ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

Joe Miller Thinks His Own Senate Race Should Be Unconstitutional

GOP Senate Candidate Joe MillerAt a town hall promoting his Senate campaign last night, GOP senatorial candidate Joe Miller — aka “Mr. Noun, Verb, and Unconstitutional” — proposed making his own race for the Senate unconstitutional:

Miller often returned to the idea of restricting the federal government to only powers allowed by the Constitution.

He called the idea of a living, changing Constitution “bullcrap,” and said he would support an amendment for term limits as well as an amendment repealing the 17th Amendment, which allows for the direct election of senators by the public rather than by state legislatures.

Miller’s proposal to return to the days when senators were chosen by political insiders is actually much less radical than his other proposals to declare virtually everything unconstitutional. When Miller made the laughable claims that Social Security, Medicare, the federal minimum wage, and unemployment benefits violate the Constitution, he simply proclaimed that the Constitution must be read to eliminate laws he personally disapproves of.  This time, Miller is at least acknowledging that a constitutional amendment would be required to strip the electorate of its right to vote in Senate races.

Security

Appeals Court Rejects Denying Asylum On The Basis Of Failing To ‘Look Gay’

brunoA while back, an immigration judge denied asylum to a young Serbian gay man, Mladen Todorovic, who claimed to have suffered persecution by government officials and others in his native country because of his sexual orientation. The judge justified the ruling by reasoning that Todorovic “does not appear to be overtly gay”:

The Court studied the demeanor of this individual very carefully throughout his testimony in Court today, and this gentleman does not appear to be overtly gay. The Court does not know whether he is or not, his testimony is that he is overtly gay and has been since he was 17 years old. Be that as it may, it is not readily apparent to a person who would see this gentleman for the first time that, that is the case, since he bears no effeminate traits or any other trait that would mark him as a homosexual.

The Asylumist blog reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled last week that the judge in question “improperly relied on gay stereotypes to reach an adverse credibility determination.” In fact, “the decision was so colored by impermissible stereotyping of homosexuals, under the guise of a determination on ‘demeanor,’” that the appeals court could not conduct a “meaningful” review of the judge’s decision and instead ordered immigration authorities to hold a new factual hearing on Todorovic’s case.

The appeals judge additionally highlighted the longstanding principle that an applicant may establish eligibility for asylum by showing that his or her “life or freedom would be threatened in the proposed country of removal on account of …membership in a particular social group.” If Todorovic’s testimony is accurate, he certainly has a compelling case. Courthouse News reports:

Todorovic claimed that he had been repeatedly harassed by his high-school classmates, raped by soldiers and at least one commanding officer in the Serbian army, and beaten unconscious by an anti-gay mob.

He said Serbian police stopped him and his boyfriend, a gay-rights activist, and took them to the police station, where they forced Todorovic to perform oral sex on the “filthiest” inmate, saying they “brought a hooker up here so you can have some fun.”

An officer then interrogated and beat Todorovic, saying he “hates fucking faggots” and hopes they all get “exterminated,” according to Todorovic. Todorovic joined the crew of a cruise ship and sailed to Miami in November 2000, where he lived for two years before filing for U.S. asylum and withholding of removal.

Todorovic isn’t the the first person to be denied asylum simply on the basis of not seeming “gay enough.” In 2002, Jorge Soto Vega of Mexico was initially denied asylum on the grounds that he did not “look gay.” The decision was ultimately overturned.

Alyssa

The New Red Menace?

Sam Raimi is making yet another alien movie, this one distinguished from its in-production fellows only by the fact that there’s a lead-in involving a skirmish with the Chinese. I was somewhat young for the era when all action movies were defined either by direct conflicts between the West and the Soviet Union or conflicts between the West and the Soviet Union as a proxy for something else. In other words, I can’t imagine a time when there was a societal security concern that translated neatly and conveniently into almost any potential movie scenario. Aliens can be secret agents, the threat of world-annihilating catastrophe is real and present in the form of nuclear war and standoff, an invasion can mobilize a few people or a society, spying is most definitely going on.

It’s hard to find a substitute for a world that is both militarily and economically bipolar, at least when it comes to the movies. Terrorism involves far fewer people, and though we speculate about the possibility of nuclear, biological or chemical terrorist attack, the consequences of the attacks we have experienced have killed thousands at most, not millions. Terrorists aren’t everywhere: of course, there are Americans who go off and join terrorist groups or militant movements, but they are aberrations, we find the prospect of our friends or neighbors headed off to join them or turning out to be them generally unfathomable. I don’t think most Americans, or even very large numbers, believe in the possibility that there is an alien society or a brigade of terrorists forming in our midst as folks who meant to root out Communism did. Plots that deal with terrorism are necessarily fairly small-scale and personal: one man against one man, small groups against small groups, simply because of how terrorism is planned and carried out. That makes for tense, interesting movies but not necessarily grand action sequences or scenes of societal mobilization.

And economic competition and expansion alone aren’t really a substitute for Communism in the movies. The reasons military clashes with China don’t seem that realistic or gripping in the movies is because they’re not a real possibility, nor a fear that’s taken deep hold in American movie-goers minds. America and China need each other too much, economically, for a real clash to occur. Aliens aren’t going to shoot down skirmishing Chinese and American planes because such skirmishes aren’t going to happen. Media moguls aren’t going to be able to manipulate world events by sparking war between China and the UK because the strategic interests are too important to be shaken by careless deception

Whether the current balances of power in our uni-polar world are a good thing for geopolitics is a question above this blog’s pay grade. But it certainly does leave movie-makers flailing a bit for enemies.

Politics

After Stoking Absurd Fears Of ‘Sharia Law,’ Paladino Refuses To Say If He Would Appoint A Muslim Judge

Our guest blogger is Charlie Eisenhood, a student at New York University and the Editor-in-Chief of the New York City-based blog NYU Local.

This morning, New York GOP Gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino spoke and answered questions from political journalists at a breakfast forum hosted by Crain’s New York Business. Paladino locked up the Republican primary largely by stoking anti-Muslim hate. He spent much of his campaign loudly attacking the Park51 community center planned for lower Manhattan as a “monument to those who attacked America.”

After winning the nomination, Paladino reiterated his opposition to the Muslim community center and absurdly said he feared that it would bring “sharia law to America.” ThinkProgress asked Paladino this morning if he would consider appointing Muslim judges if elected to office. Paladino stopped for a moment, then said, “oh please,” as he ignored the question and walked away:

TP: Mr. Paladino, I’m a student journalist. If you’re elected governor would you appoint Muslim judges?

PALADINO: Oh, please.

TP: Mr. Paladino, why won’t you answer my question? Mr. Paladino, are you concerned with sharia law?

Watch it:

While Paladino has made a name for himself confronting reporters and speaking his mind on controversial topics, he refusal to answer a simple question may speak volumes about his about treatment of the Muslim American community. Paladino has said that he would regulate the construction of community centers based on religion. Would he also select judges based on how they worship God?

Yglesias

India’s Workforce Growth and Education Challenge

Indiapopulation

Amy Kazmin has a very interesting FT piece about the promise and peril of India’s rapidly-growing workforce which, thanks to major differences in demographic structure, will soon far exceed China’s. The challenge, like in Brazil, is to provide enough upgrading of the workforce’s skill level to make an employment expansion that matches possible. Otherwise in a country that’s still very heavily rural, you just have a bigger burden on the existing stock of land:

The problem is acute for those from rural areas, where government schools – often staffed by poorly trained, absentee teachers – produce low learning levels and high drop-out rates. But even privileged youths whose families have paid for private education can emerge ill prepared for the modern environment. “Unemployment to a large extent is because people are unemployable in the absence of a significant, urgent dose of skills upgrading,” says Mr Aziz.

Close to one in three of those aged 15 to 35 is functionally illiterate, according to the National Sample Survey Organisation’s most recent data. States with the fastest-growing young populations tend to be the poorest, with the weakest schools and lowest literacy rates. Even rural youths who achieve basic literacy rarely have any vocational training.

India seems to be putting its hopes in a recent Right to Education law that “guarantees free education from six to 14 and mandates a maximum teacher-pupil ratio of one to 30″ while the central government and the states quibble over the costs. My worry here would be about the supply of well-qualified teachers. Small classes are probably better than giant ones ceteris paribus, but if you already don’t have enough good teachers then reducing the number of students who can have access to them may be counterproductive.

That aside, it always strikes me that trying to do more to help India should be a higher priority for US foreign policy. It’s all well and good to point out the massive bad faith of those who backed invading Iraq on “democracy promotion” grounds, but the fact is that we had all this rhetoric about democracy promotion in part because the idea of democratic solidarity sounds good to people. Well there’s this giant democratic country over in Asia that’s growing pretty rapidly but is also stricken with poverty and all kinds of continuing problems.

LGBT

Senators Circulate Letter, Start Petition Urging DOJ Not To Appeal DADT Ruling

Following the lead of 69 House Democrats, Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Mark Udall (D-CO) are circulating a letter and a petition urging the Justice Department not to appeal a recent court ruling which found Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell unconstitutional. From the petition:

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Senator Mark Udall of Colorado are leading a push to urge the Department of Justice to let the ruling stand. The two senators also continue to help lead the way on repealing DADT through legislation.

Use the form to the right to join with Senator Gillibrand and Senator Udall and demand that the U.S. government not block progress and instead let the federal court’s ruling stand. Too many brave men and women have been hurt by “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” We must not lose one more service member because of this nonsensical law. As the judge ruled, DADT actually hurts our national security — and that is unacceptable at a time of two wars.

As Washington Blade’s Chris Johnson notes, the U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Phillips “hasn’t yet entered judgment for the lawsuit and there is no set time for her to take that action. Once she enters judgment, the Justice Department will have 60 days to make a decision on whether or not to appeal the case to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.”

So far 16 senators have signed on to the letter. Last month, 56 Democrats voted for a motion to begin debate on a National Defense Authorization Act, which included the repeal amendment. Unable to garner 60 votes, it ultimately failed, forcing the Senate to take up the measure after the mid-term elections.

Some in the legal community have shied away from the tactic of asking the DOJ not to appeal a decision, since the department does have an obligation to defend existing law. But as the Palm Center noted in a recent memo, “it would be inaccurate to characterize this common practice as a mandatory requirement that DOJ must always defend federal laws in all cases, without exception.”

Politics

Bachmann Agrees to Three Debates While Her Tea Party Protégés And Allies Continue To Hide

BachmannBreaking a logjam that persisted after the August primary,” Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) today finally agreed to participate in three debates with her two opponents, Democrat Tarryl Clark and Independence Party nominee Bob Anderson. Bachmann had been “evasive about her plans,” forcing her opponents to cancel several events because she never responded to their requests.

Bachmann’s acquiescence was welcomed by her opponents and Minnesota political reporters, but she is unfortunately an outlier among uber-conservative Republican candidates this year. As Politico noted today, these candidates are “ducking public events, refusing to publicize the ones they do hold and skipping debates and national TV interviews altogether.” Indeed, across the country, tea party candidates and Bachmann protégés are refusing to debate:

Rep. Steve King (R-IA), Bachmann’s “best friend in Congress,” with whom she shares staff, has never participated in a formal debate since arriving in 2003. When Democratic nominee Matt Campbell publicly confronted King in August about his refusal to debate, King replied, “And my answer to that is that, judging by the fashion that you’ve conducted yourself, you have not earned it. Thank you. Next question.”

Nevada GOP Senate nominee Sharron Angle, whom Bachmann praised for “doing a fantastic job,” abruptly canceled a debate last month that she herslef had requested. In June, Angle looked into a TV camera and said, “What I would like to see is Harry Reid come into this studio and have a true debate, and on the issues.” Nonetheless, when given that opportunity, she refused, bizarrely explaining that she canceled because, “We wanted an informed electorate.”

Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO), whose Senate bid was endorsed by Bachmann, wrote a letter to his opponent in August inviting her to participate in six debates — he subsequently backed out of all but two of those.

Illinois GOP congressional nominee Bobby Schilling, whom Bachmann endorsed, has been resisting holding televised debates with moderators, preferring un-televised town halls instead, in which the public asks the questions.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), whom Bachmann has praised as a model governor, has long refused to debate his opponents or meet with newspaper editorial boards. Yesterday, he was slammed in an unprecedented above-the-fold, above-the-nameplate editorial with an all caps headline, “TIME FOR RESPECT – Governor Perry Should end his silence.”

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R), who received praise from Bachmann for signing her state’s draconian new immigration, said she will only debate if her poll numbers drop: “Maybe there would be a possibility that we would debate if my numbers starting dropping dramatically,’’ she said.

Texas GOP congressional nominee Francisco “Quico” Canseco, whom Bachmann has endorsed, is refusing to meet with the editorial board of his hometown paper, the San Antonio Express-News, claiming an “inherent bias” in favor of his opponent, Rep. Ciro Rodriquez (D-TX).

These tea party candidates have eagerly followed Bachmann’s lead in their quest to appeal to her devoted fan base. They would do well to follow her lead in debating as well, in order to appeal to the broader public — that is, of course, unless they’ve made the calculation that revealing the true extent of their extreme beliefs will actually alienate mainstream voters, instead of attracting them.

Yglesias

When Titans Clash

coverflow 1

Another day, another software patent verdict:

Apple Inc. sought to overturn a jury verdict that could force the computer maker to pay up to $625.5 million in damages for infringing a small technology company’s patents.
A federal jury in Tyler, Texas, on Friday found that Apple had infringed three patents owned by Mirror Worlds LLC, a company founded by David Gelernter, a Yale University computer science professor. The jury recommended Apple pay damages of $208.5 million a patent in the case.

[...]

The company’s suit, filed in 2008, cites patents covering how data is organized in streams and displayed, alleging Apple’s iPod, iPhone and Macintosh computers violate its patents.
Apple technologies cited in the case include those used in Cover Flow, a graphical interface that is integrated in iTunes so users can flip through images of album artwork; Spotlight, software that lets users conduct a system-wide search for files on their computer; and Time Machine, software that backs up files, so they can be restored at a later date.

Of course Apple doesn’t like this verdict, but it’s important to understand that the real victim here isn’t Apple but hypothetical future Apple competitors who now will only be able to include “cover flow” functionality if they pay a ransom to David Gelertner. Which is why though Apple will contest this particular ruling, they won’t contest the system that led to it. Instead, they’ll just assert that they own the patent on this “technology.”

But the whole thing is nuts. If you’re talking about a capital intensive industry, then the case for patents is strong. The existence of the patents stifles competition but it also attracts capital to the industry. But writing computer code isn’t capital intensive at all. You need a guy with skills and a computer. Except in a world of software patents, to actually comply with the rules you also need an army of lawyers. So actual compliance is extremely difficult and you have all this economically useless post hoc litigation and flailing incumbents enjoying some old-fashioned rent-seeking.

To be clear here, the issue isn’t the copying of code, which is covered by copyright. It’s the copying of the function served by the code. It’d be like saying the makers of Rush Hour need to pay a licensing fee to the producers of Lethal Weapon because they already patented the idea of an interracial action/comedy movie about cops. Then we could argue in court about how much difference it makes that in the newer movie one of the cops is Asian instead of white. At the end of the day, it’d just be one rich movie studio paying another, but independent film producers everywhere would need to worry that if they ever turned out to be responsible for a hit they’d just end up facing a lot of genre patent lawsuits.

Climate Progress

Cuccinelli attempts to criminalize all of climate science — with Post Normal logic & fervor

Mann: “Mr. Cuccinelli wants to prosecute people based on the words they choose to use. I’m not sure even George Orwell ever dreamed up anything that frightening.”

The latest move by Ken Cuccinelli, the Attorney General of Virginia, against Mike Mann and UVa is so ridiculous it needs to be highlighted to the widest audience possible.

So begins a must-read RealClimate post, “Cuccinelli goes fishing again.”  Before reposting it, here’s some background.

In August, Judge Paul M. Peatross Jr. ruled against Virgina AG Cuccinelli’s witch-hunt aimed at Michael Mann and climate science.  The Court issued a sane, normal ruling:

Read more

Economy

Idaho Considers Cutting Grocery Credits For Its Poorest Residents As Budget Fix

As they attempt to grapple with budgets decimated by the Great Recession, lawmakers in states across the country have largely chosen one of two tracks. Some, like Wisconsin and Oregon, have paired spending reductions with responsible revenue increases — asking their wealthiest citizens and businesses to sacrifice a bit so that vital programs can be preserved — while others, like New Jersey and Virginia, have slashed social safety net spending to the bone and adamantly refused to find additional revenue.

According to the Idaho Statesman’s Dan Popkey, Idaho legislators have a slew of options on the table for dealing with their 2011 budget shortfall, including raising the state’s “relatively low tobacco and beer and wine taxes.” But one other option that Popkey reports is under contemplation is cutting tax credits that help Idaho’s poorest residents afford food:

One possibility, though no legislators want their name on it yet: Ending the grocery-tax credit, which saves taxpayers $100 million. That would mean conflict because it would hit the poor hardest during hard times.

The credit is intended to refund some of the state’s sales tax to its poorest residents, as, unlike in many other states, the Idaho sales tax is levied on groceries. In an editorial, the Lewison Morning Tribune slammed the notion of cutting grocery credits, writing that “when it’s time to cut taxes, it’s Idaho’s wealthiest who get the breaks. When there’s a tax to be paid, it’s the people on the bottom rungs who get soaked.”

And Idaho already has an inequitable tax system, with its richest five percent of taxpayers paying a small percentage of their income in taxes than any other segment of its population. In fact, someone in the richest one percent pays more than two percentage points less, on average, than someone in the poorest 20 percent of the state. But, aside from maybe raising sin taxes, it doesn’t seem that other revenue increases are in the cards. “There’s no appetite for a general tax increase,” said the state’s House Assistant Leader, Scott Bedke (R).

Citizens for Tax Justice wrote that “limiting the grocery credit to low- and moderate-income households, those who are most impacted by the regressive nature of the sales tax, is a smarter approach than outright eliminating the credit.” But given Idaho’s regressive system, an income tax on the very wealthiest earners would be an even more equitable way to raise some revenue without taking food out of the mouth’s of the state’s poorest residents.

Older

Newer

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

Sign Up