ThinkProgress Logo

Alyssa

RuPaul Does Dr. Phil on Drag U

Many thanks to Alyssa for asking me to help tend the shop while she’s off in the Alaskan wilderness. I can’t wait to hear the stories she brings back.

I was hooked on RuPaul’s Drag Race after the first episode. In addition to watching the transformations of each superdrag diva, it’s really refreshing to see a realilty show that embraces its theatricality and inherent campiness. The catfights and tears maybe weren’t all real, but every queen on the show had real talent–those girls put in serious work with their makeup and costumes. When I heard that LOGO was creating another drag show, I was all in. Until I heard the premise.

Drag U is a show that helps women discover their fierceness, with makeovers conducted by the mistresses of illusion, former Drag Race contestants. RuPaul is the women’s camp counselor and drill sargeant–and while he hasn’t appeared in drag in the first three episodes, he’s also a mother figure. It’s a show that teaches women to celebrate their womanhood. And the teachers are men.

I have to admit to being a little uneasy about that at first–how could a man teach a woman how to be…a woman? And drag is all about illusion, about creating someone new and larger than life. Every week, three contestants are cinched and painted and pressed into hyperfemininity, a caricature. What life lessons are women supposed to learn here…?

Oddly–and maybe even successfully–Drag U attempts to give women a chance to unveil their wildest, most fantastical selves. The competition portion of the show includes a live audience of the contestants’ family and friends. RuPaul plays host to this talk show, introducing each contestant’s new persona and asking her how she’ll use what she’s learned in real life. It’s like a weird cross between Dr. Phil and American Idol, each woman experiencing self-discovery through fake lashes and sequined gowns.

Of a piece, the show is a fun and daring take on the images of women on TV. That drag and gay culture are becoming mainstream is an encouraging sign–and maybe it’s a sign that gender roles aren’t as fixed as they’ve been in the past. A man may not be able to teach womanhood, but he can teach fierceness.

Health

Why Is Virginia Allowed To Manufacture Standing In Its Health Law Challenge?

On Monday, a judge in Virginia ruled that the state’s lawsuit challenging the individual mandate in the new health care law should proceed partly because the state’s recently enacted ‘Virginia Health Care Freedom Act’ — which protect Virginia citizens from the individual requirement — conflicts with the federal requirement and “therefore encroaches on the sovereignty of the Commonwealth and offends the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution.”

“Although this lawsuit has the collateral effect of protecting the individual interests of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia, its primary articulated objective is to defend the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act from the conflicting effect of an allegedly unconstitutional federal law,” Judge Henry Hudson wrote in his opinion. “Despite its declaratory nature, it is a lawfully-enacated part of the laws of Virginia. The purported transparent legislative intent underlying its enactment is irrelevant.”

Indeed today, during an appearance on MSNBC, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnel practically admitted that Virginia’s standing in suing the federal government is derived almost solely from the legislation he signed “about four months ago”:

MCDONNELL: Well Andrea, Virginia is one of 21 states that have a suit. Virginia has its own challenge in part because of the bill I signed about four months ago that makes it illegal under Virginia law for anybody to be forced to buy health insurance. That gives us unique standing. Twenty other states have joined a suit in Florida that are also challenging it. That is in a separate federal court. But Andrea, I would suspect that no matter what happens out of Judge Hudson’s ruling in October that one side of another is likely to pursue this up to the Supreme Court.

Watch it:

Here, McDonnell is almost gleeful about inventing standing for his state. And while Hudson believes that “the purported transparent legislative intent” of manufacturing tension between state and federal laws is “irrelevant,” one must wonder about what kind of precedent this establishes. If Virginia has standing, then the restriction on state standing is a joke. States can follow McDonnell’s lead and legislate around it, challenging any federal law they disagree with, resulting in a plethora of the very kind of frivolous lawsuits that Republicans typically detest.

Politics

Anti-Choice Group Says Its ‘Prayers’ Have Been Answered When Abortion Clinic Closes Due To Doctor’s Leukemia

After more than 30 years in business, the Fayetteville Women’s Clinic in Arkansas closed its doors on July 30. The clinic had more than 500 patients and was “one of only two places in the state where women could have a surgical abortion.” While it focused mainly on obstetrics and gynecology, it also performed 700-800 abortions each year. The Fayetteville Women’s Clinic was also frequently targeted by protesters. Over the years, the office had been firebombed and the doctor kept a gun as a result of all the death threats he received.

40 Days for Life is one of the groups that frequently protested the clinic, run by Dr. William Harrison. It says it practices “a determined, peaceful approach to showing local communities the consequences of abortion in their own neighborhoods, for their own friends and families.” When the news came that Harrison’s clinic was shutting down, 40 Days for Life staffers praised and took credit for the news:

“This will be the sixth abortion center at a location where 40 Days for Life’s peaceful prayer vigils have been conducted to go out of business,” said Shawn Carney, 40 Days for Life campaign director. “It is truly an answer to prayer that abortions will no longer be carried out at this facility. All the glory belongs to God.” [...]

“How humbling will it be,” asked Carney, “to see God use the simplicity of prayer, fasting, outreach, and vigil to bring an end to abortion in many more areas, just like Fayetteville?”

“We rejoice over the babies that will be saved and the parents who will be spared from a lifetime of regret,” said Juliet Cassell, Fayetteville coordinator for 40 Days for Life, upon learning of the facility’s closure.

The actual reason that Harrison shut down his clinic is that he has leukemia — a fact not mentioned in the 40 Days for Life press release. According to the Fayetteville Flyer, these “health reasons” are why Harrison closed shop, although the doctor said “he plans to make a full recovery and hopefully reopen.”

ThinkProgress contacted David Bereit, 40 Days for Life’s national director, and asked him about this issue. Bereit reiterated that the clinic’s closure was “an answer to prayers,” but still said that he is praying for Harrison:

We have no doubt that the hundreds of volunteers who faithfully prayed outside that facility, as well as the dozens of pro-life counselors who lovingly offered alternatives to potential abortion customers, had an impact on the business of the Fayetteville Women’s Clinic — and this facility’s announced closure is certainly an answer to prayers.

Dr. Harrison and I have communicated on many occasions by e-mail over the last several years, and he knows that the local Fayetteville 40 Days for Life volunteers regularly pray for him and wish him no harm.

Security

700 Questions, One Purpose: Delay START

capitol-obstruction-240pxThe logic behind Sen. John Kerry and the Obama administration’s decision to delay the Senate Foreign Relations Committee vote on New START was not — as was widely reported — because START lacked support. Conversely, it was because they felt that they were very close to getting two Republicans Senators — Bob Corker (R-TN) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA) to vote for the treaty, as both seemed genuinely supportive. Getting these two might have meant game over, as it would have given more moderate Republican Senators plenty of political cover to vote for the treaty.

Yet the prospects for Lucy taking the football away on this are pretty apparent. The principle reason for the delay was that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee couldn’t actually dot all the i’s and cross all the t’s on the treaty process such that Republicans would be satisfied. And as we all know, if there is one thing the GOP cares about it is process. But much of the reason for the process issue was due to the submission of more than 700 questions from GOP Senators on the committee to the Administration. Now asking questions is fine. Asking a lot of questions is also fine. But asking such a quantity of questions so late in the game after months of hearings frankly reeks of duplicity.

Even if you take the motivations behind these questions at face value – that GOP Senators genuinely had questions about the treaty — what has also become clear since the vote was delayed is that there is a concerted political strategy on the part of the GOP leadership, led by Senator Jon Kyl, to delay and stall the floor vote on the treaty until next year after the Administration submits its next budget. Kyl wrote this in the Wall Street Journal and said as much to Politico yesterday:

If they want to schedule Senate floor time for the Senate treaty ratification in September, they can figure a) it’s going to take a long time to get done, and b) some of these conditions would not have been fully satisfied.

Time Magazine also quoted a Senate Republican Aide (hmm… I wonder who he works for) who said:

This notion that [ratification] is going to happen before November is completely absurd… It reeks of politics.

In other words, if this is brought to the floor in September Kyl is going to make this long and painful. Kyl has roped his troops in line and Senators McConnell (R-KY), Corker, Isakson, Alexander (R-TN), and Bennett (R-UT) have all basically said they are Kyl lemmings. Therefore, it is quite possible that even if Corker and Isakson vote for the treaty in committee in September, they could still support Kyl’s efforts to delay the vote on the floor by noting their continued support is conditional on the Administration meeting Kyl’s demands for nuclear modernization funding.

But the demands from Kyl (as well as Corker) that the Administration lavish billions of dollars more of unpaid for pork on the nuclear weapons complex are so vague that the Administration likely couldn’t even meet these demands if they wanted to. Instead these demands seem to be about just as much about kicking the New START can into next year, where Kyl – with likely more GOP Senators to work with – will have even more leverage over the Administration.

What makes this all the more pernicious is that Kyl basically supports the treaty. He called it benign and others have said he is leaning toward supporting it. Last year he even warned of the dangers of the Administration not getting a START deal. So why is Kyl holding the treaty hostage? Simple, as an extreme nuclear hawk, Kyl is attempting to use START to extract as many concessions as possible from the Administration such that he in effect kills off any chance of further action on the President’s larger nuclear agenda. Kyl is essentially trying to make the Administration chose between START and its Prague Agenda.

In summation, Kyl is taking a very modest treaty, one that he supports, and one that he knows if it failed would have disastrous consequences for US national security, and holding a gun to its head threatening to pull the trigger unless the President commits to building and explosively testing new nuclear weapons – something that would kill the President’s whole agenda.

Delaying the vote, may have made sure that Senator Kerry and the Administration couldn’t be accused of “rushing” the process, but in the end it probably only strengthened Kyl’s hand and got him closer to his goal of blocking the treaty this year. In the end, the only way the treaty probably gets passed this year is if the Obama administration and the Senate leadership call Kyl out and force a vote. As Senator Lugar said, after the vote was delayed:

We ought to vote now and let the chips fall where they may. It’s that important.

Security

Kyl ‘Damaging U.S. Interests’ By Blocking Dominican Republic Ambassador Nominee Over Iran Sanctions

TAX CUTSBack in November, President Obama nominated former president of National Council of La Raza and Arizona State University professor, Raul H. Yzaguirre, to serve as ambassador to the Dominican Republic on behalf of the U.S. Despite a devastating earthquake in neighboring Haiti and the fact that the Dominican Republic is home to the largest Caribbean economy, his nomination is still being stalled in the Senate by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ). Last night, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sent Kyl a letter, obtained by ThinkProgress, asking him to release his hold on Yzaguirre’s nomination “without further delay”:

clinton

Earlier in her letter, Clinton reasons that Yzaguirre’s nomination has been held up “for reasons completely unrelated to his credentials or fitness to serve.” Indeed, the fact that Kyl is bitter over the fact that the Iran Sanctions Act doesn’t make the Iranian people as miserable as he would like them to be has little do with U.S. interests in the Caribbean. And, as Clinton notes, the Dominican Republic is “a significant trading partner” and “a major hub for our relief and reconstruction efforts in neighboring Haiti.” The U.S. embassy in the Dominican Republic has been without a permanent ambassador for over 18 months. An aide from Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-NV) office pointed out that, if his nomination does not go through tonight, the Dominican Republic will have to wait at least another five weeks until congressional recess is over to have an ambassador.

Republicans in Congress have both blocked and delayed a number of critical nominations over reasons that have nothing to do with the qualifications of the nominees themselves. This past fall, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) brazenly blocked the confirmations of Arturo Valenzuela, Obama’s nominee to be assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs, and Thomas A. Shannon Jr., the nominee to be ambassador to Brazil over the Obama administration’s refusal to recognize the de facto Honduran government of Roberto Micheletti. Shortly after DeMint agreed to drop his opposition to Shannon, Sen. George LeMieux (R-FL) decided to further delay Shannon’s critical confirmation over the innocent role he played in initiating talks with Cuba on family migration and direct mail service.

Economy

Nelson And Lincoln Vote To Permanently Extend Bush Tax Cuts, Massively Increase Deficit

ben_nelson_0Last month, as the Senate was gridlocked by a Republican filibuster of a bill to extend much-needed unemployment benefits to millions of out-of-work Americans, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) stood with the GOP against the extension. Nelson claimed that his concerns about the deficit overrode his support for the extension; he voted against the bill that finally passed 60-40.

Later that week, Nelson came out in support of an extension — “for now” — of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, which adds many billions more to the deficit than the unemployment insurance extension. In fact, extending the Bush tax cuts for one year alone would add $115 billion to the deficit, compared to the “relatively tiny budgetary cost of $33 billion” for the extension of UI benefits.

Today, though, Ben Nelson provided further evidence that he is a deficit peacock — someone who claims to be concerned about the deficit but isn’t actually interested in taking serious steps toward a balanced budget. Before the final vote on the states’ aid bill that passed today, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) offered two amendments that would, in effect, permanently extend the Bush tax cuts. David Dayen has the results:

Before passing the state fiscal aid bill, Democrats actually gave Jim DeMint two votes on tax rates. He wanted to add massively to the deficit – literally trillions of dollars – by freezing in place the tax rates on individuals and “small businesses” that we have now, and which make us one of the most lightly-taxed industrialized nations on the planet. And look at this: Democrats rejected the measure entirely. On both votes, only Ben Nelson [and Sen. Blanche Lincoln (AR)] crossed the aisle to vote with all Republicans [except deficit hawk George Voinovich (OH)]

Nelson and Lincoln (who also claims to be concerned about deficits) apparently don’t mind spending $3.1 trillion over the next ten years to pursue ineffective tax cuts for the wealthy. Perhaps they should have listened to their colleague, Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), who said of DeMint’s proposal, “that’s not serious. Is that a stunt? Yes, it’s a stunt. Is it a gimmick? Yes, it’s a gimmick. Is it serious? No, it’s not serious.”

DeMint is particularly “not serious” when it comes to paying for his extraordinarily expensive amendments. Both came “with instructions to offset as necessary through spending reduction,” Senate-speak for “we’ll worry about the cost later.”

Charlie Eisenhood

Yglesias

Endgame

Where the vampires meet:

— Paradoxically, with Kagan’s confirmation done gay marriage is now mandatory despite sharia being in force.

This article about the high age at which Finnish people complete college really ought to mention that they have nearly-universal male conscription. It’s relevant!

— Mitch McConnell’s thinks that all electoral outcomes should lead to center-right policies.

— If you love the Senate, you need to embrace reform.

— Schumer & McCaskill want to make it harder to cross the border illegally by making it more expensive to do so legally.

Nobody likes Stars’ post-Set Yourself on Fire work, but I do damnit! This is “We Don’t Want Your Body”.

Health

New Medicare Trustees Report Demonstrates Republicans Can’t Repeal Bill Without Undermining Medicare Program

A new Medicare Trustees report finds that the Independent Payment Advisory Board [IPAB], the payment reform demonstration projects, and productivity improvements in the new health care law will save Medicare $8 billion by the end of 2011, and $575 billion over the next decade. The law will also extend the life of Medicare’s hospital fund (Medicare Part A) by 12 years, which will now remain sustainable through 2029.

This afternoon, during a conference call evaluating the new report, Robert Greenstein of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), argued that should Republicans attempt to repeal all or portions of the health care law, the would significantly undermine the longevity of the Medicare program. Greenstein maintained that if the GOP becomes the governing party, it would be against their political interests to suspend IPAB and the payment reform demonstration projects — which the GOP has pledged to repeal:

GREENSTEIN: If the entire Affordable Care Act is repealed, that’s a different story, but then the Medicare trust fund finances would be in much worse shape. But assuming the bill remains in affect, I think that the fiscal pressures on the whole federal budget moving going are going to be so severe and Medicare plays such a central role in this, that it is really hard for me to imagine policymakers of either party…whoever is in the position of governing is going to desprately need to find efficiency savings in Medicare and it will be in their political interest…. to pursue whatever measures can devleop and produce savings, especially savings that result from payment and delivery system reforms, rather than from the more unpoular approch of cutting beneficiaries’ benefits and raising premiums.

Greestein also responded to the GOP’s claims that the trustees’ findings are contradicted by the CMS’s own actuary, Richard Foster, who has predicted that some of the savings from health care reform may not materialize. Under Foster’s more pessimistic analysis, only 60% of the projected savings would be realized. Consequently, the insolvency of the Medicare Trust Fund would be moved back to 2028 instead of 2029 and only half of the current shortfall would be closed (instead of four-fifth as the actuaries predict.)

“Under either conclusion, this is still a dramatic improvement.” “The most likely scenario probably lies in between those two.” But in their report, the trustees underscore the “the crucial importance of moving forward strongly with the pilots and the demos and the research and really running what results from that.”

Politics

Nelson And Lincoln Vote To Permanently Extend Bush Tax Cuts, Massively Increase Deficit

ben_nelson_0Last month, as the Senate was gridlocked by a Republican filibuster of a bill to extend much-needed unemployment benefits to millions of out-of-work Americans, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) stood with the GOP against the extension. Nelson claimed that his concerns about the deficit overrode his support for the extension; he voted against the bill that finally passed 60-40.

Later that week, Nelson came out in support of an extension — “for now” — of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, which adds many billions more to the deficit than the unemployment insurance extension. In fact, extending the Bush tax cuts for one year alone would add $115 billion to the deficit, compared to the “relatively tiny budgetary cost of $33 billion” for the extension of UI benefits.

Today, though, Ben Nelson provided further evidence that he is a deficit peacock — someone who claims to be concerned about the deficit but isn’t actually interested in taking serious steps toward a balanced budget. Before the final vote on the states’ aid bill that passed today, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) offered two amendments that would, in effect, permanently extend the Bush tax cuts. David Dayen has the results:

Before passing the state fiscal aid bill, Democrats actually gave Jim DeMint two votes on tax rates. He wanted to add massively to the deficit – literally trillions of dollars – by freezing in place the tax rates on individuals and “small businesses” that we have now, and which make us one of the most lightly-taxed industrialized nations on the planet. And look at this: Democrats rejected the measure entirely. On both votes, only Ben Nelson [and Sen. Blanche Lincoln (AR)] crossed the aisle to vote with all Republicans [except deficit hawk George Voinovich (OH)]

Nelson and Lincoln (who also claims to be concerned about deficits) apparently don’t mind spending $3.1 trillion over the next ten years to pursue ineffective tax cuts for the wealthy. Perhaps they should have listened to their colleague, Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), who said of DeMint’s proposal, “that’s not serious. Is that a stunt? Yes, it’s a stunt. Is it a gimmick? Yes, it’s a gimmick. Is it serious? No, it’s not serious.”

DeMint is particularly “not serious” when it comes to paying for his extraordinarily expensive amendments. Both came “with instructions to offset as necessary through spending reduction,” Senate-speak for “we’ll worry about the cost later.”

Charlie Eisenhood

Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.

Yglesias

Hard to Avoid Boosting Outsourcing

File:Emblem of India

USAID seems to have a program in India that will “teach workers there advanced IT skills like Enterprise Java (Java EE) programming, as well as skills in business process outsourcing and call center support. USAID will also help the trainees brush up on their English language proficiency.”

An outraged David Sirota says:

Now look, I’m all for a robust foreign aid budget – we don’t do nearly enough to help the developing world. However, using foreign aid money to specifically help private corporations “take advantage of low labor costs” in the developing world – that’s not “aid,” that’s rank taxpayer subsidization of for-profit exploitation.

I think it’s hard to say. The fact of the matter is that one very reasonable thing to do if you’re Indian and can do some computer programming and speak English is get into business process outsourcing. It’s also the case that if you’re a company with some business processes that can be profitably outsourced to an Indian firm, you’re likely to do it. Suppose that instead of this program, we spent the money on building schools. Well, what if those schools taught math and English, skills that graduates could later put to use doing some business process outsourcing? Or what if we vaccinate some kids, and they grow up to learn English and computer programming and then they get into business process outsourcing?

I don’t want to defend this specific program in specific detail, but the point is that any efforts we make to improve public health, infrastructure, or education in a poor foreign country is extremely likely to lead to an increase in the number of for-profit firms taking advantage of new opportunities to source work to low-wage locales. Personally, I’m fine with that. I believe borders should be open to the flow of goods, services, and people and look forward to continued increases in India’s level of prosperity. But I think there’s a problem here for trade-skeptics. Unless we close our borders to trade, anything we do to help poor countries improve their productive capabilities will lead to more trade and more outsourcing. So are all effective aid programs, in effect, “rank taxpayer subsidization of for-profit exploitation”?

Older

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

Sign Up