ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

MSNBC Host: It wouldn’t be ‘funny’ if someone called me ‘Tamron Hall the Magic Negro Anchor Lady.’

Today on MSNBC, anchor Tamron Hall hosted a segment discussing RNC chair candidate Chip Saltsman’s Christmas greeting this year that contained a CD with the song “Barack the Magic Negro” on it. During the discussion, Kate Obenshain, vice president of Young America’s Foundation, defended the song, calling it “a parody.” But Hall, an African-American, quickly interjected, saying there is nothing “funny or amusing” about it:

HALL: Well let me tell you this — if someone referred to me as “Tamron Hall the Magic Negro Anchor Lady,” I would never see it as anything funny or amusing.

Hall later told Obenshain, “you’re not going to win a lot of people over calling them ‘Magic Negros.’” Watch it:

Transcript: Read more

Culture

Distributing the Surplus

To agree with Scott Lemieux it’s important to understand that whatever good arguments there may be for salary caps in professional sports, the “populist” line of argument that rails against the evils of athletes earning windfalls in a world of injustice makes the least sense. Successful sports franchises generate a ton of revenue since a lot of fans are interested in them. That revenue will inevitably wind up getting split up between the owners of teams and their various employees. Artificially limiting the salaries available to one sub-set of employees — the players — simply means more of the money will wind up in the hands of the owners and the coaches.

Meanwhile, the level of competitive balance in a given sport is generally determined by factors other than the presence or absence of a salary cap. As it happens, uncapped sports like Major League Baseball and many European soccer leagues have more balance than does the NBA or the NFL. Which isn’t because caps cause imbalance, but rather seems to relate to intrinsic features of the spots. Basketball leagues are relatively unbalanced everywhere you look.

Yglesias

By Request: Pasta Mia

pastamia_1.png

NattyB has an unusual question:

Why do yuppies like to line up for food?

Like seriously, is Pasta Mia in Adams Morgan that good? Or is it just some trendy boho fad.

Keeping in mind that I’m speaking only for myself, I think the main attraction with Pasta Mia isn’t that it’s “that good” but that it’s good and it’s cheap relative to the portion sizes. That and the fact that it’s in Adams-Morgan where a lot of people like to go out but there aren’t a ton of good dining options. Personally, I have up the whole going out in Adams-Morgan habit years ago, and probably haven’t been to Pasta Mia since 2004, but that’s my recollection of the appeal.

The other thing Pasta Mia has going for it is a relative lack of competition. Since A.V. Risorante Italiano closed there’s nothing else in the main part of the city existing in that kind of casual Italian/Italian-American culinary space. That’s too bad, because this is a style of food that lots of people like to eat. Now in some respects that’s okay because these pasta dishes are probably something a lot of us are relatively comfortable cooking for ourselves at home, but still it’s a real gap in the city’s culinary landscape. A lot’s been done in recent years to bring new restaurants online specifically in the pizza genre but pasta is good, too!

Yglesias

MoveOn Staying Where It Is

MoveOn’s Communications Director emailed me with an important followup point about Politico‘s article this morning on MoveOn’s agenda largely aligning with Barack Obama’s:

But one key piece of information missing from Politico’s article that I wanted to flag is this: our members’ top priorities have remained largely unchanged since our last agenda setting process in 2005. The economy has risen in the rankings, due to obvious conditions, but ending the war, universal health care, and creating a green economy/tackling the climate crisis have been primary points of focus for MoveOn for three years running.

Rather than blind followers, as Politico portrays, our members have been determined and persevering in their pursuit of these progressive goals. The only thing that’s changed is now they have an Administration who is friendly to these aims–at least in rhetoric. In practice, we have yet to see how the Administration will perform, but we do know for the most part who our friends and foes in Congress are and can engage accordingly from the outset.

Yes. In part, there’s a lot of agreement simply because people agree about a lot of stuff.

Yglesias

Problem Solvers

obama_aipac248_ap.jpg

Jonathan Zasloff offers the futility argument with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

All those who insist that the United States should “solve” the problem should explain how. And if they can’t do that, then maybe they should take some quiet time.

I think that would be an appealing solution to a lot of people who have no real desire to try to sit in delicate judgment weighing the moral balance between a Hamas movement that seems indifferent to human life, and an Israeli government that’s lashing out brutally as part of a domestic political drama. But as long as Israel is by far the largest recipient of US foreign assistance funds and by an even larger margin the largest per capita recipient of US foreign assistance funds, then I don’t see how “quiet time” is a realistic option. Israel is not a poor country; our financial backing for them is not a humanitarian gesture the way that funds spent on Malawi or Guatemala might be. Our aid to Israel is a strategic commitment to an allied country in a troubled region of the world and a region where, among other things, the United States is concerned about the low esteem in which we are held by the local population.

Under the circumstances, throwing up our hands and saying “it’s too hard!” isn’t an option. We can decide we don’t want to be involved, which would mean unwinding the ties of collaboration and assistance between the US and Israel, or we can try to play a constructive role in bringing an end to the conflict. I’m not personally sure of how you do that. But I’m quite certain that the first step would be pressing Israel — hard — to stop expanding settlements in the West Bank and start dismantling them. To show to Palestinians interested in a two-state solution (perhaps including some Hamas people or perhaps not) that there’s credibility on the other side. I think Israelis wouldn’t welcome such action by us, but ultimately it would be in their own best interests. On the other hand, those who really do think the best thing for the United States is to just wash our hands of the whole mess have an obligation to really stand behind that belief and urge us to wash our hands of the situation. But just proclaiming a pox on both houses while in practice heavily subsidizing one side isn’t a viable option.

Yglesias

Methane

Njbunk asks:

How about a post on the effect of methane emissions on global warming? Cows probably contribute as much, maybe more, to global warming as cars. If we’re going to tax carbon emitters, we should tax methane emitters (cows) as well.

I’m not a scientist, or a cow fart expert, but my understanding is that when you see a high estimate of a cow’s contribution to global warming you’re looking at a very broad estimate of the cow’s climactic footprint. Which is to say not just his methane emissions, but the considerable amount of carbon expended in growing and transporting the grain on which he feeds. But, yes, carbon dioxide is the most important greenhouse gas because of the large quantity of emissions but it’s not actually the most pernicious on a per unit level and the case for regulating carbon emissions applies just as well to methane emissions and a few other things. There are obviously some technical issues here that I’m not conversant with, and I’m not sure it’s strictly necessary for me to become conversant with them in order to do the kind of persuasive work I’m trying to do with this blog, but you would want congress and the EPA to look at this sort of thing carefully.

The flipside of this is that one of the under-discussed social consequences of improved environmental policy would almost certainly be a large change in Americans’ beef-consumption behaviors. The difference between eating beef and eating chicken or pork in terms of climate footprint is enormous. If those climactic externalities were priced into the beef, you’d see a lot less beef eaten overall and probably a resurgence of interest in the cheaper/grosser parts of the cow.

Politics

Bush Refuses To Interrupt His Final Vacation As Middle East Crisis Escalates

strike.jpgIn an effort to “prevent Palestinians from attacking towns in southern Israel” with rockets, Israel today undertook its third day of offensive military airstrikes in the Palestinian territory of Gaza, raising the death toll to more than 300. The Palestinian casualty numbers have been described as the highest over such a brief period since the 1967 Six-Day war. Scores of Israelis have been wounded — and at least one killed — by rocket attacks fired by Palestinians. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak called the situation “all out war.”

While Bush has been briefed on the situation by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, he has opted not to interrupt his final vacation as president to make a public statement on the crisis. For someone who has enjoyed the most vacation days as sitting president — including days spent relaxing in comfort during Hurricane Katrina and in the lead-up to 9/11 — it shouldn’t come as a huge surprise that Bush prioritizes vacationing over crisis management. ABC News reports:

Even an emerging crisis in the Middle East, one he pledged to resolve just 13 months ago, has not drawn President George W. Bush from his final vacation before leaving office. Despite his personal pledge at Annapolis last year to broker a deal between Israel and the Palestinians before 2009, this weekend Bush sent his spokesmen to comment in his stead. [...]

Since departing Washington for Crawford on Friday, President Bush has made no attempt to be seen in public. In fact, he has yet to leave his ranch.

Today, in a press briefing delivered from the “Western White House” in Crawford, TX, White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe was asked what is on Bush’s schedule today. In addition to receiving “updates on the ongoing situation,” Johndroe said, “I expect he’ll probably ride his bicycle today and spend time with Mrs. Bush.” Watch it:

President-elect Barack Obama has also been monitoring the violence from his vacationing spot in Hawaii, staying in contact with Bush and Rice. “President Bush speaks for the United States until Jan. 20 and we’re going to honor that,” Obama adviser David Axelrod said.

One senior Bush administration official told the Washington Post that he thinks the Israelis acted in Gaza “because they want it to be over before the next administration comes in” and because “they can’t predict how the next administration will handle it.” Indeed, Bush has become fairly predictable in how he manages these sorts of crises.

Update

On ABC’s This Week yesterday, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) expressed his hope that removing Bush’s hands-off approach may help address the situation. “I’m hopeful that as this transition comes, as we look to January, that strong presidential leadership can make a difference here.”

Economy

Under Bush, OSHA ‘Literally Fell Asleep On The Job’

osha-logo.jpgThe Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) mission — as stated on its website — is to “assure safe and healthful working conditions for working men and women.”

However, the Washington Post reported today that for the last eight years OSHA has been doing anything but accomplishing this mission. Instead, the agency has become “mired in inaction,” creating only a “legacy of unregulation” — all to the benefit of America’s corporations.

As the Las Vegas Sun recently noted, the Bush administration’s “only real priority has been to prevent the agency from doing its job.” In fact, in just its first two years, the administration “pulled 22 items off the agency’s regulatory agenda, its working list of proposed safety and health rules.”

During Bush’s tenure, OSHA officials issued 86 percent fewer rules or regulations “termed economically significant” than they did under President Clinton. And while these officials have been sitting on their hands, as many as 13 million people — “or nearly a tenth of the American workforce” — are injured on the job each year.

Part of the problem, as the Post reported, is that under Bush, career OSHA officials were shut out by political appointees, and thus “strategic choices were frequently made without input from [the agency's] experienced hands.” This has turned the agency into “a bureaucratic quagmire, where regulations take a decade or more to make and where priorities consistently shift.”

Symbolical of the agency’s shortcomings under Bush, Edwin G. Foulke Jr., a former Bush fundraiser appointed to head OSHA in 2006, “acquired a reputation inside the Labor Department as a man who literally fell asleep on the job“:

His top aides said they rustled papers, wore attention-getting garb, pounded the table for emphasis or gently kicked his leg, all to keep him awake. But, if these tactics failed, sometimes they just continued talking as if he were awake.

A key goal for the next administration should be to get OSHA back on the side of working people. For starters, this means putting teeth into the agency’s safety enforcement mechanisms. As David Madland of the Center for American Progress Action Fund has noted, “Many worker-protection fines are so low — even for the worst violations — that irresponsible employers have begun factoring them in as part of their cost of doing business rather than complying with labor laws”:

In 2007, the median OSHA final penalty for violations that caused a fatality was only $3,675.16. OSHA is one of only five government entities that are exempt from the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act, which directs and authorizes agencies to regularly adjust their penalties for inflation. These civil money penalties were last adjusted by Congress in 1990 and are not indexed to inflation.

OSHA — and the Labor Department as a whole — has neglected working Americans for the last eight years, harming not only individual workers, but also costing the American taxpayer $108 billion a year. There is no reason for this willful apathy to continue.

Digg It!

Yglesias

Good News (By Somalia Standards)

The situation in Somalia continues to be extraordinarily bad, but the resignation of Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed from the presidency of Somalia’s de jure but powerless government counts as good news. His hardline stance has, along with incredibly irresponsible behavior from the US and Ethiopia been a significant contributor to Somalia’s problems. I wouldn’t say that this makes a turnaround likely, but it’s certainly more likely than it was before.

Yglesias

After Hamas

hamas310305_1.jpg

Robert Farley writes about the strategic logic of the Gaza standoff:

The strategic aims seem clear; Hamas wished to provoke an Israeli attack in anticipation that the reaction will help Hamas seize control of the West Bank. Israel wants to damage Hamas’ state infrastructure, and thus apply enough pain to the Palestinians that they move back towards Abbas, and incidentally give Kadima a chance to win the upcoming elections. Although Egypt and Abbas seem to be on board with the Israeli plan, I know which way I’m betting; people rarely respond to bombing by picking the more moderate option. I’m guessing that Hamas comes out of this stronger than before, although of course the Egyptian reaction could change things a bit by affecting Hamas logistical situation. Even then, though, the policy of the Egyptian government can be quite different than the actual behavior of the Egyptian border guards and inspectors who monitor commerce with Gaza.

It’s important to recall that the rise of Hamas is, in part, the result of a very successful Israeli effort to undermine the authority and infrastructure of Fatah and the Palestinian Authority. Israel interpreted the collapse of the Camp David talks as indicating that Yasser Arafat and his movement were not reasonable negotiating partners and that the whole enterprise of trying to deal with them had been a mistake. So they spent years — with the support and at times encouragement of the Bush administration — trying to weaken their hold on the Palestinian people and the Palestinian territories in hopes that this would bring to power some kind of hazily defined quisling entity that would be more accommodating. And they succeeded in the undermining. Why, exactly, the Israeli and American governments thought the likely upshot of success would be a more accommodating alternative rather than Hamas I couldn’t quite say. But that’s what they thought and they were wrong.

Similarly, one has to contemplate the possibility that Israeli efforts at disempowering Hamas won’t so much fail as suffer “catastrophic success” as the area is taken over by a Palestinian branch of al-Qaeda. I’m not sure that would be worse for Israel (probably would) but it would definitely be worse for the United States of America.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up