Former Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) has moved one step closer to a possible return to politics. Politico reported Tuesday that Weiner has hired Danny Kedem as a campaign manager for his possible New York City mayoral bid. Kedem recently ran a local congressional campaign in New York and sources told the site that Weiner is likely to make an announcement next week. Speculation surrounding a possible Weiner run heated up in mid-April, when the disgraced Congressman candidly told the New York Times Magazine where his political future stands. "I’m trying to gauge not only what’s right and what feels comfortable right this second, but I’m also thinking, How will I feel in a year or two years or five years?," he said. "Is this the time that I should be doing it? And then there’s the other side of the coin, which is . . . am I still the same person who I thought would make a good mayor?” Weiner's hire comes about a month after he released a 21-page booklet outlining proposals for all of New York City's five boroughs. Nearly two years after resigning from Congress over pressure stemming from a lewd photo sent out on Twitter, he launched a new handle on Twitter this April as well. While no formal announcement has been made, Weiner already has the support of one former colleague in Congress. Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) told Current TV in mid-April that "nobody here is perfect," stressing that Weiner deserved a second chance. "He’s dealt with his issues, and everybody has issues," Ellison said. "So I’d love to see Anthony Weiner be mayor of New York. I hereby endorse him."

Peter Weber, The Week

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) has been telling Minnesotans for years that gay marriage could find its way into the state if they didn't act to stop it. On Tuesday, Bachmann's prediction came true: Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton (D) signed a bill that had been passed by the state Legislature, including by lawmakers who had worked alongside then-state Sen. Bachmann. Bachmann campaigned tirelessly against gay marriage during her years in the state Senate, trying repeatedly and unsuccessfully to convince her colleagues that a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman should be placed before the voters. Here's Bachmann arguing for a same-sex marriage ban in 2004. Back then, she was concerned that "activist judges" might force gay marriage onto Minnesota by ruling that the state had to honor nuptials conducted in other states like Massachusetts, which had recently legalized gay marriage. There's also some concern about polygamy and group marriages. After Bachmann left St. Paul for Congress in 2007, state lawmakers sympathetic to her views had some success, getting an anti-gay marriage amendment on the ballot in 2012. But voters rejected it in November. A recent poll found that a majority of Minnesotans favored legalizing same-sex marriage. The state's lawmakers reflected that support with their votes of 75 to 59 in the state House and 37 to 30 in the state Senate for the new law. With Dayton's signature, 12 states and the District of Columbia now allow gay marriage. Gay couples will be able to wed in Minnesota beginning Aug. 1. While Bachmann won't actually be leaving the state in protest, as the satire site Daily Currant recently wrote, she tweeted Monday something of a swan song for her efforts against marriage equality in her home state: I’m proud to have introduced the original traditional marriage amendment, and I thank all Minnesotans who have worked so hard on this issue.— Michele Bachmann (@MicheleBachmann) May 13, 2013 Bachmann later released a statement, saying she was "disappointed" that the legislation had passed and arguing that it "denies religious liberty to people who believe in traditional marriage and who do not want to be forced to violate their conscience and sincerely held religious beliefs." Gay rights advocates, meanwhile, are ecstatic. "Guess what? I'm going to be a married man in Minnesota," said state Sen. Scott Dibble (D), chief author of the same-sex marriage bill, at a rally on Monday. Dibble then continued, "This conversation does not stop today. We continue this conversation. We continue to build this movement ... I invite people who are not necessarily happy today to open up your hearts. Look at the beauty in this rotunda. How can this be anything but good?"

DALLAS -- The man in the cowboy hat seen handcuffed to Lee Harvey Oswald in the iconic photo of Oswald being shot by Jack Ruby was honored Tuesday for his decades of service to the Dallas police force and community. Detective Jim Leavelle, who is 92 and long-retired, was given the Police Commendation Award during a ceremony at the department's headquarters. Police Chief David Brown also announced that the department's Detective of the Year Award will now carry Leavelle's name. "My years with the police department, I enjoyed every one of them," Leavelle told those who came to honor him. Leavelle joined the police force in April 1950 and retired from active service in April 1975. He was among the lead detectives assigned to investigate the Nov. 22, 1963, assassination of President John F. Kennedy. When accepting the honor, Leavelle said he was thinking of other deserving officers, including Officer J.D. Tippit, who was shot and killed by Oswald. In brief comments after the presentation, Leavelle said that when he saw an armed Jack Ruby approach in the basement of Dallas police headquarters, he tried unsuccessfully to jerk Oswald behind him to shield him from harm. "Him being real close all I did was turn his body so instead of the bullet hitting him dead center it hit about 3 or 4 inches to the left of the navel," Leavelle said. The iconic photo that captured the attack won a Pulitzer Prize. "You don't stop and think," Leavelle said. "You have to react." While Leavelle conceded that retelling the story can "occasionally" get "a little monotonous," he said he thinks it's been an important story to tell over the years from his first-person perspective. He said he started telling the story when schoolchildren would ask. "I don't mind doing it because I know that the people asking it are interested," said Leavelle, who also survived the attack on Pearl Harbor.

* Welfare spending vital to bridging growing wealth gap - OECD * Rich-poor divided widened quickly after financial crisis PARIS, May 15 (Reuters) - A growing divide between rich and poor risks will yawn still wider if cash-strapped governments keep cutting back the welfare state, an industrialised nations' think-tank warned on Wednesday. Weighing into a debate on inequality in developed countries, the 33-nation Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development said welfare spending had mitigated an increase in the wealth gap that emerged with the 2008-2009 financial crisis, but that was running out. Excluding social transfers and taxes, income inequality rose more in the three years to the end of 2010 than in the previous 12 years, a report by the Paris-based think-tank found. "As the economic and especially the jobs crisis persists and fiscal consolidation takes hold, there is a growing risk that the most vulnerable in society will be hit harder as the cost of the crisis increases," it said. The richest 10 percent of society in OECD countries pocketed 9.5 times as much market income as the poorest 10 percent in 2010, up from 9 times in 2007. The widest gap between rich and poor was found in Chile, Mexico, Turkey and the United States while Iceland, Slovenia, Norway and Denmark were the most egalitarian societies. "These worrying findings underline the need to protect the most vulnerable in society, especially as governments pursue the necessary task of bringing public spending under control," OECD head Angel Gurria said in a statement. He added that governments should not neglect fairness when they craft their policies, especially when they reform their tax systems. With many developed countries facing the pinch of austerity, economic inequality has become a hot topic especially after an ECB study last month found that households in many peripheral euro zone countries are on average wealthier than those in the bloc's core due to higher levels of home ownership. Long a staunch advocate of free-market reforms shunned by some left-wingers, the OECD has become an increasingly vocal supporter of the welfare state for its capacity to soften the blow of hard economic times. The study said the pain of the crisis was unevenly spread. Poorer households either lost more income from the recession or benefited less from recovery. Children and young people suffered more than the elderly, whose incomes were relatively immune. To read the report and access the data: www.oecd.org/els/social/inequality

The Truth-o-Meter says: False | Jason Chaffetz says Americans ready to save men 'getting killed' in Benghazi were told to stand down With Americans under attack in Benghazi, did the U.S. military do all it could to save lives? Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, says no. Four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, were killed in attacks that began Sept. 11, 2012, on U.S. compounds in Benghazi, Libya. Meanwhile, four special forces troops "willing to risk their lives to go save them" were "told to stand down," Chaffetz told Fox News host Sean Hannity. Did the U.S. fail to send life-saving help? Who knew what, when? Gregory Hicks was deputy chief of mission ... >> More

The Truth-o-Meter says: Mostly False | Barack Obama says review of Benghazi attack "investigated every element" President Barack Obama has been facing tough questions from journalists about recent congressional hearings that addressed the Sept. 11, 2012, attack against a U.S. facility in Benghazi, Libya. The attack, which left four Americans dead, has led to months of criticism by members of Congress about how the administration handled the incident. During a joint appearance with British Prime Minister David Cameron on May 13, 2013, Obama said Benghazi is being politicized by some members of Congress. "The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism," Obama said. "And what I pledged ... >> More

David DesRosiers, Washington TimesWilliam J. Bennett and David Wilezol's "Is College Worth It?" asks and authoritatively answers one of life's biggest questions.The orthodox answer to the question, the authors write, is "Of course it is. Though the cost of attendance is ever increasing, those who go to college make more than those who don't. And while the job market is bad, it is worse for those without a college degree."Â 

WASHINGTON (AP) — Attorney General Eric Holder says he's ordered a Justice Department investigation into the Internal Revenue Service's targeting of conservative groups for extra tax scrutiny. He said the FBI was coordinating with the Department of Justice to see if any laws were broken. At a news conference Tuesday at the Justice Department, Holder called the practice, in his words, "Outrageous and unacceptable." Holder's comments come a day after President Barack Obama said that, if the agency intentionally targeted such groups, "that's outrageous and there's no place for it." Steven Miller, the IRS acting chief, has acknowledged "a lack of sensitivity" in the agency's screenings of political groups seeking tax-exempt status and insisted those mistakes won't be repeated.

Monday Florida House Speaker Will Weatherford said lawmakers will wait until next year to "address" House members' drastically low cost health care costs, which are over five times less than what other state workers pay. In the meantime, Florida representatives will continue to pay just $8.43 a month for individual coverage and $30 for a family, which is 17 percent of what other state workers pay, and 10 percent of the health cares costs of the average private-sector employee, according to the Tampa Bay Times. Only 12 House members of have opted out of the coverage, reports the Times. In contrast, the Florida Senate voted to increase their health care premiums to $50 a month for individual coverage and $180 for a family, saving taxpayers $47,000 a year, according to Action News. Monday Weatherford acknowledged the large discrepancy in an official statement: "We are aware of the differences in what House members pay compared to other state employees for health insurance and are looking forward to addressing it next session." In April the GOP-controlled House approved a limited health care bill that would provide health coverage to about 115,000, as reported by the Tampa tribune, by using $237 million in state funds to give recipients $2,000 a year to choose their own private insurance plans. Critics decried the plan's high deductibles that many needy families could not afford as well as the fact that the plan's $25 monthly premium was three times what House members pay themselves. Think Progress points out that under the proposed plan, qualifying families making $11,000 or less a year would be asked to spend $300 a year for health care premiums. Compare that to House members who receive a part-time salary of $30,000 and have to spend only $96 a year for individual coverage. Not only are most Florida representatives paying very little for state-subsidized health care, House members as well as state senators have also been approved for raises and bonuses next year. Meanwhile the House and Senate ended their 2013 legislative session without voting on Medicaid expansion, leaving over a million state residents without health insurance. Democrats are currently calling on Governor Rick Scott to hold a special session to address Medicaid expansion.

Many of you soon-to-be college graduates are determined to make the world a better place. Some of you are choosing careers in public service or joining nonprofits or volunteering in your communities. But many of you are cynical about politics. You see the system as inherently corrupt. You doubt real progress is possible. "What chance do we have against the Koch brothers and the other billionaires?" you've asked me. "How can we fight against Monsanto, Boeing, JP Morgan, and Bank of America? They buy elections. They run America." Let me remind you: Cynicism is a self-fulfilling prophesy. You have no chance if you assume you have no chance. "But it was different when you graduated," you say. "The sixties were a time of social progress." You don't know your history. When I graduated in 1968, the Vietnam War was raging. Over half a million American troops were already there. I didn't know if I'd be drafted. A member of my class who spoke at commencement said he was heading to Canada and urged us to join him. Two months before, Martin Luther King Jr. had been assassinated. America's cities were burning. Bobby Kennedy had just been gunned down. George ("segregation forever") Wallace was on his way to garnering 10 million votes and carrying five southern states. Richard Nixon was well on his way to becoming president. America was still mired in bigotry. I remember a classmate who was dating a black girl being spit on in a movie theater. The Supreme Court had only the year before struck down state laws against interracial marriage. My entire graduating class of almost 800 contained only six young black men and four Hispanics. I remember the girlfriend of another classmate almost dying from a back-alley abortion, because safe abortions were almost impossible to get. I remember a bright young woman law school graduate in tears because no law firm would hire her because she was a woman. I remember one of my classmates telling me in anguish that he was a homosexual, fearing he'd be discovered and his career ruined. The environmental movement had yet not been born. Two-thirds of America's waterways were unsafe for swimming or fishing because of industrial waste and sewage. I remember rivers so polluted they caught fire. When the Cuyahoga River went up in flames Time Magazine described it as the river that "oozes rather than flows," in which a person "does not drown but decays." In those days, universal health insurance was a pipe dream. It all seemed pretty hopeless. I assumed America was going to hell. And yet, reforms did occur. America changed. The changes didn't come easily. Every positive step was met with determined resistance. But we became better and stronger because we were determined to change. When I graduated college I would not have believed that in my lifetime women would gain rights over their own bodies, including the legal right to have an abortion. Or women would become chief executives of major corporations, secretaries of state, contenders for the presidency. Or they'd outnumber men in college. I would not have imagined that eleven states would allow gays and lesbians to marry, and a majority of Americans would support equal marriage rights. Or that the nation would have a large and growing black middle class. It would have seemed beyond possibility that a black man, the child of an interracial couple, would become President of the United States. I would not have predicted that the rate of college enrollment among Hispanics would exceed that of whites. Or that more than 80 percent of Americans would have health insurance, most of it through government. I wouldn't have foreseen that the Cuyahoga River -- the one that used to catch fire regularly -- would come to support 44 species of fish. And that over half our rivers and 70 percent of bays and estuaries would become safe for swimming and fishing. Or that some 200,000 premature deaths and 700,000 cases of chronic bronchitis would have been prevented because the air is cleaner. Or that the portion of children with elevated levels of lead in their blood would have dropped from 88 percent to just over 4 percent. I would not have believed our nation capable of so much positive change. Yet we achieved it. And we have just begun. Widening inequality, a shrinking middle class, global warming, the corruption of our democracy by big money - all of these, and more, must be addressed. To make progress on these -- and to prevent ourselves from slipping backwards -- will require no less steadfastness, intelligence, and patience than was necessitated before. The genius of America lies in its resilience and pragmatism. We believe in social progress because we were born into it. It is our national creed. Which is to say, I understand your cynicism. It looks pretty hopeless. But, believe me, it isn't. Not if you pitch in. ROBERT B. REICH, Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including the best sellers "Aftershock" and "The Work of Nations." His latest is an e-book, "Beyond Outrage," now available in paperback. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause.

Joan Walsh, SalonFirst things first: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton never said "Who cares?" about how four Americans died in Benghazi. Sen. John McCain either misspoke or flat-out lied about that on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday."Remember when she said, "˜well who cares how this happened,' in a rather emotional way?" McCain asked guest host Martha Raddatz. "A lot of people care." It's too bad Raddatz didn't tell the senator that no, she didn't remember that "“ because Clinton...

Elizabeth Warren does great email. One payoff of my pittance of a contribution to her grass-roots funded campaign -- I regret not contributing more -- is that I am regularly alerted by the new Massachusetts senator to the favoritism of our Congress toward Wall Street. That's how I was reminded this week that Congress is about to let the interest rate charged for new student loans double to 6.8 percent at a time when the too-big-to-fail banks that caused the Great Recession continue to be bailed out at the rate of 0.75 percent. Yes, the banks pay less than 1 percent for money that we the taxpayers lend them. I know that such statistics are thought to be boring, but as Warren explained, the rate that students will have to pay "is nine times higher than the rate at which the government loans money to the big banks." The student loan interest rate that had been temporarily cut in half back in 2007 was once again set to double, but instead of pushing for the status quo as Congress did last year, Warren has upped the ante with legislation that would cut the student loan rate way down to the near zero that the big banks enjoy. As Warren put it in her characteristically no bull style: "The federal government is profiting off loans to our young people while giving a far better deal to the same Wall Street banks that crashed our economy and destroyed millions of jobs. That's why I've introduced the Bank on Students Loan Fairness Act as my first bill in the Senate: To allow students to borrow money at the same rate as the biggest banks. ... Why should the big banks get a nearly-free ride while people trying to get an education pay nine times more?" Warren asked. "It isn't right." The justification of near zero rates of interest for the banks is that they will make loans available that will stoke the economy, but quite the opposite has happened. The banks have been slow to make housing and business loans while feathering their own nests with outsized executive bonuses and costly acquisitions of other financial institutions. In contrast, student loans amounting to more than $1 trillion exceed the total outstanding credit card debt in the U.S. and represent a major contributor to consumer purchasing power. Students actually spend their loan money on surviving as consumers in a tight economy, while learning skills needed for the economy of the future. On the other hand, the already too-big-to-fail banks have used the government's free money to become even more obscenely powerful. Then, too, the federal government's enormous subsidy to the banks extends far beyond the provision of low-interest money. The so-called quantitative easing program, now reaching into the trillions of dollars of government subsidy, continues at the astounding rate of $85 billion in Federal Reserve expenditures every month to take toxic assets off the books of the banks and to otherwise float the very financial institutions that, as Warren never tires of pointing out, caused the great meltdown of our economy. How astonishing to have a public servant who actually cares to inform the public about the inner workings of the system of crony capitalism that has wedded big government with big business. This comes at the expense of the free market that corporate lobbyists delight in invoking as an ideal while they subvert it as a reality. Those seeking to join Warren in taking a stand on behalf of students attempting to survive in an economy that the bankers have come close to destroying should get behind her bill. Unless Congress acts, student loan rates will automatically double in less than two months. They should also heed Warren's call to aid the campaign of Ed Markey to fill the other Senate seat from Massachusetts made available by the resignation of John Kerry to become secretary of state. As a long serving member of the House, Markey distinguished himself by being a leader in the battle against the radical deregulation of Wall Street. Markey, as early as 1992 when he was chairman of the House subcommittee on telecommunications and finance, sounded the alarm on the danger of the unregulated derivatives in housing mortgages and other collateralized debt obligations that ended up causing the Great Recession. It would be great if Massachusetts, the home of the real tea party revolt, could now elect a second senator with a powerfully informed record of serving the consumer interest. As Warren put it, "Ed will fight for accountability on Wall Street -- to end 'Too Big to Fail' and 'Too Big to Jail' once and for all." She could use Markey's help, and so could we.

When Angelenos go to the polls next week to choose the next mayor of Los Angeles, they also will be the largest electorate to vote on a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling. Proposition C is a ballot measure urging Congress to pass a constitutional amendment to overturn the 2010 Supreme Court Citizens United ruling, which says that restriction of political spending by corporations or labor unions violates free speech. The ballot measure states that there should be limits on political campaign spending and that "corporations should not have the constitutional rights of human beings." It instructs "Los Angeles elected officials and area legislative representatives to promote that policy through amendments to the United States Constitution." The campaign for the proposition is being led by political watchdog Common Cause, in partnership with the California Public Interest Research Group and the Money Out/Voters In Coalition. Common Cause began a campaign in November to get cities and states to pass ballot measures instructing Congress to support a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. So far, Montana, Colorado and more than 175 cities, including Chicago, San Francisco, and more than half the cities in Massachusetts, have passed such measures by a popular vote. The LA proposition has been endorsed by both mayoral candidates, Councilman Eric Garcetti and Controller Wendy Greuel; by the LA Coalition of Neighborhood Councils; and by dozens of organizations and elected officials. It received a "yes" endorsement from the LA Daily News and La Opinion. The Los Angeles Times, though critical of the Citizens United ruling, has encouraged a "no" vote on Prop C, saying the wording of the measure is "vague and question-begging." "Take the sweeping assertion that corporations 'do not have the constitutional rights of human beings.' Would that 'instruction' be limited to political speech, or would it also tell members of Congress that they should feel free to strip businesses of other protections, such as freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures and the right to due process in civil lawsuits?," the Times wrote. "What about media corporations? Would magazines and newspapers still have the right to endorse candidates?" David Burke, civil litigation attorney who has worked with the Money Out/Voters In Coalition in LA, said he thinks the Times is misguided. "The Times' concerns about curtailing corporate Fourth Amendment rights or limiting media organizations are fear-induced hypotheticals," Burke told HuffPost. "Laws limiting political spending have traditionally carved out exceptions for newspapers and other media organizations. Proposition C may not spell out every step on the road to getting big money out of politics, but it is absolutely a step in the right direction." Like the Times, Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California at Irvine School of Law, thinks the language of Prop C is too broad. While he does not think corporations should have free speech rights, he said to HuffPost, "Corporations clearly have -- and should have -- constitutional rights. Taking of property by the government, for example, triggers constitutional protections including from a corporation." Beyond just the wording, Chemerinsky opposes Prop C as a futile effort. "A constitutional amendment has zero chance of being passed and enacted," he said. "There are many things legislatures -- Congress, state legislatures, city councils -- could do to reduce the effects of Citizens United. I think the effort to amend the Constitution diverts focus and energy from the possible legislative changes." Over the past two years, 17 bills to pass a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United have been proposed by members of Congress. None have made it to the floor for a vote. The method by which all 27 U.S. constitutional amendments have been added in the past requires two-thirds approval in both the House and Senate and then approval by three-fourths of the states. "If you believe that corporations are people and that unlimited campaign spending is the same as free speech, then vote No on C," Derek Cressman, director of the Common Cause Campaign to Reverse Citizens United, told HuffPost. "This is voters best chance to send a strong message to Congress and the Supreme Court."

George Will, Washington Post"He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavored to ."‰."‰. cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.""” Article II, Section 1, Articles of Impeachment against Richard M. Nixon, adopted by the House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974The burglary occurred in 1972, the climax came in 1974, but 40 years ago this week "” May 17, 1973 "” the Senate...

Mollie Hemingway, USA TodayWhen President Barack Obama was asked about the murder trial of Philadelphia abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell, he said "I can't comment on it because it's an active trial."Now that a jury has found Gosnell guilty on three first-degree murder charges for infants he delivered before snipping their spinal cords, one involuntary manslaughter charge in the botched abortion death of Karnamaya Mongar, and 21 counts of illegal late-term abortions, we can find out what Obama thinks about the case and the country's abortion culture.

Michelle Goldberg, The Daily BeastThe conviction of Kermit Gosnell on three counts of first degree murder, one count of involuntary manslaughter, and hundreds of lesser charges should make it very clear that the horrors he committed in his squalid West Philadelphia clinic were illegal. This should be crushingly obvious, but it’s been ignored by the right-wing pundits who have tried to turn this deeply disturbing case into an argument against legal abortion.

The Truth-o-Meter says: Mostly False | Jay Carney says Susan Rice didn't play down terrorist involvement in Benghazi Journalists peppered President Barack Obama’s press secretary, Jay Carney, with a series of tough questions about Benghazi at a White House press briefing on May 10, 2013.  The incident, in which four Americans were killed at two U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, was the topic at a congressional hearing on May 8. Members of Congress have criticized how the administration handled the Sept. 11, 2012, incident, both in the immediate aftermath and in the months since. One of the issues receiving the most attention is whether, or to what extent, Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice misled ... >> More

Last week a great theological debate broke out in the world's greatest deliberative body. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island rose on the floor of the U.S. Senate to challenge the remark of an unidentified fellow senator, whom, he said, told him that God would not allow humanity to ruin the planet. Putting the responsibility squarely back on us, Whitehouse insisted that if God created the Earth, "We must also believe that God gave us our human powers of intellect and reason. He gives us these powers so that we his children can learn and understand earth's natural laws." The debate, as it turns out, is more than academic: Someone with godlike powers -- God or otherwise -- is reshaping the planet as we know it. The evidence keeps piling up. Climatologists are now reporting for the first time ever that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has reached 400 ppm, the highest such concentration in several million years. The last time carbon dioxide levels were that high, the seas ultimately rose 60 to 80 feet higher than they are today. The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) warned a few days ago that the loss of vital habitats is threatening large numbers of migratory birds with extinction, and as dramatized by a recent National Geographic documentary, we are well on our way to wiping out African elephants. And it is not just elephants that are on the fast track to oblivion. Within the lifetimes of children being born today, humanity may preside over the virtual extinction of lions, tigers, rhinos, polar bears, and countless other mammals. Scientists writing for the journal of Nature Climate Change recently estimated that 57 percent of plants and 34 percent of animal species were likely to lose about half or more of their habitats by the 2080s if nothing more is done to limit greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. In short, the human juggernaut, now 7.1 billion people strong, is on a roll, and it is destroying or changing much of the world around us. For those who must see it to believe it, Google last week released some jaw-dropping, time-lapsed videos vividly illustrating the impact that climate change and humanity are having on the planet. The satellite images only date back to 1984, but they show just how fast the glaciers are shrinking and urban areas are expanding. To anyone who believes that we have it in our power to destroy much of life as we have known it on this planet, it's an alarming picture of what many scientists are now calling the Anthropocene Epoch, or the Age of Man. God or nature may have given us "dominion" over "all the earth," including fish, fowl, cattle, and "every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth," but surely neither God nor nature have given us license to extinguish all of the above. For centuries we have been vigorously exploiting God's creation, now we must become its steward... before it is too late. Over a century ago, when our impact on the planet was a fraction of what it is today, the poet Matthew Arnold wrote, "The will is free, strong is the Soul, and wise, and beautiful; the seeds of godlike power are in us still; Gods are we, Bards, Saints, Heroes, if we will." When Arnold wrote those words, they were intended to be inspirational. Today, when we reflect on what our "godlike power" is actually doing to the planet, they should inspire caution. For unless we change course, our descendants may see as gods, but they will not see as saints and heroes; they will see as plunderers and wastrels. Science, technology, and our ever expanding numbers may have endowed us with godlike power, but it's only great to have that power if we exercise it with godlike discretion. So far, not so good.

The American Civil Liberties Union and other human rights groups on Monday called on Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to halt the force-feeding of hunger-striking Guantanamo detainees. In a letter addressed to Hagel, the organizations describe the process being used to deliver nutrients to 29 of the 100 prisoners who are currently protesting by not eating: The force-feeding process is inherently cruel, inhuman, and degrading. The prisoner is strapped into a chair with restraints on his legs, arms, body, and sometimes head, immobilizing him. A tube is inserted up his nostril, and snaked down his throat into his stomach. A liquid nutritional supplement is then forced down the tube. The prisoner is restrained in the chair for upwards of two hours to prevent him from vomiting. As Guantánamo hunger-striker Samir Naji al Hasan Moqbel explained recently: “I can’t describe how painful it is to be force-fed this way. As it was thrust in, it made me feel like throwing up. I wanted to vomit, but I couldn’t. There was agony in my chest, throat and stomach. I had never experienced such pain before.” 1 Debilitating risks of force-feeding include major infections, pneumonia, collapsed lungs, heart failure, post-traumatic stress disorder and other psychological trauma. Military officials confirmed the controversial process on Monday, saying that they had been managing the hunger strikers in that manner since March. The letter went on to claim that the military's handling of the hunger strike violates the Geneva Conventions and could be considered "torture" under some treaties. It also asked Hagel to investigate and to rectify any "abusive conditions and treatment" outside of the hunger strike. As of Monday, five of the 29 detainees being force-fed were being treated in the hospital. As HuffPost's Ryan J. Reilly reported in April, many of the hunger-strikers have turned to this extreme form of protest because they don't have any other options and feel they will die in the facility: Eleven years after the first prisoners arrived at Guantanamo, 166 remain, with no end in sight. More than half -- 86 -- have been cleared for transfer to other countries, but the process has been snarled by a mix of congressionally imposed restrictions and executive branch inaction. Even if President Barack Obama did have the power to close Guantanamo unilaterally, doing so would not necessarily mean that the detainees would be set free in other countries. William Lietzau, the top detainee policy official at the Pentagon, told The New York Times recently that he doesn’t believe the number of detainees being held without charges would “change radically,” even if legislative restrictions were removed. President Barack Obama addressed the hunger strike at a press conference in April, saying that he didn't "want these individuals to die." He went on to maintain that he still wants to close the prison, a goal he promised to accomplish during his first year in the White House. As critics have noted, however, Obama has not even used the powers he has to scale back the number of prisoners held at Guantanamo.

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- A gay teacher challenging her firing by an Ohio Catholic school says the local union for Catholic educators has decided not to proceed with her complaint. Carla Hale said Monday the grievance committee for the Central Ohio Association of Catholic Educators isn't supporting her efforts to get back her job as a physical-education teacher. The association hasn't returned telephone calls seeking comment. Hale also filed a complaint with the city of Columbus, which prohibits firings based on sexual orientation. Hale says she was fired from Bishop Watterson High School after her partner's name was revealed in her mother's published obituary and someone complained. Bishop Frederick Campbell says Hale was fired not because of her sexual orientation but because she violated the church's moral teaching by having what he describes as a "quasi-spousal relationship" with a woman.

Ted Nugent might be a controversy-courting, ultra-conservative lighting rod, but he's a pretty effective one. The National Rifle Association board member and anti-President Barack Obama campaigner posted a new column on conservative site WorldNetDaily last week, laying out his "Nuge Immigration Plan (NIP)." NIP allows for undocumented immigrants to become United States citizens, but only after five years of indentured servitude, according to Nugent. He writes: The NIP is not an amnesty program. Amnesty is for left-wing mollycoddlers, losers, bureaucrats and hippies. Occupy that. We need a real full-length, undefeatable border fence built. All illegal men in America should be required to work on building the fence, to be completed in one year. We would pay them minimum wage, provide food and shelter, and provide them English and American history classes at night. Everyone wins. Aspiring citizens connected to gangs will not be eligible for NIP and will be subject to deportation, Nugent writes. They must also pass an English fluency test and American history test. "The most racist thing our government does is to print literature in Spanish," Nugent argues, "thereby encouraging people not to learn English and deny themselves all the American Dream has to offer." In the past, Nugent's immigration comments have been consistently extreme. In a 2008 interview Fox News' Sean Hannity, Nugent said he'd like to kill undocumented immigrants "invading" the country. "I'd like to shoot 'em dead," he told the hosts. Similarly, in 2000, Nugent told non-English speakers to leave the country, Media Matters notes. And in 1994, during an interview with Denver music blog Westword, Nugent said the following in reference to Haitian immigrants: "We should put razor wire around our borders and give the finger to any piece of [s***] who wants to come here."

The state of play on the ongoing Benghazi inquiry, in terms of the partisan backbiting, seems to be rather simple. GOP interlocutors on the House Oversight Committee seem to believe that they are on to something important enough to merit continued attention. Their Democratic opponents believe that most of what Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and his colleagues are up to is steeped in politics, and so they are dismissive of the proceedings. I'm a bit different. I feel that there is a worthwhile inquiry to be had and Issa and company are not currently having it. But I'm not dismissive of their efforts because I feel they are rooted purely in politics -- though there's plenty of politics to be had. Rather, I'm dismissive because the current probe is obsessed with matters that haven't managed to journey outside the realm of the superficial. To wit, there seem to be two matters under investigation. The first has to do with whether or not the response offered in what was clearly a dire emergency was adequate. With the benefit that hindsight offers, critics-slash-"whistleblowers" have stepped forward to suggest that the military response was lacking. The Pentagon has officially pushed back on these claims, suggesting that they offered up an according-to-Hoyle response and that they were not in the position to do more than they did. Absent some dynamic, evidence-based break in the case, this is probably going to end up a "he-said/another he-said" argument that won't be resolved until such time as the military has another emergency to which to respond, at which point maybe one side will prove to have been correct. Or not! The other critical track the inquiry is on involves inter- and intra-agency memo-mummery. What talking points got changed and why. What low-level functionary took the blame so that principals didn't end up looking embarrassed. How much energy was spent on a State Department-wide cover-your-ass effort, and how it compares to the energy spent on properly and efficiently disclosing the relevant information to the public. (A third thing that is being investigated is how well prepared the State Department was to deal with the predictable contingency of an attack on their facilities. There, we have consensus: the State Department was not well prepared and the State Department officially agrees. Thomas Pickering, who ran the State Department's Accountability Review Board, concluded that the "changing situation in Benghazi was not understood either on the ground, or in Washington to the degree to which it represented a danger." If that's the State Department's official consensus on the matter, the only thing left to do is determine which lawmaker can shout the loudest about it.) That said, there's no doubt that all of the agency ass-covering is bad and embarrassing, and I wish that governmental culture in the United States was vastly different from the way it is. But the reason I cited Kris Belisle's explanation of how Washington works the other day ("The number one goal of most agencies is, frankly, to try and make the principal [Washington-speak for the head of the agency] look good, no matter what the actual facts are, even if it means lying to or misleading the press") was to make a point about how hopelessly prevalent this aspect of governmental culture is. If you strip all government agencies down to their constants, through some sort of regression analysis, what you will be left with is bad lighting, indoor plumbing, and a small army of bureaucrats striving to shield their superiors from cock-ups. The one thing, of course, that makes Benghazi stand out from all the rest is the fact that four Americans are dead. But their deaths did not come about because the State Department engaged in the aforementional CYA mission. Rather, their deaths are a natural consequence of the fact that the United States intervened in Libya in the first place. And if we're going to continue a Benghazi inquiry, we should do so in a way that questions the wisdom of the intervention itself. Clearly there is reason to believe it was very unwise. But it's the original policy of Libyan intervention that deserves to be litigated -- not the after-the-fact bureaucratic touch fouls. Of course, the reason we shan't be litigating the policy is fairly obvious -- many of Benghazi's critics are simultaneously in favor of a similar intervention in Syria. Many of the same conditions present in Libya are present there as well, chief among them being a sketchy "rebel" force that includes many fighters who are just as happy harming Americans as they are battling the Assad regime. The primary difference is that an intervention on Syria would be much harder to pull off. If we actually took a searing look at the Libyan intervention itself, the dubiety of such an intervention in Syria would be more pronounced. But that's not what's happening and so it's hardly a shock that, with Syria, we have similar calls for a "no-fly zone" and "arming the rebels" in a way that ensures that only the "right" rebels get arms, all of which is supposed to be pulled off without having to put "boots on the ground." The mental disconnect between all the anger-banging about Benghazi and the screeching for more intervening in Syria reached an apotheosis on ABC News' "This Week," when Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) seamlessly transitioned from calling Benghazi a "cover-up" to insisting that U.S. forces should intervene in such a way that allow Syrian rebels to have their own "Benghazi." And, yes, that is precisely what McCain proposed, without so much as a trace of irony (emphasis mine): MARTHA RADDATZ: But how do you keep out good rebels, and bad rebels? You've got al-Qaeda rebels, running around... JOHN MCCAIN: Thank you. Martha, these are legitimate questions you're asking. But they are there. And you put them inside Syria, they then have a Benghazi. Then they have a place to organize, to -- to identify the right people. These Jihadists aren't -- there aren't that many of them, they're just so good. Because they've been fighting all over the Middle East for all these years, and they're not afraid to die. But we could still organize a legitimate and non-Jihadist group that are already there. Because it worked out so spectacularly the last time. [Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not?]

ST. PAUL, Minn. -- The Minnesota Senate voted Monday to make gay marriage legal, the last legislative step before Gov. Mark Dayton's promised signature will make the state the 12th in the U.S. to do so. The Senate vote of 37-30 came four days after the House passed the bill on a 75-59 vote. A cheer erupted in the chamber after the vote was announced, and spectators in a small gallery area stood and applauded. Minnesota will become the first state in the Midwest to make gay marriage legal via a legislative vote. Iowa legalized same-sex marriage in 2009 through a court ruling. Last week, Dayton, a Democrat, called the bill "one of those society-changing breakthrough moments." Aides said he was likely to sign the legislation in a ceremony Tuesday evening on the front steps of the Capitol in St. Paul. Under the legislation, gay couples will be able to get married starting on Aug. 1. It's a rapid turnaround for gay marriage backers, who just six months ago had to organize a massive effort to defeat a constitutional amendment that would have banned gay marriage. The groups who defeated the amendment quickly turned their attention to legalizing gay marriage, and their efforts were aided by Democrats capturing full control of state government in November. In the last week and a half, Rhode Island and Delaware became the 10th and 11th states to legalize gay marriage. In Illinois, a gay marriage bill has cleared the state Senate but awaits a House vote. The House vote last Thursday drew more than a thousand demonstrators representing both sides of the issue. Supporters of gay marriage say they just want same-sex couples to have the same legal protections and societal validation that straight couples get with marriage. Opponents say gay marriage undermines an important societal building block that benefits children, and also exposes people opposed on moral grounds to charges of bigotry.