ThinkProgress Logo

Justice

INTERVIEW: Key Dem Says DADT Repeal Should Not Be Subject To A Survey Of ‘Personal Feelings’

Yesterday, Rep. Susan Davis’ (D-CA) House Subcommittee on Military Personnel held a hearing with the co-chairs of Pentagon’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Working Group. The panel will survey soldiers’ attitudes about serving alongside gay and lesbian troops and make recommendations for how the military can repeal the policy without sacrificing unit readiness or cohesion. “We envision outreach through social media so that a wide variety of individuals both within the Department of Defense and without who will have views on this matter have an opportunity for their voice to be heard,” General Carter Ham, one of the working group’s co-chairs, said.

But this afternoon, in an interview with the Wonk Room, Davis stressed that the personal opinions of military members — who already serve alongside gay and lesbian soldiers — would not determine the policy:

DAVIS: There is something to be said for reaching out to the service members and even their families. But I think that we all know that that’s really, you know, it’s like other surveys that are done in the military, but perhaps not conclusive, in terms of the policies that are taken. It’s not usual for us to go to the military and to have necessarily them believe that their personal feelings are going to determine the policy that moves forward.

Listen:

Davis recalled that the President Truman desegregated the armed forces despite the military’s opposition to integration and allowed women in without regard to military or public opinion. “We’ve had to do a number of things in the military in terms of, you know integrating women, and certainly integrating — racial integration. And I think while it’s good to know about how people care about these things, I think it’s also important that we recognize the validity of the policy itself and I think that’s what the Congress really needs to focus on,” she said.

Asked if she would settle for a moratorium if repeal failed in the Senate, Davis said, “we want to go for repeal, but it is important that they look at some of the issues around discharges.” “I think it would be a good idea if they put discharges on hold right now, I think that’s fine, but the goal is to repeal the policy.”

Climate Progress

Science stunner: Vast East Siberian Arctic Shelf methane stores destabilizing and venting

NSF issues world a wake-up call: “Release of even a fraction of the methane stored in the shelf could trigger abrupt climate warming.”

Methane release from the not-so-perma-frost is the most dangerous amplifying feedback in the entire carbon cycle. Research published in Friday’s journal Science finds a key “lid” on “the large sub-sea permafrost carbon reservoir” near Eastern Siberia “is clearly perforated, and sedimentary CH4 [methane] is escaping to the atmosphere.”
Read more

Health

Will A Compromise On The Individual Mandate Encourage Republicans To Support Health Reform?

indivmandatecartoonIn today’s New York Times, Paul Starr proposes a compromise that “goes to the heart of conservative and libertarian objections.” “[L]et individuals opt out of the new insurance system, without a penalty, by signing a form on their tax return acknowledging that they would then be ineligible for federal health insurance subsidies for a fixed period — say, five years.” During that period, if the opt-outer changes his mind, “they would face a market much like the one that exists now” and would have no guarantee of coverage.

Starr argues that giving Americans the choice of opting out of the mandate would address conservative anxiety about too much government meddling in the health care system while still getting more people into larger risk pools:

If this provision were added to the legislation, people without coverage through a group or Medicaid would have three basic choices in 2014, when the law goes into effect. They could use the new insurance exchanges to buy guaranteed coverage, receiving subsidies if their incomes were within four times the poverty level. They could take the five-year opt-out. Or they could refuse to do either and pay the annual penalties under the bill. (The legislation exempts them from penalties if the lowest-cost plan in the exchange exceeds 8 percent of their income or their income falls below the threshold for filing taxes.)

If softening the mandate could capture some Republican votes or win concessions for progressive priorities like the public option, it may worth considering. But since opponents of reform are likely to characterize any health care plan as a government-take over, giving individuals the option to opt out of insurance makes little sense.

The opt-out choice will attract younger and poorer Americans — the very same people who don’t typically buy insurance (either because they think they don’t need it or they can’t afford it) and leave insurance pools with a disproportionate number of sicker people who buy coverage because they need it. Insurance premiums will increase as a result and the government would have to spend more money on affordability credits.

Then, there is the five year period. Americans that choose to opt out of the mandate will forgo preventive care or annual check ups for up to five years, meaning they will enter the health care system sicker and more expensive — just like uninsured seniors who enter Medicare and end up spending 50 percent more than previously insured Medicare beneficiaries who also had chronic disease. Some of the uninsured will also wind up in hospital emergency rooms, where insured Americans will pick up the tab for their uncompensated care, but most significantly, Americans who become seriously ill will not be able to receive government assistance with their health care bill.

Starr is rightly concerned — despite Massachusetts rather positive experience with relatively low fine — that the Senate bill’s low penalties “compared to the cost of insurance” could encourage some Americans to remain uninsured. But allowing more people to go without coverage would exacerbate that trend, not avoid it.

Also, it’s worth noting that the Senate bill already allows states to opt out of the individual mandate if they can “demonstrate that they can meet the criteria — particularly on cost containment, improving the delivery system” of the federal standard. That of course, is a relatively high bar and quite different from what Starr is proposing.

Politics

Christian Hate Group ‘Repent Amarillo’ Terrorizes Texas Town, Harassing Gays, Liberals, And Other ‘Sinners’


An evangelical Christian hate group called “Repent Amarillo” is reportedly terrorizing the town of Amarillo, Texas. Repent fashions itself as a sort of militia and targets a wide range of community members they deem offensive to their theology: gays, liberal Christians, Muslims, environmentalists, breast cancer events that do not highlight abortion, Halloween, “spring break events,” and pornography shops. On its website, Repent has posted a “Warfare Map” of its enemies in town.

Calling Repent an “American Taliban,” blogger Charles Johnson notes that the group’s moniker “Army of God” is a rough translation of “Hezbollah.” Led by a man named David Grisham, a security guard at a nuclear-bomb facility called Pantex, Repent first gained media attention in Texas following a campaign to boycott Houston for electing a gay mayor. The group, which is associated with Raven Ministries, collaborates with other Christian groups as well as forced pregnancy advocacy associations like “Bound 4 Life.”

According to a new exposé by the Texas Observer, Repent set out earlier this year to destroy a discreet club of swingers they discovered in town. On New Years eve, the harassment began, with Repent members, almost exclusively young men, showing up in military fatigues and bullhorns, blaring Christian music at the swingers’ club building. The swingers, made up of “regulars” of middle aged, working class couples, were then stalked at every following visit to the club. Repent not only took video of each member, but obtained the swingers’ license plates and dug through their trash, informing neighbors and coworkers of what was once private. Watch a Texas Observer report:

Repent has struck with some success at many of its enemies within the town. A community theater attempted to open “Bent,” a play about the persecution of homosexuals during Nazi Germany. But the day before opening night, Repent members helped shut down the play by calling in fire marshals to complain about the theater’s permit. Staffers at a nature preserve were featured on local news defending themselves against Repent accusations that their site represents something related to witchcraft.

But grassroots opposition to Repent is also building. A group called “Angel Action” has mobilized against Repent, and blogs and Amarillo-based Facebook groups are springing up to protest Repent’s hate. (HT: LGF)

Security

Media Still Failing To Do Its Job On Bush’s Iraq Lies

Former Bush administration national security adviser Stephen Hadley appeared on MSNBC today to respond to Karl Rove’s admission in his new book that “Congress was very unlikely to have supported the use-of-force resolution without the W.M.D. threat.” MSNBC’s Chuck Todd remarked “I can’t remember anybody this close to the president saying we went to war under a false pretense.”

HADLEY: It’s not that we did it on a false pretense, we did it on the basis of intelligence that turned out not to be true. This was intelligence that the intelligence community believed, other intelligence services across the world did, based on UN inspection records. We all thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. [...]

It’s very clear that when the president made the decision to go to war, that the inspections regime was not getting at the truth in Iraq, and that the economic sanctions which were preventing Saddam from using oil revenues for pressing his neighbors, supporting terror, doing WMD, were about to collapse. So I think the president really played this out as long as possible. And he would tell you today that he thinks that if the international community had retained its unity, if President Chirac, Chancellow Schroeder, President Putin had stayed with us in putting pressure on Iraq, we might have been able to do this without resort to war.

Watch it:

This is ridiculous. It is simply no longer a matter of serious dispute that the Bush administration manipulated, exaggerated and lied about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s regime in order to build public support for the war.

Hadley’s suggestion that we could’ve avoided war if only the allies “had stayed with us” is just an insult — it’s long been known that the Bush administration started planning three months after September 11, 2001. It would have been great if Chuck Todd or co-host Savannah Guthrie had spent a little time over the last seven years developing some familiarity with this stuff in order to challenge Hadley on it. Instead, they just sit there while he spins and then move on to the next thing.

It’s amazing that we still need to have this debate, but we’ll keep having it as long as former Bush administration officials keep trying to rewrite history, and as long as journalists continue to neglect to do their job in correcting it.

Politics

Fox News’ Neil Cavuto propagates baseless rumor that Obama bought Rep. Matheson’s vote.

Today on Fox News, Neil Cavuto irresponsibly pushed the baseless rumor that President Obama bought Rep. Jim Matheson’s (D-UT) vote on health care reform by offering his brother a federal judgeship. First, Cavuto invited the originator of the conspiracy theory, Weekly Standard’s John McCormack. For his part, McCormack undermined his own argument. “Was there an explicit quid pro quo? Probably not,” he said. Next, Cavuto invited Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), who reiterated her call for an investigation into the matter. But Bachmann, too, acknowledged the lack of any basis for the claim. “We don’t know — that’s the question,” she said. Finally, Jeri Thomspon — Fred Thompson’s wife — brazenly told Cavuto she “felt sorry” for Scott Matheson, a victim of this right-wing smear, because “he’s going to have this stigma” for his entire judicial career. Watch a compilation:

Rep. Matheson issued a statement to Fox, stating, “The Weekly Standard’s piece is rubbish.” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said today that the right-wing allegation is “very silly.” Still, in a sign of its eminent “fairness,” Fox News is willing to “balance” the truth with a heavy dose of gossip.

Update

Republican Sen. Robert Bennett also disputed the right-wing allegation:

“Sen. Bennett has heard of all kinds of pressure being applied and offers being made to Democrats for votes on health care, but Scott Matheson’s nomination is not one of those because it has been in the works for a long time,” spokeswoman Tara DiJulio said.

Yglesias

For Democrats, Even a 2010 Win Will Feel Like a Loss

capitol1 1

John Judis gets hypothetically optimistic:

And let me say one other thing. I hate political predictions, and I have certainly heard my fill of them lately. The recent Conservative Political Action Conference echoed with predictions that the Republicans would obliterate the Democrats in November 2010. And the esteemed Charlie Cook has recently pronounced the Democrats to be toast in 2010. But—and there are some “ifs” coming—if Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid can get the health care bill through Congress and on to Obama’s desk, and if Obama has truly learned his lesson and begins to draw a sharp distinction between the Democrats’ approach and the Republican approach, and if he begins to propose initiatives that highlight this distinction, the Democrats will retain the House and Senate in November. They will probably lose seats, but they won’t get obliterated.

I hate predictions too, so I won’t offer one. I’ll just offer the observation that one consequence of winning the 2006 and 2008 House elections so handily is that even a good result in 2010 is going to look pretty bad. Chirs Bowers observed today that “In 2006 and 2008, Democrats won the national popular vote by 6.49% and 8.65% respectively.”

The way House elections work, is that if Democrats win by, say, 2 percent it’ll still look and feel like a wipeout with a huge proportion of members in marginal seats losing. It’s be a situation similar to the 1998 midterms, where the GOP retained control but was perceived to have suffered a substantial “rebuke” from the public in light of its diminished majority. The only way to keep doing well is to keep replicating the large margin of victory from 2006, which just isn’t realistic.

Politics

Sen. Byrd Undermines GOP Talking Point That He Opposes Reconciliation

ByrdFingerOver the last few days, Republicans have repeatedly cited Sen. Robert Byrd’s (D-WV) opposition to passing comprehensive health care reform through the reconciliation process as proof that Democrats are skirting Senate rules to “ram through” unpopular legislation. Republicans reason that if Byrd — the Senate pro tempore and an architect of reconciliation — believes that the process cannot be applied to reform, then Democrats — who no longer have a supermajority in the Senate — should “scrap” the existing legislation and “start over” on a bipartisan basis:

– SEN. LAMAR ALEXANDER (R-TN): “As Senator Byrd says, running health care through the Senate like a freight train is an outrage because it basically turns the Senate into the House, into a majoritarian institution.” [The Atlantic, 3/04/2010]

– SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): “The man who wrote the Byrd rule is Robert Byrd. He said so as recently in the last twelve months that it should not be used for health care.” [Washington Times, 2/25/2010]

– SEN. ORRIN HATCH (R-UT): “Less than a year ago, the longest-serving member of the Senate, West Virginia Democrat Robert Byrd, said, ‘I was one of the authors of the legislation that created the budget ‘reconciliation’ process in 1974, and I am certain that putting health-care reform . . . legislation on a freight train through Congress is an outrage that must be resisted.” [The Washington Post, 3/01/2010]

But as it turns out, Byrd doesn’t oppose using the reconciliation process to pass a small package of fixes to the Senate health care bill. In a letter to the editor published in Thursday’s Charleston Daily Mail, Byrd writes that it’s appropriate to use reconciliation on a package that reduces the deficit.

“I believed then, as now, that the Senate should debate the health reform bill under regular rules, which it did,” Byrd wrote. “The entire Senate- or House- passed health care bill could not and would not pass muster under the current reconciliation rules, which were established under my watch.” “Yet a bill structured to reduce deficits by, for example, finding savings in Medicare or lowering health care costs, may be consistent with the Budget Act, and appropriately considered under reconciliation.”

So now that “the longest-serving member of the Senate” has endorsed the Democrats’ strategy, will Republicans abandon their campaign against majority rule? It’s unlikely.

Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.

Alyssa

Pale Gals and Twilight Lovers

Alone at Dusk by innoxiuss.
Image used under a Creative Commons license courtesy of innoxiuss.

I have to admit, the movie in production that I may be most excited about these days may be one I know the least about: Amy Heckerling’s Vamps.  It’s not just the reunion of Clueless‘s director and lead, although that should be enough to get every woman in about a 30-year age range pretty damn excited.  It’s not just the inclusion of the adorable Krysten Ritter.  Honestly, I think it’s just that I’m excited to have some female vampire leads for a change, women who are vampires when the movie, or series of novels, or TV show they’re in begins.

Perhaps that sounds semantic.  But in the three biggest vampire pop culture franchises right now, the vampire leads are all male.  Whether it’s Edward Cullen in Twilight, Bill and Eric in True Blood, or the good-boy-bad-boy vamp brothers in The Vampire Diaries, the main vampire characters are always men.  There are female vampires in the picture, but they’re always supporting characters, even if they’re semi-awesome, like Alice Cullen, perhaps the only Twilight character I liked, or Pam in True Blood.  And they’re generally fairly focused inward on the vampire community.  The male lead vamps are always attracted to girls who are at minimum metaphorical virgins (and literal virgins in Twilight and True Blood).  Getting bit is pretty much the same thing as getting fucked for the first time, if you’ll pardon my language: you bleed, and you’re changed.

I think Herckerling’s formula, which makes the main characters female vampires, and makes them romantic-comedy age, rather than coming-of-age, will upset that sexual dynamic, which besides being problematic, is just boring.  I don’t know precisely what it’ll look like: will we see Ritter and Alicia Silverstone, her co-star, as predators?  As thoughtful vampires like Angel and Spike?  Whatever they are, they’ll be different.  And if Heckerling could do for the vampire craze (and hey, maybe even for romantic comedies) what she did for teen movies, I will be eternally grateful.

Older

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

Sign Up