Jackson Free Press

In a segment highlighting how easy it is to buy up old medical debt and learn about the patients who have it, John Oliver on his show "Last Week Tonight" put together a shell company to do just that.

In the GOP's continued saga of internecine warfare, there's another front opening in the Battle of Mississippi with a shot coming from... Missouri?

The chairman of the Missouri GOP wants the campaign investigated by the Republican National Committee, according to the Washington Post. The Missouri GOP chair wants the RNC to investigate racially-charged robocalls and ads that appear to have been placed in Canton, Miss., and elsewhere in support of Cochran's run-off bid.

The head of the Missouri Republican Party on Tuesday asked Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus to appoint a task force to investigate what he called “racially divisive ads and robocalls” critical of state Sen. Chris McDaniel in the Republican runoff for U.S. Senate in Mississippi.

Ed Martin, the GOP chair in Missouri, is apparently concerned that Henry Barbour, nephew of former Governor Haley Barbour, may be behind a radio ad that was reported by Britain's Daily Mail.

The Daily Mail story, which offers an in-depth investigation to determine who placed the ads and how, notes that the ads were tagged "paid for by Citizens for Progress," a group that isn't registered with the FEC.

According to the Daily Mail, this same group name had been used previously by Mitzi Bickers, an Atlanta pastor, who, coincidentally, was being paid by Mississippi Conservatives -- a "super PAC" created by Haley Barbour and run by his nephew, Henry Barbour.

The younger Barbour told the Daily Mail he didn't know about the radio ads, although he acknowledged hiring Bickers to run a robocall campaign in the Cochran-McDaniel runoff.

In the radio ad, McDaniel is linked to an "ally" of the KKK, and listeners are warned that a McDaniel victory could mean a loss of government benefits such as food stamps, lunch programs and disaster assistance.

A resident in Fondren sent us this voicemail message, which is an apparent robocall trying to suggest that Margaret Barrett-Simon's campaign is designed to help Tony Yarber.

Link: Robocall Audio

Barrett-Simon responded to the call on her Facebook page last week: "I want to be clear that, should I decide to enter the Jackson mayoral race, my campaign will not engage in these or similar tactics. I would also like to call all of those who decide to enter the campaign to renounce the use of 'robocalls' and similar anonymous 'hit and run' methods."

As one might expect, the call doesn't identify the party paying for it; it does appear to originate from a Washington State area code. When we called the Caller ID number in the message, we reached an automated attendant willing to put us on a no-call list.

If you receive robocalls that you can record or that reach voicemail, please email them to reporter R.L. Nave (rlnave at jacksonfreepress dot com).

President Obama is expected to address the "fiscal cliff" this afternoon in the aftermath of the House's failure to pass the GOP "Plan B" proposal. The House has adjourned for the Christmas holiday.

So you know that conventional wisdom that says the people are safer with a lot of guns around?

Turns out maybe not so much.

"The totality of the evidence based on educated judgments about the best statistical models suggests that right-to-carry laws are associated with substantially higher rates" of aggravated assault, rape, robbery and murder, said Donohue.

Earlier studies (including the frequently debated and arguably debunked work of John Lott) suggested that carry laws were correlating with lower incidents of violent crime; by extending the amount of time studied, however, the National Research Council poured cold water on the Lott theory, and now Stanford's new study sees things trending even further in the direction that kinda makes more sense -- more guns equals more violent crime, particularly assaults with a deadly weapon.

Of course, how much is open to interpretation, but the notion that more guns equals less violent crime seems to be put to bed by its own number crunching.

In an occasional blog series I'm inaugurating here, I'd like to pull forward some debate that's happening in the comments and examine a variety of the myths and legends that surround the South's participation in the civil war.

From the comments section came this one from Claude Shannon:

The war was fought over money and power. In 1860, 80% of all federal taxes were paid for by the south. 95% of that money was spent on improving the north.

Now I'm not a history scholar, but I do get curious when things just kinda sound wrong.

First... even if we assume that's true (which, as you'll see later, I can't) I think the construct is disingenuous, as it suggests that "the South" had very little say in the matter and no recourse but secession given the rapacious chokehold that the North apparently had on the South in terms of political power and usurious taxation.

It's a dramatic picture, but there are a few caveats:

1.) Democrats (the party that included most all Southern politicians) controlled Congress leading up to the Civil War (they lost the House in 1859) and had a Democratic president in the "doughface" Buchanan. (The term being one that suggests a Northern with Southern sympathies.)

2.) The Tariff of 1857 was authored and supported by Southern legislators (the primary author was Virginia Senator Robert Mercer Taliaferro Hunter, who would later be pictured on the Confederate $10 bill) and it lowered tariffs to a level they hadn't hit in 50 years.

http://jacksonfreepress.com/users/photos/2015/jul/10/22076/

Remember that through most of 1800-1860 there was no income tax on individuals and businesses or other taxes (sales, property) as we define them today -- Federal taxes were almost exclusively tariffs on imports. (The Nullification Crisis had come when tariffs were considerably higher in order to pay down debts from the War of 1812.)

So, "taxes" were considerably lower leading up to the war.

But then... if there's evidence that "The South" paid "80 percent" of those tariffs they'd managed to lower, I can't find it.

As noted here, about 63% of Federal revenue was collected as tariffs on shipments that went through just the Port of New York alone. And those tariffs were collected from the merchants who imported them.

Aside from New York, there were certainly other ports in the North; so an argument that "The South" paid 80% of tariffs -- e.g. that 80% of imported and taxed goods went through Southern ports where the taxes were paid by Southern importers -- isn't correct.

(The tariffs were also protectionist in nature, and likely benefitted both the North and South as they made locally produced goods more attractive.)

If there's a more esoteric argument that says somehow the South ultimately bought 80% of those goods and therefore experienced the markup that came from them being taxes, I haven't seen it, but it would be interesting to read and parse.

One other point to make on tariffs -- the Southern states …

The American Family Association's president, Tim Wildmon, sent out an "AFA ActionAlert" this morning to let us know that our worst fears are, indeed, coming true. Thanks to an "activist" Federal judge in Utah, "...polygamy is now essentially legal in the United States."

Whoa! I tell you, those activist judges are out. of. control.

Of course, Wildmon had tried to tell us...

We warned from the beginning that once the biblical standard of man-woman marriage was breached, there would be no logical place to stop.

The AFA ActionAlert somewhat surprisingly links to this USA Today story about the ruling—I say surprisingly because, presumably, we're not actually supposed to read the USA Today story, since it only barely says anything like what Wildmon's ActionAlert says.

There is a judge, and a lawsuit—one brought by the reality TV stars of "Sister Wives," a show which focuses on a polygamist family formerly of Utah—now in Vegas.

From USA Today:

U.S. District Court Judge Clark Waddoups said in the ruling that the phrase in Utah law that forbids cohabitation with another person was a violation of the First Amendment.

Utah, it seems, has the most limiting polygamy law on the books—while 49 other states have laws against polygamy (being legally married to more than one person at a time), Utah's law "makes it illegal to even purport to be married to multiple partners or live together."

In other words, it's illegal in Utah to pretend to be married to more than one person at a time; in every other state it's only illegal to actually be married to more than one person at a time.

Back to Wildmon:

Though we have been accused of exaggerating and scare-mongering, this ruling shows that we were right all along to sound the alarm. Bans against incest are now at risk of being overturned.

Ahhh. Well, I guess we could see that one coming. Feels like a bit of a stretch… unless those rumors I've been hearing about a new show being cast in Appalachia called "Cousin Wives," prove to be true…

Most of the GOP's 2012 contenders are signing up to support "Personhood" initiatives that are similar to the one that Mississippi just overturned.

Verbatim from the Attorney General's office:

A classic scam is now targeting Apple users. The very common “phishing” scam is constantly being revised by con artists to target a larger pool of potential victims. Currently, scammers are using emails to target Apple users by falsely claiming that your Apple ID, iCloud or iTunes account has been comprised. You are then asked to provide personal information to rectify the problem.

“Because there is a large percentage of Apple users, these cons are using the Apple name to cast a wide net to phish for potential victims,” said Attorney General Hood. “That’s why it is important to think twice about any action you take online asking you to provide personal information. Legitimate companies like Apple never ask you to provide such information to them through an email.”

The danger for most people using iCloud is that they often back their cellular devices up to it. In the event this account is compromised, the attacker could gain access to very sensitive and personal information stored on those backups. These phishing websites can look similar to the legitimate ones. Very often, the scam comes in the form of a fake email (see example below) which will prompt you to click on a link and visit one of these phishing websites to “update your account information.”

To avoid this scam make sure you are in the iTunes application directly, not through a web browser. If you are asked to update your account information, make sure that you do so only in iTunes or on a legitimate page on Apple.com, such as the online Apple Store.

If you suspect your Apple ID, iCloud or iTunes account has been compromised, change the password immediately and/or contact Apple and advise them your account’s security has been compromised. If you have received a suspicious email, please notify iTunes Customer Support by visiting www.apple.com/support/itunes/store. ‘

Sample of phishing email:

> iCloud ID – xxxx This is the final message to inform you as of 22 – February – 2015 that you have not yet updated your Apple ID details. Under “Know your Customer” legislation Apple Inc is required to carry out a verification of your information, failure to complete this validation will result in deletion of your iCloud within the next three days. Please click below to » Login to your Apple/iCloud ID To cancel the deletion of your Apple & iCloud ID please proceed to your Apple ID information before the deadline. Resolution Validation Request: #L8FHI20121711925 Sincerely, iGenius Helpteam

http://www.ago.state.ms.us/phishing-scam-targets-apple-users/

The deeply "red" state of Kentucky -- the folks who put both Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul as in Senate (and, excruciatingly, on our TVs) -- is also the only Southern state that has expanded Medicaid in accordance with the Affordable Care Act.

They also implemented their own ACA online exchange, instead of relying on the Feds.

The result?

Kentucky’s experience has been exemplary: In its first day, 10,766 applications for health coverage were initiated, 6,909 completed and 2,989 families were enrolled. Obama himself bragged that Kentucky led the nation with its glitch-minimized performance.

Kentucky's opt-in attitude is the result of their Democratic governor, Steve Beshear, who has done end-arounds on his GOP-lead state Senate and poked his finger in the eye of the Tea Party. Focusing on the moral implications of improving healthcare access for the citizens in his state, Beshear is perfectly willing to tell the national media why he's willing to make ACA compliance a signature accomplishment of his tenure.

“[T]o those more worried about political power than Kentucky’s families, I say, ‘Get over it’…and get out of the way so I can help my people. Here in Kentucky, we cannot afford to waste another day or another life.”

And why is ACA popular in-of-all-places Kentucky? Is it because it gives people an opportunity to buy into their own health security and that of their families? Is it because it's an actual market-based solution -- a Republican idea from a few decades back, polished up and implemented first by Mitt Romney in Connecticut -- that might help lessen the burden on families, small businesses and, ultimately, on state coffers?

Time will tell, but it should be a cautionary tale for "red" state politicians -- such as, oh, Governor Phil Bryant -- who have taken the path of least resistance within their own party and buckled to their Tea Party and Talk Radio constituencies.

If Obamacare works -- especially since it now looks like the GOP is pretty much out of tricks to block it from getting started -- then folks like Phil are going to be on the losing end not just of a moment in political history, but of actually doing the right thing for the citizens of their state.

I came out of Game 3 against the Carolina Panthers with some optimism for the team—along with a resigned sense that 2015 is looking more and more like a rebuilding year for the New Orleans Saints.

I guess that shouldn’t be a shocker — considering the high-profile trades, draft picks, and the number of rookies the Saints are starting on this team, the idea that they would go far this year was perhaps a pipe dream in the first place.

What may end up being more interesting is the groundwork they’re laying for the future.

Game 3 Recap

After watch the game tape my first impression is that this was really a decent outing for the offense—especially since backup quarterback Luke McCown ran the offense for the first time (in a game that mattered) since he put on a Saints uniform.

http://jacksonfreepress.com/users/photos/2015/oct/03/23139/

Particularly in the first half, the offense moved down the field almost at will.

McCown got the ball to many different weapons in the first quarter: Spiller, Ingram, Coleman, Snead, Robinson, Cooks, Johnson, Hill, and Watson all touched the ball in the first two series alone.

After re-watching those two drives I realized that (a.) I’m still not giving Ingram enough credit—he had some key, hard-fought rushes in that second drive in particular and (b.) this could be a very interesting offense once running back C.J. Spiller, acquired this year from Buffalo, gets more touches and is a bigger part of the gameplan.

It’s also interesting to think that the Saints will be able to field Spiller, Ingram and Cooks at the same time—and give defensive play-callers a few headaches.

On the defensive side of the ball, credit the Saints for getting pressure on quarterback Cam Newton in their first series and stopping running back Jonathan Stewart, forcing a punt. They did neither of those things the next series, allowing Carolina to reply with a TD that looked routine.

So, at 10-7, the Saints got a third look at the ball with 5 minutes left in the half; that drive went nowhere, as consecutive penalties pushed the Saints into a 2-and-25 situation that they couldn’t quite dig out of, despite a 21-yard, 3rd-down pass to Watson.

After a punt to Carolina’s 19 yard line at 2:06 in the half, cornerback Brandon Browner immediately gave up a 52-yard bomb to Carolina tight end Greg Olson, and Carolina dribbled down to the 2 yard line, but ran out of time and settled for field goal to tie the game at 10-10.

Saints linebacker H. Kikaha got his first sack of the game in Carolina's first series of the second half, a coverage sack that resulted in Carolina punting away its fourth possession. After a penalty on the Carolina punt (which Marcus Murphy had muffed and run out of bounds), the second attempt was a charm—Murphy took the ball back 74 yards with a quick, efficient punt return for a TD that showed him doing exactly …