Daylin Leach Has Been An Asset For Pennsylvania And He Can Be An Asset For The Whole Country

Daylin Leach-- the Pennsylvania state Senate's "liberal lion"-- is running for the open congressional seat in Northeast Philadelphia/Montgomery County (PA-13) that Allyson Schwartz is giving up so she can run for governor. Blue America has already endorsed Daylin. Kutztown blogger, Sean Kitchen, interviewed Daylin a few days ago and I've highlighted a few points as a way of reminding you that EMILY's List has found a much more conservative candidate-- as they always do-- to try to push into this deep blue district... and is planning to pump a fortune into the race. Obama beat Romney in PA-13 by a wide margin-- 66.2- 32.9. This is exactly the kind of safe Democratic district where we should look to elect progressive leaders and not just garden variety followers of the EMILY's List brand. If you like what you hear from Daylin below, please consider a contribution to his campaign here.

Sean brought up how extremely impressed the Montgomery County DFA was with Daylin's at their meeting. Daylin:

We're very proud of the endorsements we're racking up. We're very proud of the support we're getting in the sense that the hard work we've been doing for eleven years seems to be paying off. People seem to be grateful that we've been fighting for labor, fighting for teachers, fighting for women, fighting for the environment, fighting for civil rights for LGBT people and fighting for the rights of voters to actually cast their votes-- a whole series of issues we've taken the lead on. People seem to remember and seem to be eager to help.

Sean wondered why he even wants to go work in Congress-- with the nihilists and luddites in control of the Republican Party in Washington. Of course, there's Harrisburg...

Have you been to Pennsylvania? It's not much better here. There's two things. Number one: there's obviously there's some issues that you deal with in Congress that you don't deal with in the state legislature: foreign policy issues, etc. Even more than that... I've taken on a lot of issues and what I've learned is, you learn the issue backward and forward, you give a great debate on TV, you write a brilliant editorial, you get on the floor and you give an impassioned speech and the reporters all write that you gave a great speech-- and at the end of the day you don't change a single vote. And what I've discovered is, changing your colleagues votes is not going to happen. You have to change the public's perception on an issue. And we've seen that with marriage equality. In the last three or four weeks politicians have been falling all over each other to say, 'Oh, yeah, I'm for it... I've always been for it, oh yeah, absolutely.' And that's because the public has moved on it. So, I feel my job, if I want to be effective, is to try to move public opinion, rather than change [the opinion of] the guy sitting at the desk sitting next to me in the Senate. And Congress is a much bigger platform to try to change public opinion. And that's where I can contribute something.

I followed up with Daylin on the phone about why foreign policy is so important to him that he mentioned it so prominently as a reason for going to Washington. I was especially interested since he almost always talks about solving domestic problems, especially problems that impact the lives of ordinary working families. Those issues always seem to be what drives him. His response, though, was inspiring. "Among the reasons I want to go to Washington is to affect foreign policy in a way that a state legislator simply can't. I remember when I served in the PA House. Whenever a soldier from Pennsylvania was killed in Iraq, we would recognize their sacrifice on the House floor. The soldier's parents would come and I would watch them as they stood in the guest box as their local Representative would speak about their life. These people had just lost a child and were barely able to function. Some couldn't even stand on their own power. I found these, all too frequent memorials devastating. I just felt so helpless, completely unable to have any influence on the insane, endless war that Congress had voted to authorize. I knew then that somehow I had to do whatever it took to put myself in a position to help ensure that this sort of thing never happened again." And, yes, Daylin very much wants to end the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan and bring our troops home safely.

  Sean wanted to talk about marijuana legalization, which Daylin has championed in the state legislature. "This is such a horrible, pernicious policy we have on prohibition," said Daylin. "It hurts so many people, it costs so much money, it makes no sense, and, frankly, this is what we call 'a dead issue walking.' This is going to happen. We're going to have an end to prohibition; we're going to have marriage equality; and we're going to look back and wonder why these things were ever controversial. There's two reasons for that. Number one is demographic-- young people have no interest in prohibition. And number two is exposure. As more and more states end prohibition, like Colorado, like Washington, like, essentially, California... as more and more of that happens, people will see that whatever horror stories have been painted by the other side just never come to pass and so it's going to be harder for them to make that case. We feel very good about it. We wish it could be quicker. Every day that prohibition remains in effect is an injustice, where someone's life is being ruined because of it. Hopefully within the next few years we can get this done."

And then Sean turned the conversation towards the Establishment's Austerity Agenda and, specifically, Chained CPI. Daylin was right on point.

Look, the last thing we should be doing is balancing our budgets on the backs of seniors, who worked all their lives and now rely on their, often meager, Social Security check to get by. If there is a shortfall in Social Security... there is an easy way to fix it. Rather than cutting benefits to people who need them most, why not uncap-- right now you pay your payroll tax, your Social Security tax, on your first $113,000 in income. Over that, you don't pay a dime and that's unfair. That means Bill Gates is paying a rate much, much lower than his secretary for the Social Security benefits. Why not at least raise the cap? We can get a bunch of money in that way; we don't have to cut benefits for seniors. That seems to make a lot more sense to me.

Virginia Has A Sociopath Pushing Its Reactionary Agenda-- Meet Bishop E.W. Jackson

Saturday Ken Cuccinelli got a Lt. Gov. nominee just as extreme and out of step with Virginia as he is. Bishop Earl Walker "E.W." Jackson is, basically, a slick-talking religionist crackpot and well-practiced far right ideologue. He gained a national audience on the right-wing fringes after year old video above in which he rages against marriage equality, released as he launched his failed campaign for the Republican Senate nomination.

Obviously deranged and warped by too many hours of conspiratorial Hate Talk radio, he accuses Planned Parenthood of “killing unborn black babies by the tens of millions” and being "far more lethal to black lives than the KKK ever was.” He insists Planned Parenthood, the Democratic Party, and civil rights leaders have been “partners in genocide.” The man needs a nice long rest, but instead he'll be taking his minstrel show oon the road for Ken Cuccinelli and the virulently racist Virginia Republican Party. He seems a little too obsessed with homosexuality for a straight man. When someone carries on about gays the way he does, it always leads to some kind embarrassing revelations in the not too distant future. Does Earl expect to keep his homosexual obsessions private?

The Democrat Party has equated homosexuality with being Black, which is another outrageous lie. They can keep their homosexuality private. You and I cannot hide being Black. I need not account to you the painful history of slavery, Jim Crow. lynchings and sterilizations all because of skin color. Anyone who dares equate the so-called gay rights movement to the history of Black Americans is exploiting the Black community. They say opposition to same sex marriage is the same as opposition to interracial marriage. That is an insult to human intelligence; it is a lie. No Christian should support this. Yet the Democrat Party has now declared same sex marriage an official part of its platform. And Black Christians remain in that party? The Civil Rights Establishment has embraced the lies and betrayed the Black community and God All Mighty for 30 pieces of silver from the Democrat Party.

Damn! He sounded just like the bigoted priests in Tbilisi Friday who whipped a mob of primitives up into a bloodthirsty frenzy or anti-gay rioting that sent 30 people to the hospital. He dresses well and speaks well, but, wow, is he ever a primitive hustler! "God will take care of us," he promises Blacks, if they just abandon the progressive policies that have fought slavery, Jim Crow, lynchings and sterilization and join up with the conservative perpetrators of these policies he has long ago sold his soul to. He won the nomination because he was the most radical and extreme and hate-fueled at the convention. He's likely to even further turn independents and mainstream voters away from the Republicans. As the Richmond Times-Dispatch put it, Cuccinelli "will head a ticket that cements the tea party’s takeover of the state GOP apparatus."

Jackson became the GOP’s first African American nominee for statewide office since 1988, overcoming six other hopefuls for the No. 2 spot on the ticket after four dramatic ballots lasting nearly 10 hours. He bested several candidates with deep ties to the state party, more money and long records in elected office, appealing to the more than 8,000 delegates in the Richmond Coliseum as a grass-roots crusader for the Constitution and social conservatism.

Before the balloting, the crowd erupted as Jackson vowed to “get the government off our backs, off our property, out of our families, out of our health care and out of our way.”

Jackson never trailed, leading after the first ballot and holding on despite sustained attacks and determined horse-trading by his opponents. He was joined on stage by Cuccinelli and Obenshain after 10 p.m., projecting an image of Republican unity at the conclusion of a fractious convention.

Right-wing Hampton blogger Tom Gear wrote an open letter to Virginia Republicans last week about what the Tea Party was about the shove down their throats.

Dear Republican Friends,

As many people know when they run for public office, the public has a right to full disclosure of their background. Everytime I ran I faced every question honestly and to the point. It seems that E W Jackson Sr. feels these rules do not apply to his candidacy. While I understand tough times, believe me I do, I also know that only thing that matters is EW Jackson Sr. is running to represent our Party as its nominee for Lt. Governor.

I asked EW Jackson, Sr to answer the following questions for the public record on May 5, 2013 and at the time of writing this email he has not responded.

• We have, without question, been through some of the toughest economic times our Country has ever experienced. That being said, it has been brought to my attention that you have had multiple bankruptcies, garnishments and tax liens. Is this true or just vicious negative campaigning?

It seems others feel the same as I do and a group called VA TRUTH documented the list of bankrupcties and they can be seen by clicking here.  As I said above there can be a good reason for asking for relief of debt but not disclosing this to the voters made me wonder what else is out there on EW Jackson. A simple online investigation showed the following;

1) On May 8, 2012, EW Jackson Sr. was issued a warrant in debt for not paying his personal property taxes.

2) On September 9, 2011, EW Jackson Sr. was issued a warrant in debt for a lawsuit involving his church.

3) On September 2, 2008, EW Jackson Sr. was issued a garnishment from a lawsuit involving his church.

4) On April 6, 2007, EW Jackson Sr. was served a unlawful detainer from a lawsuit involving his church.

Gear goes on and on and concludes that Jackson's financial baggage, inability to raise money (presumably from teh white racists who support the Virginia GOP) and his total lack of knowledge of state government will crush his chances to win. As for Jackson's claims about the fight against conservatives like himself for interracial marriage and the current fight against conservatives for marriage equality, Nanci Griffith and Mildred Loving could probably teach the bishop some good lessons on that one.

Who Does Wall Street Own In Congress?

The Grayson Takano No Cuts letter is the gold standard

The House doesn't usually stay in sessions Fridays, let alone take serious votes, but this past Friday, as we mentioned yesterday, Boehner and Cantor kept the Members in town to repay a promise they had made to their Wall Street masters to further weaken the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill. A bill Wall Street lobbyists wrote with one of their most pathetic congressional shills, Scott Garrett (R-NJ)-- and co-sponsored by 23 other bankster asswipes (20 of them members of the House Financial Services Committee who brazenly take large legalistic bribes from Wall Street firms they're supposed to oversee on behalf of the American people) came up for a vote. The bill to weaken Dodd-Frank passed 235-161.

Here's a list of the House Financial Services Committee members who co-sponsored the bill (+ Boehner and Cantor) with the bribes they took from Wall Street banksters last cycle, strongly pointing to an illegal quid pro quo:

• John Boehner (R-OH)- $1,415,075
• Eric Cantor (R-VA)- $902,400
• Scott Garrett (R-NJ)- $537,020
• Michele Bachmann (R-MN)- $79,024
• Spencer Bachus (R-AL)- $286,677
• Andy Barr (R-KY)- 0
• John Campbell (R-CA)- $79,750
• Tom Cotton (R-AR)- 0
• Stephen Fincher (R-TN)- $55,650
• Michael "Mikey Suits" Grimm (R-Mafia)- $209,732
• Bill Huizenga (R-MI)- $51,800
• Randy Hultgren (R-IL)- $136,500
• Robert Hurt (R-VA)- $127,000
• Peter King (R-NY)- $128,950
• Patrick McHenry (R-NC)- $80,000
• Gary Miller (R-CA)- $32,750
• Mick Mulvaney (R-SC)- $500
• Randy Neugebauer (R-TX)- $125,500
• Stevan Pearce (R-NM)- $19,950
• Robert Pittenger (R-NC)- 0
• Dennis Ross (R-FL)- $18,200
• Marlin Stutzman (R-IN)- $15,250
• Ann Wagner (R-MO)- 0

Don't worry about the 4 Republicans with zero dollars from Wall Street. They're freshmen and weren't doing errands for the banksters in 2012, the way they are now. Next year, each will get thousands of dollars from Wall Street. As economist Dean Baker explained last week in Cutting Social Security and Not Taxing Wall Street, "Wall Street bankers have a lot more political power than old and disabled people who depend on Social Security." Like many of us, Baker is frustrated that Obama isn't fighting the Wall Street/GOP approach... and perhaps even embracing it.

As we move toward the fifth anniversary of the great financial crisis of 2008, people should be outraged that cutting Social Security is now on the national agenda, while taxing Wall Street is not. After all, if we take at face value the claims made back in 2008 by Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and former Treasury Secretaries Henry Paulson and Timothy Geithner, Wall Street excesses brought the economy to the brink of collapse.

But now the Wall Street behemoths are bigger than ever and President Obama is looking to cut the Social Security benefits of retirees. That will teach the Wall Street boys to be more responsible in the future.

Most people are now familiar with President's Obama's proposal to cut Social Security by reducing the annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA). While the final formula is somewhat convoluted, the net effect is to reduce benefits by an average of roughly 3.0 percent.

Since Social Security benefits account for more than 70 percent of the income of a typical retiree, this cut is more than a 2.0 percent reduction in income. By comparison, a wealthy couple earning $500,000 a year would see a hit to their after-tax income of just 0.6 percent from the tax increase that President Obama put in place last year.

While President Obama is willing to make seniors pay a price for the economic crisis, his administration is unwilling to impose any burdens on Wall Street. Specifically, it has consistently opposed a Wall Street speculation tax: effectively a sales tax on trades of stock and derivatives. The Obama administration has even used its power to try to block efforts by European countries to impose their own taxes on financial speculation.

If the idea of taxing stock trades sounds strange, it shouldn't. The United States used to impose a tax of 0.04 percent until Wall Street lobbied to eliminate it in the mid-1960s. Many countries, including the United Kingdom, Switzerland, China, and India already impose taxes on stock trades.

The tax in the UK is 0.5 percent on stock trades (0.25 percent for both the buyer and the seller). It dates back more than three centuries. The country raises more than 0.2 percent of GDP ($32 billion in the United States) from the tax each year. The tax has not prevented the London stock exchange from being one of the largest in the world.

There are currently two bills in Congress for a similar tax in the United States. A bill by Minnesota Representative Keith Ellison would impose the same tax as the UK on stock trades and would apply a scaled rate to options, futures, credit default swaps and other derivative instruments. It could raise more than $150 billion annually or more than $2 trillion over the ten year budget window.

A second bill has been put forward by Iowa Senator Tom Harkin and Oregon Representative Peter DeFazio. This bill would apply a 0.03 percent tax to trades of stock and a wide range of other financial assets. According to the Joint Tax Committee, the bill would raise close to $40 billion a year or over $400 billion over a ten-year budget window once it is implemented.

Unfortunately the administration has consistently opposed both bills. It claims that it is concerned about the incidence of these taxes-- that ordinary investors would see large burdens from the tax. It also claims to be worried that the taxes will disrupt financial markets by making trading more costly.

Neither of these stories passes the laugh test. Ordinary investors don't trade much, and therefore are not going to feel much impact from the tax. If someone with $100,000 in a 401(k) (this is much larger than the typical 401(k)) turns it over at the rate of 50 percent annually, they would pay $15.00 each year as a result of the Harkin-DeFazio tax.

Furthermore research shows that investors reduce their trading as costs increase. This means that if the tax increases trading costs by 20 percent, then investors will reduce their trading by roughly the same amount (in this example, turnover would fall to 40 percent annually). That means that the net cost of turnover in a 401(k) will barely change for a typical investor as a result of the tax. Wall Street would just see much less business.

So the Obama administration wants us to believe that it is willing to cut the Social Security benefits of retiree living on $15,000 a year in Social Security by $450 but it opposes a Wall Street speculation tax because it is concerned that investors with $100,000 in a 401(k) may pay a few dollars a year in additional trading costs. Only a reporter with the Washington Post would believe a story like that.

The other part of the Obama administration's story is equally laughable. The cost of financial transactions has plummeted in the last four decades because of computers. Even the Ellison tax rate would just raise costs back to their mid-'80s level. The Harkin-DeFazio tax rate would probably still leave costs lower than they were in 2000.

The country certainly had a vibrant capital market and stock exchange in the 1980s, taking costs part of the way back to this level will not prevent Wall Street from serving its proper role of transferring capital from savers to borrowers. It will just clamp down on speculation.

The basic story is very simple. Wall Street bankers have a lot more political power than old and disabled people who depend on Social Security. That is why President Obama is working to protect the former and cut benefits for the latter.

David Cicilline, a co-signer of the Grayson Takano No Cuts letter to Obama, proposed a congressional resolution that isn't as strong and definitive, and (therefore) has attracted more support in the House:

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the Chained Consumer Price Index should not be used to calculate cost-of-living-adjustments for Social Security Benefits

Whereas the Social Security program was established more than 77 years ago and has provided economic security to generations of Americans through benefits earned based on contributions made over a worker's lifetime;

Whereas the Social Security program continues to provide modest benefits - averaging approximately $14,000 per year-- to more than 53,000,000 individuals, including 37,000,000 retired workers in February 2013;

Whereas the Social Security program has no borrowing authority, has accumulated assets of $2,700,000,000,000, and, therefore, does not contribute to the Federal budget deficit;

Whereas the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund projects that such Trust Fund an pay full benefits through 2032;

Whereas the Social Security program is designed to ensure that benefits keep pace with inflation through cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) that are based upon the measured changes in prices of goods and services purchased by consumers, currently the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics;

Whereas the Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes a supplemental measure of inflation, the Chained Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (C-CPI-U), or "Chained CPI," which adjusts for projected changes in consumer behavior resulting from price fluctuations known as the "substitution effect," which occurs when consumers buy more goods and services whose prices are rising slower than average and less of those rising faster than average;

Whereas studies indicate typical Social Security beneficiaries spend significantly greater shares of their budget than consumers generally on health care, prices for which have increased at higher than average rates, and health care may not easily be substituted by consumers such as seniors;

Whereas the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that using the Chained CPI to calculate Social Security COLAs would reduce Social Security benefits by .25 percent per year as compared to current policy, resulting in a reduction in outlays of $112,000,000,000 over the first decade;

Whereas reductions in Social Security benefits from using the Chained CPI to calculate Social Security COLAs would continue to compound over time, and the AARP Public Policy Institute estimates that such reductions would grow to 3 percent after 10 years and 8.5 percent after 30 years;

Whereas Social Security Works estimates that using the Chained CPI to calculate Social Security COLAs would reduce annual Social Security benefits of the average earner - who is making $43,518-- by $658 at age 75, $1,147 at age 85, and $1,622 at age 95; and

Whereas reductions in Social Security benefits would harm some of our most vulnerable populations: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that the Chained Consumer Price Index should not be used to calculate cost of living adjustments for Social Security benefits.

So far over 90 Democrats have signed on, spanning the ideological divide inside the congressional caucus from extreme right-wingers like Ron Barber (AZ) and Kirkpatrick (AZ), who are always looking for opportunities to tell their constituents they're against Obama, to normal liberal Democrats like Jan Schakowsky (IL), Judy Chu (CA) and Donna Edwards (MD) who prefer to support Obama. Here's the list of Democrats urging Obama to untangle himself from another Republican assault on American working families:

Ron Barber (New Dem-AZ)
Karen Bass (D-CA)
Joyce Beatty (D-OH)
Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR)
Robert Brady (D-PA)
Bruce Braley (D-IA)
Corrine Brown (D-FL)
Cheri Bustos (D-IL)
Tony Cardenas (D-CA)
Matt Cartwright (D-PA)
Judy Chu (D-CA)
Yvette Clarke (D-NY)
Lacy Clay (D-MO)
John Conyers (D-MI)
Joe Courtney (New Dem-CT)
Elijah Cummings (D-MD)
Danny Davis (D-IL)
Pete DeFazio (D-OR)
Rosa DeLauro (D-CT)
Ted Deutch (D-FL)
Mike Doyle (D-PA)
Donna Edwards (D-MD)
Keith Ellison (D-MN)
Bill Enyart (D-IL)
Lois Frankel (D-FL)
Marcia Fudge (D-OH)
John Garamendi (D-CA)
Alan Grayson (D-FL)
Gene Green (D-TX)
Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)
Luis Gutierrez (D-IL)
Janice Hahn (D-CA)
Colleen Hanabusa (New Dem-HI)
Alcee Hastings (D-FL)
Brian Higgins (D-NY)
Rush Holt (New Dem-NJ)
Mike Honda (D-CA)
Jared Huffman (D-CA)
Shiela Jackson Lee (D-TX)
Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX)
Hank Johnson (D-GA)
Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)
Bill Keating (D-MA)
Dan Kildee (D-MI)
Ann Kirpatrick (AZ)
Jim Langevin (D-RI)
Barbara Lee (D-CA)
John Lewis (D-GA)
Dave Loebsack (D-IA)
Alan Lowenthal (D-CA)
Stephen Lynch (D-MA)
Dan Maffei (New Dem-NY)
Ed Markey (D-MA) Doris Matsui (D-CA)
Jim McDermott (D-WA)
Jim McGovern (D-MA)
Mike Michaud (Blue Dog-ME)
Gwen Moore (D-WI)
Jerry Nadler (D-NY)
Grace Napolitano (D-CA)
Richard Nolan (D-MN)
Ed Pastor (D-AZ)
Donald Payne (D-NJ)
Gary Peters (New Dem-MI)
Chellie Pingree (D-ME)
Mark Pocan (D-WI)
Charlie Rangel (D-NY)
Nick Rahall (D-WV)
Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA)
Raul Ruiz (D-CA)
Bobby Rush (D-IL)
Tim Ryan (D-OH)
John Sarbanes (D-MD)
Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)
Bobby Scott (D-VA)
José Serrano (D-NY)
Carol Shea Porter (D-NH)
Albio Sires (D-NJ)
Jackie Speier (D-CA)
Mark Takano (D-CA)
BennieThompson (D-MS)
Dina Titus (D-NV)
Paul Tonko (D-NY)
Juan Vargas (New Dem-CA)
Mark Veasey (D-TX)
Filemon Vela (New Dem-TX)
Nydia Velazquez (D-NY)
Maxine Waters (D-CA)
Peter Welch (D-VT)
Frederica Wilson (D-FL)

What are Boehner and his people doing about this "acute shortage" of luxury housing?

The interior of the seven-story townhouse at 80 Washington Place, priced to move at $28.9 mil, making it "the highest-priced single-family townhouse in all of Greenwich Village"

"Village brokers and buyers alike have reported an acute shortage of luxury homes, and fierce bidding wars for fine homes."

-- from Andrea Swalec's DNAinfo.com report, "Most
Expensive Village Townhouse Hits Market for $28.9 Million"

by Ken

I read this report a couple of days ago, and I don't mind telling you that I've been losing sleep since, worrying about this "acute shortage of luxury homes" in Greenwich Village. It's not clear to me whether the acute shortage applies to other neighborhoods as well, but you know it's hard to keep these blights confined to a single area.

Wouldn't you figure Mayor Mike must know about this acute shortage? So what's he doing about it? I mean, you can only spend so much time pretending to care about those poor souls driven out of their low-lying homes by Superstorm Sandy.

Now the property under immediate consideration in the article -- i.e., the Village townhouse that hit the market for $28.9 million ("the highest-priced single-family townhouse in all of Greenwich Village") -- wouldn't appear to be representative of the acute shortage of luxury housing in the Village. For one thing, even at the quantity of 1 it appears to be in abundant supply relative to demand. In fact, it didn't so much "hit" the market as re-hit it.

Developer William Rainero, who grew up in the landmarked 22.5-foot-wide house, spent three years transforming what was once nine separate apartments into one huge home, Robert Dvorin of exclusive broker TOWN Residential said. Rainero and company decked out the home with four remodeled kitchens, 11 skylights and its own stone waterfall.

"Everything in the house was done at the highest level," Dvorin said.

Despite the high-end renovations, the townhouse sat on the market for nearly a year without a sale, listed at $31.5 million by Douglas Elliman in June 2012. The price was cut by 5 percent, to $29.9 million in January, but there was still no deal.

Now, with a new broker and an additional $1 million chopped off the price, Dvorin said he and colleague Clayton Orrigo are confident the home will sell.

"It's priced well now," he said. "We're relaunching it, and the market now is on fire."

As an occasional viewer of Million Dollar Listing, I'm going to guess that you may not have to fork over the full 28.9 million smackeroos to take possession. This despite the broker's conviction that it's finally priced right, especially with the market on fire and all.

So maybe before you make your offer you want to know what you'd be getting for your $28.9 million (or whatever you offer). Okay, it's "a seven-story, 8,800-square-foot townhouse half a block west of Washington Square Park."

With its own "wine-tasting lounge," spa and a kitchen designed by Da Silvano chef and restaurateur Silvano Marchetto, the five-bedroom, seven-bathroom home at 80 Washington Place is billed as offering luxury living in a historic setting.

American composer and conductor John Philip Sousa once owned the Georgian-style building that was built in 1839. . . .

For cooks, the townhouse has four kitchens -- two of which are outdoors -- and a 700-bottle wine cellar.

Outside, the home has a teak cabana dining area and garden, a terrace, and a roof deck with views of Washington Square Park, the Freedom Tower and the Empire State Building.

From the property's previous experiences on the market you might think it has the whiff of a white elephant, but with an acute shortage of luxury housing and the market on fire, are you willing to take chances? This may be a time to buy first and ask questions later. I mean, if you don't like it, you can always sell it again. Or leastwise try.

#

Midnight Train To Georgia-- Tbilisi Not Safe For Tourists

Barbaric, primitive priests spread fear and hatred in Georgia

Yesterday I wrote about how primitive, Bronze Age notions regarding the subjugation of women in the patriarchal societies of the 3 major Abrahamic religions, still leads to thousands of brutal murders and barbaric treatment of women all over the world. Friday saw a demonstration related to that mentality in Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia. This time the victims of the primitive religionists, though, were gay people.

The first thing an international traveler notices on arriving in Tbilisi, capital of Georgia, is that the road leading from the airport to downtown is George W. Bush Avenue. It's a warning. Although rated a "safe" city, many people are backward and very primitive so there is always a certain danger, like the violent conservative riots that broke out Friday against the LGBT community in which 30 people were injured, several seriously. WikiTravel points to "a land filled with magnificent history and unparalleled natural beauty" and asks you to "[i]magine cities with narrow side streets filled with leaning houses, overstretched balconies, mangled and twisted stairways, majestic old churches, heavenly food and warm and welcoming people. All of this with a backdrop of magnificent snow peaked mountains, and the best beaches of the Black Sea." The news reports this weekend pointed to a savage, xenophobic and dangerous people led by primitive, hate-filled priests instead.

Of course, deranged religionist hate-mongers aren't confined to Georgia

A raging mob in Tbilisi chased away a downtown rally designed to commemorate the May 17 International Day against Homophobia. “Kill them! Tear them to pieces!” yelled the agitated crowd as police struggled to evacuate a handful of gay-rights supporters from the Georgian capital's central Freedom Square.

It was a scene of medieval mob violence, as thousands of Georgians-- mostly young men, but also robed priests and women in headscarves-- stormed through a police cordon and went pursuing the activists. “Where are they? Don’t let them leave alive!” screamed frenzied men, as they took over the square, outnumbering and overpowering police troops.

Police barely managed to herd some of the LGBT activists into municipal buses, before angry protesters surrounded the vehicles. The crowd hit, threw stones and followed the buses as they pushed their way out of the square.

The pursuit continued on the side streets. Just outside the square, a mob tried to storm a house, where several gay rights activists had sought refuge. “Drag them out, stomp them to death,” screamed one woman as  she tried to push her way through a group of policemen, who wrestled with the mob at the entrance of the house.

Youngsters swore, beat and threw various objects at police officers, who eventually pulled the activists into a car. A stampede occurred as the mob tried to chase the car down the narrow street, with some falling into ditches.

At the different corner of the downtown, several activists sought asylum in a grocery store and police managed to fight off the mob that tried to break into the shop.

Very few civilians dared to speak against the violence. “Look at yourselves! You call yourselves Christians?” objected one elderly woman in tears, speaking from a balcony. “Go ahead, kill everyone you are told to hate in the name of God and national values.”

Government officials from both the ruling Georgian Dream and President Mikheil Saakashvili's minority National Movement condemned the violence and blamed each other's policies for it.

“Both groups have a full right to hold peaceful rallies. Violence is unacceptable,” said Justice Minister Tea Tsulukuani.

Appearing on Rustavi2 television, senior National Movement parliamentarian Gigi Tsereteli called the violence "anarchy," and noted that "This is not the state we were building..."

On the eve of the clash, the highly revered leader of the Georgian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Ilia II, called on the city government not to allow an LGBT demonstration in Tbilisi.

The patriarch also urged restrained conduct, but gay-rights activists claim that the church fomented the display of violence by speaking out against the rally.

In what some participants described as a voluntary initiative, gay-rights opponents, led by priests, gathered in the morning of May 17 and marched toward Freedom Square with posters like “Stop Promoting Homosexuality in Georgia” and “Homosexuality is the Worst Sin.” Parish women held strands of nettle in their hands.

“Nettle has curative properties,” one woman commented to EurasiaNet.org. “A few hits in the right place and it will kick those demented thoughts out of their heads.”

As the rally degenerated into violence, protesters screamed verbal abuse at Georgia’s National Ombudsman Ucha Nanuashvili and a US embassy official, who also showed up at the demonstration.

Brawls broke out in several parts of town and dozens were hospitalized. The tensions that continued for hours steamed off after the church called on the believers to relocate to the city’s main cathedral, Holy Trinity.

Prime Minister Bidzina Ivanishvili earlier had emphasized that sexual minorities have equal rights with other Georgians under the law, adding that "Society will get used to it." So far, it doesn't look like it has.

Americans, Canadians and citizens of the European Union don't need visas to visit Georgia. The water isn't safe to drink there but "it is a very ingrained and idiosyncratic characteristic of Georgian hospitality that Georgians wish nothing more than to hear that foreigners are enjoying their experience in Georgia. Expect to be asked whether you enjoy Georgia and its cuisine. And it is expected that you respectfully reply in the affirmative. Otherwise your 'hosts' will look terribly dejected as if expressing a feeling of collective failure to show visitors enough hospitality." Watch the video to get a better insight into the national character.

Sunday Classics: "Good night, thou false world!" -- (final) exit Papageno?

"Good night, thou false world!"

PAPAGENO: Right, then, that's still how it is!
Since there is nothing holding me back,
good night, thou false world!

-- most of our Magic Flute translations by Robert A. Jordan

Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau (b), Papageno; Berlin Philharmonic, Karl Böhm, cond. DG, recorded June 1964

Or in English: "Fare thee well, thou world of pain!"

[in English] John Brownlee (b), Papageno; Metropolitan Opera Orchestra, Bruno Walter, cond. Live performance, Dec. 26, 1942

by Ken

We were just looking at Mozart's and Beethoven's exceptional use of minor keys for opening movements of symphonies and concertos, and one point I could have made more explicit is how frequently -- among these admittedly infrequent cases -- the "thematic" material that inspires such a plan is more "motivic" than really melodic -- think of Mozart's D minor Piano Concerto (No. 20) or of Beethoven's Fifth and Ninth Symphonies.

But of course the minor mode doesn't preclude great tunes, and I think that's what planted the thought of this great moment from The Magic Flute in my head. It's the moment when Papageno the lowly bird-catcher is driven by his loneliness to the ultimate despair, and I think the Fischer-Dieskau performance in particular makes it clear that Mozart plays this moment "for real." (Not to worry, we're going to hear the complete scene, er, eventually.)

As I suggested in Friday night's "double preview," "Enter the bird-catcher; exit Sir Colin Davis," we're focusing this week on Papageno, though as we often do, we're going to start with the Overture.


OUR THREE PRINCIPAL PAPAGENOS
AND THEIR DISTINGUISHED CONDUCTORS

Read more »

Have New Jersey Democrats Finally Found The Right Man To Defeat Bank Shill Extremist Scott Garrett?

As we saw last night, Scott Garrett is a Wall Street shill and one of the most extremist Republicans left in the Northeast. Unlike New Jersey's mainstream conservative Republican delegation to Congress-- Frank LoBiondo, Chris Smith, Jon Runyan, Leonard Lance and Rodney Frelinghuysen-- Garrett is a hard core right-wing ideologue who's voting record is more in tune with radical teabaggers from the Old Confederacy than with anyone from New Jersey. Romney beat Obama in NJ-05-- a district that follows New Jersey's entire northern border from Hackensack and Paramus up through Mahwah, Vernon Township, over to the Delaware Water Gap and down to Washington Township-- 51-49%. Over 70% of the voters live in Bergen County, a New York suburb, and the head of the Democratic Party there, Lou Stellato, has been trying to find a strong opponent for the hated Garrett.

Stellato went to Andrew Maguire, 73, who holds a doctorate from Harvard and is widely considered a foreign policy affairs expert. And... he represented the district in Congress between 1975 and 1981. A highly effective progressive, everything he championed in Congress is anathema to Scott Garrett's reactionary stance. Let me go to the Wikipedia description of what Maguire worked on in Congress:

• Health and mental health policy, including occupational safety and health and expanded health programs for children and youth

• Environmental policy, including the Clean Air Act and control of toxic waste; and authored what became known as the Maguire Amendments to the National Cancer Act

• Energy policy, including supply and pricing of fossil fuels, nuclear, solar and other energy resources; and energy conservation including auto mileage efficiency standards and renewable resources initiatives

• Foreign policy issues including arms control, democracy initiatives, and trade

• Banking and securities laws and regulation

• Congressional ethics reform

• Increasing citizen participation in his congressional district by holding regular issue forums focused on a wide range of public policy concerns

In endorsing him for reelection, Ralph Nader bluntly stated he was "one of the most effective freshmen through hard work, a probing, innovative mind, and a fine sense of public interest. On subjects such as energy, medical devices, and air pollution legislation, he has been a bulwark against special interests. His office has developed a senior citizens information kit and other 'how-to's' for people in dealing with bureaucracies such as the medicare agencies." Several years later, Nader was no less impressed, describing him as "Smart, hard-working, personable, he has a sterling voting record on consumer, environmental, governmental reform, tax justice and energy issues. His office is known for its sensitive constituent service. He spends much time with his district’s economic and health problems."

Ultimately it was Big Oil pumping a fortune into the district that defeated Maguire in 1980. Maguire has filed to run again next year. Can he win? The re-districting has made it more purple than red and if Maguire can run an effective campaign and find the resources to compete with the Wall Street banksters backing Garrett-- a senior member of the House Financial Services Committee-- he has a good shot. In march he spoke at the Sussex County Democratic Committee nominating convention.

"I'm seriously considering doing so again," Maguire told the crowd. "Here in Northern New Jersey, Scott Garrett is the problem."

Maguire said he felt Garrett does not work in a bipartisan way to solve problems, and described him as "invisible and aloof." He said Garrett works against: out of work Americans, equal pay and work for women, education, and environmental stewardship.

"Now is the time to end the pretense, the negativism, that undercuts our families, and our national future," Maguire said.

Among his accolades, Maguire said while in Congress he introduced flood legislation, wrote the Clean Air Act, created amendments to the National Cancer Act, and launched the first congressional ethics investigation.

"I will not be a 'no' congressman like Scott Garrett," said Maguire. "It's much easier to do the work, than say, 'no.' We must say 'no' to Scott Garrett, and 'yes,' to the truth."

Remember, Maguire served while Richard Nolan represented Duluth, Minnesota in Congress. Last year, Nolan, 69, came back with a bang and defeated Republican incumbent Chip Cravaack. Since returning to Congress Nolan has amassed one of the fiercest progressive voting records of any freshman. His ProgressivePunch crucial vote score is 91.3, a score bettered only by 6 freshmen-- Mark Pocan (D-WI), Matt Cartwright (D-PA), Alan Grayson (D-FL), Jared Huffman (D-CA), Tony Cardenas (D-CA) and Joe Kennedy (D-MA). Scott Garrett's score for the same time period (the 113th Congress) is a shocking 4.35, identical to far right crackpots Steve King (IA), Buck McKeon (CA), Pete Sessions (TX), Lynn Westmoreland (GA) and Joe "You Lie" Wilson (SC).

Republicans Move To Repay Wall Street For All Those Nice Big Bribes

"What do you expect? 'Crook' is my middle name"

Last election cycle the Wall Street banksters poured $83,722,946 into campaign contributions for congressional candidates, $55,447,942 for Republicans and $28,077,244 for Democrats. Their #1 agenda item was to get Congress to further water down Dodd Frank. The House did just that yesterday with Scott Garrett's (more on him tomorrow morning) H.R. 1062, the SEC Regulatory Accountability Act. I should probably mention that, aside from Boehner ($1,415,075) and Cantor ($902,400), Garrett took in more legalistic bribes from the banksters than any other Member of the House ($537,020), including Banking Committee Chairman Paul Ryan ($310,500), House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling ($285,250) and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp ($285,050).

Financial Services Committee ranking member Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and other Democrats said the bill is just the latest show of opposition to the Dodd-Frank law, which Republicans have held up-- along with ObamaCare-- as a Democratic regulatory overreach.

"Let's be clear: The purpose of this legislative effort is to stop implementation of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act dead in its tracks," Waters said.

Several Democrats noted that Republicans have worked to limit funding to the SEC and other financial regulatory agencies in order to slow the implementation of the law.

During debate, Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) acknowledged a link between the bill and Dodd-Frank. As one example, he cited analysis saying that the SEC's "Volcker rule," which would limit the ability of banks to engage in proprietary trading, could cost more than 1 million jobs.

Hensarling indicated that these sorts of factors need to be weighed more carefully at the SEC. The Volcker rule has been delayed for several years now as the SEC and other agencies wade through thousands of related comments.

Garrett's big wet kiss to Wall Street passed 235-161, every single Republican plus 17 mostly corrupt Democrats voting for it. The bad Democrats yesterday-- for those keeping score:

• Ron Barber (New Dem-AZ)
• John Barrow (Blue Dog/New Dem-GA)
• Ami Bera (New Dem-CA)
• Tony Cárdenas (CA)
• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)
• Pete Gallego (Blue Dog-TX)
• Dan Maffei (New Dem-NY)
• Sean Patrick Maloney (New Dem-NY)
• Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT)
• Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog/New Dem-NC)
• Bill Owens (New Dem-NY)
• Scott Peters (New Dem-CA)
• Nick Rahall (WV)
• Raul Ruiz (CA)
• Brad Schneider (New Dem-IL)
• Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog/New Dem-OR)
• Kyrsten Sinema (New Dem-AZ)

Don't freak out about not seeing degenerate seeing bank shills Steny Hoyer, Colleen Hanabusa and Ann Kirkpatrick on the list. They were all playing hooky from Congress yesterday.

TV Watch: "Maron" revisited, following an absolutely terrific Episode 3

Off-the-Marc: Episode 3 (view clip at link)

Look who shows up at Marc's door! Says Marc: "The character in the show is not exactly my father. My dad's name is Barry; the character in the show is Larry. My father is more frightening than Judd Hirsch." However, Marc assures us in "Off-the-Marc: Episode 3" (here's the link again) that all the stories attributed here to "Larry" Maron, such as the incident when he ran over Marc's ankle with his car, can be properly credited to Barry M.

by Ken

I've made the point often enough: I'm suspicious when shows are said to come together only after a couple of episodes. In my experience it has usually turned out that the creators had their act together from the start, but what they were trying to do was sufficiently unexpected that I just missed it for that early while.

In this spirit I definitely plan to rewatch the first two episodes of our old Morning Sedition friend Marc Maron's new IFC half-hour comedy Maron, which I wrote about last week with something less than unalloyed joy. However this rewatch turns out, I think it's important to get on the record that this week's Episode 3, "Jeff Garlin Meets Marc's Dad," struck me as sensational. Where the earlier episodes struck me as pleasantly harmless retreads of fairly well-trod tales of a comic's neurosis and self-loathing, the new one seemed to me trenchant, inspired, and hilarious from start to finish.

As promised last week, in the new episode we were introduced to Marc's father, as played by Judd Hirsch. He turns out to be the kind of dad any of us would recoil from in horror, not least when we recognize traits of him in ourself. "Larry" is a bipolar dreamer 'n schemer, who dreams 'n' schemes in his manic phases, leaving those around him to watch the dreams and self-destruct in his crashed periods.

Suddenly this time out, working with that same premise -- that the TV Marc is a lightly fictionalized version of the real Marc, who seems to see his decades' worth of investment in a career in comedy as a bust -- all Marc's anxieties and frustrations were played out in deeply real, involving character interactions -- involving not just Marc and Larry but also Marc's podcast guest, Jeff Garlin, and Marc's loyal but none too helpful friend comic Andy Kindler.

Anyone who's watched any quantity of comedy on cable knows Andy as the pursuer of the same sort of career in comedy as Marc, and he's quite charming in this episode. Like when he's trying to lure Marc off to the gym with him to work a laundry list of muscle groups -- after which he'll never go back to the gym. Or there's a hilariously painful moment when, as the hubbub in the RV that Larry has parked outside Marc's house starts to draw a crowd on the sidewalk, Andy makes his best stab at crowd control, beginning, "My name is Andy Kindler. You might remember me from Season 7 of Last Comic Standing."

Marc has a funny-sad phone conversation about dear old Dad with his brother Josh in Arizona, which is cut short when Josh has to deal with a domestic situation. "My kids are now beating the shit out of my wife's kids," Josh reports, adding, "Did I screw up my life?"

Marc's sense of hopelessness about his career also came into clearer focus in this episode. True, he did try to sell his profoundly uninterested agent on the proposition that "podcasts are the future of television." But to his podcast audience he confided:

You'll never make a lot of money until you make someone else a lot of money. I mean, you'll make enough to survive, but if you want a vacation home on the cape, or a Sherpa to carry your coffee grinder up Everest, it's not gonna happen -- until you make yourself an exploitable commodity. Not really my thing. But I can tell you this from experience: It's easy to maintain your integrity when no one is offering to buy it out.

Wow! There are heaps of wisdom here, wisdom that I think you'll agree are by no means limited to the comedy business. As I say, I definitely plan to look at Episodes 1 and 2 again, but on the basis of Episode 3, Maron has etched a place on my "must watch" list.

#

How Buck McKeon's Mormonism Played Right Into The Military Rape Epidemic Coverup

Last summer the cover-up of the epidemic of military rapes at Lackland-- engineered by House Armed Services Committee chairman Buck McKeon-- began to unravel, due, primarily, to the tireless efforts by Protect Our Defenders. POD battled McKeon's determination to cover up the scandal and keep it out of the public view. At all times, he insisted on closed briefings rather than the public hearings this kind of scandal demanded. And who was McKeon's point person on the Committee, with his own peculiar take on rape? Todd Akin, of course. It was two of Congress' most backward, patriarchal and misogynistic Neanderthals that John Boehner put in charge of "protecting" the Pentagon... and leaving the rape victims to twist in the wind. This from last summer:

For one of the most misogynistic members of Congress, Buck McKeon, the decision on whether or not to have an open hearing on rape in the military was easy. No! That’s been the answer given to Protect Our Defenders (POD) and Lt. Paula Coughlin-Puopulo, USN (ret.) who delivered 10,000 signed petitions to McKeon asking for an open investigation into the sexual assaults at Lackland Air Force Base. Some may remember Lt. Coughlin as the whistleblower in the Tailhook Scandal in the early 1990’s where 83 women and 7 men were sexually assaulted in a Las Vegas Hotel. A statement from POD read, “More than 20 years ago, 87 servicewomen were sexually assaulted while serving in the U.S. Navy, in what became known as the “Tailhook scandal.” Paula was one of the 87. The former Naval aviator reported the incident to senior officers, but they did nothing. So she went public. Today, Paula is going public again demanding Rep. McKeon open a congressional hearing about Lackland and then legislate fundamental reforms.”

A closed briefing was held instead and one general reportedly asked McKeon not “to hobble base commanders” in determining how to handle sexual assault cases.

Military sexual assaults have been put back in the spotlight after 38 female Air Force recruits came forward with complaints of sexual assault or rape by instructors at Lackland AFB. Fifteen instructors have been implicated and two already found guilty. One awaits sentencing and another given only 30 days’ confinement and a reduction in rank-- a punishment criticized by POD asserting the military doesn’t take these crimes seriously.

I'm in the middle of reading Rana Husseini's courageous book on how men brutally enforce their will on women, Murder in the Name of Honor. Much of the book covers her beat as a journalist and activist: so-called "honor" crimes in her native Jordan. But she goes beyond Jordan and talks about the dynamics of these horrific and barbaric crimes against women around the world. Patriarchy is so ingrained that even many women are ready to blame the victims like this 25 year old Jordanian with a Masters degree in economics:

"Women are the source of seduction for men and if all women are chastised then men would become good on their own. We are in a Middle Eastern society and I am for punishing women more than men because men cannot resist the seduction of girls who are dressed improperly... When women are punished, fear of their families will build up among them and they will think twice before committing any immoral mistake."

She was talking about women who are brutally, savagely murdered by their own families because they are raped-- and about the murderers who go unpunished by patriarchal legal systems-- whether sharia courts in Muslim countries or outmoded military chain of command decisions in our own Pentagon.

In an interview with Jordan Member of Parliament Mahmoud Kharabesheh for the Jordan Times Husseini found an attitude that many privileged males feel all over the world: "Women adulterers cause a great threat to our society, because they are the main reason that such acts [of adultery] happen. If men do not find women with whom to commit adultery, then they will become good on their own." Well, if they can't find a woman to rape, some rape children or other men. Others turn to sheep. And when Jordan decided to start allowing women deputies in Parliament, religious conservatives there reacted the same way religious conservatives did here. A deputy from Amman's fourth district, explains Husseini, "strongly opposed the idea. He said that being an MP was a man's job; a woman can jeopardize her honor by going out late at night to take part in related social activities. If his daughter stayed out late at night he would shoot her himself, he added. He told the gathering that a woman's presence in Parliament 'would be damaging, since a woman in the house would distract make deputies and stir trouble when male deputies instinctively look at her breasts.'" Husseini traces these attitudes back to the primitive Bronze Age origins of the three Abrahamic religions:

This has its roots in numerous ancient texts, including the Old Testament, specifically Deuteronomy (22:12- 21), where proof of the bribe's virginity could be presented to both sets of parents in the form of stains on the bedsheets. If an unwed woman was found not to have been a virgin, then she was to be punished by being stoned to death.

This was convenient for men in a patriarchal society who might be paranoid about "his" woman comparing his prowess in the sack with other partners. And, all across the patriarchal world even murdering women who are perceived as not living up to the patriarchal rules, is forgiven because it is judged to be in "accordance with tradition." A Pakistani Senator insisted that "We have fought for human rights and civil liberties all our lives but wonder what sort of human rights are being claimed by these girls in jeans."

In February 2008 an Islamic fundamentalist shot and killed a government minister because of her refusal to wear a Muslim veil. Zilla Huma Usman, the Punjab Provincial Minister for Social Welfare, was shot as she prepared to address a public gathering in the town of Gujranwala. The attacker, Mululvi Ghulam Sarwar, said that he was opposed to the participation of women in politics and the refusal of many professional women in Pakistan to wear the veil.

Speaking to a local TV channel, he said, 'I have no regrets. I just obeyed Allah's commandment. Islam will not allow women to hold, positions of leadership. I will kill all those women who do not follow the right path. if I am freed again.'

What about Iraq, where the Bush Regime proclaimed that women's rights would be at the center of the project to make Iraq a democratic model for the rest of the Arab world? In Iraq women's rights have deteriorated dramatically since the start of the U.S.-led coalition's occupation.



And this kind of patriarchal mentality is certainly not unique to the Muslim world.

In Brazil, it is widely believed that a man can legitimately kill allegedly adulterous wife on the grounds of honor and such cases are regularly treated with leniency in the courtroom. Human Rights Watch has documented cases of women killed by their husbands from the 1970s to the late 1990s for leaving or divorcing their husbands, returning home late from work, refusing to sleep with their husband, suspicion of adultery or because they had been caught in an adulterous situation.

So what does this have to do with Buck McKeon's Mormonism and how he orchestrated the cover-up of the military rape epidemic? After all, Mormonism isn't the same as the Muslim faith, even if both were rooted in extreme patriarchy and polygamy... right?

Anyone who has lived among Mormons has observed the sect’s legendarily happy families and tight-knit communities. They are self-satisfied, devout and abstemious; overwhelmingly white and middle to upper class. Hard working, acquisitive, conservative and disciplined. A whopping majority of them consider helping the poor a top priority-- an admirable quality even if their anti-poverty efforts are mostly directed at their own ranks.

...Mormonism is a valid issue of concern not as a religious test for office, but for its most distinctive characteristic — male authoritarianism. The controversial and secretive religion is a multibillion-dollar business empire ruled by a stern patriarchal gerontocracy. Only “worthy males” can ascend to positions of power-- both now and in the afterlife-- and women are relegated to supporting roles. Male dominance is the essence of the faith, as the Mormon feminist Sonia Johnson found when she was excommunicated for her support of the Equal Rights Amendment. In her memoir, From Housewife to Heretic, Johnson describes a patriarchal world in which everyone is taught that "God, being male, values maleness much more than he values femaleness, that God and men are in an Old Boys’ Club together, with God as president.”

Protecting the victims of rape was the last thing on Buck McKeon's mind as chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Protecting the old boys' network at the Pentagon was. This week President Obama called the military heads into his office for a chat. He had a very different perspective:

[O]ne of the great honors of my life is serving as Commander-in-Chief to what I consider to be the best military in the history of the world. And I am in awe of the work that the vast majority of our men and women in uniform do.

But the reason we are so good is not because of the fancy equipment. It’s not because of our incredible weapon systems and technology. It’s because of our people. And the capacity for our men and women in uniform to work as a team, a disciplined unit looking out for each other in the most severe of circumstances, is premised, as Ray Odierno said, on trust. It comes down to do people trust each other and do they understand that they’re all part of a single system that has to operate under whatever circumstances effectively.

The issue of sexual assault in our armed forces undermines that trust. So not only is it a crime, not only is it shameful and disgraceful, but it also is going to make and has made the military less effective than it can be. And as such, it is dangerous to our national security  So this is not a sideshow. This is not sort of a second-order problem that we’re experiencing. This goes to the heart and the core of who we are and how effective we’re going to be.

Now, the good news is I am absolutely confident that everybody in this room and our leadership, starting with Chuck Hagel and Marty Dempsey and the Joint Chiefs, as well as our top enlisted men and women, they care about this. And they’re angry about it. And I heard directly from all of them that they’re ashamed by some of what’s happened.

But it’s not fixed yet, and that’s clear. So even though I think there’s a level of concern and interest that is appropriate, we haven’t actually been able to ensure that our men and women in uniform are not experiencing this, and if they do experience it, that there’s serious accountability.

So what I’ve done is I’ve asked Secretary of Defense Hagel and Marty Dempsey to help lead a process to continue to get at this. That starts with accountability, and that means at every level. And that includes accountability not just for enforcing the law, but also training our personnel effectively, putting our best people on this challenge.

I think Secretary of the Army McHugh made a very good point, which is I’m not sure we’ve incentivized some of our top people to understand this is as core to our mission as anything else. And we’ve got to reward them, not think of this as a sideline for anything else that they do, but incentivize ambitious folks in the ranks to make sure that they understand this is important. So that’s part of accountability.

Empowering victims. We’ve got to create an environment in which victims feel that they’re comfortable coming forward and they know people have their backs, and that they will work through this process in a way that keeps the focus on justice and make right what’s been wrong as opposed to suddenly they’re on trial, it may weaken their position, it make compromise their ability to advance.  That’s going to be important. They’ve got to know that they should have no fear of retaliation, no fear of stigma, no damage to their careers, and certainly no protection for criminals.

Third thing is justice for the victims. When victims do come forward, they deserve justice. Perpetrators have to experience consequences. And I’m pleased that Secretary Hagel has proposed reforms that would restrict the ability of commanders to overturn convictions after trial. Those reforms have my full support.

...I want to emphasize-- everybody in this room has heard from me directly. They’ve heard from Secretary Hagel, and they’ve heard from Marty Dempsey. They all understand this is a priority and we will not stop until we’ve seen this scourge, from what is the greatest military in the world, eliminated.