Jason Zengerle, New York MagazineLate last year, a few days before Christmas, former South Carolina governor Mark Sanford embarked on a delicate political mission. He went to see his ex-wife, Jenny.It was only four years ago, in early 2009, that the couple were approaching their twentieth wedding anniversary and Sanford, a popular two-term Republican governor, was laying the groundwork for a presidential campaign. That was when, one afternoon in the governor’s mansion, Jenny went searching through some of her husband’s work papers and discovered a printed e-mail exchange between Mark and Maria...

Philip Klein, DC ExaminerIn an interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, Mitt Romney said that President Obama’s health care law was one of the reasons why he lost.“The president had the power of incumbency,” Romney said. “ObamaCare was very attractive, particularly to those without health insurance. And they came out in large numbers to vote. So that was part of a successful campaign.”

Chris Stirewalt, FOX News"So it is our opinion that however you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be."-- An email from USDA official Charles Brown rejecting a subordinate's suggestion of a way to lessen the consequences of budget cuts for citizens.Americans have a government that now claims the power to execute its own citizens on its own soil without trial but that cannot find a way to afford public tours of government buildings. 

Alex Berezow, USA TodayIn January, David Attenborough, an internationally renowned host of nature documentaries, revealed how disconnected he is from nature. Mankind, he recently warned, is a "plague on the earth." He said, "Either we limit our population growth or the natural world will do it for us." Nobody told him that world population growth is already slowing in nearly every part of the world. In many countries, demographers worry more about a shrinking population than an exploding one.Americans haven't gotten the memo, either. A Center for Biological Diversity poll released last week...

A labor group representing foreign guest workers in the U.S. has accused McDonald's franchises in eastern Pennsylvania of paying student guest workers below the minimum wage and housing them in substandard conditions. The group, the National Guestworker Alliance, said Wednesday that students from Latin America and Asia had paid as much as $3,000 apiece to come to the U.S. on J-1 visas, a cultural and educational exchange program administered by the State Department. According to the group, an undisclosed number of the students walked off their jobs on Wednesday in protest of the working and housing conditions. "McDonald’s hijacked the guestworker program to access cheap, exploitable labor,” Saket Soni, the director of the National Guestworker Alliance, said in a statement. “At a time when workers are organizing to win immigration reform and raise the minimum wage, McDonald's is innovating new ways to turn immigrant workers into a sub-minimum wage workforce." Neither McDonald's nor the State Department immediately responded to requests for comment. HuffPost reached a manager at one of the McDonald's in question, in Camp Hill, Penn., with protest chants audible in the background. The man declined to give his name and said he wouldn't answer questions. "I cannot tell you anything about that. I'm just a manager in the store," he said. A manager at another location referred HuffPost to McDonald's corporate communications team. The National Guestworker Alliance alleges that some students received as few as four hours of work a week, at the minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. After "exorbitant" deductions for housing, those wages were pushed below the legal minimum, the group says, while the students lived "up to 8 students to a room" at a cost of $300 per person. The group also charges that students were threatened with surprise visits from their employer and recruiter in order to "suppress complaints." The students came from Argentina, Peru, Chile and Malaysia, among other countries, according to the group. Young foreigners on J-1 visas are supposed to soak up American culture while working a typical U.S. student's job for a few months, often in the service or food industry. But the long-running program has been hobbled by allegations of worker exploitation, with students paying hefty travel fees for the opportunity and then going into debt due to low wages and high housing deductions. This isn't the first time the guestworker alliance has levied such charges. In 2011, student guest workers backed by the group walked off the job at a Pennsylvania packing plant for Hershey chocolates, sparking a scandal surrounding one of the nation's premiere candy makers. Thousands of such students were employed as low-paid temp workers at the bottom of a chain of contractors. They said they spent their days lifting 50-pound boxes under the threat of deportation, with their travel and administrative fees outstripping their meager earnings from the job. The Labor Department later struck an agreement with the contractors in the Hershey case awarding the students more than $200,000 in back pay. The non-profit that brokered the J-1 visas for the students, the Council for Educational Travel, USA, was banned by the State Department from bringing any more students to America on work and culture exchange. As Congress undertakes comprehensive immigration reform, labor groups have called for tighter restrictions and better oversight of guest worker visa programs like the J-1.

Former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) is encouraging lawmakers to support expanded background checks for gun purchases. Giffords, who was wounded in a shooting on Jan. 8, 2011, amped up her push for more gun control after the Dec. 2012 Sandy Hook shooting. The AP reports: Other survivors of the mass shooting are expected to join Giffords at the news conference in Tucson Wednesday. A gun control group started by Giffords and husband Mark Kelly began airing a new television ad in Arizona and Iowa Tuesday calling for background checks. The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to take up tougher firearm regulations Thursday. Watch Giffords' news conference on gun control above.

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) announced on the Senate floor Wednesday he intended to filibuster the nomination of John Brennan as director of the CIA, citing concerns about President Barack Obama's policy on civil liberties. "I will speak until I can no longer speak," Paul said. Paul, an outspoken libertarian, pointed to what he called the abuses of executive power and civil liberties under Obama's administration. In particular, he objected to the contents of a letter he received from Attorney General Eric Holder that asserted the U.S. government had the legal authority to kill a U.S. citizen on American soil. "Where is the Barack Obama of 2007?" he asked, referring to then-presidential candidate Obama's criticism of Bush-era violations of civil liberties. "If there were an ounce of courage in this body, I would be joined by many other senators," he added. "Are we going to give up our rights to politicians?" Paul had asked the Justice Department about the constitutionality of drone strikes and whether they could be used agains U.S. citizens. Holder responded in a letter that conceded the military could authorize a drone strike on U.S. soil. "It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States," Holder wrote. Last week, Paul voted for the nomination of Chuck Hagel as defense secretary -- another key Obama national security appointment -- after first voting against cloture on the matter, saying he was using his vote to try to get more information about Hagel. This is a developing story...

Thanks to Bradley Manning, the world learned important information about the U.S. government's misconduct abroad. He pled guilty February 28 to leaking 700,000 documents to WikiLeaks, the international source that has exposed the malfeasance of institutions the world over. He leaked these documents to reveal the government's obsession "with killing and capturing people" and "to make the world a better place." The documents shined light on mistreated detainees at Guantánamo and such atrocities as the now notorious 2007 civilian killings in Iraq that were publicized in the "Collateral Murder" video three years ago. Some have argued that some of the tens of thousands of diplomatic cables helped incite the Arab Spring. Manning is expected to serve up to 20 years in prison. This, after he already languished for over a thousand days in detention. The Obama administration held him in a particularly sadistic form of solitary confinement for nine months, which over 250 lawyers protested in an open letter to the government. Such solitary confinement was, of course, a form of torture, as most of the civilized world recognizes, despite Obama's campaign promises to abolish the gruesome practice. Manning's treatment also calls into question another one of Obama's political vows: He had pledged in 2008 to rigorously protect whistle-blowers, whose "acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled." Instead, Obama has undertaken a war on whistle-blowers that makes George W. Bush look like a civil libertarian. The politician who promised and continues to boast unprecedented transparency arguably presides over its least transparent administration in history, which classified 92 million documents in 2011, and which, according to the Bloomberg News, has "prosecuted more government officials for alleged leaks under the World War I-era Espionage Act than all [of Obama's] predecessors combined, including law-and-order Republicans John Mitchell, Edwin Meese and John Ashcroft." Manning is among those so far targeted by this draconian legislation. This crackdown on whistle-blowers almost surely has a profound chill effect, discouraging people from coming forward with information about government wrongdoing. The legal process Manning has faced has been even more a sham than usual. In addition to questions of illegal search and seizure, the Military Rules of Evidence under the United States Uniform Code of Military Justice provide for far more effective due process protections than Manning enjoyed at his own Article 32 hearing, particularly as it concerned the discovery process, the government's withholding of exculpatory evidence, and Manning's access to witnesses who could have undermined the government's case that his actions actually compromised American security. Late last year, Manning's attorney finally worked out an arrangement for a guilty plea. Despite this plea, the prosecution plans to call its full witness list -- more evidence suggesting that the whole affair is a show trial. Manning is more than a little reminiscent of Daniel Ellsberg, the military analyst whose leaked documents, the Pentagon Papers, appeared in the New York Times, discredited the Vietnam War, and increased the pressure on politicians to end the conflict. Officials in the Nixon administration went after Ellsberg as the enemy, breaking into his psychiatrist's office, a move that culminated in the Watergate scandal and Nixon's resignation. The Supreme Court upheld the Times's right to print the material, and eventually Ellsberg's persecution ended when the Espionage Act charges against him were dismissed. According to G. Gordon Liddy, Nixon officials had plans to "neutralize" him, but whether that meant injure or kill, we might never know. Manning, in sharp contrast, has not been freed, but was railroaded into confessing and now faces years or decades in prison. Obama in a sense has succeeded in neutralizing his own Ellsberg. Nixon has gone down in the history books as a villain over the Watergate scandal, and many look upon Ellsberg as a true American hero. Yet as of now, it's hard to see if such perceptions will prevail as it concerns Obama and Manning. The word "hero" is thrown a lot quite a bit, but Manning surely fits the bill. He put his life and liberty at risk to expose what he viewed as very wrong. He exposed the mistreatment of prisoners and murderous strikes conducted by the Bush administration in Iraq and the Obama administration in Afghanistan. He has already paid a price most of us will never know, and the rest of his life he might very well be destroyed. He sacrificed everything for his country, for innocent victims of the U.S. government, and for the cause of truth. His best hope might be that some day a president pardons him. Such indemnifications have occurred in the past. President Andrew Johnson pardoned thousands of Confederate soldiers, most of them poor souls forced into a war they didn't want. President Warren Harding pardoned socialist presidential candidate Eugene Debs, whom President Woodrow Wilson had imprisoned merely for speaking publicly against military conscription, as well as hundreds of other political prisoners. President Franklin Roosevelt pardoned thousands, most conspicuously those imprisoned for prohibition violations. President Jimmy Carter granted amnesty to those who had dodged the Vietnam draft. If a president were to come to power having promised more protections for civil liberties, a new dedication to the rule of law for detainees in the war on terror, and humane treatment for whistle-blowers, perhaps such a person could be expected to release Bradley Manning. Unfortunately, such a person who made such promises is president now, and he's the one who put Manning behind bars. Moreover, Obama has been much stingier with his pardons than past presidents including George W. Bush, just as he has released far fewer people from Guantánamo than his predecessor. A lot of things can happen, but Manning will most likely suffer for at least the remainder of Obama's second term. Many struggle to reconcile their genuine commitments to human rights with their admiration for the president. But here no reconciliation is possible. Manning is the good guy in this whole ordeal, and his persecution at the hands of the Obama administration should be condemned as loudly as anything that happened on Bush's watch.

Michelle Malkin, TownhallAmerican college campuses are the most fertile grounds for fake hate. They're marinated in identity politics and packed with self-indulgent, tenured radicals suspended in the 1960s. In the name of enlightenment and tolerance, these institutions of higher learning breed a corrosive culture of left-wing self-victimization. Take my alma mater, Oberlin College. Please.This week, the famously "progressive" college in Ohio made international headlines when it shut down classes after a series of purported hate crimes. According to the Oberlin Review (a student newspaper I once wrote...

Matt Phillips, QuartzDow punches through all-time high: US stocks are back! American people? Not so much. Since the bleakest hours of early 2009, the stock market has clawed, scampered and inched higher""with some notable slips. Now that venerable equity market metric""the Dow Jones Industrial Average""has summited 14,164.53, its all-time highest close last seen way back on Oct. 9, 2007.Terrific! A rising stock market helps Americans rebuild the wealth destroyed by a banking crisis, market meltdown and recession that clobbered their retirement accounts and gutted home...

Michael Goodwin, NY PostThe numbers are staggering. Out of 120,000 live births in New York City in 2010, more than 54,000 babies were born out of wedlock. The human toll behind the numbers is devastating. Children raised without two parents face much higher odds in every facet of life. It’s as if they are forced to swim with one hand tied behind their backs. Some succeed, most don’t. Now comes the good news. Mayor Bloomberg is trying to do something about this preventable tragedy.

Wallsten & Nakamura, Washington PostFormer Florida governor Jeb Bush, who has remained on the sidelines since his older brother left the White House with dismal ratings four years ago, has jumped back into the political fray this week with a new book, wall-to-wall television interviews and a round of public speaking engagements.His appearances mark a change in approach for Bush, 60, who has operated as more of a Republican elder statesman since leaving Tallahassee in 2007 but is now clearly considering a run for the White House.

Zev Chafets, Vanity Fair

Nick Gillespie, ReasonIn case you thought that only useful idiots like actor Sean Penn were willing to overlook the strongman Hugo Chavez's willingness to tyrannize his own people in the pursuit of "social justice" and self-aggrandizement, there's always Rep. Jose Serrano (D-N.Y.), who eulogized Chavez thus:Hugo Chavez was a leader that understood the needs of the poor. He was committed to empowering the powerless.R.I.P. Mr. President.Over at his official House site, Serrano writes"President Chavez was a controversial leader. But at his core he was a man who came from very little and used...

WASHINGTON -- A pair of Democratic trackers didn't seem too disappointed last summer when they couldn't find Rep. Allen West at a venue on the outskirts of the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla. They were hoping to catch footage of the then-Republican congressman that might help West's Democratic challenger, Patrick Murphy. They weren't too upset because they didn't think little-known Murphy could win Florida's Republican-leaning 18th Congressional District. "He used to be a Republican," one said of Murphy before getting in a car and seeking other targets. "The donors, the activists, just don't like him very much," But Murphy, now the youngest member of Congress at 29, did win, in spite of getting outspent $18.5 million to $4.4 million, triumphing in a race that could be seen as a snapshot of what ails the Grand Old Party. Murphy, with a background in accounting and a job at his family's construction business, should have been at home in his old party. But between the Iraq war, the emergence of the tea party, and lingering intolerance, he bolted for the Democratic Party in 2011. "As the Iraqi war began to evolve, and more and more information became available to us, I began to disenfranchise myself from the Republican Party because I thought we were being lied to," Murphy said in an interview with The Huffington Post. Then the taxed-enough-already movement erupted with at least part of a message that Murphy said he liked -- fiscal responsibility. The problem was the way they went about it, with the accompanying social conservatism and episodes of virulent anger aimed at Americans they didn't agree with. "The tea party movement went off on a more extreme agenda that I did not support at all, and was very frustrated by it, to the point that not only did I change parties, I decided to do something about it and run for Congress," Murphy said. Allen West, a heat-seeking tea party darling and Iraq war veteran who left the service after firing a gun next to a prisoner's head, was almost the perfect foil for Murphy. "West -- part of his demeanor and his rhetoric is why I wanted to get into politics," Murphy said. "I strongly disagreed with some of that rhetoric and some of the stuff that he said. It was very offensive." Murphy was referring to things like West calling Democrats communists and saying that Social Security was akin to slavery. A couple of liberal activists tracking West may have seen an unappealing moderate in the callow former Republican. But Murphy sees his GOP past as an asset in a class where nearly a dozen freshman Republicans refused to sign the infamous Grover Norquist pledge against raising any taxes. Among his first efforts in Congress is an ambitious push with Rep. Robert Pittenger (R-N.C.) to launch a bipartisan caucus among the House's 84 freshmen called United Solutions that can provide a critical mass to support an elusive "grand bargain" on deficits and spending that the nation's leaders have failed to reach. The effort came after the new members had an epiphany during their orientations, most of which were divided by party affiliation. But a few sessions weren't, and Murphy said they got to chatting over drinks or lunch. "We'd sit around and talk. It turned out 80 percent of the issues or so, Republicans and Democrats were agreeing on everything and looking at solution," he said. "We said, 'Wow let's kind of formalize this.' This isn't as bad as people make it out to be. Things aren't as partisan, at least yet, in the freshman class." Some 36 new members signed a letter last month urging the leaders to keep trying for a grand bargain. The appeal to President Barack Obama, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) failed to move the needle -- to no one's surprise. "We understood going into it that there's a pretty good chance we're not going to be necessarily the motivating force to force them to do this, but we are going to continue to start from the bottom up and drum up support and get more and more people on board with this philosophy," Murphy said. The congressman said he believes the new group of legislators sees the big picture realistically. "As a freshman class, we look at the numbers," Murphy said, with an acknowledgement that time is not on his side. "You realize there's some long-term issues facing the country, and we need to be smart about what we're doing. We can't let partisanship get in the way," he said, with a leery eye on the history of lawmakers who started off as reformers only to become among the most partisan of party warriors. "If we're ever going to do it, if we're ever going to reach some bipartisan solutions, it's going to be now. If we wait a year or two or three or five, we're going to get more and more ingrained, I believe, in the partisanship," he said. "So we said, 'Let's do it now.'" Below are lightly edited excerpts from the interview: What are you trying to do? We started off by saying, No. 1, this freshman class is going to work in a bipartisan manner -- not my way or the highway. No. 2, we want common sense solutions. We're not going to demagogue or blame President Obama or President Bush, or President Clinton or President Reagan -- it is what it is, there's plenty of blame to go around. Let's focus on solutions. And No. 3, We need to go big. We need a grand bargain. The silliness of the debt ceiling, the sequester, the fiscal cliff, all these new terms that are entering the mainstream media now. ... We all said this is silly. We all know what needs to be done. We need a grand bargain. You used to be a Republican. What caused the change? My dad's a Republican. My dad's my mentor. When I was 18 or whatever it was and I decided to register to vote. My dad's Republican, so that's what I decided to register as. ... As the Iraqi war began to evolve and more and more information became available to us, I began to disenfranchise myself from the Republican Party because I thought we were being lied to. In addition to that, my family has always supported the individual. It was never about the party, it was always about the person. That's how I was raised. You look at each candidate, so I've supported and voted for both parties. With the tea party movement that started as fiscal responsibility -- which I support -- but the tea party movement went off on a more extreme agenda that I did not support at all, and was very frustrated by it, to that point that not only did I change parties, I decided to do something about it and run for Congress. What bothered you about the tea party extremism? I don't think my way or the highway works, that mentality. And that's what the tea party has done, drawn a line in the sand. I'm sorry that doesn't work in business, that doesn't work in your family, it certainly doesn't work in government and our Congress. You have to give your view, and you have to be firm in your position, but at the end of the day, you have to look at the greater good, for what's good for all Americans, and all constituents. Right now the tea party is not getting as much attention as they used to, but a lot of members are just representing that group, and I don't think that's right. You have to represent 100 percent of your district. How did you beat Allen West? A lot of great support for a lot of people in the district. West, part of his demeanor and his rhetoric is why I wanted to get into politics. I strongly disagreed with some of that rhetoric and some of the stuff that he said. It was very offensive. So we had a lot of support of a lot of people who helped us get there. What I'm so happy about was this election help show money can't buy elections. We were outspent 5 to 1, 4 to 1, depending on how you count it, and we were still able to prevail. Is Allen West's style what you're talking about with the tea party? I don't support the notion of playing to the media, of playing to an extreme element, and trying to get on TV then using what you say to go raise money. After Allen West called X amount of people communists, he went and raised a couple million dollars. That's not what our founders intended. We shouldn't be running to the extremes and use it for fundraising. We need to come to the middle, we need to go the other direction. It's not just the tea party that's been guilty. Both parties have been guilty of this. You're the youngest member of Congress. Why should leaders listen to you? Right now, I don't think it's [Congress] working. I think we need some fresh ideas, some new blood, some new energy in here. It's a broken system right now. Part of what this letter was intended to do was change things and the way they work here, and bring the parties together. And I think it's saying something to get 32, 36 new members of Congress -- a pretty even mix of Democrats and Republicans -- together on a letter, on a framework, that has offended elements of my party and elements of the Republican Party. If you're doing that, then you're probably doing the right thing. Being young, it's an age. I don't think about it very much. Part of me running for Congress was was an acknowledgement that a lot of the issues being discussed right now are going to affect my generation perhaps more than my parents and grandparents. We need to have a voice in that room. We need to be there in that conversation. Does it feel weird to be telling people, many of them older than you father, what to do? Frankly, we have healthy debates. I respect their opinions and experience, and I think that's important to have, but I also think if you keep doing the same thing and expecting different results, then, uh, you're probably going to get the same results. Do you see the Republican Party continuing down the same road that led you to leave? I wouldn't be comfortable grouping the party. I think they are very divided right now, and I think there's people splintering off. I think even a lot of Republicans would agree with that. Who's going to win this debate? Some of the more moderate Republicans, or some of the more extreme Republicans? Even within the freshman class and the members I've gotten to know a little bit better, a lot of them aren't happy with the tea party. A lot of them don't like the pressure that's being put on them. They want that more moderate voice, they wany to get something done, and acknowledge that the only way we're going to get something done in the Congress is if we do it in a bipartisan manner. Are you the example of where the GOP has gone wrong? I wouldn't go that far, but what i will tell you is there are a lot of people in my generation -- it's really all generations -- everyone I talk to is just so mad at government right now. They're mad a both parties equally, they're mad at every generation, there's just so much blame to go around, and they just want something to happen. These fights, the sequestration, these short-term solutions, are the exact opposite of what they want. These manufactured cliffs are the exact opposite of what we should be doing right now. Maybe the generation, the party change, maybe that can be played up. I think I'm probably similar to a lot of people in our country, and definitely my generation, that are fiscally responsible and socially more accepting, more open. And part of that probably is a bit of a more generational attitude. Why did you get into politics? That's what everyone says, Why would you do this? …. I was tired of complaining, that's the short answer. I was so tired of pointing a finger, and one day basically said, 'Who the heck am I to sit here and point a finger and not do something about it?' And back to what I said earlier, so many of the issues being discussed, being debated and legislated right now are going to affect my generation, and really wanting to be part of that solution. What did your father say? He put his hand on my forehead and asked if I was sick or something. No, he was very happy about my decision, and supported me in any venture I had and always was behind me for everything I try to do.

MIAMI — A few days after Gov. Rick Scott of Florida endorsed a Medicaid expansion, a U-turn so sharply executed that it flabbergasted his supporters, the head of a local Tea Party group typed up a “breakup note.”

The Roger Ailes biography war officially kicked off on Wednesday, as Vanity Fair published a largely positive excerpt from a new book about the Fox News CEO. The excerpt from Zev Chafets' "Roger Ailes: Off Camera" was posted early Wednesday morning. Chafets received what his publishers have called "unprecedented" access to Ailes to write the book. The biography has been widely viewed as a response to a rival book being written by New York magazine's Gabriel Sherman, who is famous for his ability to pry juicy gossip from within the heavily guarded Fox News fortress. (Sherman has been harassed and even reported being sent death threats during his writing of the book.) It was also predicted that Chafets — who wrote a sympathetic biography of Rush Limbaugh — would paint a more flattering picture of Ailes than Sherman. The excerpt largely seems to conform to that theory. The media titan comes off as deliberately provocative, but largely harmless — a gruff but loving grandfather. Readers get a glimpse of Ailes as a parent (he has a 12-year-old son, and is clearly concerned with what will happen to him after he passes away) and of his battle with hemophilia. There are also just enough sprinkles of media gossip to make industry observers interested. Ailes told Chafets he doesn't know if Rupert Murdoch really likes him as much as Murdoch says. He also had some choice words for Newt Gingrich, his former employee, after Gingrich accused Fox News of favoring Mitt Romney in the 2012 Republican primary. "Newt's a prick," he told network spokesman Brian Lewis. And there is an account of Ailes' meeting with then-Senator Barack Obama during the 2008 campaign. Obama, Chafets writes, complained specifically about Sean Hannity's constant attacks on him. Ailes told him not to worry, since no Hannity viewers would have voted for him anyway. Oh, and he thinks Joe Biden is as "dumb as an ashtray," and that Obama has "never worked a day in his life": “Obama’s the one who never worked a day in his life. He never earned a penny that wasn’t public money. How many fund-raisers does he attend every week? How often does he play basketball and golf? I wish I had that kind of time. He’s lazy, but the media won’t report that.” He noticed my arched eyebrows and added, “I didn’t come up with that. Obama said that, to Barbara Walters.” (What Obama said was that he feels a laziness in himself that he attributes to his laid-back upbringing in Hawaii.)

Thomas Friedman, New York TimesI just spent the last two days at a great conference convened by M.I.T. and Harvard on “Online Learning and the Future of Residential Education” — a k a “How can colleges charge $50,000 a year if my kid can learn it all free from massive open online courses?”You may think this MOOCs revolution is hyped, but my driver in Boston disagrees. You see, I was picked up at Logan Airport by my old friend Michael Sandel, who teaches the famous Socratic, 1,000-student “Justice” course at Harvard, which is launching March 12 as the...

Ezra Klein, BloombergThere are two main problems withsequestration. The first is that the $1.1 trillion in budgetcuts happen in an idiotic, across-the-board fashion. Think farmsubsidies are less valuable than medical research, and thusshould take a bigger cut? Too bad. Sequestration is too dumb totell the difference. The second is that sequestration slams the economy whileit's weak. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. estimates that it will cuteconomic growth by 0.6 percentage point in 2013. TheCongressional Budget Office estimates that it will pushunemployment back above 8 percent and may do sufficient damageto drive...

Newark Mayor Cory Booker won't make an announcement about his potential run for the U.S. Senate until after the New Jersey gubernatorial race. Booker, who filed paperwork earlier this year with the Federal Election Commission to explore a bid in 2014, told BuzzFeed on Tuesday that any announcement will have to wait until after this year's state elections. "Not until after the governor's race," Booker said. "I'm really going to wait." After speculation swirled over whether Booker would decide to challenge New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (R) in 2013 or run for Senate in 2014, Booker wrote an op-ed in December stating his intention to explore a Senate bid. Although Booker has remained coy about his electoral plans, the FEC paperwork he filed in January allows him to fundraise for a potential campaign ahead of any formal announcement. Booker told BuzzFeed that he intends to focus his energy on helping Democratic candidates in 2013, including Christie challenger Barbara Buono. "I'm gonna go out and try to raise a lot of money [for Buono], but it would be wrong to hold a press conference [until her race is over]," he said. Last month, Booker made a similar statement during an appearance on CBS's "Face the Nation." "2014 is a long way off," he said. "Let’s focus on supporting the Democratic nominee for governor, and frankly, a lot of legislative races are up for grabs right now in New Jersey." In February, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) announced that he would not run for reelection in 2014, further opening the race up for Booker. However, the Newark mayor will not be without competition. Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) has long eyed Lautenberg's seat, while Fox News' Geraldo Rivera has expressed interest in running as a Republican.

I want to share a message of a stranger's kindness. I can't even begin to tell you how very much her thoughtfulness meant to me, but let me try. If you live in the RSU 19 district, you probably know that we have a new superintendent. He arrived on July 1 to find that our previous superintendent had left us with a significant financial problem. Because district towns had been improperly billed for two consecutive years, we were in debt. Voters have twice turned down a request for a loan that would resolve the immediate problem. (The third vote is March 8.) Therefore, there has been a hold on all spending. That means no classroom supplies, no books, no field trips, no extracurricular activities, no after-school support programs -- unless funded by an outside donor. During the informational meetings to discuss the reasons for the financial issues as well as possible resolutions, teachers have taken a verbal beating. When this is coupled with the attacks from our governor on the profession, it takes its toll. The day before vacation began, I stood in line at Hannaford's, purchasing a cartful of snacks for students to take home with them over vacation. Behind me was a young mother, with a little girl who was quite struck with all that I was purchasing. "That woman has a lot of applesauce, Momma!" she commented. I heard the mom explain to her little girl that some children don't have enough to eat. As I unloaded my purchases in the parking lot, the young mother stopped by my car to tell me I had left something inside the store when I checked out. When I went back inside, I found that I hadn't left anything; rather, this woman had purchased a gift card and left it there for me. On the envelope, she had written, "Thanks for all you do!" I work with high school students, and there are so many who come to my room for snacks to supplement their meals at school. Many will leave our building at 3 p.m. and not have anything to eat until the next morning, when they return to us. The budget issue has been difficult for our students, too. When the communities that they live in do not support the education of their children, we are all demoralized. The day this mother stood behind me in line at Hannaford's, we had provided a school assembly to recognize the academic achievements of many of our students. Near the end of the assembly, our principal spoke candidly and commended our student body for rallying together in these difficult times, for remaining proud to be Nokomis Warriors. She told them how much she appreciated the teachers in the building, who continued to shield them from as much of the problem as possible in order to provide them with the opportunities that only an education can bring. Immediately, there was a smattering of applause, which swelled across the gym as our students stood and clapped for nearly five minutes in appreciation of their teachers. There were many of us -- and many students -- whose eyes were far from dry. I will never forget those moments. And for this stranger to recognize and value the contributions that teachers make to the lives of our students was the "cherry on top." When I walked back into the store, a former student and a current student proudly gave me the gift certificate that the young mother had purchased for me. They hugged me tightly and told me that people do appreciate what we teachers do, and I drove home feeling the happiest I have felt in a very long time. I told the story of the young mother's gift in the teachers' room the next morning, where my friends and colleagues listened with tears in their eyes and joy in their hearts. Those teachers, like me, walked a little taller that day.

Bad tippers, be warned: If you stiff your server but leave a snippy note, the Internet might hear all about it. On Monday, a customer at Washington, D.C.'s popular Busboys and Poets coffee shop paid a measly 10 percent tip and included a handwritten rebuke for the server. The object of the patron's ire? A slogan emblazoned on the server's t-shirt, which read, "OCCUPATION ISN'T PRETTY," a reference to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. DCist reports that, when Nuria Kalifa-Jackson collected the tiny gratuity, she found the following note: "Displaying your political beliefs on your shirt cost you a % of your tip." The customer also enclosed literature from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which is currently in D.C. for its annual policy conference. Kalifa-Jackson's employer apparently has no qualms about the shirt. "[W]e AGREE that 'The Occupation Isn't Pretty' and are proud to have [Kalifa-Jackson] work for us!" read an update on the Busboys and Poets' Facebook page. The post included a photo of the shirt and the note. (Story continues below.) Community activism, in particular anti-war activism, was a founding principle of Busboys and Poets, according to its website, so the space was probably not the best choice for this particular customer. Established in 2005 by owner Anas "Andy" Shallal, an Iraqi-American activist, Busboys was embraced by "the neighboring residents and the progressive community," in particular Iraq War opponents. Even when controversial politics aren't involved, it doesn't take much for restaurant patrons to get uppity with wait staff. It seems that every week, Facebookers, tweeters or redditors are chattering over the latest curt note left in lieu of a server's tip. In January 2012, for example, a tipper left two pennies with a note that read, in part, "A little bit of personal attention goes a long way in the form of a tip. Just my two cents." But every now and then, we come across heartwarming stories about grateful customers rewarding a job well done. In May, Greg Rubar, a longtime waiter at D’Amico’s Italian Market Café in Houston, received a whopping $5,000 tip from regulars. Rubar said he had been struggling with transportation and that he would use the money to buy a car for his family.

* Iowa's Grassley warm to school security, anti-trafficking plans * For proposed ban on "assault" weapons, another hurdle * Senate Judiciary Committee takes up four bills on Thursday By Thomas Ferraro WASHINGTON, March 5 (Reuters) - The top Republican on the Democrat-led U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee said on Tuesday that he may back at least two of the four gun-control bills that the panel will consider this week. Iowa Senator Charles Grassley's support could help both measures - one aimed at cracking down on illegal gun trafficking, the other designed to bolster security at schools - pass the Senate. But Grassley, echoing many other Republicans in Congress, said he would not support a plan to renew a ban on the sale of military-style, semi-automatic "assault" weapons. Grassley's reluctance to embrace the assault weapons ban - and his hesitance on another measure that would expand background checks on prospective gun buyers - reflect the difficulty that Democrats are likely to face in getting a comprehensive gun-control package through Congress. President Barack Obama has backed a range of proposals aimed at reducing gun violence, a cause that has taken on greater urgency since 20 children and six adults were killed by a gunman at a Connecticut school in December. Grassley and other Republicans say that the most controversial proposal - reviving the federal ban on the sale of assault weapons that was in effect for a decade before expiring in 2004 - amounts to a violation of Americans' constitutional right to bear arms. "That bill isn't going anywhere," Grassley told Reuters, voicing the sentiment of many on both sides of Washington's political divide. Grassley said he is undecided about the bill that would require criminal and mental-health background checks of all gun buyers. Currently, 40 percent of buyers are not screened, mostly involving sales among private individuals. The Judiciary Committee, with 10 Democrats and eight Republicans, will consider the four gun-control bills on Thursday, and amendments to them are likely. All four are expected to be reported out of committee and sent to the full Senate. CONCERNS ABOUT REGISTRATION Four senators - Democrats Charles Schumer of New York and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and Republicans Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Mark Kirk of Illinois - have been working on a background-check bill for weeks. But they have not been able to reach a compromise on how records of gun sales should be handled. Democrats say that a record of private sales, which would show whether a background check was conducted, must be kept to be able to enforce the proposed new law. But Coburn fears that such records could clear the way to registration of guns, which gun-rights groups have long opposed, a senior Senate aide said. "Everyone is scared of this stuff leading to registration," Grassley said. Even so, he said, "There might be something done on background checks." He said he needed to talk further with colleagues before making a decision. If there is no bipartisan agreement on background checks, Schumer may offer a bill that has no Republican co-sponsors and would require record-keeping of private gun sales, a Senate aide said. Such a bill could face a possible Republican roadblock that would require 60 votes to clear in the 100-member Senate. Democrats control the chamber, 55-45. Grassley said he may back a bill offered by Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer of California to bolster school security - if she agrees to cut its cost. "Her bill could become a bipartisan bill," Grassley said. Boxer said that in response to Grassley's complaints, she had decided to slash the proposed annual cost from $100 million to $40 million. Separately, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Democratic Senator Mark Begich of Alaska plan to offer a bill on Wednesday aimed at providing better treatment for the mentally ill and keeping them from getting firearms, aides said. (Editing by David Lindsey and Philip Barbara)

Representative Jose Serrano praised Hugo Chavez Tuesday after the Venezuelan leader died at the age of 51, from cancer. The Democratic Congressman from New York tweeted: Backlash was swift. Besides multiple angry tweets in response, Republican National Committee spokesperson Alexandra Franceschi released a statement condemning Serrano's support of the 'authoritarian ruler': “It’s simply insulting that a Democrat Congressman would praise the authoritarian ruler Hugo Chavez. Chavez systematically cracked down on the basic freedom and liberties of Venezuelans, nationalized private industries, and befriended anti-American dictators like Castro, Ahmadinejad, and Assad. Americans should stand together with the freedom loving people of Venezuela as they hope for a peaceful transition to a democracy, instead of praising the former dictator.” Serrano, however, doubled down on the tweet, releasing a statement of his own that further expounded on his praise for Chavez. The two politicians met in 2005, he says, and came up with a deal that transported cheap heating oil from Venezuela to Serrano's poorer constituents in the South Bronx. Serrano's statement: I met President Chavez in 2005 when he came to my district at my invitation. His focus on the issues faced by the poor and disenfranchised in his country made him a truly revolutionary leader in the history of Latin America. He understood that after 400 years on the outside of the established power structure looking in, it was time that the poor had a chance at seeing their problems and issues addressed. His core belief was in the dignity and common humanity of all people. “When he visited, President Chavez offered a new type of program to the people of the Bronx. He had harnessed the power of his nation’s oil resources and was using their profits—through Citgo—to enact social spending programs. Now he offered people in the Bronx that were struggling economically the same deal. He would provide home heating oil at a huge discount, provided the savings were reinvested in programs that benefited the underserved and underprivileged. I am proud to report that we have benefited from that program ever since, with millions invested in our community through this program and through a grant program he set up. “Though President Chavez was accused of many things, it is important to remember that he was democratically-elected many times in elections that were declared free and fair by international monitors. Even today, people in North America seem unable to accept that Venezuelans had taken our admonitions to have democracy to heart and elected the leader of their choice. President Chavez carried out the programs that his constituents wanted enacted, and won reelection. This too was revolutionary in the history of Latin America. “President Chavez was a controversial leader. But at his core he was a man who came from very little and used his unique talents and gifts to try to lift up the people and the communities that reflected his impoverished roots. He believed that the government of the country should be used to empower the masses, not the few. He understood democracy and basic human desires for a dignified life. His legacy in his nation, and in the hemisphere, will be assured, as the people he inspired continue to strive for a better life for the poor and downtrodden.” Serrano isn't the first New York politician to heap praise upon a controversial foreign figure. City Council Member Charles Barron, also a Democrat, eulogized Muammar Gaddafi at an event in Brooklyn in 2011, calling the slain Libyan leader a "freedom fighter."