Atlantic Monthly Contributors's Blog, page 1119

Bee Venom Could Prevent HIV Infection

Discovered: Bee venom can be used to neutralize HIV; gambling sites seduce people with free trials; dating in middle school is tied to truancy; a 'dirty blizzard' compounded Deepwater Horizon disaster.

Bee venom can be used to neutralize HIV. Put away your vintage copy of The Swarm. It turns out bees — on top of making delicious honey —  produce an enzyme component, located in their venom, which scientists at Washington University in St. Louis have used to target and kill HIV virions, thus preventing them from infecting cells they come into contact with. The scientists focused on particular toxin called melittin, which can be used to break down cell walls. "The particles preferentially locked onto HIV and delivered their cargo: The venom component [melittin] poked holes in HIV’s protective protein coat, leading to sharply reduced amounts of virus." The odd origin of the key enzyme means pharmaceutical applications are still a way off, though. [Science News]

Gambling sites seduce people with free rounds. There's a reason why certain states want to make online gambling illegal. Flashy sites where you can try gambling for free often lure in users into wasting (and losing) a lot of money, researchers at the University of Adelaide, in Australia, discovered. The sites make early, free rounds easier to play — and more lucrative — in order to deceive users into thinking they possess, and can improve, their gambling skills. "It seems that the practice modes on internet gaming sites provide the illusion that 'practice makes perfect', but in fact, no amount of practice can make you better at chance games like poker machines — their sole purpose is to create profits, to take the players' money," one researcher noted. [University of Adelaide]

Dating in middle school is tied to truancy. Trying to establish a serious relationship with a middle school classmate correlates to higher rates of dropping out and using drugs, a study at the University of Georgia indicated. The professor who conducted the study suggested that an early history of dating, arguably a risky activity at young ages, indicates a propensity for other high-risk activities, even at an older age. Why truancy, though? One possibility: if a couple breaks up, they still have to see each other at school — not unlike a messy falling out with a co-worker. "When the couple splits, they have to continue to see each other in class and perhaps witness the ex-partner dating someone else. It is reasonable to think this scenario could be linked to depression and divert attention from studying," the professor said. [Journal of Research on Adolescence]

A 'dirty blizzard' compounded environmental damage after Gulf of Mexico oil spill. New research could help explain the aftermath of the oil spill which followed the 2010 explosion and submersion of Deepwater Horizon, an offshore oil rig stationed in the Gulf of Mexico 40 miled off the coast of Louisiana. Why, in particular, did parts of the water surrounding the rig look so clean as the oil continued to gush from the rig's wellhead? Two scientists at Florida State University think oil particles attached to plankton and quickly sunk to the bottom of the ocean. This "dirty blizzard" theory "explains why layers of water that would normally be cloudy with suspended plankton instead appeared transparent during the spill, except for strings of particles falling to the bottom." [Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative]

 

CPAC's 'Trump the Race Card' Panel Derailed by Actual Segregationist

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — A panel about how conservatives can fight back when liberals call them racists descended into shouting when an actual segregationist joined a CPAC event titled "Trump the Race Card: Are You Sick and Tired of Being Called a Racist and You Know You're Not One?" We're not making any of this up. Led by K. C. Smith and KCarl Smith, two brothers from Birmingham who are black and who call themselves "Frederick Douglass Republicans," the discussion began with their argument that the Republican Party can reach out to blacks, women, Latinos, when it starts talking about the constitutional principles Douglass espoused when he campaigned for Abe Lincoln. It was southern Democrats, after all, who fought for slavery and created Jim Crow laws. The first jeers began when a black woman, who would not give her name, said the idea that liberals are the true racists is ridiculous because so many Southern Democrats defected to the Republican Party. But the madness started when Scott Terry, one of the 23 members of the White Students Union at Towson University in Maryland attending CPAC, raised his hand and suggested the GOP might do better as "Booker T. Washington Republicans" — "united like the hand, but separate like the fingers." ThinkProgress has some video of the exchange.

When the crowd realized what Terry was suggesting, there were wide-eyed looks around the room, including from me. I was sitting two seats down from him, next to Matthew Heimbach, president of the Towson White Students Union. Heimbach, at right, was wearing a rebel flag shirt, a George Wallace button, and beat-up black boots. I was sitting next to Heimbach, because when I got to "Trump the Race Card," there were no seats left. Heimbach was saving two, as his friends were in the bathroom, but another man gruffly said saving seats was not allowed, and pushed the chair toward me. I am very grateful to this man. 

"Trump the Race Card" was one of the very few CPAC panels to directly take on the Republican Party's core problem from the 2012 election: it is very white. KCarl Smith's message was partially about spin, but included some substance (he wants more subsidies for poor kids to get private educations). He told the story of Douglass as a man who escaped slavery and became the wealthy intellectual we celebrate through conservative principles. Speaking to one of the more diverse audiences at CPAC, Smith said that right now, "If you call yourself a black Republican, a black conservative... you might as well call yourself a black racist." Conservative, Republican, Tea Party -- all these words have been tarnished by the left's propaganda. "People will think you're a Bull Connor Conservative, not a Frederick Douglass Republican." The GOP must embrace Douglass as an icon. He was smart, rich, a hard worker, super into the Constitution and Founding Fathers -- plus, "You cannot out-victimize Douglass. Nobody can out-victimize Douglass." Republicans had the true history of promoting racial justice, Smith said. He'd been raised a Democrat, so "I thought George Wallace was a Republican." Then he had an awakening -- even the KKK had been Democrats. "I don't care how much they improve, I'm not joining the KKK!" Big laughs.

A young black woman -- who, again, would not give her name, so let's call her Amy -- did not laugh. "I was at the [Democratic National Convention] in Charlotte and I did not see the KKK advocating for Barack Obama." She was not a popular speaker. Then Chad Chapman, a 21-year-old student at Prince George's Community College who is black, stood to speak. "When are we going to stop seeing ourselves as victims, and when are we going to see ourselves as an opponent?" The white people applauded, making me somewhat uncomfortable. Smith said the Bible says we're all conquerers. 

Then Terry stood to talk. "It seems to me that you're reaching out to voters at the expense of young white southern males like myself." The audience was open, like maybe he would go in a positive direction. He went in a segregationist direction. There was crosstalk, commotion. Smith regained control of the room, talking about Douglass forgiving his slavemaster. The Terry went full troll: "Did he thank him for giving him shelter?" Whoaaaaaaa. "Slavery was not a 'benefit' to black people!" Amy said. More commotion. Smith said "Racism does not have a political face" -- both liberals and conservatives are capable of it. To make a difference, you have to talk to people. "Dr. King interacted and impacted..." Heimbach broke in: "We don't need Marxists in the Republican Party!" "We don't need Marxists anywhere," Smith said. Amy said King was not a Maxist. "Yes he was!" Heimbach said. "Two of his advisors!" Terry joined in.

Smith retook control of the room, and tried to get Amy to ask her question so he could move on. "I am not a conservative," Amy said. "I hope that's not too obvious." Begrudging chuckle from the crowd. "These gentlemen are being disingenuous," she said. The crowd did not like that. A sampling of the cacophony:

Smith: We have a method that works...

Heimbach: Well I have never seen it work!  

Smith: ... See how they're trying to vilify us!

Crowd: Huge applause.

Lady in crowd: [To Amy] We didn't come here for you!

Heimbach: [Quietly] I just want to talk about Barry Goldwater and The National Review...

Finally another man got up to speak. He spoke slowly, and the crowd was tense -- was he another liberal or segregationist? Douglass's pulling himself out of poverty "speaks volumes about what capitalism can do for the poor," the questioner said. Huge applause, and huger relief. But the Smith-Amy-Heimbach trio fell into debate again. Finally Smith got control of the room, and said we should always remember to put Jesus above party.

Afterward, I talked to Heimbach, who was very cheery and clearly enjoying being a troll. In a sense, he and Amy agreed on something: what happened to the Republican Party in the 1960s. (They just have very different takes on whether it was a good thing.) Back then, when writing for The National Review, none other than conservative intellectual icon William F. Buckley said white southerners have a right to be separate, Heimbach said. But today's Republicans are being forced to take an "oath of diversity" that runs counter to that history of supporting states' rights. "I don't believe in slavery or anything like that," Heimbach said. But he became a member of the "white dissident right" because "I came to realize over time by reading Republicans of the 60s and 70s that the right-wing is lying to itself." As for Smith's talk, "Republicans did switch their policies in the 60s and 70s.... Dixiecrats did switch parties." To say they didn't "doesn't' jibe with history." He doesn't want to be called racist, though. That term was invented by the Bolsheviks. 

Afterward, I turned to Chapman, who really wanted to speak with Heimbach. Chapman decided to call himself a Frederick Douglass Republican. He was unsettled by the shouting. "When people disagree, they go off the deep end," he said. And what about the way in which the liberal and the segregationist seemed to agree? "Weird."

Anthony Weiner Is Serious Enough About Running for Mayor to Spend $100,000

Anthony "Disgraced Congressmember" Weiner has filed initial paperwork with the City of New York, suggesting that he has already spent about $115,000 toward a bid for Mayor.

This isn't entirely a surprise. Last summer, rumors began to circulate that Weiner was planning a comeback. Nor is it a surprise that he'd aim for the city's top job. Before Mayor Michael Bloomberg finagled a third term in 2009, Weiner's name was mentioned among the possible top candidates for the job. The intervening years, of course, have not been kind to the one-time Democratic star. Or, rather, Twitter hasn't been.

So what did Weiner spend money on? According to the filing, five things: rent, taxes, phones, polling, and consulting.

It's the polling that's most interesting. The poll (or polls) were performed by California-based David Binder Research — the same firm to which Weiner paid $52,500 for consulting and "research." The polling cost a similar amount, $54,000.

If you're curious what 54 grand gets you in polling, the answer is: a lot. It would need to. There are two things Weiner needs to find out, and a lot of things he wants to find out. He needs to find out if he has any shot in Hell and, if so, how he stacks up against the opposition. He wants to find out how that breaks down by borough and demographic group, how various messages might work to persuade people he deserves a second change, possible language he could use to undermine the competition. He'd need to do reasonably big samples of voters in at least four of the boroughs — Manhattan, the Bronx, Queens, and Brooklyn. Two things contribute to the cost of polls: the number of people you call and the number of questions you ask them. Increasing both could build up a $50,000 tab without much trouble.

At the end of January, people around the city started getting exactly that sort of call. According to the Daily News:

The voter said the survey-taker asked whether he had a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Weiner, who was a mayoral contender until he was forced to resign in 2011 after he got caught sexting women other than his wife and then lying about it.

The pollster was also gauging voters’ opinions of four bona fide mayoral hopefuls on the Democratic side: Public Advocate Bill de Blasio, Controller John Liu, former Controller Bill Thompson and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn.

Which is textbook.

The paper also indicated that Weiner didn't respond to requests for comment. No need anymore. The filing speaks volumes.

Update, 7:53 p.m.: A former colleague points out one strong possibility for that $52,500 in "research" — focus groups.

Woman Behind North Dakota's Abortion Ban Hates Abortion Because Hitler

On Friday, the North Dakota Senate passed two of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country, barring the practice if a doctor can detect a heartbeat and regardless of the presence of any genetic abnormality. Once you meet the bills' sponsor, you'll understand how things got so extreme.

The Associated Press describes what the laws would do:

The measure would ban most abortions if a fetal heartbeat can be detected, something that can happen as early as six weeks into a pregnancy. The House already approved the measure. … The vote came with almost no debate in the Senate and after the same chamber approved another measure that would make North Dakota the first to ban abortions based on genetic defects such as Down syndrome.

North Dakota's measure doesn't specify how a fetal heartbeat would be detected. Doctors performing an abortion after a heartbeat is detected could face a felony charge punishable by up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Women having an abortion would not face charges.

The genetic defects bill also bans sex selection as a rationale for abortion.

Both bills originated in the state House of Representatives, where they passed; both were sponsored by five-term State Representative Bette Grande. The measures comprise one-third of the bills Grande has introduced in the legislature this session, which include:

Resolution commending Israel for its cordial relationship with the United States and North Dakota Divest state funds from companies liable for sanctions under the 1996 Iran Sanctions Act School districts have to publish descriptions of course content for every grade Schools that get state money are under "absolute and exclusive" control of the state The two abortion measures

In previous sessions, Grande has introduced other bills opposing abortion, as well as ones returning tuition to college students if their instructors don't speak English "with good pronunciation," tightening restrictions on prostitution, combatting "corrupt" election practices, barring kids from using tanning salons, celebrating nuclear energy, and, of course, naming February 6 as "Ronald Reagan Day."

A profile of Grande earlier this month identified her as a "a family woman with a broad background and a strong Christian faith," which may not surprise you. Her rationale for the abortion proposals might:

The issues hit close to her, she said, having relatives with children born with a genetic abnormality and seeing an increase in discrimination toward individuals with Down syndrome and other genetic issues.

“It takes you back to Hitler, and we know where that went,” she said. “He started going after those with abnormalities, and I think it’s an absurdity we would go back to that kind of thing.”

The bills that passed on Friday go to Republican Governor Jack Dalrymple for his signature. Dalrymple recently signed a law extending the waiting period before having an abortion, suggesting to many that these bills will also meet with his approval. The Washington Post indicates that his doing so would mark a new stage in the fight over abortion.

The more aggressive wing of the antiabortion movement up until now, has had difficulty gaining traction with it’s “all-or-nothing” approach. A slew of proposed bills to declare life as beginning at conception all failed, most notably in deep red Mississippi.

In 2013, however, they appear to be taking hold.

That may be exactly the point. "Some supporters of the so-called fetal heartbeat measure have said they hope to send a message that North Dakota is anti-abortion," writes the Associated Press. Mission accomplished. And happy belated Ronald Reagan Day.

What Rob Portman Learned

Now that Republican senator Rob Portman's son has come out to him, he supports gay marriage. This makes him the first Republican senator to hold that position. That's great, right? Progress is progress no matter where it happens or who makes it. Portman may have voted for a federal amendment banning gay marriage and a bill banning gay adoption, but that's the past. People, even conservative politicians, are allowed to evolve, and we should welcome them into the fold when they do, because there is strength in numbers. That's the essential truth of this matter. But boy is it hard to feel that way.

Meaning, my initial reaction to this news was anger. Not anger in a terribly aggressive way, more like a bitter sense of having had a suspicion confirmed. The root of this kind of ideological bigotry — people who work to legislate against gay rights, against women's access to fundamental healthcare, against measures that help the poor — is a fundamental lack of compassion, an inability to view something that feels faraway from one's own experience as anything but strange and alien and therefore off-putting or, most callously, as frivolous. People like Portman stridently work against other people's interests until a crucial moment, both shaming and enlightening, when it becomes their interest too. It's good that they ultimately come around on whatever the issue is — "Programs helping the poor are good because I lost all my money." "My teenage daughter is pregnant and in no way prepared to have a baby." — but does it erase the fact of their larger lack of compassion? I'm not sure it does.

Rob Portman's sudden conversion perfectly illustrates the flippant, careless cruelty of the positions he once held. Until gayness in all its complexity and simplicity was staring him right in the face, in the shape of a person he helped create, Portman ultimately did not care about any of the country's gay people. He did not value their love, or the love they might have for their children. He didn't think them deserving of simple rights because he figured their relationships inferior to his own. Who knows how vehement his beliefs actually were, but really that doesn't much matter in the end. And really, if his stances on gay issues were for mere political gain rather than bedrock ideology, that makes it all the worse. In that case, gay people did not even deserve passion in the negative; their causes, their lives really, were meaningless to him, easily dismissed for the sake of political expediency. That's a pretty dark way to behave when you actually stop to think about it.

So Rob Portman did some cold things in the past, and was only able to realize the error of his ways when his own flesh and blood bravely stood up and said "Hey, you're talking about me too." That's what it took. None of the studies, the rallies, the protests, the legal victories, the testimonials, the documentaries, articles, books, plays, movies, television shows or anything could sway him, if we're to take what we learned today at face value. To me that indicates that there's a pretty thick wall separating his political convictions from the rest of the world. And while he maybe changed on this one issue, that does not mean that he is suddenly capable of extending that magnanimity elsewhere. I don't think that anyone is exactly greeting him with open arms, but it's probably still worth saying out loud that we should be wary of people like Portman, because they are policy makers who seemingly cannot project any feeling past their own cloistered experiences, who are only swayed when and if the issue suddenly aligns with their own self-interest. Are those the kind of hearts and minds we want directing national policy? I'm inclined to say no.

And let's not forget that Portman's unwillingness to think and feel beyond his own particular understanding is what is fueling the larger movement against gay rights. (And other causes, of course.) Hopefully an instance like this will remind all of us that even people who have climbed to the topmost echelons of power and access in the United States can still be ignorant to the broader world, many of them determinedly so. That's an important thing to remember, because it clues us into what drives their thinking. Yes, some of it is tied up in religious fervor and panicky squeamishness, but it's also a willful obtuseness, a perpetual act of refusing to work with difference, to respect it in any real way simply because of its difference. It's good that Portman was finally shaken out of his stupor by the simple revelation that difference had been a part of his life all along. But his real redemption will come only if he tries to do the same for those around him.

The Making of a Y.A. Character: A Q&A with Gayle Forman

It would be hard to name my favorite Y.A. book character of all time, and if I had to pick, I would probably reach back in time to one of the fictional heroines I grew up with, because I'm nostalgic like that. But there's no shortage of great Y.A. characters in contemporary novels—a few widely popular examples would be Katniss Everdeen (the heroic everygirl of The Hunger Games) and Augustus Waters and Hazel Grace (the teen couple you fall in love with in The Fault in Our Stars). More recently, there's Allyson Healey, from best-selling author Gayle Forman's latest novel, Just One Day, a love story mixed with a coming-of-age tale mixed with a European travel guide (in the best way possible!).

Allyson is a good girl who's always done what her parents have told her, to the exclusion of figuring out what she really wants for herself. On a European tour with a bunch of high school graduates the summer after her senior year, she has a chance meeting with Willem, an intriguing Dutch guy who's on his own European tour, performing Shakespeare with an underground theater company. There are sparks between the two, and when he asks her to go to Paris with him for the day, she abandons her good-girl Allyson self for a moment and becomes "Lulu," who's not afraid of adventures, or of getting lost. The book covers that one day in Paris, and then, when Willem mysteriously disappears, Allyson's return to the U.S. and her old self—until she can figure out who she really wants to be. (That, fortunately, requires a trip back to Paris.)

Aside from the fact that reading about Paris and love in Paris and macarons in Paris can never be an unpleasant thing, I was totally drawn in by the character of Allyson, who is, it must be said, entirely frustrating at times, when she's closed off and foundering. But she's also relatable, and witnessing her growth is rewarding. If life-changing, self-actualizing experiences don't get you, there's also the compelling mystery of what happens to Willem. (There's a companion book, Just One Year, out in October to tell his story). But how does an author come up with and then wrangle a complicated character like Allyson? I asked the source, Gayle Forman.

What goes into the development of a Y.A. character for you?
Gayle Forman: It's different for every character. If I Stay's Mia, for instance, arrived, fully formed, and she was incredibly strong and centered from the get-go and therefore was able to withstand what I put her through without crumpling into a little ball like the rest of us would. I got to know Mia's history as I wrote but she didn't change.

A character like Just One Day's Allyson is different. Allyson goes on such a journey of transformation, ending in such a different place than she begins, so she grows on the page and I get to know her as I write.

What qualities do you think are most important for a Y.A. heroine to reflect? 
I don't know that I want to imbue my heroines with any particular qualities. I just write them as true to the people I feel they are. (And yes, I consider them people. They are real to me like friends. I certainly spend more time with them than I do my friends.) I suppose I want to write the kind of people I want to be with, so my characters are kind and fallible and thoughtful even as they screw up. And they do screw up. I think my girls are strong, too, but in subtle ways. Sometimes, the greatest act of strength is discovering what lies in you, not coming out punching.

Allyson embodies some contradictory characteristics (like all of us). When she does know what she wants, she's not sure how to get it, and it seems she's willing to repress what she wants out of fear or desire to make others happy. Except, of course, with Willem ...
I wouldn't say Allyson's willing to repress what she wants. I'd say she's spent her whole life repressing what she wants, unknowingly and unwillingly because of the way she was raised. When she meets Willem and goes to Paris, it's a tiny act of rebellion and it cracks open this massive wall she's built around herself.

How did you manage that relationship? 
Writing their relationship was incredibly tricky because I had to have all these balls in the air: Allyson unfurling herself, falling in love with Willem while also being a bit suspicious of him, falling in love with Paris, and Willem seeming to have some growing feelings for Allyson, all the while keeping a lot of things veiled from one another.

What is it about Willem that changes Allyson, or allows her to change herself?
For Allyson, this is a girl who needs to learn how to get lost, and Willem is a boy who knows how to do that. He allows her the spontaneity, but he's also kind of a quirky guy himself in that Allyson can also reveal some of the less Lulu-like sides of her (like not enjoying traveling, or thinking Willem dumped her on the train). Willem reacts to to these admissions without pity or any kind of falseness but just an openness that is exhilarating for Allyson. It's that which lets her "drop the robe" so to speak, be more open and intimate with this stranger who doesn't even know her name than she has with any other person in her life. It's a huge risk for her to take, and it doesn't completely pay off, because he's gone the next day, but it does because sometimes the point of taking a risk is taking a risk.

The points in the book in which she figures out who she needs to be are pretty inspiring. Do you think this kind of realization is necessary for Y.A. characters?
I think every book has moments when characters rise to their occasions. I found Allyson quite frustrating in the beginning. All her self doubt, though I understood it, I wanted her to push past it. But it had to happen slowly, and in bits and starts. I loved her for admitting to Willem that she thought he was a kidnapper. But the real moment for me when Allyson becomes heroic is when she stands between Willem and the skinheads. It's both incredibly brave and stupid and it gets her in trouble, but from that point on, I felt Allyson was heroic, even when she was at her mopiest. Because I had seen what she was capable of.

What's your favorite quality that Allyson exhibits? 
I love that Allyson is both a chickenshit and totally brave. Those contradictory traits we just discussed. I love that she gets all uptight about Willem and jealous but also calls him on his shit (incidentally, Willem likes that too). It takes much more courage to do something you're scared of. Allyson has guts!

What about Willem?
I know lots about Willem now because I've spent the last year with him in his own book, but what I loved about the Willem of Just One Day was that he was so generous, not just in spending money and time but in allowing Allyson all her quirks and allowing himself to be affected by them. Also, he's pretty sexy.

Who is your favorite Y.A. character of all time, and why?
My favorite Y.A. character is probably one of Melina Marchetta's, though it'd be hard to pick who. Maybe Francesca or Tom from The Piper's Son. These are people I would like to be friends with.

Any hints about what's next?
You mean after Just One Year, which is from Willem's point of view and comes out this October? After that, a break. Seriously, I've written three books in two years, which for me is a lot. Oh, what's the third one ...? It's a new standalone, a mystery, a gritty intense love story. And that's all I'm saying about that.

Steubenville's Sudden Immunity Deal Could Break the Defense's Case

In the first two marathon days of the Steubenville rape trial, defense attorneys and Ohio state prosecutors have made it crystal clear that a guilty verdict will hinge on two questions: Did the alleged victim consent to at least two separate sexual assaults? And how impaired was her judgment by alcohol? Heading into a weekend full of dozens of student witnesses and perhaps testimony from the victim herself, a new twist may see a Steubenville football player and the prime suspect's best friend making the best case for the 16-year-old girl yet.

The Big Witnesses

Cleveland's Plain-Dealer has a rundown of who's expected to testify today:

The three witnesses are current and former Steubenville students. One previously testified that he took a nude picture of the teen girl but later deleted it. Another told investigators he took video of the girl in the back of a car, but also deleted it. Also, the reported rape occurred in the basement of his home. A third was present during an infamous video in which people in the basement mock the teen girl.

The two witnesses who deleted the image and video of the girl are also Steubenville students who testified in a key pre-trial hearing of the Steubenville case in October. Mark Cole II is the witness who said he took video of the girl in the back of his Volkswagen Jetta, and the other appears to be Anthony Craig. Both are friends of the accused, Trent Mays and Ma'lik Richmond. The third witness on the docket apparently saw the taping of the now infamous 12-minute video of Michael Nodiaonos making fun of the alleged victim.

Why Mark Cole and Anthony Craig Matter

In January, Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine had suddenly said that, contrary to previous understanding of the case, the three pre-trial witnesses would not have an immunity deal, but that they wouldn't be held legally accountable for their actions in this trial. And so suddenly Cole (pictured at right) didn't want to testify — presumably because of the national attention, ratting out his good friend and quarterback, and, of course, possible criminal follow-up charges. But he just struck an immunity deal, and that may be a big break for a prosecution. 

The October pre-trial statements from the three Steubenville boys — and the continuation of that line of testimony, essentially providing eyewitness details against their friends' defense — may be of paramount importance in the prosecution's assertion that Jane Doe was too drunk to consent. "She wasn't capable of walking on her own and was stumbling as walking," Cole, who played with Mays on Steubenville's Big Red football team, told the court in October, adding that he filmed a video of one part of the alleged assault — when Mays was penetrating Doe with his fingers in his Jetta as Cole, Mays, Richmond, and Jane Doe drove to Cole's house, where he promptly deleted it. "He said, at his house, Mays attempted to get the victim to perform oral sex on Mays," reported Mark Law of the Ohio Valley's Herald Star at the time. "Cole did say the victim wasn't moving at his house when the sexual assault took place." Since Wednesday, prosecutors have been trying to make the case that the alleged victim was impaired, as the defense has been making its own strange case — that she was drunk, but not drunk enough to say no. All gruesome photos and text messages aside, if the girl wasn't cable of walking before the car ride, and if she wasn't moving while Mays made moves on her, that may be the biggest thing the prosecution has going for it other than the girl's word.

According to his previous testimony, Craig, a wrestler at Steubnville High who describes himself as Mays's best friend, said he saw the video Cole had recorded of Mays penetrating the girl with his fingers in the car — and that he witnessed Mays's alleged attempt, at a party later, to force the girl to perform oral sex on him. From the notes on Craig's testimony:

Craig, who admitted to having a relationship with the victim, said he saw the victim naked in Cole's basement. He said he saw Richmond laying beside her but couldn't tell what Richmond was doing. He said Mays was smacking his penis off her side.

Craig said the victim was not responsive or participating.

That's a key argument: "not responsive or participating" is in lockstep with the prosecution's argument that the girl was too impaired to consent. Craig also testified in October that Mays sent him a picture of a naked Jane Doe the next day, which may tie in to Mays's charge of "illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material" and which may be one of the pictures uncovered from massive phone logs in Thursday's marathon hearings.

If Craig and Cole's testimony from today is what they told the court in October, then it will be damaging for the defense's prime strategy of painting the alleged victim as either cognitive or not being that drunk. Adam Nemann, one of Mays's two defense lawyers, tried to paint Doe's sobriety as a kind of moving target, telling The New York Times that the state's case is "difficult to prove, especially when you have various stages of drinking, various times in which the alleged sexual conduct occurred which still hasn’t been pinned down yet." One witness from Wednesday's hearings testified that Doe was slurring and stumbling even before leaving with Mays and Richmond. Which leads us to...

What the Timeline of August 11 Can Tell Us

If the defense wants to say that Doe's impairment was vacillating throughout the night, then Craig's testimony in particular would appear to at least partially contradict that theory. Here's a rough timeline of the night in question, based on what we know from pre-trial testimony, evidence, and the hours of testimony so far:

Party No. 1: Doe had not left with Mays and Richmond at this point. 

Witness #1, a female friend of the alleged victim who took the stand this week, says that Doe was slurring at this point. "She was slurring her words and she would stumble when she walked," the witness said. WTRF-TV reported that "the victim and friends were drinking vodka, beer and mixed drinks at a home on Aug. 11, when she became increasingly intoxicated and her speech began to slur." 

Party No. 2: Jane Doe leaves with Mays and Richmond for the second post-game party. This is where that infamous picture of Mays and Richmond carrying Doe by her ankles is taken. And it's at this party where the girl vomits, possibly indicating that she is intoxicated. "Several witnesses said that once outside, the girl needed to stop in the street because she was sick again," reads an ABC News report. And Richmond, according to his interview with ABC, says he witnessed her vomiting. "She throws up on her blouse and takes her blouse off ... and then she asked for something to drink and I gave her my jacket to cover her up," Richmond told ABC. 

The Car Ride: This is where Cole's testimony matters, and it's where the first of the alleged sexual attacks occurred. Nemann and the defense claim that it can't be proven what kind of state this girl was in at this time. Cole, who driving in the car and stopped to videotape the alleged attack, has testified that Doe was incapable of walking on her own. Couple that with her vomiting at the previous party, and the defense's argument of Doe not being that drunk becomes that much more difficult to prove. 

Party No. 3, at Cole's House: This is where the second attack by Mays allegedly occurred, and you have Craig and Cole saying that Mays was forcing Doe to perform oral sex on him, and that she was too unresponsive to do so. Craig has testified that Mays was "smacking his penis off her side." Evan Westlake, another eyewitness who testified in the pre-trial hearing, said that while this was happening, Richmond was beside the girl on the couch, penetrating her with his fingers. It was also at this party where a previous witness said the girl the "drunkest person in the room."

If the defense continues to go with its strategy of telling the press and Judge Thomas Lipps that the alleged victim was cognitive and capable of making decisions, then Cole's and Craig's testimony — about a girl so unresponsive that someone could not force oral sex on her — could be the most damaging yet. At least until the girl herself takes the stand, and with a full weekend of marathon sessions at Jefferson County Juvenile Court, the drama is continuing to unfold. (You can watch a live stream, with occasional blackouts for the underage testimony, right here.) 

What Went Wrong in 2012? Don't Say Romney

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — Why did Republicans lose the 2012 elections when so many Republicans really didn't like President Obama? A CPAC panel titled "CSI: Washington, D.C.: November 2012 Autopsy" set out to answer that question. The panelist mostly avoided a question that might better help them win elections: Why aren't there more Republicans?

In their introductory speeches, The American Spectator's John Fund explained that Obama's campaign had amazing microtargeting power. The Washington Examiner's Michael Barone said Republicans lacked enthusiasm. Former Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle said Democrats demonized Republicans and made people feel guilty.  Editorial cartnooist Michael Ramirez ticked through many conservatives hate about Obama -- Solyndra, the deficit, Obamacare, Benghazi -- and suggested these things should have been fatal if the mainstream media wasn't such a lapdog for the White House. "The media made the economy irrelevant," Ramirez said, even though three of the four members of the panel are successfully employed by conservative media, as was the moderator, Daily Caller founder Tucker Carlson. 

After the speeches, Carlson, to his credit, gently prodded the panelists to wonder if maybe Romney played a role in Romney's loss. "The lack of emphasis on Romney's campaign was striking," Carlson said of the speeches. "I'm wondering is there something the Republican Party is doing wrong in the way that it goes about finding candidates?" Fund agreed that the tendency to blame campaign consultants -- Romney campaign manager Stuart Stevens and Karl Rove have gotten a lot of criticism since November -- forgets that candidates are the ones who hire the consultants. But Barone stepped in, saying, "Let me just say a few things in defense of Romney…" Romney made some bold decisions he said. He showed up unannounced at Solyndra's headquarters, for example. That's right, he did things Republicans like. Why didn't he win?

Carlson, again to his credit, asked for specific things Republicans could do to make new Republicans. The panel struggled to do that. Fund was the most specific -- Republicans should take a grittier, more populist tone, and recognize that being pro-business is not always the same as being pro-free market. Maybe they should look at why they're defending the carried interest loophole that allows investment managers (like Mitt Romney) to be taxed at a low rate of 15 percent.

But the other panelists failed to answer Carlon's question. Buerkle said Republicans need to "embrace" women and Latinos, and not just during the election. "We're not making our case to those communities, to women," she said. "They can't relate to Nancy Pelosi." But how? Ramirez had vaguer answers. "I just think you need to speak your conservative principles and be bold," he said. "The media prevents it from being a fair fight" because it's so biased, he said. So "you have to demand more of the media." Maybe that should start with te conservative media.

(Photo by Gage Skidmore via Flickr.)

At CPAC, Wayne LaPierre Says No, You're the Crazy One

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — All that attention the National Rifle Association's Wayne LaPierre has gotten since the Newtown shooting might be getting to him. In a speech here at CPAC Friday, LaPierre said some form of "And they call us crazy!" four times. "They" are the elite who want to register your guns. But LaPierre gives the elites who think he's crazy a lot of material to work with.

Despite portraying the NRA as a beacon of sanity in crazy Washington, LaPierre veered into conspiracy theories. The Second Amendment isn't just an American right, he said, it's the right that protects all other rights: "If you aren't free to protect yourself when the government puts its thumb on that freedom, then you're not free at all." He was not speaking in hypotheticals. LaPierre railed against universal background checks on gun purchases, which just passed a key Senate committee vote. Universal background checks is a gateway to a universal list of gun owners, LaPierre said. "Why build a list of all the good people? As if that would somehow make us safer from violent criminals or homicidal maniacs! ... What's the point of registering lawful gun owners anyway?" He offered a few theories: So newspapers can print names of gun owners for gangs to access, so the list can be hacked by the Chinese, so the list can be handed over to the Mexican government — "Oh, by the way, they've already requested it!"

Then he got real. "There are only two reasons to compile list of gun owners: to tax them or to take them." (As with so many of LaPierre's lines, this one is not new.) They've planned this all along, LaPierre said. "Sen. Feinstein admitted she had her gun bill ready a year ago locked in a drawer waiting for the opportunity." LaPierre has given no sign that he's a Newtown truther — the group of conspiracy theorists who think no one died at Sandy Hook, that all the grieving people were actors, and that the event was a "false flag" meant to scare people into letting the government take their guns. LaPierre has repeatedly referred to Adam Lanza as a murderer. Nevertheless, the idea idea that Feinstein was waiting for a tragedy for a chance to take your guns is a core part of some of the darkest conspiracy theories on the Internet.

Watch the whole speech here, and stay tuned for more from on the ground at CPAC all weekend...

Reuters Employee Facing Hacking Charges Suspended

Matthew Keys, the journalist indicted for allegedly helping hackers from Anonymous access the website of the Los Angeles Times, has been suspended by Thomson Reuters, but he's back on Twitter.

Gerry Smith of the Huffington Post reports that Thomson Reuters confirmed Keys' suspension earlier today. The suspension went into effect last night, not long after the story broke.

The first indicators that Reuters was taking disciplinary action against Keys may have come, oddly enough, from Reuters reporters covering the story. According to the updated version of Reuters story reported by Joseph Menn and Dan Levine, filed shortly after midnight:

The company did not comment on Keys's employment status. However, a Thomson Reuters employee at the New York office where Keys worked said that his work station was being dismantled and that his security pass had been deactivated.

True to form, Keys returned to social media soon after the news broke. The first tweet he shared was this one, which he retweeted.

Deputy Reuters editor indicted for conspiring with hacker group Anonymous, Justice Department announces - @politico politi.co/12TS2g6

— Breaking News (@BreakingNews) March 14, 2013

Shortly afterward, he tweeted this.

I am fine. I found out the same way most of you did: From Twitter. Tonight I'm going to take a break. Tomorrow, business as usual.

— Matthew Keys (@TheMatthewKeys) March 14, 2013

It wasn't clear, at first, what "I found out" was meant to refer to. As New York magazine noted, Keys certainly knew an investigation was underway.

[I]t seems the prolific tweeter has known that he was under investigation for at least several months. FBI spokeswoman Laura Eimiller has confirmed to Daily Intelligencer that the agency executed a search warrant on Keys's home in Secaucus, New Jersey in early October 2012.

Eimiller said evidence related to the case was seized during the search, although she could not comment on the specific items recovered.

Keys confirmed that he knew an investigation was underway in a tweet this morning.

Good morning. Still fine. To clarify this tweet from yesterday, I found out about the *indictment* from Twitter - bit.ly/Z2IQxv

— Matthew Keys (@TheMatthewKeys) March 15, 2013

However, as noted by Gizmodo, Keys indicated in a chat with a friend on Wednesday that he suspected something would shortly happen. "I don't even know if I have much longer here," he apparently wrote. "Think my days are number[ed]." His friend suggested he not be paranoid. Keys responded, "I'm not being paranoid."

Top image from a video by Amanda Fiscina via Vimeo.