Colin Powell tells a North Carolina audience that their state's just-passed voter ID law will hurt the Republican Party, because it "immediately turns off a voting block the Republican Party needs" and signals to minority voters that "we are really sort of punishing you." I guess it's nice he still cares about the party that's left him. But dig Gov. McCrory's weak rebuttal to "those who say voter fraud is not a problem in North Carolina": "without the higher level of identification a photograph provides, is it possible to know?" Mr. Powell's statement that voter fraud can't possibly be "widespread and undetected" satisfies me, but won't reach the rage-addled, so I'll try reaching them: we live in a nation where you're innocent until presumed guilty; perhaps a dozen folks go to jail for voter fraud in any given year; conservatives believe you don't solve problems that don't exist or which you can't define; therefore, voter ID laws are a solution in search of a problem. Ah, forget it -- most right-wingers these days are reactionaries, not conservatives.
From the "stopped clock rule" file: far-right commentator Mark Levin proposes a Constitutional convention under Article V of the U.S. Constitution, in which two-thirds of state legislatures could petition (actually, already have petitioned!) to create a convention of state delegates, which could directly propose Constitutional amendments and put their ratification to state legislatures, without Congressional involvement. Many of the article's commenters have completely defensible objections -- mainly, that an Article V convention would be as subject to pressure from corporate forces as our Congress seems to be. And I don't advocate throwing all my eggs in an Article V basket, of course. But, being a creature of hope, I would prefer to fight it out with the autocrats in an Article V convention -- they may have the money, but they don't have the numbers, or the arguments. Most folks know this by now. What most folks haven't fully comprehended yet is that we can (and must) do something about it.
Finally, Reuters strives desperately to prove that the Affordable Care Act drives a spate of part-time hirings -- this, despite three of the stars of their anecdotes denying that the Affordable Care Act has anything to do with any part-time hiring they might be doing! And none of this wrangling would be a surprise to you if you've, you know, actually worked any jobs over the last twenty years -- you know as well as anyone else that absent a collective bargaining agreement, full-time work means health benefits and part-time work, generally, doesn't. And businesses have known all of this as acutely as we have during that time, so we ought to suspect any complaining they do about "uncertainty" now. Also, it doesn't matter so much what "executives at several staffing firms" "have seen" as, you know, what is -- i.e., that since January 2010, this economy has created full-time jobs well over twice as fast as it's created part-time jobs. And aren't our economic elites our best and brightest? If so, why do they whine about everything?