ThinkProgress Logo

Alyssa

"It took a long time to / Become the thing I am to you"*

Over the weekend, someone forwarded me this fantastic collection titled “Rare Photos of Famous People,” although it might be more appropriately called “Pictures of Famous People When They Were Young.”  It’s a fascinating collection, and I told the person who sent it to me that it seemed like the perfect example of the fact that there’s a moment when people become, ineffably, who they are.  Take this picture of Marilyn Monroe:

Maybe it’s just the angle, but the lines of her cheeks look almost unrecognizable to me, her eyes aren’t looking at the camera with the post-coital hazed gaze she perfected.  She hadn’t settled into the look she’d decided worked for her, or at least wasn’t deploying it in this photograph.  By contrast, take this picture of Madonna in 1976:

She’s 18, the pose is sort of gawky, the flats and the dress entirely of their era.  And yet, she’s unmistakably Madonna, with the half-smile, the clear lines of muscles and tendons visible in her legs and arms, the way she’s dominating the space, even if it’s just the gap between a drinking fountain and a window.  And sometimes folks are entirely unrecognizable:

Perhaps it’s just me, or that I’m young or something, but I would not have recognized this guy as Christopher Walken.  Walken’s always been sort of otherworldly–it’s that quality and his absurdly amazing dance skills that makes the video for “Weapon of Choice” weirdly plausible.  But I never would have pegged him as angelic.

Anyway, peruse the whole collection.  It’s great, and revealing.  And further proof that there has never been, and never will be, anyone to equal Clark Gable for smoothness.

*Title courtesy the Indigo Girls.

Health

Procedural Clarification: Reconciliation Does Not Require 60 Votes

SenateChamberDuring yesterday’s YouTube interview, President Obama said that “[i]t is my greatest hope that we can get [health care reform] done, not just a year from now but soon” but explained that reform legislation has stalled in Congress because “you’ve got to have 60 votes for everything.” Similarly, Politico’s Live Pulse blog reported that Lawrence O’Donnell, the Democratic Senate Finance Committee staff director during the ’93-’94 health care debate, claimed that “a reconciliation bill won’t work” since “when people talk about its 51-vote threshold they’re forgetting that is just the final vote. Every day the bill is on the floor it will face 60-vote procedural hurdles.”

But if the House passes the Senate bill alongside a package of changes through reconciliation, the Senate does not have to muster another 60 vote super-majority. The Wonk Room spoke to former Senate parliamentarian Robert Dove, who clarified that nothing in the reconciliation process requires 60 votes. Here is how it works:

1) House and Senate budget committees must include a “reconciliation directive” in the budget resolution. (They did.)

2) The Senate Finance and health committees send the changes to the Senate Budget Committee. The House Ways and Means, Education and Labor and Energy and Commerce Committees report their changes to the House Budget Committee. There are no time limits on markups and Republicans can bombard the committee with amendments.

3) The Budget Committees incorporate the changes into an omnibus budget reconciliation bill, but cannot accept any amendments. “Under the budget resolution, each committee’s portion of the bill must lead to a net reduction of the deficit of at least $1 billion over five years.”

4) The bills then move to the floor. In the House, “the House Rules Committee can waive all points of order against a bill, if backed up by a simple majority vote of the House.” In the Senate, any grouping of 41 senators can knock out any provision in the reported bill that violate the Byrd rules. A provision that (a) has no budgetary impact (b) increases the deficit by any amount over a 5 year or 10 year period, (c) increases the deficit by more than $10 billion in any one year before 2014 unless fully offset over a five-year period, or (d) makes any change to title II of the Social Security Act can be stricken from the package.

Debate in the Senate on any reconciliation measure is limited to 20 hours (and 10 hours on a conference report) and amendments must be germane and not include extraneous matter. However, at the conclusion of the 20 hours of debate, “Senators can still offer an unlimited number of amendments, which must then be voted on immediately, without debate.” “All of those amendments must meet each of the Budget Act and Byrd Rule restrictions that the base bill met, or they would require 60 votes, not 51 votes, for adoption. In addition, amendments must be germane to the bill.”

5) If the House and Senate bills are approved, they are sent to a conference of House and Senate negotiators to be melded into a single piece of legislation. That final conference report is then approved by both chambers and signed by the president.

Dove stressed that the reconciliation process was messy and explained that Republicans can exploit quorum calls, offer numerous amendments and insist that their amendments be read in full. In other words, they can delay the process, but if Democrats stick together, they can’t derail it.

Politics

Conservatives Fearmonger About Repealing DADT: It Will Lead To The Draft And ‘Mortally’ Wound The Military

After President Obama declared in his State of the Union address last week that he would “work with Congress and our military to finally repeal” the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy “this year,” conservatives predictably balked at the idea. “With all due respect to his sincerely held if abstractly formed views on this subject, it would be reckless to require the military to carry out a major sociological change, one contrary to the preferences of a large majority of its members, as it fights two wars,” wrote the Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol.

With the push for overturning DADT gaining momentum and the support of Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Michael Mullen, conservative fearmongering about the potential effects of repeal have gone into overdrive with suggestions that the policy change would “mortally” damage the all-volunteer military. During a hearing with Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates today, Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) warned that allowing “the presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts” would pave the way for allowing “alcohol use, adultery, fraternization, and body art” in the military. On CNN today, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins suggested it could lead to the re-institution of the draft:

PERKINS: Let’s go back to the Military Times in 2008 had a poll of active duty military members. Fifty-eight percent said they were opposed to overturning this policy. And many have said that this will cause them to reconsider whether or not they will stay in the military. And it will have an impact upon recruiting. I mean this is an issue of retention and recruitment for the military and it ultimately could lead back to the imposition of a draft in order to fill the numbers and quotas in the military.

Perkins’ draft claim was echoed in a statement today by Rabbi Yehuda Levin of the Rabbinical Alliance of America, who also suggested that repealing DADT could cause earthquakes and other natural disasters. Watch it:

Dr. Nathaniel Frank responded to Perkins’ “fear tactics” about military retention — a claim that relies on a “unscientific, self-selective” survey by Military Times of its subscribers, not a random sample of active duty soldiers — by pointing out that “polls show in Canada and Britain that when they asked service members if they would, if they wanted to serve with gays, two-thirds of them refused. Absolutely refused. But when they actually lifted the bans anyway, about 2 people, 2 people, not the thousands predicted by the polls actually left.”

Nearly 14,000 gay and lesbian service men and women have been discharged from military service since 1993. Additionally, a 2007 study by the Williams Institute found that DADT hurts retention as “an estimated 4,000 lesbian, gay, and bisexual military personnel” per year since 1994 “would have been retained if they could have been more open about their sexual orientation.”

Yglesias

Getting Real About Congress’ Political Problems

I think this idea being promoted by Josh Marshall’s Hill staffer correspondents that the problem congressional Democrats are having stems from having staged an insufficient number of cleverly awkward votes for Republicans is a bit dangerous and delusional. Look out the window at the state of the labor market. Not the labor market for the Washington DC metro area or for the kind of college-educated professionals likely to be social acquaintances of congressional staff, but of the country as a whole:

g20808701070121300836489375225305

How on earth is the electoral situation not going to be bleak for the party in charge? This is the worst recession since World War II:

20100129-qfyctuxgijn8k9df6bptdwkdsj 1

Under the circumstances, there are two useful things a member of congress can do. One is to take actions that improve the economic situation. The other is to pass laws that tackle important long-run problems. But if you can’t do the first thing, I think you’re really fooling yourself if you think some kind of parliamentary hijinks are going to transform the situation.

Security

QDR’s Nuclear Tea Leaves

atomic_icbm_minuteman_375Whenever the Quadrennial Defense Review – or any big government document is released – there is a search to read the tea leaves of what the new report means for US policy. These government strategy reports are often more important for what they do or do not mention – ie what will or won’t be a funding priority – than for laying out a new groundbreaking strategic doctrine.

This QDR contains some useful changes. For instance, Robert Farley has a great take on the shift away from the “long war” or GWOT formulation toward a more sensible strategic outlook and the elevation in priority of disaster response is definitely overdue. There are also a couple of interesting tidbits from the QDR related to nuclear policy.

First, this Administration is really concerned with stopping nuclear terrorism and proliferation. This isn’t really news, but the new QDR confirms the priority the Administration has given to these issues and lays out some very important tangible steps, such as investing in nuclear forensics. This is of key importance to deterring proliferation, since ensuring that the US can identify the source of nuclear materials that were used in a bomb, provides an added disincentive to countries contemplating proliferate to third party groups. As Travis Sharp notes, “There is a big, big role for the nuclear weapons laboratories in the new QDR. In order to prevent WMD terrorism.”

Second, the new QDR gives a cold shoulder to a favorite program of the neocon right – the potentially highly dangerous and destabilizing program called “Prompt Global Strike.” Prompt Global Strike is a program that calls for replacing some of our nuclear tipped Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) with conventional warheads, in order to be able to strike at “fleeting targets” of opportunity across the globe. While that may sound like an important tool, the fact is that it provides few advantages over existing capabilities and has some major downsides.

The primary problem is one of “nuclear ambiguity.” Russia and China for instance would have no idea whether an ICBM had a conventional or nuclear warhead. The launching of such a missile would also be inherently destabilizing. Remember that the Russians believed that a launch of a Norwegian weather rocket in the mid-90s was actually the West launching a nuclear weapon at them. A nuclear war was only averted because Yeltsin, a man who loved to drink, had the wits about him to contradict his military advisers’ itchy trigger fingers and halted a nuclear response – yes we were that close. Thus a policy that calls for speculatively firing ICBMs, would have significant blow back in our relations with, Russia and China, could escalate the proliferation and development of ballistic missiles, upset the nuclear balance, and in a worst case result in an accidental or mistaken nuclear launch in response. Finally, there is that whole problem of having perfect actionable intelligence.

Not surprisingly the Bush administration’s 2006 QDR was all about (pdf) Prompt Global Strike. Their QDR mentioned it six times, pledged to develop this capability, and called on Congress to grant the “broader authorities” to the executive that this capability would need. However, this 2010 QDR is much more circumspect about the system. It references “prompt global strike” just once, saying only that the “The Department also plans to experiment with conventional prompt global strike prototypes.” It seems clear that unlike the Bush administration, this is not going to be critical to the Obama administration’s defense posture.

Yglesias

Don’t Ask Don’t Tell

K.D. Perry - Gays in the military Pic 2 1

I don’t have a ton to say about today’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell hearings. Obviously, current policy is discriminatory and wrong. It’s also obvious that this is the kind of thing where on any given year it’s more convenient for the military to do it next year instead. But that just takes you back to the fact that it’s discriminatory and wrong. Tons of countries—from Israel to the UK to Canada to Spain to Denmark—have gay and lesbian soldiers serving openly and their militaries function just fine.

Meanwhile, it seems that only eight percent of self-identified Republicans think openly gay men and women be allowed to teach in public schools. The numbers for serving in the military are quite a bit higher than that.

Climate Progress

Groundhog Decade: We’re stuck in a bad movie, where it’s always the hottest decade on record

Decadal

Somewhere on a Hollywood movie set for Groundhog Day, Part 2: Bill Murray wakes up to find he’s just lived through the hottest decade on record, just as he did in the 1990s, just as he did in the 1980s.  And he keeps waking up in the hottest decade on record, until he gains the kind of maturity and wisdom that can only come from doing the same damn thing over and over and over again with no change in the result.  Ah, if only life were like a movie.

Somewhere in PA:  Punxsutawney Phil saw the shadow of unrestricted fossil-fuel pollution from Homo “sapiens” sapiens today.  That means global warming for another six thousand weeks — and then some (see NOAA stunner: Climate change “largely irreversible for 1000 years,” with permanent Dust Bowls in Southwest and around the globe).

If we keep listening to the siren song of delay, delay, delay from the anti-science crowd, then eventually people aren’t going to go through this elaborate charade of wondering whether some large rodent in Pennsylvania can predict the weather — the forecast will always be the same, “bloody hot”:

Read more

Politics

Tea Party Profiteers: How Republican Operatives Are Exploiting Economic Anxiety For Power, Cash

Pirate ShipRepublican partisans — aided by lobbyists and corporate front groups — are exploiting the legitimate feelings of anger and distrust among many struggling Americans. These operatives and profiteers, many of them experienced public relations professionals, have set up sophisticated social networking portals and online solutions to control the flow of information within tea party organizations. As gatekeepers to ostensibly open forums, these political operatives and profiteers have been able to set the political agenda of the tea parties and hand out marching orders. And tea party profiteers are making millions cashing in on the movement. They are selling tea party support to candidates and policies which continue the legacy of Bush-era unregulated capitalism and corporate bailouts:

Eric Odom: Odom, who appears regularly on Fox News and on other venues as a spokesman for the tea party movement, is at the center of tea party profiteering. Odom maintains dozens, possibly hundreds of tea party websites and community forums which he controls through a “Ning” technology based social networking platform. Odom’s vast online control of county, state, and issue oriented tea party websites is done through his two for profit consulting companies: American Liberty Alliance and Strategy Activism, LLC. His American Liberty Alliance has served as a hub between disparate tea party groups and right-wing front groups. In a biographical video he posted on YouTube, Odom explained that he has worked for years on local and statewide Republican campaigns developing “stealth type marketing…some say ‘attack sites.’” He boasted that he built “sites behind the scenes, many of them to this day no one today knows I took part in, some of them were actually very effective in defeating the opponent.” While it is unclear exactly who is paying Odom now for his tea party profit ventures, Odom has delicately straddled independent populist rhetoric while proclaiming that his network will work exclusively for the election of Republican candidates this year.

Allen Fuller: According to Tennessee business records, Odom’s Strategic Activism, LLC business partner is Republican new media consultant Allen Fuller, who also maintains a firm called Flat Creek Public Affairs. Fuller may be the best clue to find out who pays Odom. On his website, Fuller counts Jane Norton, the GOP candidate for Senate in Colorado, as a client, and also receives payments from several other Republican members of Congress. Fuller helps corral tea party support to American Majority, a Republican training organization.

Glenn Beck: Beck, the most powerful promoter of the tea parties in the media, often rants during his regular programming that investing in gold is the only way to hedge against a supposed deep inflation in the future. He does not disclose, however, that gold companies are his primary sponsors, or that the gold companies he promotes have predatory fees: Goldline, one of Beck’s sponsors, sells gold for 30-35% more than market value. “Here’s the deal, call Goldline, study it out, pray on it,” Beck advises his listeners. Beck has cemented his control over the tea parties by launching his own 9.12 project network of social networking sites — which are hosted by his for profit media company Mercury Radio Arts.

Tea Party Nation: As a for-profit business, Tea Party Nation organized the Tea Party Convention this year at Nashville’s swank Opryland Gaylord hotel. The convention, set at the “grassroots” ticket price of $550 per person, features a Madison Avenue fashion company selling tea party jewelry and a paid ($120,000) speech by Sarah Palin. Tea Party Nation also maintains a message board.

Dick Armey: As ThinkProgress has documented, Armey has a long history of organizing conservative grassroots causes in support of his corporate clients. Armey presents himself as a ideologue, who helms his nonprofit FreedomWorks as a mere exercise in his free market beliefs. But while Armey rails against the Wall Street bailout and efforts to rebuild the foundations of the economy, his own lobbying firm represented AIG, Lehman Brothers, and Merrill Lynch during the bailouts. Indeed, even his nonprofit still pays him a lobbyist salary of $550,000 per year.

Tea Party Express: The Tea Party Express bus tour, and affiliated political action committee, has raised funds using tea party messages. The Tea Party Express effort has been a slick public relations gimmick of the Sacramento-based consulting firm Russo, Marsh and Rogers (RMR). RMR has worked on several stealth campaigns for Republican clients, including the underhanded push to recall Gov. Gray Davis (D-CA). In any case, the Tea Party Express, which RMR staffers operate, has proved to be a cash cow for RMR — in 2009 alone, it plunged at least $1,025,559 of money it raised back into RMR.

The profiteers say that the original American revolutionaries cast their tea into the Boston harbor as a simple rejection of taxation, so the modern tea party movement should similarly reject increased financial regulations, health reform, and taxes on the rich. But the history tells a different story. Boston revolutionaries rejected subservience to the East India Company, a British-run international corporation. They cast the tea into the harbor as a symbolic message to say that their taxes should go back into the American community, not subsidizing the profits of London elites and foreign corporations. Now, Republican tea party profiteers are trying to exploit the movement, pushing them to oppose policies which would actually liberate the middle class and crack down on international corporations. Despite the populist rhetoric, the profiteers see the tea party movement as a pool to extract fundraising dollars and volunteers for Republican campaigns. Indeed, RNC Chairman Michael Steele, himself a former lobbyist, has said that he has an “expectation” that tea partiers loyally toe the Republican line.

Alyssa

Sharp-Dressed Man

  Peter Gallagher by watchwithkristin. 
Image used under a Creative Commons license courtesy of watchwithkristin.
I watched Adam this weekend, for the piece that I’m working on.  Again, the details on what I thought of Hugh Dancy’s performance as a young man with Asperger syndrome are going to have to wait for that piece.  But I was struck, as I frequently am, by Peter Gallagher’s lack of vanity in the movie.  I’m not sure I mean that in a conventional way.  Gallagher’s an extremely good-looking man, and he seems reasonably aware of it.  He frequently shows up in movies or television looking aristocratic, and he frequently plays rich: it lets him dress commensurate to his looks.  But he’s also willing to play a fairly terrible person a whole lot of the time.  
In While You Were Sleeping, the first romantic comedy I ever saw, and that I think of like Casablanca–because its wacky family, mistaken identity, and girl with a job that doesn’t truly reflect her talents have been repeated so frequently, it’s hard to remember that the movie was so fresh and charming when it first came out–Gallagher plays a good-looking lawyer who happens to be a dreadful guy.  When he’s mugged and falls onto the El tracks, Sandra Bullock saves his life, and then lets his family think the two are engaged.  It turns out that he was dating an awful, shallow blonde, is deeply estranged from his family, hell, the guy even knocked a nest of squirrels out of a tree as a kid so he could get credit for saving them.  And of course Sandra Bullock ends up with his brother, leaving him at the altar.  He’s a very good-looking patsy.  And what works about the performance is Gallagher’s lack of awareness.  He decides to redeem when the woman he thinks can be the agent of his redemption is falling for someone else.  And he realizes that she’s not in love with him when it’s far, far too late to win her back.
The same is essentially true in Adam, although his being a terrible, terrible person has more significant consequences.  He plays Rose Byrne’s father, an accountant who’s been indicted for cooking the books of a firm run by the daughter of a family friend with whom he had an affair.  He also tells Rose Byrne’s character to end her relationship with Hugh Dancy’s Adams.  In other words, he’s a schmuck, and ends up on his ass, in the snow, alienated from his daughter.  Most actors would insist on being redeemed in some of their roles.  Gallagher is unusually, and admirably, willing to end movies looking like an ass.

Justice

Cranky McCain Chastises Mullen And Gates For Expressing Opinion On DADT Before Consulting Him

During today’s Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on repealing the military’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) criticized Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen for supporting the repeal of DADT without first conducting an exhaustive review of the policy or consulting with Congress.

“And so your statement is one that is clearly biased, without the view of Congress being taken into consideration,” McCain said. “I’m happy to say we still have a Congress of the United States that would have to pass a law to repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’, despite your efforts to repeal it in many respects by fiat”:

I’m deeply disappointed in your statement…Your statement is ‘question before us is not whether the military prepares to make this change, but how we best prepare for it.’ It would be far more appropriate, I say with great respect, to determine whether repealing this law is appropriate and what effects it would have on the readiness and effectiveness of the military before deciding on whether we should repeal the law or not and fortunately it is an act of Congress and it requires the agreement of Congress in order to repeal it.

Watch it:

McCain’s harsh dismissal of Gates and Mullen contradicts his previous commitment to consider repealing the policy at their request. In October of 2006, for instance, McCain explained that he understood the arguments against repealing DADT, but promised that “the day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, Senator, we ought to change the policy, then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it because those leaders in the military are the ones we give the responsibility to.”

But today, McCain refused to “consider seriously” repealing the law, arguing that the Pentagon should not change policies in the middle of two wars. The logic of course, makes little sense, and something McCain himself may have rejected in October of 2006. It’s particularly during times of war, when the military is stretched thin and is asking its members to fight for freedoms in distant lands that it should grant all of its soldiers the right to be who they are. As Mullen put it, “No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.”

Mullen admitted that the military had not conduced a review of the policy but also said that he hasn’t been any research showing that openly gay members undercut military moral. Instead, Mullen pointed to studies that concluded that ending the policy would not hurt military preparedness and cited personal conversations with nations that have fully integrated their forces. “I have talk talked to several of my counterparts in countries whose militaries allow gays and lesbians to serve openly, and there has been as they have told me, no impact on military effectiveness,” Mullen said. “I have served with homosexuals since 1968,” he added. “Everyone in the military has.”

At the hearing, Gates called for a review of DADT and suggested that it may take up to two years to implement a full repeal. Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) also suggested that this year, “what’s more likely than repeal…is a moratorium” on discharges. “I think [it's] a more likely prospect because of the study,” Levin said.

Transcript: Read more

Older

Newer

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

Sign Up