text:
As 'we speak' I'm listening to the VHF radio full of never ending talk between 3 teams of our scouts and KWS who are busy following a wounded Elephant, shot at by poachers 3 days ago in a valley on the southern slopes of the Ndotos, and he has dragged himself down into the lower Milgis, into very thick bush and they now can't find him.. Hes lost alot of blood, and hes lieing down often.. SAD, SAD.. As every one keeps saying.. The Elephant situation is serious, and its frightening.. ITS A NEVER ENDING BATTLE.. We know who the people are, but unless you catch them 'red handed', they just get let out to do it again.. and thats exactly whats just happened..
The lonely tracks of a mother and calf running from danger..
Any way, while that all goes on on one side I have been watching in dismay another saga unfolding again, with our most beautiful carnivores..
picture taken below Lkanto.. mum and her cubs!
The ups and downs of conservation, with reference to these magnificent animals… In Europe / America, they were called vermin and ALL shot 100 or even 200 years ago.. Thank goodness most of our African friends didn't behave like that.. They lived with them and accepted and used them.. Not sure about the early Europeans in Kenya??.. You read any book and they killed lions /leopards every other day on their ranches!.. .. Sadly that attitude also spread up here in the second half of last century the cats, wild dogs, Hyenas actually all animals were killed discriminatingly, grrrrrr, the modern world catching up …… I do wonder if ever again wild animals in this world will beable 'to live and let live', I suppose we are breeding too quickly, for that dream and soon there will be no space left for animals except behind wire fences.. Believe me its happening in front of our eyes in Kenya.. BUT up here since we started theMilgis Trust we are delighted to say that we are seeing an incredible increase in carnivores.. (and no fences!) We all know what they do when theres no wild animals left to eat.. They go for the peoples livestock which is not popular, but I am always so surprised how accommodating the pastoral people are.. Thank you to them.. and they deserve to reap the benefits! If I have a chance they will and are actually!
a fabulous specimen of a bush pig..
The issue that I am watching is food for these big meat eaters, and the reason why theres a problem.. Remembering that we live in a very dry area, where there was never the plains game that other areas of Kenya have, plus the fact that almost every thing was killed by any one and every one.. There is a time when many people told me 'to forget Northern Kenya its finished'!! Luckily I didn't but this problem, is now 'our' problem, the 'Milgis' Problem!
Its as simple as this.. Carnivores have many young in one go and Herbivores have 1 at a time.. plus the Carnivores pop em out much more often than there 'food' does.. Just compare these Aprox. gestation periods in days of Lion -110, leopard – 100, Caracal – 80 compared to lets say Buffaloe – 340, Lesser kudu – 220, Warthog -170, the tiny little Dikdik – 170 , these figures are amazing.. Sooo how does one win, in getting the wildlife to rebuild itself when starting again! This is after what I once wrote.( the despicable blanket poaching in the 70s and 80s and into the 90s.. Every one, and I mean 'everyone' KWS included for some reason joined the awful 'band wagon' of poaching the wildlife in Northern Kenya, in fact almost wiping it out ) The wildlife is coming back slowly but surely, but just watching down below Lkanto, the carnivore proliferation far exceeds the Herbivore proliferation..We, not just me, but all my Samburu friends here at Lkanto, are so happy to see the carnivores, we sit on the rock where these warriors are sitting for hours!! Sadly because their own success they don't have alot to eat, they must wake up each evening with a hard nights work ahead of them.. But they are surviving and they look fabulous in the night photos we are getting!!.. But this issue is a 'double edged sword' really.. and I try to appease the communities not to kill them, when they kill their livestock, but sometimes one feels is an up hill battle.. and I don't blame them.. When somebody steels money out your bank account, of course one reacts with vengeance.. A leopard tried to kill one of our camels the other day, the camel eventually died, and it hurt.. But I tell them that if they hadn't killed all the carnivores food so readily before, this would not be the situation.. AND by the way THEY AGREE.. Maybe this is a reason they are so accommodating.. When I take tourists out on safari if we are lucky to see any of the special five of the carnivores we actually double the camping fees that the community gets.. This certainly helps, but only wish there was a simple answer
The warriors very happy to see this lion.. Its a very long time since we've seen one below Lkanto, but reports on the radio are on the increase, so something is working!! The Milgis Lugga was famous for its lions in the good old days, but one day we found the gov't vet in the area dishing out poison to kill the cats, and hyenas.. This guy has stopped now, although sadly they still do it when theres a rabies outbreak..
Much excitement down below lkanto when this lion casually wandered out of the bush and had a drink, and then lay down!!
Heres her tracks while she was drinking..
This splendid lesser kudu bull, has managed to survive several visits of the hunting dogs, this leopard and her two cubs, all the Hyenas and the lion so far, but sadly I think his days are numbered..
A few days later, 8 am we had this extraordinary show of 8 very excited spotted Hyenas, rushing in all directions making alot of noise.. We sent some scouts to check on what was up, and found that they had been hassling a lion! To put it in the Samburu thinking.. They were telling the lion 'to hurry up and find some food for them'.. Here they are on there way home having caused there chaos.. In all my years out here and walking throughout, I think I've ever only come across spotted Hyena twice in the day time!
Sadly another addition to our orphans, this one is from Lake Bogoria, but we were asked to bring it up in a sensible way and release it here.. She is absolutely beautiful! Her name is 'Mbaso', meaning lake..
Luckily there are plenty of these
and these! If the carnivores can catch them..
After that depressing story heres something to brighten your day up.. Lodermurts different range of hats through out the month of may!! The sun rising to the south on the first picture and out to the north in the last one!
20.5.13 A hot day coming up??!
Lodermurt is the solid rock that we look at down the Milgis Valley.. Its 60 nautical miles away..


text:
First of all, sorry if this is a duplicate of this.
Sometimes I don't understand what the deal is with Stack Overflow anymore. I look back and see old posts that have hundreds of votes, but if I see a question with no bounty that has 7 votes, that's a lot. Has it been so overrun by new users that a lot of the quality ones have fled?
Consider two answers I made today
- This post took me about 10 seconds to make. So fast that I got 4 votes because I answered before people opened the question
- This post took me much, much longer. This is actually a quality answer I put hoping to put some wisdom out there and have the user learn something. Not only did I not get any upvotes, but neither of the answers (the other is pretty good too) got even one vote.
What's the deal? I can see the current system working great when there's a lot more quality users on the site, but now the site seems to be so flooded either by total beginners OR by people who don't know how to use a search engine that I find myself linking what have you tried? in a comment in half the posts. I feel like I'm being punished for good answers.
I don't have any suggestions for an improvement, but I'm feeling disgruntled, meta. Thoughts?

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Electric cart stolen from Boone Walmart; 2 wanted
Police are looking for two men suspected of stealing an electric cart from a Walmart in Boone.
Surveillance images were released Tuesday from an incident around 4:30 p.m. Feb. 16.
The two suspects rode the carts into the Walmart, but when they left, only one of the men parked his cart, police said.
The other man drove his cart out of the store, and both loaded it into a station wagon and fled the scene, police said.
One suspect was described as a white man with dark hair wearing jeans and a black blazer, while the other suspect was described as a black man wearing gray sweatpants and a red hoodie. Both suspects were wearing sunglasses, police said.
The suspect vehicle is a silver station wagon with black racks on the top and a large Appalachian State "A" sticker in the rear window.
Anyone with information on the incident or possible suspects is asked to call Crime Stoppers at (828) 268-6959, 737-0125 or Boone Police at 268-6900.


text:
Provided by the LCSO
The following arrests were provided by the Lenoir County Sheirff's Office. Some classifications (misdemeanor/larceny) were not available:
Traci Riggs Stanberry, 24, 472 N.C. 41 W., Trenton, Oct. 3, misdemeanor show cause. Bond: Other. Arresting officer: J. Garner.
Roger Lynn Jarman, 46, 315 E. Vernon Ave., Kinston, Oct. 3, felony probation violation. Bond: None listed. Arresting officer: J. Garner.
Jason Outlaw Smith, 27, 143 Honeycutt Drive, Seven Springs, Oct. 4, misdemeanor trespassing. Bond: $300. Arresting officer: J. Garner.
Jarion Demans Jones, 21, 808 Nelson St., Kinston, Oct. 4, possession of schedule VI, possession of drug paraphernalia. Bond: None. Arresting officer: J. Stocks.
Samuel Ian Baird, 26, 3065 Brakefield Drive, La Grange, Oct. 4, assault on a female. Bond: None. Arresting officer: C. Heath.
Jeremy Clifton Williams, 23, 1955 Diamond Lane, Kinston, Oct. 5, driving while license revoked. Bond: None. Arresting officer: J. Stocks.
Carlos Q. Dixon, 36, 334 Betty St., Kinston, Oct. 5, driving while license revoked. Bond: None. Arresting officer: J. Stocks.
Cynthia Tasker, 46, 3776 Saw Mill Road, Grifton, Oct. 6, two counts order for arrest/exceed pseudo limits. Bond: $3,000. Arresting officer: J. Dunham.
Emanuel Dontae James, 26, 1940 Mt. Vernon Estates Drive, Kinston, Oct. 6, 18 counts misrepresentation to obtain Employment Security Commission benefit. Bond: None. Arresting officer: B. Hatch.


text:
Hammered by criticism over its own human rights record and perhaps worried about its reputation ahead of the upcoming Summer Olympics, China signaled Tuesday that it might turn around a ship full of arms bound for its longtime ally, Zimbabwe.
The ship had docked first at South Africa's main port, Durban, where South African dock workers refused to offload the nearly 3 million rounds of AK-47 ammunition and thousands of rounds of rocket-propelled grenades and mortars, all bound for the troubled regime of Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe. Mozambique, Angola, and Namibia have also said the ship is not welcome in their ports.
The apparent withdrawal of the arms shipment by China comes at a time of growing criticism from African leaders for Mr. Mugabe's iron-fisted handling of his domestic opposition in the March 29 elections – where Mugabe's party fared badly in parliamentary elections and where the presidential results have still not been released.
"There is clearly a change among African leaders, with Zambia and Botswana changing their positions. The wall of silence toward Zimbabwe by Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) is broken," says Marian Tupy, a Southern Africa expert at the Cato Institute in Washington. "But what the rest of the world thinks matters little to Mugabe," he adds.
China's history with Mugabe
For President Mugabe, China has been a longtime revolutionary friend in times of need.
During the decade-long war against the white-dominated government of Southern Rhodesia – as Zimbabwe used to be called – it was China that supplied Mugabe's ZANU-PF liberation army with arms, training, logistics, and funding.
But as China attempts to take a larger role on the global stage, particularly in Africa, it is increasingly sensitive to foreign opinions.
While a number of Western governments have criticized the arms shipment, "China is most conscious of African reactions," says Christopher Alden, an expert on Chinese-African relations at the London School of Economics. "This is a response to African governments' public criticism about potentially fueling a crisis."
Zambia, which chairs the SADC, had urged regional states to bar the An Yue Jiang ship from entering their waters.
The South African trade union confederation, linked to that country's ruling African National Congress (ANC), had also condemned the shipment, warning that delivery of guns and ammunition to the army in Zimbabwe under current circumstances would threaten peace in Zimbabwe.
By responding to changing African opinion – which appears increasingly impatient with South African President Thabo Mbeki's "quiet diplomacy" toward the Mugabe regime – Chinese leaders seem willing to temper their old revolutionary support when it suits their larger economic and diplomatic interests.
Learning to be a 'responsible player'?
"There is a trend … of China making decisions that reflect the international perspective more than the narrow Chinese perspective," says David Zweig, a professor of Chinese international relations at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. He points to the way Beijing has worked closely with western countries over Darfur for the past year.
"China is learning on this," Professor Zweig adds. "They want to be a responsible player" in world affairs.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu suggested Tuesday that Beijing may abandon efforts to deliver the arms shipment bound for Zimbabwe aboard the An Yue Jiang, in light of the ship's difficulty in unloading the weapons.
"As far as I know the carrier is now considering carrying back the cargo," Ms. Jiang told reporters.
Jiang insisted that the shipment was "perfectly normal trade in military goods between China and Zimbabwe." She added that "the relevant contract was signed last year and has nothing to do with the latest situation in Zimbabwe."
The international row over the arms shipment illustrates the pitfalls of China's growing involvement in Africa, and its difficulties in avoiding domestic African politics.
COSATU, the South African trade union confederation whose members refused to offload the Chinese weapons, has long complained about the way cheap Chinese imports have destroyed jobs in the South African textiles industry.
"This is the first time COSATU has been critical of China's political presence" says Mr. Alden.
The shunned vessel has become an international embarrassment to China at a time when the country's image has already been tarnished by the troubled Olympic torch relay. The apparent decision to recall the ammunition, rocket propelled grenades and mortars, seems designed to curtail the incident.
But while China is attempting to be a more responsible player, Mr. Alden says that the international controversies that have erupted since unrest broke out in Tibet last month, and the imminence of the Olympics, mean that Beijing "is in a heightened state of awareness of international public opinion. This could be another embarrassment so they are much quicker to re-jig their position in the light of criticism."


text:
I'd like to know if it's possible to initialize arrays while defining it? The same with pointers. Is it possible to automatically allocate it, like calling ptr = new int ?
More than just saving some syntax, I have a class in whose constructor, a global array is modified. So unless it's all already initialised and set to 0, I'll have problems.
If this can't be done, then could you tell me how to get rid of the junk that is there when the array is initialized, and not affect the data that has been put into the array, when I call the constructor (via assigning a class variable)?


text:
We need to verify your phone number in order to save it. An SMS containing the code was sent to your phone.
Log in or reset password
Or log in through social media
Or through social media
Restoring a password
Do you have your own collection? Don't hide art, beautiful things should
be available to everyone.


text:
Discovering Alabama is an Emmy-winning television series focusing on Alabama's natural environment. Host and series creator Doug Phillips, an environmental educator and nature writer at the University of Alabama. Each episode focuses on a different aspect of Alabama's natural diversity and promotes natural resource conservation and environmental stewardship. Discovering Alabama is produced by the Alabama Museum of Natural History and the University of Alabama in partnership with the UA Center for Public Television and Alabama Public Television.
Sunday, June 14 at 11:30 am on Main
Funding for Discovering Alabama is provided in part by:


text:
Radioactive Tracer Technique for Tool Wear Studies
University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1963 - Tools - 284 pages
From inside the book
13 pages matching shown in Figure in this book
Where's the rest of this book?
Results 1-3 of 13
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Conventional Methods
Review of Radioactive Tracer
Merchant Ernst and Krabacher
5 other sections not shown
Common terms and phrases
absorbed absorption AISI alpha particles alpha rays amount angle atomic number autoradiographs beta and gamma beta particles bombarding particle Carbide Tools charged particles chemical chips counts per minute cross section Curie curve cutting conditions cutting fluid cutting speed cutting tool decay detector determine disintegrations dose electrons element emitted emitters Erwall fission flank wear gamma radiation gamma rays interaction investigation ion pairs irradiation isotope kinetic energy krypton machining mass number material transfer mc/gm measured metal neutron flux nuclear cross section nuclear radiation nuclear reactions nucleus nuclide number of atoms number of neutrons obtained penetrating photoelectric effect plot positrons protons pulse height radioactive tool radioisotopes reactor reference source relative tool scintillation counter shown in Figure specific activity specific ionization steel target thermal neutron tool bit tool life equation tool life testing tool material tool wear studies tube values wear land wear particles wear products wear rate


text:
- Description
Details8/2 non mercerised cotton. This lovely soft organic cotton is produced with care at all stages of the process. Global Organic Textile certified. The GOTS website has lots of information. www.global-standard.org Suitable for many uses including table linens, towels, scarves, clothing. This lovely yarn gets softer with every wash. Fully interchangeable with the 22/2 cottoline which is counted using the linen standard hence the different numbering system. Also suitable for knitting and crochet and other yarn crafts. We stock the full range of colours plus natural.
- Additional Information
Additional Information
Fibre Cotton Colour Code 5043 Metric Count 14/2 metric count Imperial Count 8/2 cotton count Metric Length 6500m/kg Imperial Length 3360yd/lb Metric Sett 8, 9, 11 epcm Imperial Sett 20, 24, 28 epi Net Weight / Length 250g / 1625m
- Reviews


text:
What Can $10 Get in LAGOS, NIGERIA? (craziest city)
- published: 19 Oct 2019
- views: 2626232
► SUBSCRIBE for daily travel videos: http://bit.ly/2hyQnZ1 ► Tayo\'s Channel: https://bit.ly/2JFeJjh ► INSTAGRAM? Join me: https://www.instagram.com/drewbinsky/ HELLO FROM LAGOS, NIGERIA -- COUNTRY #175!! 🇳🇬 I truly had a lot of fun making this video inside Africa\'s craziest and most populated city. Did you know that over 20 million people are living in Lagos?! It is hands down one of the most hectic, chaotic and vibrant places I\'ve ever been with a LOT of stories to tell. I\'m overwhelmed. My local friend and YouTuber named Tayo (his channel linked below) has been taking me all around his bustling city and we\'ve had an absolute blast together. Surprisingly, this was one of the hardest videos I\'ve ever made because it\'s REALLY challenging to shoot content on these streets. People don\'t like being on the camera here and they make a huge commotion in the streets and ask for money (etc) whenever they see it from a distance. In any regard, I hope you enjoy this episode of my $10 series and get a glimpse into local Nigerian culture. More to come tomorrow! Follow @DrewBinsky on IG Stories for live updates from my Africa trip in real time: https://instagram.com/drewbinsky FIND ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA: ►FB: https://www.facebook.com/drewbinsky/ (I post daily videos there too!) ►IG Stories: https://www.instagram.com/drewbinsky/ WHO AM I? My name is Drew Binsky and I am going to all 197 countries in the world. I make daily travel videos about people, culture and anything else I find interesting on the road. My ultimate goal is to inspire you to travel far and wide, because ...


text:
Meissen Italia
"Augustus Rex" Fountain Pen
- Brass, Gold Plated 23 carats
- Bicolour Cap & Body Porcelain White Striaton-Structure.
- Handmade in Germany
Meissen was founded in 1710 in the town of Meissen, Germany. It is the first European porcelain manufacturing company, and has since expanded into an international luxury and lifestyle brand that creates home decorum, fashion, jewellery and of course, porcelain. Meissen designs with their European heritage in mind, yet always present a modern and timeless aesthetic that is appreciated by endless generations.
Questions or special inquiries? Please contact us at firstname.lastname@example.com


text:
Brenner Children's pediatric emergency department has moved back to its original location. Learn more
In order to help protect patients, family members and health care workers from the spread of COVID-19, no visitors are allowed at any of Wake Forest Baptist Health's outpatient or inpatient facilities, except in certain situations.Learn moreMore COVID-19 Updates
Most babies this age are introduced to solid foods. Experts recommend gradually introducing solid foods when a baby is about 6 months old, depending on the baby's readiness and nutritional needs.
Be sure to check with your doctor before starting any solid foods.
How can you tell if your baby is ready for solids? Here are a few hints:
If your doctor gives the go-ahead but your baby seems frustrated or uninterested as you're introducing solid foods, try waiting a few days or even weeks before trying again. Since solids are only a supplement at this point, breast milk and formula will still meet your baby's basic nutritional needs.
When your baby is ready and the doctor has given you the OK to try solid foods, pick a time of day when your baby is not tired or cranky. You want your baby to be a little hungry, but not all-out starving; you might want to let your baby breastfeed a while, or provide part of the usual bottle.
Have your baby sit supported in your lap or in an upright infant seat. Infants who sit well, usually around 6 months, can be placed in a high chair with a safety strap.
Most babies' first food is a little iron-fortified infant single-grain cereal mixed with breast milk or formula. Place the spoon near your baby's lips, and let the baby smell and taste. Don't be surprised if this first spoonful is rejected. Wait a minute and try again. Most food offered to your baby at this age will end up on the baby's chin, bib, or high-chair tray. Again, this is just an introduction.
Do not add cereal to your baby's bottle unless your doctor instructs you to do so, as this can cause babies to become overweight and doesn't help the baby learn how to eat solid foods.
Once your little one gets the hang of eating cereal off a spoon, it may be time to introduce single-ingredient pureed vegetables, fruit, or meat. The order in which foods are introduced doesn't matter but when introducing new foods, go slow. Introduce one food at a time and wait several days before trying something else new. This allows you to identify foods that your baby may be allergic to.
Your baby may take a little while to "learn" how to eat solids. During these months you'll still be providing the usual feedings of breast milk or formula, so don't be concerned if your baby refuses certain foods at first or doesn't seem interested. It may just take some time.
Kids are at higher risk of developing food allergies if one or more close family members have allergies or allergy-related conditions, like food allergies, eczema, or asthma. Talk to your doctor about any family history of food allergies.
Possible signs of food allergy or allergic reactions include:
For more severe allergic reactions, like hives or breathing difficulty, get medical attention right away. If your child has any type of reaction to a food, don't offer that food again until you talk with your doctor.
Also, do not give honey until after a baby's first birthday. Honey may contain certain spores that, while harmless to adults, can cause botulism in babies. And do not give regular cow's milk until your baby is older than 12 months because it does not have the nutrition that infants need.
With the hectic pace of family life, most parents opt for commercially prepared baby foods at first. They come in small, convenient containers, and manufacturers must meet strict safety and nutrition guidelines. Avoid brands with added fillers and sugars.
If you do plan to prepare your own baby foods at home, pureeing them with a food processor or blender, here are some things to keep in mind:
Whether you buy the baby food or make it yourself, remember that texture and consistency are important. At first, babies should have finely pureed single-ingredient foods. (Just applesauce, for example, not apples and pears mixed together.)
After you've successfully tried individual foods, it's OK to offer a pureed mix of two foods. When your child is about 9 months old, coarser, chunkier textures are going to be tolerated as he or she starts moving to a diet that includes more table foods.
If you use commercially prepared baby food in jars, spoon some of the food into a bowl to feed your baby. Do not feed your baby directly from the jar, because bacteria from the baby's mouth can contaminate the remaining food. If you refrigerate opened jars of baby food, it's best to throw away anything not eaten within a day or two.
Juice can be given after 6 months of age, which is also a good age to introduce your baby to a cup. Buy one with large handles and a lid (a "sippy cup"), and teach your baby how to handle and drink from it. You might need to try a few different cups to find one that works for your child. Use water at first to avoid messy clean-ups.
Serve only 100% fruit juice, not juice drinks or powdered drink mixes. Do not give juice in a bottle and remember to limit the amount of juice your baby drinks to less than 4 total ounces (120 ml) a day. Too much juice adds extra calories without the nutrition of breast milk or formula. Drinking too much juice can contribute to excessive weight gain and can cause diarrhea.
Your goal over the next few months is to introduce a wide variety of foods, including iron-fortified cereals, fruits, vegetables, and pureed meats. If your baby doesn't seem to like a particular food, reintroduce it at later meals. It can take quite a few tries before kids warm up to certain foods.
Reviewed by: Mary L. Gavin, MD
Date reviewed: September 2014
© 2019 Brenner | Site Policies & Statements
The information on this Website is for general informational purposes only and SHOULD NOT be relied upon as a substitute for sound professional medical advice, evaluation or care from your physician or other qualified healthcare provider. If you have a medical problem or a health-related question, consult your physician or call Health On-Call at 336-716-2255 or 1-800-446-2255.


text:
At many times in the history of the Anglo people, the abuses of liberty by Power (capitalized to indicate the official power of the centralized State and those close to it) have produced such resistance by enough normal men and women who felt their lives directly changed by those abuses, that real political change of historic importance was the result.
There has probably never been a year – perhaps not even a day – when Power did not, through policy or the political process, expand itself at the expense of the liberty of someone, somewhere. In normal times, the process of Power's self-aggrandizement is mostly political: laws get made, agencies get established – but the effect on the everyday experiences of normal people is small enough that the culture generates no resistance.
In the United States, since 9-11 especially, some of the chattering classes (this writer included) and a few concerned citizens have been complaining about the brazenness of the 21st-century approach to the abuse of citizens by the State, its agents and its friends. The stripping of individual rights has been in this millennium extensive and fast (habeas corpus, due process, privacy, rule of Law (as enacted by elected and accountable officials rather than appointees of the Executive) etc.).
Until recently, however, these abuses have remained mostly political, rather than cultural. That is to say that Americans' loss of rights have had not much of an impact in the culture because they did not affect the everyday experiences of a significant section of the population.
For example, the loss of the right to due process did not create per se a reaction against Power because most people don't experience due process in their everyday lives; the loss of privacy does not cause a reaction against Power because the violation of privacy, if undetected, doesn't change our everyday experiences; and the farming out of law-making power to unelected agents of the State is unperceived as long as we don't know when our behavior is being regulated by agents of the Executive and their rules, or by Law, properly made in Congress.
However, that is now changing. And the change is historic, in the literal sense of the word. Every few generations or even centuries – Power begins to impose drastic changes that are felt immediately in the everyday lives of normal people. At such times, the People immediately feel that Power has made their tomorrows very different from their yesterdays, in ways that offend their most basic sensibilities, notions of justice and even consent to being governed. Most importantly, Power's offenses against liberty are resisted not out of any particular political belief, but because they are felt immediately as impingements on normal life. Throughout history, liberty movements have succeeded in forcing political change when Power has given them such moral, emotional and cultural justification.
Indeed, in the Anglo tradition, the re-establishment of liberty against a wayward State is typically not typically triggered by the most egregious denials of liberty, but by those most easily felt.
We have ample examples in America today. For instance, by most measures, the loss of a healthcare plan that you liked and its replacement with a similar one of a higher price (from which this writer has suffered) is less of an abuse against your liberty than is your loss of privacy, the elimination of right to due process or even the funneling of your taxes to connected corporations – but you feel the loss of your healthcare plan much more immediately in your life than you feel any of those other things.
With respect to the issue of privacy, Edward Snowden didn't tell Americans anything that many liberty-loving commentators have not been warning Americans about for years – but his actions turned a political abstraction (a Constitutional right to privacy is being violated) into a felt change in our everyday lives (this call I am making to my family member is being listened to by people who have essentially deceived me about doing so) and all of a sudden, the political class is responding as bills are written and votes are taken to limit the abuses.
Or perhaps your thing is gun rights. The fact that people who wish to purchase a gun must go through a few more checks than before is much less an abuse of your freedom than the fact that the government now believes it can assassinate you without a trial, but the prospect of those regulations generate much more upset, because one's enjoyment of one's firearms, or the sense of security they provide, is part of the cultural experience of many Americans – something that provides part of their identity, and perhaps happy memories at the range with their sons.
When Power's abuses against Liberty remove from us not just the rights that we have, but the rights that we actively enjoy in our daily lives, we take them personally and respond to them more viscerally – more as human beings than as political beings. When the everyday expectations and experiences of enough people – rather than the ideas of a group of people with one political ideology or another – are challenged, political change that is not possible in normal times becomes possible. That change is, in the proper sense of the word, democratic.
The word "democracy" comes from δημοκρατία (dēmokratía), which combines demos (people) and kratos (power). In its full sense, it means much more than pressing a few buttons on a voting machine every couple of years.
According to our Declaration of Independence, the power of the American government is the power of the people – the kratos of the demos – delegated. In that respect, at least, our nation is a democracy, and that democracy is not only inconsistent with our Constitutional Republic, it constitutes it. And by that same Declaration, "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it" – the ultimate democratic act.
Constitutionalists and libertarians are quick to point out that the USA is not a Democracy but, rather, a Constitutional Republic. Their point is that in a pure Democracy, a majority can remove the rights of the minority, including the smallest minority – the individual – and that so doing goes against America's very raison d'etre. They are not wrong – and, in fact, much of what ails us now has happened in just that way, albeit mediated by the poor decisions of our representatives.
But if we Constitutionalists and libertarians are going to succeed in shrinking the State and undoing its most outrageous offenses against Liberty (as we must), then we must know that we are engaged in a deeply democratic process, just as were the Founders: only the kratos of the American demos can push back the kratos of the state far enough that it will result in substantial political change.
Whereas in normal times, individual liberty protects the citizen against the tyrannies of both Democracy and the State, when the State becomes sufficiently tyrannical, democracy fights on liberty's side.
That is how it has always been. Paradoxical as it may appear at first glance, it was just such a democratic process that created this Constitutional Republic in 1776: enough people were moved by felt injustice (not some new political ideology) that they resisted their own political establishment (which is what the British state was at the time). The movement that became the American Revolution began among the people, and ended in a political change that altered their relationship with Power to the benefit of the liberty. The other Bill of Rights – the English Bill of Rights in 1689 – came up in just the same way: the kratos of the demos crystallized in resistance to abuses of Power that were perceived in the lives of common men, and the political result (the Bill of Rights, itself) was the end of the process. Before that was the Grand Remonstrance of 1641, and before that was the Petition of Right of 1628, each crystallizing in the political realm popular disquiet in response to direct experiences of the abusive exercise of power – not ideological dissatisfaction. And yes, although the farther we go back the smaller is the demos with any power to exert against the state, the same argument can be made for the Magna Carta, too.
All of these political achievements – each one a roll-back of state Power in response to offence against liberty, felt in culture rather than seen in Law – were the end of processes that began among people, whose power, aggregated, was set against the State, motivated by a sense of injustice mostly unmediated by any political ideology.
For lovers of liberty and of the Founding principles of America, this is our time, and each new abuse of our Rights by the State that is our latest, best weapon.
To respect the importance of democracy is to respect history, and to embrace the tool without which liberty has never been won back from Power that would trample on it. The liberty movement must take care before setting democracy up as a foil to liberty, because it can be Liberty's servant too.


text:
- Font:
- +
- -
Guests: Jack Conway, Steve McMahon, Todd Harris, Rob Simmons, Michael
Brune, Joan Walsh
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: About last night.
Let's play HARDBALL.
Good evening. I'm Chris Matthews down in Washington. Leading off
tonight: Cannons on the left, cannons on the right, volleyed and
thundered! One of the biggest stories of this anti-incumbent political
season is the death of the big political machines. The old liberal
machine in Massachusetts couldn't save Martha Coakley. Kay Bailey
Hutchison, Jon Corzine, Alan Mollahan, Robert Bennett, Trey Grayson, and
biggest of all, Arlen Specter have all been dumped despite the political
apparatus that backed them. At the top of the show tonight, what last
night tells us about what's coming in November.
Also, Democrats are smiling a bit today because they think last
night may have given them a road map to avoid the killing fields this
fall. Meanwhile, Republicans are trying out their "He's too liberal"
line of attack on the hot Democratic challengers, Sestak of Pennsylvania
and Halter of Arkansas. We'll look at both parties' strategy for the
Plus, believe it or not, there are some Democrats who are still
clinging to Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, the "I served in Vietnam"
pretender. One Republican who did serve is his possible rival, former
congressman Rob Simmons (ph). He joins us tonight.
And it's hard for Rush Limbaugh to top himself, but as we reported
yesterday, he's now blaming environmentalists for the BP disaster down
in the Gulf of Mexico. We're going to take—take on that one tonight.
He's unbelievable, Rushbo. Anyway, we're inviting any Republican, once
again, who wants to come on HARDBALL and say that Rush is wrong, that he
is not, in fact, the intellectual leader of the Republican Party. Any
And "Let Me Finish" tonight with some sad and sobering reminders
about the war in Afghanistan and the costs.
We start with the lessons of last night's primaries. MSNBC News
political director Chuck Todd is our chief White House correspondent,
and he starts off the program. Chuck, last night—I'm just looking at
these numbers in Pennsylvania, just to look at a little capsule of what
happened there. In the Philadelphia region, no big break for Specter—
47 for Sestak, 53 for Specter. And that was his crowning powerhouse.
CHUCK TODD, NBC WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT/POLITICAL DIR.: There it
is, yes.
MATTHEWS: It just didn't do much. That little thing down in...
TODD: The little thing...
TODD: ... Scranton.
MATTHEWS: By the way, that's my Pennsylvania, that part I lived in
down there.
TODD: Oh!
MATTHEWS: That's where most us lived down there. We'd never leave
the city. And then the rest of the state was overwhelmingly for Sestak,
something like 65 counties for him. And then you had the total, 54-46.
What struck me looking at the map in "The Philadelphia Inquirer" this
morning is this dramatic map we just saw. It was an the air game.
There was a thought about Arlen Specter. He switched parties. He never
took. It was tissue rejection right across the state.
TODD: Well, it was, and it was because he was—it's all—all -
he encapsulated all this anger that you hear on both sides right now
with Washington, with his own words, when, you know, he said why he
switched parties. You know, it was political expediency and it was sort
of—so it was just—he was trying to do something in the exact wrong
ear (ph).
Party switchers in general do have a tough time. There's—
there's a long list of them that haven't won reelection. You know, we
know a few them that have, but there's a long list that haven't won
reelection, and he now joins that. He's now probably the biggest name
on that list of party switchers who ended up immediately losing.
MATTHEWS: Why do you think—I mean, you're an expert on
politics. Why do you think people don't like party switchers, per se?
TODD: Well, I think it gets to this sense of right now,
particularly this authenticity issue—you know, you're bringing up the
Blumenthal story and why there's a whole bunch of Democrats wringing
their hands about Blumenthal. Well, because of all years to try to—
to try to fix a flaw as a candidate, a character flaw as a candidate,
the issue of honesty and authenticity—this is the absolute toughest
year to overcome some sort of chink in your armor on this idea that you
aren't who you say you are.
So here was an Arlen Specter who for 29 years said that he was one
guy, and then said, Well, boy they threw me out, and didn't even—you
know, didn't even pretend. And look, I remember I was impressed with
fact that at the time of his party switch, he didn't pretend that it was
some sort of, Oh, the Republican Party pushed me out, or da-da-da. No.
He said, Hey, I want to win, and I thought my only shot at winning—
because I can't do it as a Republican—my only shot of doing it is as
a Democrat. So he was honest about it.
But maybe he got too cute at the end. Maybe he should have been
even more—you know, at this point, the voter wants to have—know it
all, get it all out there. And that's why there's something about...
MATTHEWS: Well, maybe the truth just was unacceptable. Maybe the
reason he switched...
TODD: And that's possible, as well.
MATTHEWS: ... was he wanted to survive and keep the Senate seat,
and that was the truth that came out and there was no BSing it. There's
just no way.
TODD: And that's what it was. And there was...
MATTHEWS: Let's talk about this other issue across the country
because this country's got bigger problems than the character flaws of a
couple politicians. It looks to me like if you had to say there was one
big story last night is, Don't tell me how to vote, that the big shots,
whether it's Mitch McConnell out there in Kentucky or it's Blanche
Lincoln and the Clintons down there in Arkansas...
TODD: Barack Obama.
MATTHEWS: ... the big shots in Pennsylvania...
TODD: You know, the—look, Barack Obama had a TV ad for
Pennsylvania, as well as Ed Rendell. No, I think you're right. They're
saying, Hey, you know, I'll make this decision. And in many ways, it's
now a kiss of death.
You know, I remember one of the things a Republican said to me, a
Washington Republican said to me right after the Scott Brown victory,
and they said, You know one of our secrets of success? We didn't give
him money. Everybody says, Well, why didn't you get involved? Because
we were afraid he would get tarnished with Washington.
Well, what happened to Trey Grayson? I mean, as somebody joked on
my Twitter feed, they said his first name was no longer Trey, it was
Establishment Candidate Trey Grayson. His first name had become almost
establishment when you saw write-ups about the guy. So...
MATTHEWS: I think President Obama has been tainted by his contact
with Specter. I think—that was the first sign to me of, he's just
like a lot of other politicians. He cuts deals to further his power.
And when he came in and said, I'll take Arlen Specter as a Democrat
because I get one more vote out of him and I don't care what his
motivation is, I don't care how desperate he is to leave his political
party, it's good for us, let's cut the deal...
TODD: Well, look, this is a lesson (INAUDIBLE) there's a whole
bunch of change agents are going to come to Washington after November,
that are going to win, whether it's a Rand Paul, whether it's a Sestak
or a Toomey that comes out of Pennsylvania or some other places. That's
a—look, Obama was the change agent, right? In his Democrat primary,
you know, he was the change agent. And we were always wondering, you
know, How is he going to be able to balance being the outsider but then
also have to be the leader of his party?
And look, the leader of the Democratic Party, when a 30-year
incumbent Republican senator from a key state says they want to be a
member of your party and it's going to give you the 60th vote, you're an
idiot if you don't say yes. So—and in many cases, Specter did
MATTHEWS: Yes, but he made all kinds of deals. It wasn't—you
could tell there was a deal struck there. He wasn't completely clean
about this in saying, OK, join my party, if you want to. No, you can
join my party and I'll give you the following things.
TODD: And he did...
MATTHEWS: ... I'll give you the endorsement. I'll support you.
TODD: He didn't—wait a minute.
MATTHEWS: No, he said...
TODD: They didn't give him the seniority.
MATTHEWS: ... I'll support you for reelection. That's different
than just accepting a guy into a party.
TODD: Sure, but didn't give him the seniority on that front,
MATTHEWS: You should have heard Arlen on this show the last couple
times he's been on.
TODD: He claimed it...
MATTHEWS: He swears he was given a promise of full seniority twice
TODD: What committee—what committee was he chairman of?
MATTHEWS: Well, he was going be—he was going to get...
TODD: He had nothing.
MATTHEWS: ... the Judiciary.
TODD: They had given him nothing.
TODD: He claimed he was going to get a lot of stuff. I mean, we -
you know, I...
MATTHEWS: I'm just telling you, he looked me in the eye and told
me twice that Harry Reid promised him all this stuff. If he was not
telling the truth, I can't help you. Chuck Todd...
TODD: But...
MATTHEWS: I can only go by what...
TODD: I know, but...
MATTHEWS: ... the people tell me at this table.
TODD: But I'll say this...
MATTHEWS: I'm just kidding.
TODD: One thing I want to—you talk about the political machine.
One other point I want to make. We now have seen, I think, three
incumbent senators lose primaries. Kay Bailey Hutchison lost the
gubernatorial primary. Bob Bennett couldn't even get on his ballot to
lose the primary...
MATTHEWS: Alan Mollahan lost.
TODD: Right. We're going to have Blanche Lincoln's probably not
going to survive this runoff...
MATTHEWS: Why do you say that?
TODD: The law of sort of the physics of run-off politics...
MATTHEWS: Even though Morrison, the third candidate down there, is
to her right?
TODD: But here's the thing. Fifteen percent of the Democratic
electorate showed up to the polls to vote "none of the above." They
knew that guy had no chance. But they voted—they showed up to vote
"none the above." Normally, we say there's apathy. No, no, no, no, no.
MATTHEWS: So you're betting—you're betting...
TODD: They're angry.
MATTHEWS: ... on Halter.
TODD: They're angry. And I'll tell you, I would be shocked if
those votes somehow said, oh, no, no, no, no. We want status quo again.
We want her. That's going to be a tough thing for (INAUDIBLE) My
MATTHEWS: So your (INAUDIBLE) is now don't bet on the incumbents.
TODD: My point is this...
MATTHEWS: On any...
TODD: I wouldn't bet on an incumbent. But my point is this. We
saw this—the last time we saw this many Senate incumbents lose
primaries was 1980. And at the beginning of '80, there was a lot of
tumult for both parties. But by November, there was one party that paid
the price. Democrats can be relieved by what happened last night, but
they shouldn't assume they're out of woods.
MATTHEWS: Outside chance they can lose the House and the Senate
this November?
TODD: Still is.
MATTHEWS: OK. Thanks.
TODD: There still is.
MATTHEWS: Chuck Todd, thank you.
TODD: All right.
MATTHEWS: Attorney General Jack Conway is the Democratic nominee
for Senate in Kentucky. He'll face Republican Rand Paul in November.
Congratulations, Governor. You won that tough fight from Mongiardo.
Let me ask you this. What do you got on—to put it bluntly, you must
have your notion of beating Rand Paul. What's your best case, that he's
outside the mainstream, that he's too flaky, too tea party, whatever?
What would you say?
JACK CONWAY (D-KY), ATTORNEY GENERAL, SENATE CANDIDATE: I'd say,
just look at the statements he's made here in the last few weeks, Chris.
He's stated that he would like to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
He said that he would like to repeal the Americans With Disabilities Act
and let the private marketplace take care of it. In a state like
Kentucky, he wants to do away with the Department of Agriculture, wants
to do away with the Department of Education.
That's not what Kentuckians want. I mean, Kentuckians are angry,
like the rest country. They have fear. They have anxiety. They're
concerned about jobs. But I'm frustrated, too, Chris, and I think the
question, the central question here is, How do we use that passion? How
do we use that anger? Do we use it to heat the building or do we use it
to burn the building down?
MATTHEWS: Well, you know, you just said something so incredible to
me, having grown up during it. You're saying that this fellow running
for Senate—from Kentucky, the United States Senate, wants to repeal
the Civil Rights Act which says you can't deny—you can't deny an
African-American a chance to use your bathroom at a gas station. You
can't deny them the right to sit at your lunch table, your lunch
counter. You're saying he wants to get rid of that law and let people
be discriminatory again?
CONWAY: He made a statement in his editorial board interview with
"The Louisville Courier-Journal," Chris, said that we don't need a Civil
Rights Act, that the commerce clause was interpreted too broadly and
that the private marketplace could take care of the Civil Rights needs
of this nation. He said something to that effect. It's on—it's on a
streaming video at "The Louisville Courier-Journal."
And Kentucky's come a long way. We have people who have bled and
fought for the right to sit at lunch counters, for example, and that's
not going to be acceptable in a place like Kentucky. And it's not going
to be acceptable across the country.
MATTHEWS: Let's talk about the president of the United States,
Barack Obama. Is he a help to you in this coming November election?
CONWAY: Well, I think I'm going to have to win this election. I
don't think Barack Obama's going to—going to be able on win in
election in Kentucky. I understand that Rand Paul is going to—he's
going to taunt and he's going to—he's going to ask how many times
Obama's coming in. I think you welcome the president of the United
States from either party anytime he wants to come to your state. If you
disagree with, him you tell him that. But I'm going to have to go out
and win this election, and I'm going to be an independent Kentucky
Democrat, if I get elected.
MATTHEWS: What's this say about the power of your state? I was
trying to figure out Kentucky. It's always an interesting state. I
think it's a bit more Republican than Democrat historically, at least
the last 50 years. But—but what's this whole crazy fight in the
Republican Party in your state, where Mitch McConnell dumps Jim Bunning,
and then the people who vote on the Republicans' side, who will vote in
your election, they dumped Trey Grayson. All this dumping going on.
They're getting rid of everybody.
CONWAY: Yes, well...
MATTHEWS: They don't like Mitch McConnell much, either,
apparently. They like Trey—they like the guy you're running against
more than they like Mitch McConnell, according to the polling last
CONWAY: Kentuckians are fiercely independent. You know,
Kentucky's traditionally been a Democrat state. It still enjoys almost
a 2-to-1 advantage in registration, Democrats over Republicans. They're
just—the conservative Democrats, particularly in the western part of
the state that Mitch McConnell helped engineer a change, where they're
voting Republican in federal elections. The majority of our state
officeholders are still Democratic.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
CONWAY: So I think—I think—I think you have a lot of
Republicans that may be recently registered or recently switched, or
just didn't want to be told how to vote by Mitch McConnell. Mitch
McConnell's been in Washington now since—since 1984. He is the
epitome of the establishment. And I just don't think that his
endorsement meant much in this particular race.
And then you have the phenomenon of Sarah Palin coming in and
endorsing my opponent in the general, and then you had Jim Bunning
sticking it to Mitch McConnell. So they've got a lot of healing to do
over on the other side of aisle.
MATTHEWS: You know, I grew up when there were moderate Republicans
or centrist Republicans in your state, and now the tea party's taking—
I think of Thruston Morton. I used to love Thruston Morton growing up.
He was a real personality. You just liked him, no matter what his
politics were.
CONWAY: And people like...
MATTHEWS: And John Sherman...
CONWAY: ... Marlo Cook (ph), too.
MATTHEWS: And John Sherman Cooper. Are they all gone and dead?
Has that Republican Party just been swamped now by the tea partiers?
CONWAY: I think so. I think that the idea of the liberal to
moderate Republican is long gone, for the most part, in places like—
in Kentucky. A lot of business establishment—the business
Republicans, as I call them, in the cities consider themselves now to be
independents or vote both ways.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
CONWAY: So I think it's changed considerably.
MATTHEWS: Well, you know, you've got a good argument there against
I didn't know that about Rand Paul. I now know it. If he's against
Civil Rights bill and wants to get rid of it, he's not on my list of
favorites for my Christmas card this year.
Anyway, thank you, Jack Conway. Congratulations on winning the
nomination to fight Rand Paul. It's going to be one of the national
races we watch night after night here. Thank you so much. And
congratulations again. Coming up...
CONWAY: Good to be with you again, Chris.
MATTHEWS: ... our strategists on what it will take to beat the tea
party in Kentucky and how Republicans will now try to run against Joe
Sestak up in Pennsylvania.
But in one minute, why Senator Blanche Lincoln could be the next
incumbent to go.
You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: Wow, Arlen Specter's the third big-time incumbent in 10
days to go down to defeat. Could Blanche Lincoln be the fourth?
Senator Lincoln's in a runoff with Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter, and
the numbers don't look too good for her. She took 44 percent of vote
last night to Halter's 43 -- that's one vote difference, with 13 percent
going to a third candidate. And those people who voted for that third
candidate could go for Lincoln based on ideology or they could vote
against Lincoln, the incumbent, like so many of others have done so far
this year. We'll be right back.
MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. Is "incumbent" just a dirty
word in this country? Well, obviously, it is. Which party can take a
harder hit last night and continue, and who's feeling better today about
Let's bring the strategists. Steve McMahon is a Democratic
strategist and Todd Harris is a Republican strategist. Todd, you're not
here. I'll give you the away game opportunity. Which party took a
bigger lickin' last night? Come on. Be honest.
TODD HARRIS, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well...
STEVE MCMAHON, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Try.
HARRIS: I don't think that it was even a party thing. It's—if
you are running for office and you're viewed as someone who's going to
come to Washington and rubber stamp what's going on in Washington, you
are in deep trouble this election cycle. And as it happens, you know,
obviously, the Democrats control all the levers of power, and because of
that, I think that they are in real, real deep trouble.
If you are—if you're running for office saying you want to
continue President Obama's spending policies, his growth of government
policies, cap-and-trade you are in real trouble.
MATTHEWS: What's that city behind you, by the way? I'm curious
about the skyline behind you. It's very impressive.
HARRIS: I'm in Miami.
MATTHEWS: OK. Thank you.
HARRIS: Down here with Marco.
MATTHEWS: He makes a good—he makes a good point mathematically.
There are more Democratic incumbents. If it's an anti-incumbent year,
the Democrats have more exposure. They can take a bigger hit.
MCMAHON: He's right. He's right that there are more Democratic
incumbents. But the bellwether last night was Pennsylvania 12, where
the Democrat in what looked like...
MATTHEWS: The congressional seat held by Jack Murtha.
MCMAHON: The congressional seat held by Jack Murtha. Looked like
it was going to be nip and tuck, and the Democrat won it going away.
That was the only general election on the ballot last night. And I
think Todd is in denial right now, frankly, because if you look at
what's going on in the Republican Party...
MCMAHON: ... you've got the tea party on the far right running
people, moderate Republicans...
MCMAHON: ... out of the party.
HARRIS: Let me make a quick point about Pennsylvania 12. If that
really is the bellwether, Steve, you guys are in deep trouble because
your candidate ran against Barack Obama the entire time, especially
against the Obama health care plan.
MATTHEWS: Oh, OK, let me...
MATTHEWS: I want to go right now to Todd. Todd, how do you beat a
real hot-ticket maverick like Joe Sestak, who's just come off a big
victory against (INAUDIBLE) establishment? He's beaten the president,
the vice president. He's beaten the governor, the mayor of Philadelphia
and the political machines and all the labor unions. You can't tag him
as an incumbent, can you?
HARRIS: Well, he was certainly a maverick in the world of
Pennsylvania Democratic politics, but in Washington, he's a rubber stamp
for Nancy Pelosi.
HARRIS: This guy votes 98 percent of the time with Nancy Pelosi.
This is a guy who said the only problem with the stimulus plan is that
we didn't spend enough money. So I don't think in this environment,
Pennsylvanians are going to be looking for someone who's going to rubber
stamp the Obama agenda.
MATTHEWS: OK. OK. Pelosi was the target, by the way...
MATTHEWS: ... in the 12th in Pennsylvania. It didn't work.
MCMAHON: It didn't work, and it's not going to work in November,
either. Todd, Sestak was recruited to run for Congress precisely
because he was the kind of moderate independent Democrat that can do
well with independent voters. Now, the Republicans have nominated
somebody who's a Club for Growth conservative Republican, the kind of
person, frankly, that's running moderates like Arlen Specter out of the
party. If you think that's recipe for electoral success in a blue state
like Pennsylvania, then I think that's delightful.
HARRIS: Well, the chairman of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party
said, if Joe Sestak wins the nomination, it would be—and I'm quoting
here—cataclysmic for Democratic chances this November.
MATTHEWS: He will be changing those remarks.
HARRIS: I am sure he will be.
MCMAHON: Yes, he will revise and extend those remarks very, very
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, Todd. I know I'm pushing for perfection
and honesty here. Perhaps that's too much, but how do you beat a guy
with a 31-year-record of military service to the country, when your
candidate, Pat Toomey, has no military service? He's a Club For Growth,
you know, intellectual.
How do you challenge a guy with 31 years? I think one of the
things Sestak had going for him, he put his 30 years of military up
against Arlen's 30 years of politics, and that's not even a contest.
HARRIS: Well, obviously, Sestak's military record is something to
be admired and something to be praised. But that doesn't mean, when he
goes to Washington...
MCMAHON: However, he says...
HARRIS: Well, look, just because you were an admiral in the Navy
doesn't mean that you're going to Washington and take on the Obama
And that's what this election is going to be about. Who is willing
to fight the Obama agenda?
MCMAHON: Why would you suggest that Sestak owes a thing to Barack
Obama, after Barack Obama dissed him and supported his opponent? This
is the most liberating thing for—for Joe Sestak...
MATTHEWS: OK, that's the question. You have got the question.
What's the answer? He is an independent. He's taken on the Barack
Obama issue. Can you beat a guy who's already beaten Obama, Todd
HARRIS: Look, if the White House—those guys are pretty smart.
If they thought that Joe Sestak was going to be the strongest nominee
against Pat Toomey, you know what? They would have backed him a long
time ago. The fact is, the White House...
MCMAHON: They had a political obligation.
HARRIS: ... the White House and the Democratic Party...
MATTHEWS: I love this. I love this.
HARRIS: ... did everything they could to defeat Joe Sestak.
MATTHEWS: OK. I have got a great question for you. I have got a
great question for you. I have been very nice to you for the last five
minutes. I'm changing now. I'm changing.
MATTHEWS: How do you beat a wild—wild candidate with tremendous
pizzazz, nationwide pizzazz, like Rand Paul, who beat the establishment,
beat the incumbent, basically, the incumbent in Kentucky, beat Mitch
McConnell's name—main man, and came out with like a 2-to-1 victory
out there, and looks like he's not afraid of anybody? How do you make
him into the bad guy in this atmosphere?
MCMAHON: Well, I think that you just saw what's going to happen to
him very, very quickly.
You saw the Democratic nominee just on your show a few minutes ago
talking about some of the extreme positions he's taken. I know Kentucky
is a state that—that—I know Kentucky is a state with a mixed
history on racial matters. But the fact that this candidate, Rand Paul,
said recently that he thought the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be
repealed suggests that his views are outside of the mainstream, that the
Americans With Disabilities Act should be repealed, that the Department
of Agriculture in a state like Kentucky should be repealed, I don't
think that's going to play very well with most voters.
And I don't think that most voters know that. They're going to be
finding that out very shortly.
MATTHEWS: Todd, I didn't know that. I learned it tonight. It
disturbs me. Can you defend a candidate who wants to get rid of the
Civil Rights Act?
HARRIS: Well, look, just because the Democratic nominee says that,
that's the first I have heard of it. As far as I'm...
MCMAHON: Go to the "Louisville Courier" Web site, and it's
streaming there, apparently.
HARRIS: Well, what this—what the election in Kentucky is going
to be about is exactly what Rand Paul has been talking about, which is
creating jobs for Kentuckians, cutting spending in Washington, and
reining in the size and scope of the federal government. This is a
state that Barack Obama, you know, carried—or lost. He got 41
percent of the vote in 2008.
I think for Conway to be running as a Obama Republican—or an
Obama Democrat, it's going to be very tough for him.
MCMAHON: I don't think that...
MATTHEWS: But, you know, most Republicans back in '64 in the U.S.
Senate, which is the job he's running for, voted for the Civil Rights
Act. You know that, don't you?
HARRIS: Look, it...
MATTHEWS: The Republican Party in those states was very pro-civil
rights, before the—sort of the right-wing turned the party. So, you
would support the civil rights bill, wouldn't you, Todd?
HARRIS: Yes. Of course I support the civil rights bill. And I
have no idea what Rand Paul has said about it.
But, you know, for anyone to suggest somehow that he's a racist I
think is just absurd.
MATTHEWS: No, just that he wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act.
MCMAHON: That's right. He just wants to repeal the Civil Rights
Act. He may or may not be a racist.
MATTHEWS: That may be enough. That may be enough for some people
to make certain assumptions. But I wouldn't make that. But I do think
he may have a problem here.
But we will continue to follow this one. If this guy is for
getting rid of the Civil Rights Act, he will either have to change his
position or give up this election, my guess.
Anyway, thank you, Steve McMahon.
Todd, you have done a great, masterful job, both of you, after a
night where all the experts were pretty much wrong.
MATTHEWS: Up next: Think how Rand Paul's going to play down the
Tea Party for the general election? Wait until you catch this. This
guy's riding on tea. He's coming in on tea bags next on the "Sideshow."
You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: Back to HARDBALL. Now for the "Sideshow."
First up: border patrol. Remember Steve King of Iowa? He's the
Republican congressman who said in 2008 that terrorists would be—
quote—"dancing in the streets" if we elected Barack Obama our
Well, Congressman King has just gone after the president's aunt who
came here from Kenya on a visa 10 years ago, and has been granted
asylum. In a statement out today, the congressman criticized her for
overstaying her visa, writing—quote—"The American people deserve
to know if Ms. Onyango was objectively granted asylum. No one is above
the rule of law, and we should not be granting an individual amnesty
based solely on that person's relationship to public figures."
MATTHEWS: Well, Ms. Onyango was actually—she argued, through
her lawyer, that if she returns to Kenya, she could face danger because
of her relationship to our president. The White House says that the
president and his aunt had no contact over the matter.
Next: Tea Party candidate Rand Paul makes the rounds. On "Good
Morning America," Robin Roberts pressed the would-be Kentucky senator
about the site of his victory rally.
ROBIN ROBERTS, CO-HOST, "GOOD MORNING AMERICA": You said that your
victory last night was, you know, people saying that they're tired of
how Washington is, they're tired of how the big politics in that.
Some people find it a bit ironic that your victory party last night
was at a private country club in Kentucky. Doesn't that kind of send a
mixed message there?
RAND PAUL ®, KENTUCKY SENATORIAL CANDIDATE: Well, I think, at
one time, people used to think of golf and golf courses and golf clubs
as being exclusive. But I think, in recent years, now, you see a lot
people playing golf.
MATTHEWS: Wow. He then said something about Tiger Woods having
changed the image of country clubs. I don't think anyone surprised that
country club people are rooting for the Tea Party types. The Tea
Party's not about poor people, after all. It's about the middle class,
including, I assume, a lot of better-off middle class.
People who make more, and therefore pay a higher percentage in
income taxes are, seems to me, likely among the loudest tax-haters.
Anyway, speaking of Rand Paul, it's time for the "Big Number"
Last night, during that victory speech, Mr. Paul made sure to thank
the movement that got him there, the Tea Party.
PAUL: I have a message, a message from the Tea Party.
PAUL: The Tea Party movement...
PAUL: ... is about saving the country.
This Tea Party...
PAUL: ... movement...
PAUL: The Tea Party message is...
PAUL: The Tea Party.
PAUL: The Tea Party.
PAUL: The Tea Party.
PAUL: The Tea Party message.
PAUL: The Tea Party movement is huge.
MATTHEWS: Well, that Tea Party bell was hours, by the way. There
it is, nine mentions of the Tea Party. By the way, Rand Paul mentioned
Kentucky during that speech only once. I guess this is one case where
politics isn't local—nine Tea Party mentions by the winner, tonight's
"dance with the one that brung you" "Big Number."
Up next: Can Connecticut Democratic Senate candidate Dick
Blumenthal survive after lying about saying he served in Vietnam, when
he didn't?
Rob Simmons, one of the Republicans running against Blumenthal and
a Vietnam veteran himself, joins us next on HARDBALL.
You're watching it, only on MSNBC.
SCOTT COHN, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I'm Scott Cohn with your CNBC
"Market Wrap."
Another day, another decline, this time on Germany's move to ban a
technique known as naked short-selling, where you sell assets you don't
have possession of. The Dow Jones industrials slid 66 points, the S&P
500 falling more than five points. The Nasdaq lost nearly 19 points.
A big spike in volatility today. Investors are still trying to
figure out what lies ahead for the euro. Germany's ban on naked short-
selling was aimed at reining in some of that volatility, but Wall
Street, as always, uncomfortable with any new regulation.
And speaking of regulation, Senate Democrats today failed to reach
a 60-vote majority on ending debate on a sweeping overhaul of the
financial system. That leaves the door open for more negotiations. And
that was seen as good news for banks and credit card companies, who were
among the day's few winners, Visa, and Capital One, J.P. Morgan, Bank of
America all finishing in the green, despite the overall market decline.
That's it from CNBC, first in business worldwide—now back to
MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.
Well, lying about military service is an offense that has ended
political careers. Should it end Connecticut Attorney General Richard
Blumenthal's run for the Senate?
There's video evidence of his lie and newspaper articles touting
his service in Vietnam that went uncorrected by him over the years.
Here's Blumenthal speaking to veterans in March of 2008.
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D), CONNECTICUT ATTORNEY GENERAL: We have
learned something very important since the days that I served in
Vietnam. And you exemplify it.
MATTHEWS: But he didn't serve in Vietnam. And newspaper articles,
all of which went uncorrected by him, describe him as having served in
For example, a "New Haven Register" article about Blumenthal
swearing in the new postmaster general describes him as a veteran of the
Vietnam War. Another "New Haven Register" article about his send off
for local troops going to Afghanistan said Blumenthal—quote—"has
served in the Marines in Vietnam."
An article in "The Connecticut Post" about Memorial Day
celebrations described Mr. Blumenthal as a Vietnam veteran.
Rob Simmons is a Republican running for the Senate in Connecticut.
He did serve in Vietnam, and he says Richard Blumenthal should
What do you make—well, let me ask you, what do you think he
should do or just get out of way? Is he just unfit for the Senate or
any other public office at this point?
ROB SIMMONS ®, CONNECTICUT SENATORIAL CANDIDATE: Well, this is a
character issue, and the voters are going to have to decide—his
party's going to have to decide this weekend at the convention. If
there's a primary, his party is going to have to decide, and, in the
general election, the voters are going to have to decide.
But the—but the point is pretty clear. You can be a Vietnam-era
veteran. I was a Vietnam-era veteran. The Vietnam era went for about
12 years. You can be a Vietnam-era veteran and serve in Vietnam or not
serve in Vietnam.
Now, I served in Vietnam for 20 months or so with the U.S. Army and
another 20 months with the Central Intelligence Agency. So, I'm a
Vietnam-era veteran, but I actually served in Vietnam. He did not. But
he said he did. And that's wrong. And he should apologize for that.
MATTHEWS: What do you make of this? There's two possibilities.
He's just a liar and he said something that he knew wasn't true. He's a
high-I.Q. guy with his background. You can't assume he is mentally
deficient. He knew what he was saying. He chose to say it. It's not
slipping up by mispronouncing somebody's name or getting a fact wrong.
He knew it was wrong. He knew he didn't serve, and yet he said so.
There's only two logical possibilities. Maybe somebody will think
of another. One, he's a liar and said so to build up his resume, like
some people who do who have real character problems, or he's got a
mental problem of some different kind or psychological disorder we're
not familiar with.
What's your make?
SIMMONS: Well, I'm not a psychoanalyst or a psychiatrist. He said
he misspoke. Now, this is a guy that went to the...
MATTHEWS: Well, I don't know what that means.
SIMMONS: I—you go to the best law school in America, you serve
for 20 years as the attorney general of the state of Connecticut, you
choose your words very carefully.
I think he misled. He didn't misspeak. He misled. He misled
people, because there was a pattern that occurred over a period of time,
a period of years, where he apparently made these misstatements or he
misled on numerous occasions.
For that, he owes an apology to the veterans who served in Vietnam
and to the families of those who never came back.
MATTHEWS: Well, it seems to me—just check me on this,
Congressman, but it seems to me, if you meet somebody who has served in
Vietnam and was actually in the fighting, you often ask them what it was
like or you say, "Were you in it?" and they will tell you yes or no and
they will nod their head in a somber way, and then you thank them for
that particular service.
But to be able to have somebody walk around and have people give
them that kind of respect and that kind of devotion, really, when it's
unwarranted, is unimaginable to me personally.
Is it unimaginable to you, that you would let someone say thank you
for your service in Vietnam, if you hadn't had that service in Vietnam?
SIMMONS: When I—when I meet veterans and they say they're
Vietnam veterans, I say, welcome home.
That's what we do. I say, welcome home. And, frequently—not
always, but, sometimes, they will say, well, I was just a Vietnam-era
veteran. I was at Guantanamo or I was in Germany or I was in some other
You know, there's a special bond among those who served. Some of
those who served in Vietnam served in combat units. Others, like myself
served, in headquarters units or with MACV, on the MACV teams.
But there's a special bond of those of us who served over there.
And I think he was encroaching on that bond for whatever reason. And,
for that, he needs to apologize.
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about the—what you want him to do now.
Now, it seems to me, personally, I think that he ought to get out
of politics for a while and pay his price for this, and maybe run later.
It's one of those things that you just can't really deal with, because
it has to do with your character.
But you say you—are you happy if he simply issued a statement of
I don't like political apologies, because they're all done under
duress, and they simply mean: Somebody wants me to say certain words.
I will say those words. They mean nothing to me. I got caught. You
caught me, so I say the words. It means like—it's almost like being a
P.O.W. in saying things that you don't believe.
Why would you want him to apologize if you don't think that he did
this by accident? If he did this on purpose, do you really think that
an apology is sufficient to deal with this situation, sir?
SIMMONS: I think that there's probably more to be learned about
this case. Just in the day or so that the case has been in the press, I
personally have been approached by people who have heard things that
they claim he has said. So I think there's going to be more to this
case. But at the very least, at the very least, he should not show up
at a VFW post—that's a Veteran of Foreign Wars post—surrounded by
a cheerleading crowd and say he misspoke.
He didn't misspoke. He misled. And apology would begin to diffuse
the issue from him. I think it's foolish for him to pursue this. He
can't win this battle. And either he'll drop out of the race or his
party's going to abandon him. So if it was me, and I was in that
situation, I'd apologize immediately. At least that would make some of
the veterans feel better.
MATTHEWS: OK, by the way, thank you for your service in Vietnam.
SIMMONS: Thank you.
MATTHEWS: And thank you Congressman Rob Simmons for coming on this
Up next, Rush Limbaugh wants the Sierra Club to pay for the cost of
the oil spill down into the Gulf. Really? We're going to talk to the
director of the Sierra Club ahead. But in one minute, the biggest loser
last night wasn't even on the ballot. This is HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: One big loser from last night, Senate Republican Leader
Mitch McConnell. Not only did McConnell's hand-picked candidate, Trey
Grayson, get beaten badly, by nearly two to one, by Rand Paul, but he's
now zero for three in endorsements this cycle. Kay Bailey Hutchison in
Texas, Utah's Robert Bennett and now Trey Grayson have all lost, despite
being endorsed by McConnell, the big shot Republican. More proof this
election may shape up to be about dumping the insiders, even those—
perhaps especially those who have the endorsements of the big shots.
HARDBALL returns after this.
MATTHEWS: We're back. Oil continues to gush from that Deepwater
Horizon disaster, despite efforts to siphon off some of it through a
pipe. A tide of sludge has settled on Louisiana's marshlands. An ocean
current threatens to carry the oil slick around Florida and up the East
Coast, through the Loop Current. And who does Rush Limbaugh want to pay
for all of this catastrophe? He wants the Sierra Club. Let's listen.
RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: When do we ask the Sierra
Club to pick up the tab for this leak? Everybody's focused on BP and
Halliburton and Transocean. Well, let me connect the dots here for you.
The greeniacs have been drive our oil producers off the land, from
offshore to way offshore, to way, way, way out there offshore.
Obviously it's going to be a much more expensive, problematic
proposition to get oil from that depth than elsewhere.
MATTHEWS: Wow. Before we get to the guest, we want to again
invite any Republican who wants to come on HARDBALL and say that Rush is
wrong on anything, and he's not the leader of the Republican Party.
Michael Brune is the director of the Sierra Club, and Joan Walsh is the
editor in chief of "Salon." Thank you both for coming on.
Let's all take a look at the CEO of BP, earlier this week making an
extraordinary comment about the extent of the damage caused by this
TONY HAYWARD, BP CEO: I think the environmental impact of this
disaster is the likely to have been very, very modest. It's impossible
to say, and we will mount, as part of the aftermath, a very detailed
environmental assessment as we go forward. But everything we can see at
the moment suggests that the overall environmental impacts of this will
be very, very modest.
MATTHEWS: Perhaps modest over in England, but in this hemisphere
over here, the Gulf of Mexico is turning to oil. Let me—look at that
map. We're showing how it could follow the Loop Current, as it's
called, up the East Coast and destroy the East Coast as well.
Let me bring on an expert before you join. Let's hear from Michael
Brune. What do you make, first of all, of the politics of this, Rush
Limbaugh, who seems to be, as of this moment still the recognized head
of the Republican party on matters everywhere? What do you make of him
blaming you for the oil spill?
MICHAEL BRUNE, SIERRA CLUB: You know rush Limbaugh's always good
for a good belly laugh. You know, we think that the issue here is what
BP is saying, it just shows that their recklessness doesn't extend—
extends well beyond their oil drilling. I was down in the Gulf, and the
pollution that we're seeing there, this—the oil plume that's just on
the surface goes for miles and miles and miles. And it is a disaster
through and through.
MATTHEWS: Well, let me ask you about this—about the—do you
think they're doing a good job? I mean, I don't think that they're
doing anything. But what do you think they're doing? Is there
technology available, perhaps at great cost, dumping huge amounts of
cement, for example, on that site? Isn't there something that we would
do we thought that there was a nuclear bomb ready to go off down there?
Wouldn't we take extreme steps.
I don't sense they're operating as if this is an extreme problem.
They're sort of doing their best, I suppose. But they're not doing it.
BRUNE: No, they're not doing it. But to be fair, there are—
there are workers for BP and for others right now who are working around
the clock to try to fix this. The reality is that you just—you can't
contain a mess of this size. It's very difficult because it's never
been done before. And that's why the Sierra Club has been arguing for
decades that offshore oil drilling in shallow or deep water is highly
risky, and we can't drill our way to energy independence. And so we
need to be focusing on a real solution to America's oil addiction. And
hopefully that will come as a result of this disaster.
MATTHEWS: OK, look, I'm worried about what's happening and what
we're watching now, and not the long-term problem. I want that fixed.
I don't know why we can't fix it. Joan, why can't we fix it? Are they
doing it, their best?
JOAN WALSH, SALON.COM: I think they are doing their best. I have
no evidence, Chris, that anybody is, you know, holding back, that
there's more that could be done. And I kind of defer to Michael on this
one. I think that they're trying very hard. I think that people are
working hard.
But it's too late. And you know the really horrible thing in all
this is there's been evidence that there was an accident coming. "60
Minutes" did an amazing segment on this, showing that they knew there
was some defect with the blowout preventer, and they didn't fix it.
They just kept drilling deeper and deeper.
For Rush to say that the Sierra Club wants them to drill deeper is
just preposterous. Deeper drilling is riskier drilling. BP pushed to
drill deeper without safety controls, and they're completely culpable
for this.
MATTHEWS: Why didn't they fill it with drilling mud instead of sea
water right off the bat? Michael?
BRUNE: I'm sorry. What was your question?
MATTHEWS: Why didn't they fill it with drilling mud before they
capped it? They're blaming this on the BOP, the blowout preventer. Why
didn't they jam all the dirt in there? They used to do it that way.
That's the recognized way to do it. Why didn't they do it?
BRUNE: It's standard operating procedure. Because BP is trying to
maximize profits from this particular operation, like they try to do
everywhere else. They're cutting corners. Now we see what the
consequences of that are.
The problem—one of the problems—just one of the problems here
is that there's not effective oversight. There's not an effective
regulatory mechanism. Obama was right in saying that the relationship
between government regulators and the oil industry is far too cozy. We
have to separate oil and state.
There's no oversight on a highly risky, a very dangerous, and what
we now see as a deadly process. It's a tragedy for the environment, but
it's a tragedy for the families of the workers who were killed.
MATTHEWS: My work—Joan, I have no confidence we have regulation
by the government. I have no confidence that we have self regulation
here. I have no confidence that they're going to fix this problem. I
have only the fear that this is going to go on and on and on, and we're
going to destroy our East Coast. It's just going to keep going. And
the president is going to sit and watch it like he's a Vatican adviser.
At some point we either move in there, bring the CDs in, bring the
Army Corps, whoever we have at our disposal, and put—I'd like to put
all those—I've said it before. I'd like to take those CEOs and put
them down there a mile and make them stay down there until the problem's
fixed. I know that sounds a bit extreme. But nothing seems to be
getting done here. They're sitting at home chomping on their steaks and
their profits. And this is still getting worse. And it's getting worse
and worse.
WALSH: It's getting worse and worse. And ridiculously, they're
pointing finger at one another, and saying it's not my fault, it's his
fault. You know, I don't want to be cynical about this, Chris. I
believe that good government oversight can happen. And I believe that
when government pays attention, corporate America pays attention, too.
They don't want people to die. They want to make money.
I know this sounds naive of me. They don't want people to die.
This was a horrible thing. And I think it's also unfortunate that
President Obama has recently come out and said he supports oil drilling
when he knows better. The only way to make sure this doesn't happen is
to really crack down on oil drilling. It is unsafe. It is unnecessary.
And we'll see more accidents like this if we keep it up.
MATTHEWS: OK. Let me ask you, Michael, are they going to open the
cap? Are they going to let these guys off with 75 million?
BRUNE: No, I can't imagine that would happen right now. What we
expect we'll see tighter safety regulations. There will be a much
higher cap. What we should be seeing is executives like the BP CEO
prosecuted and thrown in jail. This is—what's happening in the Gulf
is criminal, and there better be accountability.
MATTHEWS: What do you think we should do? The CEO—who else
should go to jail? The board of directors? The management? Who?
Somebody decided not to follow the regular procedure. It's management.
I'm tired of hearing technology being blamed. Management presides over
the use of technology. Everything that's ever gone wrong in this
industry has gone wrong before, and they have set up protocols to deal
with it. They didn't follow the protocols. They didn't follow the
management procedures. That's what happens when things go wrong.
This idea this is the first time this has ever happened is crazy.
This happens around the world. Joan, this is a political problem for
the president. I don't like his laissez-faire attitude for this. I
don't like him stepping back and letting the heat go on the oil company
when the damage is done on us, not the oil company.
WALSH: I think he needs to step back in. He had a few days of
sounding resolute and very much leaning on the oil companies. But, you
know, it's the Republicans—I've got to say here, Chris, it's the
Republicans who are opposed to lifting the liability cap. After they
railed against bailouts, because Frank Luntz told them Americans don't
like bailouts—if it were up to the Republican party, the taxpayer
would be bailing out BP, not the other way around.
So I think they have to fight to make sure that they pay—that
they're responsible for paying for the cleanup. And then they've got to
fight for better regulation.
And you're right. I do want to see President Obama out more on
this issue.
MATTHEWS: I want to see Harry Truman in the White House right now.
I want Harry Truman to come back and do the job. If this was the coal
companies or something else we really depended on, the president would
intervene. Thank you, Michael Brune. Get on the stick, Michael, by
the way. You don't seem that excited about this. We're counting on
guys like you. Joan Walsh, thank you.
When we return, I'm going to have some thoughts about a grim
milestone in Afghanistan. You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: We're at war this evening in Afghanistan. This week,
the number of Americans killed in that theater passed 1,000. The "New
York Times" today showed the faces of those killed just during the past
two years, which is half the number lost since the war began in 2001.
When you look at these pages, you see the ages of these men and
women. You learn how young they were when they gave up lives for their
country, their lives for our country. You see the varied backgrounds of
all the states they represent. I noticed the large number of Hispanic
names below the faces, and realized how many of them may have come from
recent immigrant families.
But it's the youth, the 20-year-olds, the 19-year-olds who stun
you. The faces seem so young. You realize, looking over these so many
faces, again, as if you're just rediscovering that we are, indeed, at
Men and women are dying every day out there, especially from
improvised explosive devices, bombs that can be exploded underfoot that
take no account of courage or a soldier's daring or even cunning. So
it's a good time, before the weekend of Memorial Day comes at us, and
when that holiday atmosphere casts too much sunshine on the day and
pushes aside the mortal sacrifice, that we look head on at the loss of
life in these pictures, even as we see therein the full flower of youth.
We all hope that our president was sending our young troops to
Afghanistan, more of them now, has a plan, both military and political,
which offers hope and human joy over there and security here at home, at
all equal or even greater than what's being lost, already lost, by these
men and women, and their dear families.
I want, knowing the hard question that involves to offer—to
salute those who gave to our country. I thank the loss—for those who
gave their loss and their service. Also to their parents, I could offer
only the honoring words here of Shakespeare: "Your son, my lord, has
paid a soldier's debt. He only lived but until he was a man. To which
no sooner has his prowess confirmed, in the unshrinking station where he
fought, but like a man, he died." Wow.
That's HARDBALL for now. Thanks for watching, thanks for being
with us.
Right now, it's time for THE ED SHOW, with Ed Schultz.
RESERVED. Copyright 2010 Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>
RESERVED. Copyright 2010 Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are
protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced,
distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the
prior written permission of Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any
trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>


text:
Carmelo Anthony overtook LeBron James to become the leading scorer in U.S. Olympic basketball history, Diana Taurasi broke one of her own hoops records, and cyclist Kristin Armstrong won another gold. In case you missed them, here are some of the best moments of Day 5 at the Rio Games.
Leaving LeBron James Behind
Carmelo Anthony is the leading scorer in U.S. men's Olympic basketball history, passing LeBron James during Wednesday's game against Australia.
Anthony scored 31 points Wednesday for a total of 293 points, to 273 for James.
James skipped the Rio Games, which would have been his fourth Olympics. He competed in the Athens, Beijing and London Games.
U.S. & World
David Robinson is third on the scoring list with 270 points, followed by Michael Jordan with 256 and Charles Barkley with 231.
The powerhouse that's the U.S. women's basketball team vanquished its third opponent on Wednesday, besting Serbia 110-85 as Diana Taurasi broke her own U.S. Olympic record.
The Phoenix Mercury guard and third-leading scorer in WNBA history had six 3-pointers, with five in the first half. Taurasi had already tied her own record of five on Sunday in the U.S. win over Senegal.
The U.S. women are going for their sixth straight gold medal.
On Sunday, the team broke its own record for the most points scored in the Olympics with the 121-56 victory over Senegal.
The U.S. women play Canada next, on Sunday.
Ledecky Wins Gold Again
U.S. swimmer Katie Ledecky won her third gold medal of this Olympics on Wednesday as the anchor for the U.S. women's team in the 4 by 200 freestyle race.
Ledecky started the final leg with the United States almost a second behind Australia. She passed Tamsin Cook in the second 50-meter stretch and pulled away from there. The U.S. won by 1.84 seconds.
The U.S. has won this event in five out of the six times it has been swum in the Summer Games.
Algae Flourishes in Diving Pool
The green-tinged water that first appeared in the Olympic diving pool has spread.
Now the men's water polo tournament is having to deal with murky green water too.
The black lines on the bottom of the water polo pool were still visible, but if the water gets darker the referees could have a tough time.
Water tanks ran out of some of the chemicals used in the water treatment process and algae was also an issue, officials said.
Rio spokesman Mario Andrada told The Associated Press that the bloom was caused by heat and a lack of wind at the outdoor Maria Lenk Aquatics Centre. FINA, the world governing body for swimming and diving, said the pool's tanks ran out of some of the chemicals needed to treat the water.
"As a result, the pH level of the water was outside the usual range, causing the discoloration," it said in a statement. "The FINA Sport Medicine Committee conducted tests on the water quality and concluded that there was no risk to the health and safety of the athletes, and no reason for the competition to be affected."
Andrada promised that the water would be blue going forward.
The U.S. women's water polo team, the reigning Olympic champions, had a decisive win over Spain on Tuesday. The team continues play against China on Thursday. It is trying to become the first women's water polo team in Olympic history to win back-to-back gold medals
Independent Athlete Takes a Gold
Marksman Fehaid Al-Deehani, competing for the Independent Olympic Athletes, won gold Wednesday at the double trap shooting event, becoming the first ever IOC athlete to take home a gold medal. The win was also the first medal for the IOC team since the 1992 Barcelona Games.
Al-Deehani, 49, is a decorated marksman from Kuwait, having already won trap shooting bronze medals for his country at the 2000 Sydney Games and 2012 London Games. He holds the only Olympic medals ever won by Kuwait.
He was unable to represent his home country this year because of sanctions that bar the country from competing in the games. Kuwait was suspended last fall from both the IOC and FIFA, the international football governing body, because of accusations of governmental interference in the autonomy of sport bodies in the country.
As a result of Kuwait's suspension, Al-Deehani is competing under the International Olympic Committee's neutral team flag. Though he was asked to carry the Olympic flag during the opening ceremony's Parade of Nations, the Kuwait army officer refused.
"I am a military man and I will only carry the Kuwait flag," Al-Deehani said.
A Well-Deserved Rest
Cyclist Kristin Armstrong won her third-straight gold medal in the women's individual time trial — one day before her 43rd birthday.
After learning she had beaten Russian silver medalist Olga Zabelinskaya by 6 seconds, the exhausted Olympian got off her bike and laid down in the street, as if to take a nap.
In addition to her three Olympic golds, Armstrong holds four World Championship medals: two gold, a silver and a bronze.
A Bronze in Boxing - at Least
U.S. boxer Nico Hernandez is assured of at least a bronze medal after beating Ecuador's Carlos Pilataxi on Wednesday, though he could still be in contention for the gold.
That's because a boxer who makes the semi-finals automatically gets a medal. There is no third-place match.
And if Hernandez wins against Uzbekistan's Hasanboy Dusmatov on Friday, he would reach the finals.
The U.S. has not won any medal in Hernandez's weight class since the 1988 Seoul Games. It has not won a gold medal in the weight class since the Los Angeles Games in 1984.
Weightlifting Agony
Armenian weightlifter Andranik Karapetyan's Olympic dreams came to a heartbreaking end Wednesday evening when his left elbow hyperextended while attempting to lift 195kg (429.9 lbs).
The 20-year-old had been a favorite for the 77kg (169.8 lbs) competition, having won bronze for the event at the 2015 World Championships and gold at the 2016 European Championships.
Karapetyan had hoped to win his country's first gold medal of the Rio Games, until he suffered the painful injury while attempting the clean and jerk during his second attempt at the 195kg.
Kazakhstan's Nijat Rahimov won the gold.
U.S. Beach Volleyball Team Advances
U.S. beach volleyball player Kerri Walsh Jennings and her partner April Ross lost a set to a Swiss team on Wednesday before winning their match.
It was only the second set that Walsh Jennings has ever lost at the Olympics. She won three gold medals with her former partner, Misty May-Treanor, sweeping Athens and Beijing before losing a single set in London.
The collaboration between Walsh Jennings and Ross goes beyond the Copacabana beach volleyball venue. The women teamed up to design their Olympic uniforms, too.


text:
The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the Obama administration's 2010 health care law on Thursday. In honor of that highly-anticipated event, David Letterman offered up ten surprising (and patently absurd) facts about the highest court in the land on Monday's show.
For example: did you know that Derek Jeter is one of the court's associate justices? Well, now you do.
Letterman titled his list the "Top Ten Things You May Not Know About the Supreme Court." There were a few duds, but most of the late-night host's zingers landed. Here are the highlights:
U.S. & World
The day's top national and international news.
"For a summer promotional campaign, [the Supreme Court] has been renamed 'The Taco Bell Big Beef Supreme Court.'"
"Public courtroom seating has a two-drink minimum."
"Thanks to a grassroots Internet campaign, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will host 'Saturday Night Live.'"
"Antonin Scalia: Vampire Hunter."
Check out the full clip below via CBS: