Political MoJo

What We Know So Far About the Newspaper Massacre in Paris

| Wed Jan. 7, 2015 10:01 AM EST
An injured person is evacuated from the offices of the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris on Wednesday.

This story is developing, and being updated below.

Hooded gunmen carrying automatic weapons opened fire at the offices of French satirical publication Charlie Hebdo on Wednesday, killing at least 12 people and seriously injuring 10. The Guardian is reporting that three attackers are still at large, after they were seen escaping in a car.

French President François Hollande said the shooting was "undoubtedly a terrorist attack." France has since raised its terror alert to the highest level.

According to several news reports, the gunmen were heard shouting "we have avenged the Prophet Muhammad" as they stormed into the magazine's offices armed with Kalashnikov rifles. Charlie Hebdo, a newspaper known for its caustic, no-holds-barred cartoons, has previously sparked ire from some Muslims for its satirical take on Islam, including several caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad. (The publication of the likeness of the prophet is forbidden under Islam). In 2011, the magazine was firebombed after publishing an issue "guest-edited" by the prophet. 

President Barack Obama and German Chancellor Angela Merkel have both condemned Wednesday's attack. 

Several prominent cartoonists, including Jean Cabut and the magazine's editor in chief, Stephane Charbonnier, were among those killed. 

Since news broke of the attack this morning, the hashtag #JesuisCharlie has been spreading on Twitter in support of the victims. The US Embassy in France also changed their Twitter profile photo to include the hashtag. 

Cartoonists around the world have also shown their solidarity with Charlie Hebdo with powerful images:

Update: Thursday, January 8, 2015, 8:30 a.m. EST: Two suspects believed to be behind the deadly Paris attack, Said and Cherif Kouachi, remain at large. A third suspect, Hamyd Mourad, surrendered to authorities. 

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Elizabeth Warren Slams GOP for Hypocritical Push on Keystone XL

| Tue Jan. 6, 2015 5:44 PM EST

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is attacking Republicans for trying to force the Obama administration to approve the Keystone XL pipeline while simultaneously promising Democrats a renewed spirit of bipartisanship in Congress.

"There's going to be an energy hearing on Wednesday, and right now, the Republicans say they're going to move forward on the Keystone pipeline," Warren said Monday. "If we're going to move forward on something how about something that more of us can agree on?"

"A bill that's about energy conservation, energy efficiency, and about jobs and has strong bipartisan support. There is a place we can start." 

Separately, Warren told the editorial board of MassLive.com that the GOP's push for Keystone belied the party's purported eagerness to work with Democrats. "This tells me that with the Republican rhetoric that they are going to find things for us to work together on—their actions don't match their words."

Warren's criticisms came a day before the White House formally announced that President Obama will veto legislation forcing his hand on the pipeline. Senate Democrats have previously expressed confidence that Republicans would be unable to override a veto.

"I think there will be enough Democratic votes to sustain the president’s veto,” Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) told CBS's Face the Nation Sunday.

During last month's end-of-year press conference, the president signaled his skepticism over the pipeline's purported advantages for Americans, calling it a "nominal" benefit for US consumers and a boon for Canadian oil producers. 

Tea Party Heartthrob Ben Carson Once Lived the Hobo Life Hopping Freight Trains

| Tue Jan. 6, 2015 5:15 PM EST

Before he was a prospective 2016 Republican presidential candidate, Ben Carson was just another disaffected teenager who hopped freight trains in search of thrills.

Carson, a retired neurosurgeon who plans to make a final decision about running for president by the end of May, became a tea party favorite after ripping into President Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast in 2013. Since then, he has staked out far-right positions on issues like gay rights (which he believes are part of a Marxist plot), the AP US History curriculum (which he fears will be an ISIS recruiting tool), and the 2016 election itself (which he believes might be canceled due to a societal breakdown).

Carson's rags-to-riches story, as a one-time juvenile delinquent raised by a single mom who rose to the top of the medical profession, is at the core of his personal appeal. It has been the subject of a best-selling book and a feature-length movie. His youthful habit of hopping aboard moving freight trains is considerably less well known. But as Carson explained in his 2008 book, Take the Risk, he and his older brother, Curtis, began riding freight trains after moving back to Detroit from Boston for middle school:

We didn't think twice about it at the time, and Mother certainly didn't know about the risks we took, but just getting to and from school in our new neighborhood was a dangerous proposition. The fastest and most exciting way to commute was to hop one of the freight trains rolling on the tracks that ran alongside the route Curtis and I took to Wilson Junior High School. Curtis liked the challenge of fast-moving trains, tossing his clarinet onto one flatcar and then jumping to catch the railing on the very last car of the train. He knew if he missed his chance, he risked never seeing his band instrument again. But he never lost that clarinet.

Since I was smaller, I usually waited for slower trains. But we both placed ourselves in great danger we didn't ever seriously stop to consider. Not only did we have to run, jump, catch the railing, and hold on for dear life to a moving freight train, but we had to avoid the railroad security who were always on the lookout for people hopping their trains.

They never caught us. And we never got seriously injured like one boy we heard of who was maimed for life after falling onto the tracks under a moving train.

As I reported in the January/February issue of Mother Jones, freight-hopping has always attracted a certain brand of (usually male) individualists who are skeptical of centralized authority. Carson's Bo Keeley phase came to an end, however, after a run-in with a gang of racist youths. "We stopped after an encounter I had with a different threat as I trotted along the railroad tracks on my way to school along one morning," he wrote. "Near one of the crossings, a gang of bigger boys, all of them white, approached me. One boy, carrying a big stick, yelled, 'Hey, you! Nigger boy!'"

If elected, Carson wouldn't be the first president with a hobo past. When Harry Truman was 18, he got a job with the Santa Fe Railroad, which required him to manage the migrant workers who rode the rails to do manual labor for the company. "Some of those hoboes had better educations than the president of Harvard University, and they weren't stuck up about it either," he later recalled.

RIP Mario Cuomo

| Thu Jan. 1, 2015 9:10 PM EST

Former three-term governor of New York Mario Cuomo died Thursday, the same day his son Andrew was inaugurated to a second term of his own as governor of the Empire State.

Here is Mario Cuomo's famous speech criticizing Ronald Reagan from the 1984 Democratic Convention.

These Charts Show How Ronald Reagan Actually Expanded the Federal Government

| Tue Dec. 30, 2014 7:15 AM EST

One of the many, many problems Jeb Bush faces in his quest for the Oval Office is his break from Republican orthodoxy on president Ronald Reagan's legacy. In 2012, Bush told a group of reporters that, in today's GOP, Reagan "would be criticized for doing the things that he did"— namely, working with Democrats to pass legislation. He added that Reagan would struggle to secure the GOP nomination today.

Bush was lambasted by fellow conservatives for his comments, but he had a point: If you judge him by the uncompromising small government standards of today's GOP, Reagan was a disaster. Here are a few charts that show why.

Under Reagan, the national debt almost tripled, from $907 billion in 1980 to $2.6 trillion in 1988:

Reagan ended his 1988 farewell speech with the memorable line, "man is not free unless government is limited." The line is still a rallying cry for the right wing, but the speech came at the end of a long period of government expansion. Under Reagan, the federal workforce increased by about 324,000 to almost 5.3 million people. (The new hires weren't just soldiers to fight the communists, either: uniformed military personnel only accounted for 26 percent of the increase.) In 2012, the federal government employed almost a million fewer people than it did in the last year of Reagan's presidency.

Instead of praising Reagan's small government philosophy, maybe Republicans should look to Bill Clinton's action for guidance. By the end of Clinton's second terms, the federal workforce was at its smallest size in decades.

The Cost of US Wars Since 9/11: $1.6 Trillion

| Tue Dec. 23, 2014 7:15 AM EST
Marine Infantry Officer Course students stand by before a helicopter drill in Arizona.

The cost of US war-making in the 13 years since the September 11 terrorist attacks reached a whopping $1.6 trillion in 2014, according to a recent report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).

The $1.6 trillion in war spending over that time span includes the cost of military operations, the training of security forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, weapons maintenance, base support, reconstruction, embassy maintenance, foreign aid, and veterans' medical care, as well as war-related intelligence operations not tracked by the Pentagon. The report tracks expenses through September, the end of the government's 2014 fiscal year. Here's a breakdown of where most of that money went:

The key factor determining the cost of war during a given period over the last 13 years has been the number of US troops deployed, according to the report. The number of troops in Afghanistan peaked in 2011, when 100,000 Americans were stationed there. The number of US armed forces in Iraq reached a high of about 170,000 in 2007.

Although Congress enacted across-the-board spending cuts in March 2013, the Pentagon's war-making money was left untouched. The minimal cuts, known as sequestration, came from the Defense Department's regular peacetime budget. The Pentagon gets a separate budget for fighting wars.

In the spending bill that Congress approved earlier this month, lawmakers doled out $73.7 billion for war-related activities in 2015—$2.3 billion more than President Barack Obama had requested. As Mother Jones' Dave Gilson reported last year, US military spending is on pace to taper far less dramatically in the wake of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars than it did after the end of the Vietnam War or the Cold War.

Other reports have estimated the cost of US wars since 9/11 to be far higher than $1.6 trillion. A report by Neta Crawford, a political science professor at Boston University, estimated the total cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—as well as post-2001 assistance to Pakistan—to be roughly $4.4 trillion. The CRS estimate is lower because it does not include additional costs including the lifetime price of health care for disabled veterans and interest on the national debt.

Chart by AJ Vicens.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

A Majority of Cop Killers Have Been White

| Sun Dec. 21, 2014 9:59 PM EST
Investigators work at the scene where two NYPD officers were shot in the Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood of Brooklyn on Saturday.

As officials continue to investigate Saturday's tragic killing of two NYPD officers, Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos, details have surfaced about the suspect, 28 year old Ismaaiyl Brinsley, who allegedly shot a woman in Baltimore before traveling to New York. Anti-police posts he appears to have published on social media sites prior to the killings have lead many to connect his crime to protests that occurred in previous weeks, and some commenters have cast blame on officials including New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, Attorney General Eric Holder, and President Obama, all of whom have condemned the violence. (Read my colleague Kevin Drum's response to that.) 

But, while every killing of an officer is a tragedy, it is worth noting, as my colleague Shane Bauer reported in the context of another story, assaults and felony killings of police officers in the US are down sharply over the past two decades. Attention has also been focused on Brinsley's race, but FBI data shows that, though African Americans are arrested and incarcerated at a higher rate than whites, the majority of assailants who feloniously killed police officers in the past year were white. 

 

Here Is President Obama's Statement on Today's Tragedy In New York

| Sun Dec. 21, 2014 2:17 AM EST

Two NYPD officers were murdered in cold blood Saturday by a gunman who then killed himself before being apprehended. Details are still sketchy, but New York is at fever pitch right now. Some people are trying to blame this horrendous tragedy on Bill de Blasio, Eric Holder, Barack Obama, and the thousands of protestors who have taken to the streets over the last few weeks to protest the decisions of the Eric Garner and Michael Brown grand juries.

Here's President Obama's statement from tonight making clear that he "unconditionally condemns today's murder of two police officers." The fact that he has to make that clear at all—as though there was a chance he may have been undecided on the issue—is surreal.

 

Watch President Obama Call on Female Reporters for Every Single Question During Friday's Presser

| Fri Dec. 19, 2014 5:12 PM EST

For his final press conference of 2014, President Obama exclusively called on female reporters. The White House had planned it that way:

By the eighth and final question, Obama even appeared to ignore a male reporter's attempt to participate. The result was amazing. Watch below:

Elizabeth Warren: Wall Street Just Got Another Giveaway

| Fri Dec. 19, 2014 4:54 PM EST

Last week, Congress did Wall Street a solid. When lawmakers passed a giant spending bill that funds the government through September, they included a provision written by Citigroup lobbyists that allows banks to make more risky trades with taxpayer-insured money. Then, on Thursday, bankers got another giveaway: The Federal Reserve announced it would delay for up to two years implementation of a crucial section of the Volcker rule—one of the most important regulations to come out of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform bill. The rule generally forbids the high-risk trading by commercial banks that helped cause the financial crisis. The move by the Fed pushes the deadline for banks to comply past the next presidential election and gives Wall Street lobbyists more time to weaken it.

"Less than a week after Wall Street slipped a bailout provision written by Citigroup into the government spending bill, the Fed has given the big banks another victory," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said in a statement Friday.

"It's really hard to see an excuse for this," says Marcus Stanley, the financial policy director at Americans for Financial Reform, an advocacy group.

The Volcker rule ensures that financial institutions don't engage in something called proprietary trading, which is when a bank trades for its own benefit as opposed to for the benefit of its customers. Banks were supposed to comply with the Volcker rule by July 21, 2014. Last year, when banking watchdogs finalized the rule, the Fed granted banks a year-long extension. The Fed's Thursday announcement gives banks another year to get rid of certain investments—including those in private equity firms and hedge funds. The central bank also noted Thursday that it plans to push out the deadline again next year, by another 12 months. That brings the new compliance deadline to July 2017, far past the 2016 election. If the new president is a Republican, he could fill his administration with Wall Street insiders opposed to the rule, making it even easier for lobbyists to gut it.

Before the Volcker rule was finalized last year, the financial industry fought like mad to weaken it. The regulation could slash the total annual profits of the eight largest US banks by up to $10 billion, according to an estimate by Standard & Poor's. Banking reform advocates were fairly happy with way the final reg turned out. But now the financial industry has extra time to take a few more whacks at rule before banks actually have to obey it. "Wall Street’s loophole lawyers and other hired guns will… continue to hit at the rule as if it were a piñata," Dennis Kelleher, the president of the financial reform advocacy group Better Markets, said when regulators completed the rule in 2013.

The Dodd-Frank law already contains a provision allowing banks that will have difficulty getting rid of particular investments before the initial compliance deadline to request an extension from banking regulators. The Fed's announcement yesterday amounts to an unnecessary "blanket" extension, Stanley says. "It's hogwash."