Susan Collins is any example. After her meeting today with Tim Geithner, Collins announced "that she will vote to filibuster a Democratic Wall Street reform bill."

That leaves Olympia Snowe, reprising her role. Snowe says she's "always willing to be the only Republican if it's the right thing, and it's important to do the right thing on this." Of course, that's pretty much what she said about health insurance reform, too.

Oh, goody. This game again:

New Hampshire republican gubernatorial candidate Jack Kimball - a survivalist who calls Glenn Beck an "American hero" - compared paying taxes to being raped at a recent Tea Party rally.

[Kimball] drew cheers with an anti-tax message. He decried the state's taxation of business while criticizing its relatively low level of services.

"I don't mind paying my fair share, folks," he said. "I don't think any of us do. But I do mind when I'm raped. It's awful."

It's amazing the way some people love to compare just about anything to rape. Remember when Rep. Steve King (KS-Asshole) compared rape to auto theft?

It's only fair to ask what Mr. Kimball was wearing when he paid his taxes. And just how many times he's paid taxes before. And exactly when did he say no to paying taxes? And should we really believe that he even paid his taxes at all? This could be just another he said/the government said sort of situation. And really? I bet he secretly wanted to pay his taxes. Just look at him. You know he wanted it.

Well, Mr. Kimball, maybe you should just take the sound advice of college basketball coach and all around piece of work Bobby Knight:

"I think that if rape paying taxes is inevitable, relax and enjoy it."

When a government employee sends text messages on his government-issued pager, does he have a reasonable expectation of privacy that his messages will not be reviewed by the government?

That's the question which was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States today in City of Ontario (CA) v. Quon, involving a SWAT team member who was using his pager to send an excessive number of texts to his wife and his, um, girlfriend.  [There was a limit of 25,000 characters/month under the plan.]  The Department reviewed his messages to determine how many of them were work-related and how many were personal so they could charge him for the cost of the excess.  Officer Quon, his now ex-wife and his girlfriend (also a colleague) in turn sued the City and his wireless provider in federal court, claiming violations of their Fourth Amendment and California Constitution rights of privacy, as well as violations of the federal Stored Communications Act by his wireless provider for disclosing the content of the text messages without his consent.  The case before the Supreme Court concerns the federal right of privacy only.

The City argued that it had a reasonable need to monitor texts to confine the pager to work-related purposes and had asserted a no-privacy policy in advance; Quon argued that the department had told him it wasn't going to violate privacy, and that it had less intrusive means for determining whether his usage was appropriate.  A coalition of news organizationa argued for the City, claiming that the public's right to know what government employees were doing with government resources meant such communications should be public records, while the ACLU, EFF, CDT and Public Citizen argued that whatever's decided here should be limited to the context of government-as-employer, and that the Court should be hesitant about making a lot of new law with all these new technologies (while, ultimately, supporting Officer Quon).  

And, finally, the United States argued (via the SG's Office) that because the City's official policy announced there was no expectation of privacy, that therefore there was no right to privacy and the search was fine:

Because the City obtained all of the messages at issue through a valid search of the pager account assigned to Quon, the senders of those messages— Jerilyn Quon, Florio, and Trujillo—have no valid Fourth Amendment claim. Once their messages to Quon were delivered to his City-issued pager, they had no further cognizable interest under the Fourth Amendment in what happened to those messages. A valid search of a person’s papers frequently extends to papers sent by another person, such as an already-delivered letter. The original letter-writer has no right to object. So too here: the City had a constitutionally valid basis for searching Quon’s text messages, and that basis extends to all of the messages, irrespective of who sent them.

At oral argument today (PDF), the Chief Justice seemed sympathetic to Quon's argument:

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: We are not going to audit them. Right? That's what he said. He has to pay for them. Right? Now, most people will say, well, if you're paying for them, they are yours. And it particularly covered messages off-duty.

Now, can't you sort of put all those together and say that it would be reasonable for him to assume that private messages were his business? They said he can do it. They said, you have got to pay for it. He used it off-duty. They said they are not going to audit it.

So, too, did Justice Sotomayor:

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Counsel, let's assume that in this police department, everyone knew, the supervisors and everyone else, that the police department people spoke to their girlfriends at night.

MR. RICHLAND: Yes, Justice Sotomayor.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: And one of the chiefs, out of salacious interest, decides: I'm going to just go in and get those texts, those messages, because I just have a prurient interest. Does that officer have any expectation of privacy that his boss won't just listen in out of prurient interest?

MR. RICHLAND: Justice Sotomayor, as to the first aspect, the question of reasonable expectation of privacy, the motive should have no impact. The motive of looking should have no impact. The question of reasonable expectation of privacy must be analyzed according to the relationship between the officer and his -- and his employer.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: But if in fact -- and whether we agree with this conclusion or not, we accept the lower court's views that there was an expectation that the chiefs were not going to read these things, some expectation of privacy --

MR. RICHLAND: Yes.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: The limits of it have to be limited for all of the reasons you said. Doesn't this case begin and end on whether or not what the jury found is reasonable grounds for what the city did?

MR. RICHLAND: I think that what this case begins and ends with, if we assume that there was a reasonable expectation of privacy, is under the plurality opinion in O'Connor: Whether the search itself was reasonable. And the jury did, of course, make a determination as to the purpose of the search.

MR. RICHLAND: I think that what this case begins and ends with, if we assume that there was a reasonable expectation of privacy, is under the plurality opinion in O'Connor: Whether the search itself was reasonable. And the jury did, of course, make a determination as to the purpose of the search.

JUSTICE SCALIA: I guess we don't decide our -- our Fourth Amendment privacy cases on the basis of whether there -- there was an absolute guarantee of privacy from everybody. I think -- I think those cases say that if you think it can be made public by anybody, you don't -- you don't really have a right of privacy.

So when the -- when the filthy-minded police chief listens in, it's a very bad thing, but it's not offending your right of privacy. You expected somebody else could listen in, if not him.

MR. RICHLAND: I think that's correct, Justice Scalia.

JUSTICE SCALIA: I think it is.

When Neal Katyal argued for the United States, the Chief Justice piped up again, and really sounds like he's trying to understand the technology and defend privacy here:

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Your point that you made just a moment ago that we don't want to freeze into place the constitutional requirements with respect to new technology, I wonder if it cuts the other way. We are dealing with an amendment that looks to whether something is reasonable. And I think it might be the better course to say that the Constitution applies, but we are going to be more flexible in determining what is reasonable because we are dealing with evolving technology.

MR. KATYAL: Well, I think that the -- the best way -- I think the most -- the easiest way for the Court to resolve this is to simply say that when we are dealing with what is reasonable, we look to the policy. And here there is a policy by the employer, it says that computer-associated and computer-related equipment and others, there is no expectation of privacy. You have a person who is told that repeatedly.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: But that puts a lot of weight -- I mean, there are some things where we don't bind them. You know, you get the usual parking garage thing that has got all this small print on the back. We -- we don't say that you are bound by that because nobody reads it.  

But in here, I just don't know. I just don't know how you tell what is reasonable. I suspect it might change with how old people are and how comfortable they are with the technology when you have all these different -- different factors.  You know, they are told you can use it for private, you got to pay for it. I think if I pay for it, it's mine and not the employer's.

MR. KATYAL: Well, I think the clearest way, Mr. Chief Justice, to decide what is reasonable and what isn't is actually the terms of the policy. And it seems to me very little is more unreasonable than expecting the right to privacy after you have been told in a policy you have no privacy....

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So, your -- your position would require people basically to have two of these things with them, two of whatever they are, the text messager or the BlackBerries or whatever, right? Because assuming they are going to get personal things, you know, some emergency at home, they are also going to get work things?

MR. KATYAL: To the -- under this policy, yes. You might have an employer that sets a different policy and allows for some de minimis use and a zone of privacy in that use. You can have a variety of different things. But what I think would be dangerous is to have a blanket rule that constitutionalizes and says you always have reasonable expectations of privacy in this technology. The result may be, Mr. Chief Justice, that employers then won't give that technology at all to their employees, and -- and eliminate even that de minimis use.

Meanwhile, you know who was skeptical about the officer's claims?  Justice Breyer.  For reals:

JUSTICE BREYER: [M]y question was, I don't see anything, quite honestly, unreasonable about that, where you are the employer, where it's a SWAT team, where where - where you are paying for this in the first place. So the reason I ask it, is I would like you clearly to explain what's unreasonable about it?

MR. DAMMEIER: The scope of the search was unreasonable.

JUSTICE BREYER: That's the conclusion, now what's your reason?

MR. DAMMEIER: Under -- under -- looking at O'Connor, you have to -- you have to look to make sure that the search is not excessively intrusive. Here, what they did was they took all the messages and started reading them. Given the purpose, the limited purpose that was found by the jury for the search, they didn't need to do that.

JUSTICE BREYER: Well, explain that one to me.

MR. DAMMEIER: They -

JUSTICE BREYER: Being naive about this, if I had a -- like, 20, 30,000 characters in 1,800 messages and I wanted to know which are personal and which are work-related, a good way to get at least a good first cut would be to read them.

(Laughter.)

JUSTICE BREYER: Okay? So I start off thinking that seems to be reasonable to me. That's what I would do.

MR. DAMMEIER: Well, that's certainly one -

JUSTICE BREYER: So all right. Now you tell me why that isn't reasonable.

MR. DAMMEIER: That's one of the ways they could have done it. They could have got -- they could have got consent from the officers first to do it. They could have had the officers themselves count the messages. After all, the officers were the ones that were paying for the -

JUSTICE BREYER: All right. But your officers might say I don't want to read these messages because they happen to be about the sexual activity of some of my coworkers and their wives and me, which happened to be the case here.

MR. DAMMEIER: Right.

JUSTICE BREYER: So I guess if you had asked for consent, the officer would have said no. Now he says, I still want to know. I will be repeating it. All right. So what -- that didn't sound very practical. What's the other way?

MR. DAMMEIER: Well, they could have -- they could have had the officers themselves count the messages.

JUSTICE BREYER: Well, the officer is going to say hey, these are all big -- work-related. I will tell you that. I only had two.

MR. DAMMEIER: Well -

(Laughter.)

JUSTICE BREYER: Okay. What's a third way?

MR. DAMMEIER: Okay. They -- the lieutenant could have said, hey, we're going to stop this practice that I started, and from this month forward make sure all you do is business-related. No more -

JUSTICE BREYER: That would have been rough on them. Because you want to let them have a few; you need pizza when you are on duty. You want to -- there are -

MR. DAMMEIER: Look -

JUSTICE BREYER: So far I listened to four things and I'm just being naive about it; I will read it more closely, but I don't see why these four things are so obviously more reasonable than what they did.

And, um, Justice Stevens:

JUSTICE STEVENS: I ask you this question about the basic background of a reasonable expectation of privacy. This is a SWAT team. Supposing it was the officer answering 911 calls or things like that. Isn't there sort of a background expectation that sooner or later, somebody might have to look at communications for this particular kind of law enforcement officer?

MR. DAMMEIER: Well, certainly -- certainly that could happen in any number of -

JUSTICE STEVENS: I mean, wouldn't you just assume that that whole universe of conversations by SWAT officers who were on duty 24/7 might well have to be reviewed by some member of the public or some of their superiors?

Expect a ruling by the end of the Court's term in June. Just don't ask me what ruling.  Lyle Denniston, Orin Kerr have more.

What you missed on Sunday Kos ....

• In What Conservatives Mean When They Say Libertarian, Devilstower took a long, hard look backwards at the libertarian-extolled "golden age" of the 1880's, when lives more often than not were nasty, brutish and short.
• In What's the Matter With Doctors?, DemFromCT explored the reasons (mostly money) why some physicians (mostly surgeons and other high-priced specialists) are so adamantly opposed to health care reform.
• In The Blueprint, Adam B reviewed this recent release, which focuses on how Democrats made so much recent electoral headway in Colorado. An author interview is also included.
• In Ceci n'est pas une Maverick, Hunter eviscerated the Republicans' most famous self-proclaimed—and then disavowed—"maverick."
• In Won't someone think of the children?, Dante Atkins urged the Democratic Party to formulate a more integrated, organized approach to reaching out to one of the party's most important demographics.
• In Explaining the Cold War, Page van der Linden continued her superb coverage of nuclear politics and development, with a look at the work of recent Pulitizer Prize-winner David Hoffman, whose book, The Dead Hand, examined the policy decisions of the past 50 years to see where landed us today.

Sen. Carl Levin says there's another big shoe to drop on the Goldman Sachs case, but seeing as how a whole load of tennies, hip waders and muck-lucks are already bouncing around the room, it's hard to imagine what else is still to be revealed.

Business Week has an article up on how Goldman and hedge fund managers may escape an SEC smack down by skating around the idea of what "selected" means.

While Magnetar avoided ordering managers to buy specific securities, it often pushed them to select ones with higher yields, according to a person who participated in some of the transactions and declined to be identified because the deals were private. The firm told banks and asset managers what its strategy was, the people said.

You got that? If the hedge funds were pointing out specific crappy loans and saying "buy that," they could be in trouble. But if they merely set "targets" for the quality of the loans in their CDOs, then they may skip merrily away. However, if the bankers, such as Goldmans, knew what the hedge funds were doing and still pressed these instruments on their clients as worthwhile investments, they won't get away so easily. That Goldman, Merrill, and the rest knew they were peddling the worst crap imaginable is beyond doubt. How they peddled it will require a careful review of every prospectus, email, meeting, and phone call involved.

It may even be that the banks played "fair." They may have put together a prospectus full of numbers, shoved them out there, whistled tunelessly, looked away, and waited for Real Smart People to rush in figuring they had a bargain. After all, with famous hedge fund managers snapping up the risky core of these things, the rest of the investment (the safer part) must have seemed pretty tasty.

Of course, there's also the little matter of whether the banks knew that the hedge funds were not just engaged in classic hedging by protecting their investments, but betting against the entire CDO. And since the banks were also peddling the credit default swaps (and the instruments created by bundling the credit default swaps, God help us), there's no doubt they knew what was happening. Now, is that illegal? We'll find out.

In the meantime, the SEC voted today to sue Goldman. And here's the really fun part.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission split 3-2 along party lines to approve an enforcement case against Goldman Sachs Group Inc., according to two people with knowledge of the vote. ... Republican commissioners Kathleen Casey and Troy Paredes voted against suing, the person said.

Republicans voted not to sue over a little thing like purposely contriving to create instruments designed to fail, and peddling these intentionally faulty wares to customers. You have to ask, what would it take for a Republican to actually stand against Wall Street?

Now we start to dig for the details. There will be a prospectus on each of these CDOs, and it's very likely that numerically these babies are going to be correct. What it's going to come down to is the language of the prospectus and the discussions (verbal and email) that were held with clients.

Complicating things is that the "synthetic" CDOs at the heart of the Goldman / Paulson end of this deal where not regular CDOs built by bundling together loans. Complicated as those are, these were a couple of steps removed. These synthetic CDOs were composed from bundles made up of swaps, in this case the pay-out side of default swaps on other CDOs.

Here's how something like this might work (and I may well have missed a step, or even a whole waltz. After all, they've built this thing with the intention of tripping people up, so it's not surprising that it's hard to follow along.)

The Magnetar view

1. Magnetar (or some other hedge fund) declares that they are interested in the equity "tranche" of a CDO.  They set targets for what they want the in the tranche (really bad stuff).

2. They then wait for the additional layers of the CDO to be formed and for the instrument to be sold to clients.

3. Magnetar now takes a CDS against the larger tranches -- which may be 10x to 100x their initial environment.

4. A. If the CDO actually makes targets, Magnetar takes a nice payout because they owned the riskiest bit. Probably around what it cost them to support the credit default swap on the larger instrument. So Magnetar breaks even.

4. B. If the CDO unravels, Magnetar makes an even bigger payout by collecting on the default swaps. The little equity tranche investment is lost, but that loss is swapped by the CDS payout. Magnetar wins big.

The Paulson view

1. Paulson (or another hedge fund) declares that they are interested in synthetic CDOs containing bundles of CDS obligations. They set targets for what they want in the lower tranche (really bad stuff).

2. They wait while a synthetic CDO is formed around CDS swaps that include coverage for crap like that at the core of the Magnetar CDOs.

3. Paulson then takes a secondary swap (it's not clear if these were always against the original CDO, or whether they also bet against the synthetic CDO).

4. A. If the original CDOs hold and the synthetic CDO survives, Paulson pockets the payments for the original swap, which it uses to pay off the secondary swap (though probably at a loss). Paulson losses small.

4. B. If the original CDO fails and the synthetic CDO fails because the CDS are forced to pay, Paulson's secondary CDO pays off at a much higher level of investment -- Paulson wins big.

The Goldman Sachs view

1. Original CDO is formed.

2. Original CDO sold to clients. Goldman takes a cut. Goldman wins.

3. Synthetic CDS is formed.

4. Synthetic CDS sold to clients. Goldman takes a cut. Goldman wins.

From this, it might appear that Goldman can't help but win no matter what happens. But there's one more piece:

Individual banker working at Goldman view

1. Original CDO is formed, no matter how bad.

2. Original CDO sold to clients, no matter how much BS is required or even if Goldman itself is client. Banker takes immediate cut. Banker wins.

3. Synthetic CDO is formed, no matter how bad.

4. Synthetic CDO sold to clients, no matter how much BS is required or even if Goldman itself is client. Banker takes immediate cut. Banker wins.

5. A. Everything works out and clients and Goldman make money. Banker doesn't care. He got his money already.

5. B. Everything falls apart and clients and Goldman lose money. Banker doesn't care. He got his money already.

Which makes it appear that the individual bankers went home with big bucks no mater what, except that... no wait. They did. And Republicans just voted not to disturb these guys while they're sunning on their yachts.

What looks to make all this possible is a drastic undervaluing of the cost of default swaps which in turn was made possible by an over-valuing of the intelligence and moral judgment of the people involved in the market. In short, there was an intrinsic expectation that people won't purposely buy crap, because most people didn't think it through to the "how to leave another guy holding the bag" stage. Which is exactly the weakness that Magnetar and other hedge funds spotted after spending months studying the market and talking to the people who sold these instruments.

McClatchy reports on new Pew polling that shows just how volatile the national mood is right now.

"By almost every conceivable measure, Americans are less positive and more critical of government these days," said the report from the non-partisan Pew Research Center.

The center said its new survey found "a perfect storm of conditions associated with distrust of government - a dismal economy, an unhappy public, bitter partisan-based backlash and epic discontent with Congress and elected officials."

A key finding: Americans oppose greater government control over the economy by a margin of 51-40 percent.

With the bruising health insurance reform debate and continued high unemployment and sluggish economy, those results aren't too suprising. But there is a major exception to that general distrust of and contempt for government--Wall Street.

A solid majority, 61 percent, do want greater government regulation of the financial industry, something that Obama and the Democratic majorities in Congress are pushing now.

Obama and Congressional Dems need to push that advantage, hard, and not react to Republican stonewalling by watering down the bill. This, of all fights, is the fight to take the Republicans and to Wall Street.

Texas Governor Rick Perry is a rank political hack:

PERRY: At the end of the day, when the history books are written, I think George W. Bush will go down as a very, very good President. Approaching great? I don’t know yet because I don’t know if we’ve seen the –

A year and a half since he’s been out of office, this may be a little bit early to write George’s history. But here’s why he was an incredibly good President: because this man kept America safe. […]

Anyone who is not a rank political hack, who has an agenda, and looks at this President’s efforts — I mean, there are two things that I think people judge Presidents on: their safety and the economy.

The top 3 safety accomplishments of the Bush Administration?

1. Although Bush toadies like Rick Perry would like to forget this fact, 9/11 happened while George W. Bush was president. Thousands died.

2. In response to 9/11, Bush failed to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and   failed to replace the Taliban with a stable government in Afghanistan. He did manage to apprehend Saddam Hussein, but Hussein was the leader of Iraq, and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Again, thousands died.

3. And then there's Hurricane Katrina, during which thousands of Americans died on American soil as the Bush administration stood idly by.

Its preposterous to argue that Bush kept us safe. Time after time, thousands and thousands of Americans died under Bush's watch. Truth is, only a rank political hack like Perry (who even Rasmussen says is in a very close race for re-election) would argue that Bush was anything other than the most disastrous president in our nation's history.

To be fair and balanced, Bush didn't merely preside over the deaths of many thousands of innocent Americans. He also did his best to wreck our nation's economy.

Bush failed to protect life and property. And yet these people who so proudly idolized this amazingly bad president who did so much harm to this nation of ours, these people now have the temerity to suggest that President Obama hates America?

By any objective measure, they've got it upside down and inside out.

In a stunning revelation, New Hampshire republican gubernatorial candidate Jack Kimball revealed that he has been the victim of rape, apparently on multiple occasions.

Kimball did not offer any details of the assaults, only saying that they were, "awful," leaving voters to speculate whether it was date rape or if he was the victim of random street violence.

Developing ...

• This is being billed as a face off between Vice President Joe Biden and Elizabeth Hasselbeck. My money is on Joe.
• How scary is this?

  Some gun owners, saying that the National Rifle Association isn't battling hard enough for their rights, are taking the fight into their own hands.

• It took the brain trust at the Pentagon more than eight years to realize that they're too dependent on private contractors.
• Go figure:

  Views of the US around the world have improved sharply over the past year, a BBC World Service poll suggests.

  For the first time since the annual poll began in 2005, America’s influence in the world is now seen as more positive than negative.

• Apparently there are two branches on the teabagger's family tree ... the libertarians and your standard issue right wing nutcase.
• Mr. Noun, a verb and 9/11 basically calls Kentucky Republican senatorial candidate Rand Paul a terrorist sympathizer:

  Following a line of attack Grayson has used against Paul, Giuliani said Grayson "is not part of the ‘blame America first’ crowd that wants to bestow the rights of U.S. citizens on terrorists and point fingers at America for somehow causing 9/11."

• John McCain, feeling the heat from J.D. Hayworth's primary challenge, is tacking to the right on immigration.
• It seems as though the phrase, "you can't make this stuff up" is on the verge of being overused in today's political climate, but seriously, you can't make this stuff up. Here's Andrea Lafferty, from the Traditional Values Coalition, explaining what would happen if ENDA passes:

  What are those 'isms' and 'philias'? You can be aroused by stumps of amputees. And we brought that up during the hate crimes thing because what if you have an employee working at the VA and someone has just come back from Iraq and they have this orientation. You can't fire them. What about the family that's upset that they've been aroused by their family member? It's disgusting. And it's tragic for the victim.

  (h/t to Andrew Sullivan)

• The latest installment in the high school webcam spying story:

  A webcam spying scandal at a suburban Philadelphia school district is broadening, with lawyers claiming the district secretly snapped thousands of webcam images of students using school-issued laptops without the pupils’ knowledge or consent.

  Some of the images included pictures of youths at home, in bed or even “partially dressed,” according to a Thursday filing in the case. Pupils’ online chats were also captured, as well as a record of the websites they visited.  [...]

  ... an IT administrator at the district “may be a voyeur.” Lawyers suing the district are urging a federal judge presiding over the case to grant a forensic examination of administrator’s personal computer.

  The lawsuit said the administrator, who has been placed on paid leave, “invokes the Fifth Amendment to every question asked of her, including a question asked as to whether she had ever downloading (sic) pictures to her own computer, including pictures of students who were naked while in their home.”

• Speaking of high school students, how's this for a field trip gone bad?
• Offered without comment:

  Call this the case of the applesauce assault. A court this week will look at an incident at Bob Hope Airport in which a woman is accused of hitting a federal security agent who allegedly tried to wrest away her 93-year-old mother's snacks before a flight.

  Prosecutors charged Nadine Kay Hays, 58, who was traveling to Nashville, Tenn., with her mother, with misdemeanor battery after the reported fight with the Transportation Security Administration agent last April.
  Hays denied striking the agent, arguing that she merely brought down her hand to keep agents from taking away her mother’s applesauce, cheese and milk.

Hilarious!

People and candidates for public office should be judged on the basis of their ideas, stance on the issues, character, experience and integrity, not on the basis of age, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion or disability.

Therefore, we must repeal the 19th Amendment. Yes, the one granting suffrage to women. Because? Well, women are biased.

Thomas Mitchell, editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, has concluded that women, being "fickle and biased," should be stripped of their right to vote. You know, for the good of democracy or something.

He cites as evidence poll results from his newspaper that the men of Nevada -- who obviously can't be biased, what with being men -- prefer the "attractive former beauty queen" and teabagger Sue Lowden over the "graying" Harry Reid. Who is a Democrat. And since women would rather vote for a male Democrat than a female Republican, this proves women are biased. And therefore should not vote. Or something.

But wait! There's more "proof." Because Mr. Mitchell includes a Gallup poll showing that 41 percent of women identify as Democrat (biased), while 40 28 percent of men identify as Republican (not biased).

But lest you think Mr. Mitchell is a total asshole, don't worry. He was just kidding.

I baited the hook and dropped it in the water. It was swallowed hook, line and sinker, rod and reel, up to the elbow, in a piranha-like feeding frenzy.

All I did was pen a bit of light extemporanea for this blog on the statistically demonstrable differences between the sexes when it comes to matters political. OK, I might’ve thrown a little chum in the water by flippantly suggesting the repeal of the 19th Amendment, the one granting suffrage to women. It was just a bit of free hyperbole.

Ohhhhh. It's not that Mr. Mitchell is a total douchebag. It's that his readers don't appreciate the subtlety of his nuanced and sophisticated wit. Why, he's the Mark Twain of his day!

And just as Mark Twain -- and Larry Summers -- were persecuted for the crime of being oh-so-fucking funny, so too has Mr. Mitchell been the victim of unfair criticism, just because he dared to point out the "delightful difference" between men and women (men, being totally unbiased, should be allowed to vote; women, being biased fickle and biased, should not). Get it? Ha ha ha ha!

Poor baby has even received criticism that is downright "bombastic."  Oh no!

Without once addressing the fundamental postulate that men and women are delightfully different, I was called an idiot, an (expletive deleted) moron, an ignorant redneck male chauvinist, a racist, a sexist, a narrow minded and crude douchebag, unsophisticated, ignorant, a flat earther, a fool, a Neanderthal and a misogynist.

Can't imagine why anyone would take issue with Mr. Mitchell's idiotic, moronic, ignorant redneck male chauvinist, narrow minded and crude douchebaggery Fundamental Postulate. Stupid readers fail to see that Mr. Mitchell is merely trying to protect the democratic process from Democrats women bias. Don't you get it, people? This is comedy gold!

Mr. Mitchell, here's a fundamental postulate for you:

How about a new Constitutional amendment to strip voting rights from hack newspaper editors who make pathetic attempts at comedy and then try to hide behind the excuse of "just kidding" while simultaneously climbing up on a cross to defend their hackery and comparing themselves to the great martyr Larry Summers?  

Just kidding!

It looks like Sessions' brilliant strategy for fighting against health insurance reform in the SCOTUS confirmation hearings is a go. Lindsay Graham has already piped up, saying that he thinks it's a "good idea to inquire in," adding

Democrats shouldn't expect any cooperation from Republicans on confirmation of any of Obama's judicial nominees.

"We're not going to be lectured to by our Democratic colleagues about what to do here after health care," Graham said. "They're not going to tell us what we'll do, we'll decide on our own what to do."

It's certain to become a central issue now, though, because the GOP's puppet-masters want it to be.

There is agitation on the far-right to push these state lawsuits challenging health care reform as the next litmus test for a nominee, especially given the looming midterm elections that are likely to be fought over the sweeping health care overhaul Democrats passed this spring.

"This is the new blood for this public policy battle," Tom Fitton, president of the ultra-right-leaning group Judicial Watch, told me in a recent interview.

Fitton said he'll be appealing to tea party activists in an upcoming speech to make the lawsuits the core of their fight against whomever Obama nominates. He'll ask them to take the message to Republican senators that the confirmation vote will be "a vote as important as Obama care."

Since the Republicans are going to be in full warpath mode on this confirmation, no matter who Obama nominates, he should nominate a real liberal.

Back in June 2009, I suggested Florida Republican Gov. Charlie Crist had a better chance of getting elected if he switched parties.

With 14 months until the Florida Republican Senate primary in 2010, popular Gov. Charlie Crist is riding high in the polls against his challenger, former state House Speaker Marco Rubio. But the current numbers are deceiving, and as counterintuitive as it might seem, Crist is likely the underdog.

You see, Crist is an anachronism in the modern GOP. He’s a moderate with a streak of social liberalism, which places him at odds with the conservative voters who will dominate the closed primary’s electorate. Crist’s strong support among Democrats and independents won’t help him with party regulars, while his centrist record will provide ample fodder for Rubio and his allies to decimate the governor’s standing with the right-wing base.

Crist fought his own party to expand the voting rights of convicted felons in Florida, and he ‘s been quoted as declaring, “Sometimes big business can be as bad as big government and become arrogant, sloth-like and detrimental,” flying directly in the face of his party’s business-can-do-no-wrong orthodoxy [...]

This is a war of attrition, and 14 months will be more than enough for the combined might of the conservative movement to grind Crist down. Republican primary voters aren’t interested in moderation or practicality, and Crist can’t deliver the ideological purity they demand. The poll numbers should tighten by the first quarter of 2010, and Crist seems likely to face the same dilemma that Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.) wrestled with a short while ago — can he remain a Republican and win a primary?

The simple fact is that Crist would likely find a better home in the Democratic Party. In light of the May 2010 filing deadline, he still has some time to make an informed decision about which party best reflects his beliefs — and which party would best boost his electoral prospects.

Unfortunately for Crist, he didn't heed that advice. And now he's struggling to figure out what to do with the filing deadline approaching. Switching to the Democratic Party is pretty much a no-go. He's spent the last month trying to out-wingnut Rubio, and Crist has so damaged himself that he no longer runs stronger as a Democrat than existing Democratic candidate Kendrick Meek. Had he switched six months ago, we'd be talking a completely different game. Now? That door is shut.

So his two options are 1) switching to Independent, or 2) quitting altogether.

One more possibility: some rumors suggest Crist might bide his time for a 2012 run against Democrat Bill Nelson. That won't work. Crist will never run as a Republican again, especially after vetoing the a top GOP priority this year -- a bill to essentially kill the teachers union. Such talk is likely a smokescreen for an impending independent bid, or a way to try and save face if he quits this race.

One thing is for sure, something big is about to happen. Crist has pulled his ads from two major markets, pointing to a complete reassessment of his electoral strategy. Top Republicans in DC are writing Crist off. The NRSC has already been slowly backing away from Crist.

The GOP will be praying that Crist drops out altogether. While a Meek-Rubio race is competitive, the GOP will still have the upper hand. Rubio has come out for raising the retirement age and reducing social security benefits, which will give Democrats a fighting chance in retiree-rich Florida, but this is still a tough state for us to win.

On the other hand, a three-way race with Rubio, Meek and Crist makes this a real crapshoot of a race. And with Rubio the presumptive nominee, it'd be good to see both Crist and Meek pounding away at the Republican. And while we'd root for Meek, a Crist victory (presuming he caucuses with Democrats, which is what the rumors suggest), would be nice consolation.

So keep your fingers crossed for an independent bid.

The former half-term governor from Alaska continues to inspire the wingnuttia:

She asked for the women -- who greeted her with an enthusiastic standing ovation -- to provide a "prayer shield" to strengthen her against what she said was "deception" in the media.

She denounced this week's Wisconsin federal court ruling that government observance of a National Day of Prayer was unconstitutional -- which the crowd joined in booing. She asserted that America needs to get back to its Christian roots and rejected any notion that "God should be separated from the state."

That would be the media that regurgitates her every word as gospel.

As for the idea that God shouldn't be separated from the state? Presumably that would be her God.  

And as Steve Benen at The Washington Monthly points out:

There are some countries that endorse Palin's worldview and intermix God and government -- Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan under Taliban rule come to mind -- but they're generally not countries the United States tries to emulate.

Well, it looks like organized labor might have been serious about getting after apostate Democrats on the health care issue, after all:

The Phoenix's David Bernstein tweets that SEIU's New England political director Mac D'Alessandro will challenge US Rep. Steve Lynch in the Democratic primary. Lynch's old rival Phil Dunkelbarger is already in the race.

As everyone here likely knows, Lynch was slow in coming around to supporting the public option, and then voted against health care reform, providing a series of utterly incoherent justifications for that.

Of all 34 Democrats who sided with the Republicans on last month's HIR vote, Lynch was perhaps the most perplexing. There was no obvious district imperative, and the only explanation that made any sense was that he wanted to shore up moderate/conservative bonafides in advance of a possible 2012 Senate run against the newly-elected Scott Brown.

When Harmony Wu decided not to run for Congress two weeks ago, it looked like Lynch might avoid a primary, given that Dunkelberger is, according to his campaign website, planning an Independent bid.

The apparent entrance of D'Alessandro provides all kinds of potential peril for Lynch. As a regional political director for SEIU, one has to imagine that he has both solid electoral chops and a fair-sized Rolodex, to boot.

Assuming D'Alessandro is a go, he also has plenty of time to mount a competitive campaign--Massachusetts is at the end of the line, practically, in terms of the primary schedule. The primary for the Bay State is not until September 14th.

After a long week of tough talk from the Dems on financial reform, the weekend started on an off note, with the administration offering a key concession to Republicans.

The Obama administration is telling Senate Democrats to ditch a measure in their financial reform bill that would create a $50 billion liquidation fund by assessing a fee on big financial institutions. The fund is intended to be used to cover the cost of winding down large firms, when they fail. According to the Associated Press, the administration would like the financial industry to cover the cost of liquidation after an institution has been dismantled.

Perhaps not coincidentally, this is a measure Republicans oppose, on the grounds, they say, that the mere existence of the fund will incentivize risk taking, and lead to more bailouts.

That's also the provision Mitch McConnell and other Republicans used the Luntz "permanent bailout" rhertoric, the talking points Senate Dems, the DNC, and the White House launched a "tough" campaign against. It's reminiscent of the Republicans calling the end-of-life care provisions "death panels" and allowing undocumented workers to purchase insurance with their own money "illegal immigrants getting our health care," lies which the White House and Dems loudly denounced, but then conceded to by removing the provisions.

Predictably, the results are about the same as with the health reform concessions.

Senate Republicans say they're prepared to work constructively with Democrats on a consensus financial reform bill. But this weekend, after the White House offered up a key substantive concession, they swatted President Obama's hand away in a fashion that was all too reminiscent of their strategy of opposition to health care reform.

"We ought to go back to the drawing board," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said on CNN Sunday morning.

Likewise, moderate Republican Scott Brown (R-MA), once considered a swing vote on regulatory reform, explicitly threatened to vote to block the bill from even being debated. Asked by CBS' Bob Schieffer if he'd filibuster the bill rather than let it come to the Senate floor, Brown was unequivocal: "In this particular instance, yes," he said.

And in a move that just feels all too familiar, Geithner will meet with Collins this afternoon.

Another day, another teabagger rally filled with regular folks concerned about their taxes and whatnot. Oh, and the main message from their keynote speaker, former congressman Tom Tancredo, who said:
.

... Americans have reached the point where "we're going to have to pray that we can hold on to this country" ... "If his wife says Kenya is his homeland, why don't we just send him back?"

But don't be too hard on old Tom ... this isn't the first time he's suffered a meltdown in public.

This one is going to sound familiar: Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell claims Republicans really do want to reform Wall Street, but only if Democrats are willing to "go back to the drawing board" and start over. Sound familiar?

Talk about ripping a page from your own failed playbook...when Republicans tried to block health care reform, they made the same exact argument, nearly word-for-word:

Three months later, Republicans are trying the same ineffective approach on Wall Street reform as they did on health care reform. It's a complete replay. Nothing has changed. It's still Mitch McConnell calling the shots, Frank Luntz telling them how to say it, and big money cheering them on. Now that's a status quo teabaggers can believe in!