As a typo-prone blogger myself, this is the kind of thing I certainly sympathize with: “This blog post originally stated that one in three black men who have sex with me is HIV positive. In fact, the statistic applies to black men who have sex with men.”
Pelosi: I Hope Obama Administration Doesn’t Appeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Ruling
This afternoon, in a conference call with progressive bloggers, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) joined a growing number of Democrats in calling on the Department of Justice not to appeal yesterday’s court ruling prohibiting the implementation of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. “I hope, I haven’t really heard officially that the administration is going to appeal this, but in any event, I hope they don’t,” she said in reply to a question from AmericaBlog’s John Aravosis. “I myself have always wanted a moratorium on any discharges.”
Pelosi, who celebrated the ruling in a tweet yesterday, reiterated that the House passed legislation ending the ban with a 40 vote margin and stressed that this “is not an issue for us, it’s a value that we mustn’t cede on.”
She predicted that the House could also pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a bill that has yet to be marked up before the House Education and Labor committee, if “we could hold our members” on the motion to recommit — a tactic under which the GOP could conceivably introduce an alternative that does not offer protections to transgender people and peel off several Democratic votes.
“It’s a choice, it’s a choice,” Pelosi stressed, speaking to disheartened LGBT voters. “We all haven’t gotten everything we want, but everything we got on these issues came from the Democrats and so that’s what I would say to them.” “It’s a fight and again, we don’t intend do lose it.”
Update
CNN is reporting that DOJ “is expected to appeal” the court’s DADT decision “as soon as Wednesday,” according to senior administration officials.
Raese Mangles Ethnic Names, Calls Justice Sotomayor ‘Sarah Manorgan’
In an interview touting his plan to repeal the minimum wage, West Virginia GOP Senate candidate John Raese also slipped up by calling the man he wants to replace, Senator Carte Goodwin, by the wrong first name. And, as the Charleston Daily Mail reports, this does not appear to be an isolated incident:
Last month, he struggled over U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s name.
“Was it Sarah Manor, Sarah Manorgan, Sarah Morgan?” he was quoted as saying by a monthly publication based in Shepherdstown.
In an appearance several weeks ago in St. Mary’s, Raese called U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu by at least two different Asian-sounding last names.
Raese’s failure to remember a name that even vaguely resembles that of a recently confirmed Supreme Court justice calls into question whether Raese has paid attention to the kind of issues he would face as a senator. If he joins the Senate, Raese will be required to at least take the confirmation process seriously enough that he can tell the difference between “Sonia Sotomayor” and “Sarah Manorgan.”
Pelosi: I Hope Obama Administration Doesn’t Appeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Ruling (UPDATED)
This afternoon, in a conference call with progressive bloggers, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) joined a growing number of Democrats in calling on the Department of Justice not to appeal yesterday’s court ruling prohibiting the implementation of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. “I hope, I haven’t really heard officially that the administration is going to appeal this, but in any event, I hope they don’t,” she said in reply to a question from AmericaBlog’s John Aravosis. “I myself have always wanted a moratorium on any discharges.”
Pelosi, who celebrated the ruling in a tweet yesterday, reiterated that the House passed legislation ending the ban with a 40 vote margin and stressed that this “is not an issue for us, it’s a value that we mustn’t cede on.”
She predicted that the House could also pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a bill that has yet to be marked up before the House Education and Labor committee, if “we could hold our members” on the motion to recommit — a tactic under which the GOP could conceivably introduce an alternative that does not offer protections to transgender people and peel off several Democratic votes.
“It’s a choice, it’s a choice,” Pelosi stresseed, speaking to disheartened LGBT voters. “We all haven’t gotten everything we want, but everything we got on these issues came from the Democrats and so that’s what I would say to them.” “It’s a fight and again, we don’t intend do lose it.”
Update
CNN is reporting that DOJ “is expected to appeal” the court’s DADT decision “as soon as Wednesday,” according to senior administration officials.
Reconsidering Columbus Day (Or Not)
Cara Kulwicki at Feministe linked yesterday to this video asking people to reconsider Columbus Day:
When you think about it, though, is that part of what’s great about America is that political dialogue in this country isn’t dominated by calls to reconsider Columbus Day or any kind of deep effort to ponder the meaning of being a nation founded on ethnic cleansing and slavery. That’s not to say that we don’t still grapple with the consequences of those events or that mainstream white America couldn’t stand to grapple harder with them. But unlike in some countries I’ve visited recently, it’s perfectly possible to probe an American for a while about his political views without being treated to a lengthy ax-grinding historical narrative.
Brookings embraces American Enterprise Institute’s climate head fake along with right-wing energy myths
I’ll bet you didn’t know that
- The success Republicans had killing the climate and clean energy jobs bill means they are now ready to embrace a big new federal spending effort of $15 to $25 billion a year for low-carbon technology.
- Such RD&D could, all by itself, bring the cost of new carbon-free power plants below the cost of existing coal plants.
- A massive federal RD&D effort, even if it were not politically untenable, could, all by itself, avert catastrophic climate change.
- “Liberals often maintain” the “choice” is between “global warming apocalypse or mandating the widespread adoption of today’s solar, wind, and electric car technologies.”
- Nuclear power is likely to be a key part of an effort to deliver cheap, low-carbon power.
You didn’t know any of that because none of it is true. But it’s all part of a new report by Steven F. Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute, Mark Muro of the Brookings Institution, and others, amusingly titled, “Post-partisan power.”
King Calls DADT Injunction Judge The ‘Latest In The Line’ Of ‘Gay Rights Agenda’ Judges Who Need To Be Removed
Last month, California federal judge Virginia Phillips struck down the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) policy as unconstitutional because it violated the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment and the servicemembers’ First Amendment free speech rights. Pursuant to that decision, Phillips granted the Log Cabin Republican’s request for a broad, worldwide injunction yesterday to immediately “suspend and discontinue” any further DADT discharges.
In reaction to the injunction, right-wing Rep. Steve King (R-IA) blasted the judge’s decision as a unilateral attempt by an “out of control” judge to push the “gay-rights agenda.” Decrying the injunction as “the latest in a line” of activist decisions, King proceeded to assail any recent judicial decision supporting LGBT equal rights as a “flagrant disregard” of the law and to call for the judges’ removal:
“Judges in this country are out of control, whether they sit on the federal bench or on Iowa’s Supreme Court,” said King. “Today’s ruling by Judge Phillips is just the latest in a line of decisions in which judges have implemented their own policy preferences at the expense of the Constitution, American citizens, and the Rule of Law.”
“In Iowa, the seven members of Iowa’s Supreme Court overturned the state’s law recognizing marriages as an institution only between one male and one female. Earlier this year, a federal judge single-handedly invalidated California’s voter-enacted Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage within that state. Today, a different federal judge unilaterally issued a worldwide injunction that prevents the military from enforcing the Congressionally passed ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ law.”
“These decisions share a common trait: in order to advance the politically correct ‘gay-rights’ agenda, the rogue judges involved ignored both the expressed will of the people and of the legislative bodies that have examined the issue. In Iowa the Supreme Court even bragged that their reading of the Iowa constitution included ‘rights’ that ‘were at one time unimagined.’ Judges should not be rewarded for flagrant disregard of the Rule of Law and the American people should respond by pursuing avenues which would result in the removal of lawless judges from the state and federal bench.”
King is a vocal leader of the right-wing culture crusade against judges who rule in favor of equal rights. Earlier this week, King penned an op-ed calling on Iowa voters to “use their moral authority” to remove the Iowa Supreme Court’s “rogue,” “activist” judges who overturned Iowa’s same-sex marriage ban last year because “they feel empowered” to “usurp the letter of the Constitution and the Code of Iowa” and to use “convoluted legal jujitsu” in order to “match their personal, political and policy preference with their conclusion.”
In August, King corralled other anti-gay rights Republicans to denounce Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision to overturn California’s same-sex marriage ban as “tyranny of the courts.” King joined Reps. Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Michele Bachmann (R-MN) in introducing a resolution accusing the judge who overturned Proposition 8 of failing “to conduct himself in an impartial manner” and called for the decision to be appealed. At a press conference, King said, “I would be very happy to take whatever steps, however bold, to reverse [the decision].” And King’s call to arms is carrying well in the right-wing echo chamber.
The “judicial activism” attack is a popular play among Republicans. While the Supreme Court is an equal branch of government that is constitutionally required to review laws, Republicans are quick to denounce any judge they do not approve of as an out-of-bounds activist. But, should a judge favor conservative principles while ignoring judicial precedent, conservatives are happy to abandon the tactic. As ThinkProgress’s Ian Millhiser notes, the way Republicans see it, “the American people can have whatever kind of laws they want – so long as they’re conservative.” Apparently, equal rights don’t fall into the purview.
Van Jones Condemns The ‘Greenwashing Of Hate,’ Affirms That ‘Immigrants Lead Greener Life Styles’
Today, the Center for American Progress (CAP) released a report entitled “From a “Green Farce” to a Green Future: Refuting False Claims About Immigrants and the Environment.” The report, written by researcher Jorge Madrid, “strikes down many of the false arguments regarding immigrants and the environment, provides a clearer picture of immigrants’ environmental contributions, and outlines real environmental solutions that can cut carbon and curb climate change.”
On a press call on the report’s findings earlier today, Van Jones, who leads CAP’s Green Opportunity Initiative, echoed the warnings issued in the report. “There are other organizations that are trying to drive wedges between communities that are seeking solutions,” stated Jones. More specifically, Jones noted that “there is a greenwashing of hate that is going on in our country.” Anti-immigrant front groups are using “green concerns as a bludgeon against immigrants and low-income communities.” However, Jones points out that it’s possible to “have an America that is green and prosperous and welcoming of newcomers.” In fact, “immigrants are not a problem when it comes to the greening of a America, they are disproportionately part of the solution. Immigrant communities live greener life styles and support greener policies.”
Madrid produced similar findings:
The assumption that immigrant-driven population growth alone drives the U.S. carbon footprint is false. The 10 highest carbon-emitting cities are home to the smallest immigrant populations. The cities with the lowest carbon footprint, on the other hand, have an average immigrant population of 26 percent. Immigrants, especially recent immigrants, tend to lead “greener” lifestyles than the native-born and are more likely to use public transportation and practice sustainable habits like compact living, conservation, and recycling. Immigrants, who are largely low income, are also more likely to have their lives disrupted by extreme weather events and other adverse effects of climate change. Immigrants are disproportionately hurt by the dirty energy economy and face unique environmental challenges. Consequently, they fight for greener solutions, including challenging the use of hazardous pesticides in the agricultural fields where many immigrants work. 2010 polls of key electoral states find that immigrant-rich communities overwhelmingly favor policy that will create green jobs and tend to support congressional candidates who back efforts to fight global warming.
I’ve written extensively about the claims made by anti-immigrant “environmental” front groups in the past. Those organizations include NumbersUSA, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), Progressives for Immigration Reform, and others. Most recently, FAIR released “The Environmentalist’s Guide to a Sensible Immigration Policy.” The report connects immigration to “pollution, sprawl, congestion, and ecological degradation,” complaining that “so-called environmentalists pretend as if this connection does not exist.”
On the call, Madrid noted that “It’s important that we not let these kind of false answers go unanswered or unchallenged.” Madrid explained that environmentalists aren’t “ignoring” the connection between immigrants and environmental degradation, rather, evidence actually suggests the contrary. “These organizations are not part of the mainstream environmental movement,” affirmed Madrid. A representative from the Sierra Club who happened to be listening to the call backed Madrid’s claims.
Curse and Blessings
So, after a long week, my college roommate and I got together to order Chinese food, drink beer, and watch something dopey and humiliating. Names will be withheld to protect the innocent, but I will confess that we ended up watching When In Rome.
It’s an incredibly terrible movie. It features the world’s least plausible wedding. Danny DeVito plays a sausage king. There is a New York restaurant where the meal takes place entirely in the dark. We are forced to endure Jon Heder as a magician. I began anticipating lines of dialogue full minutes before they were uttered. A CENTRAL PLOT POINT INVOLVES JOSH DUHAMEL HAVING BEEN HIT BY LIGHTNING. The only overarching virtue of the movie is to wish we’d get more adult movies that plausibly and interestingly involved genuine magic. The whole thing zips by in ninety minutes, leaving no room for any sort of emotional development whatsoever.
And yet, the whole thing is this fascinating exercise in acting. It’s basically like watching a bunch of very talented people work their bored way through prompts they know they can nail. Duhamel really should do comedy more of the time: dude can move, and he could learn a few things from Steve Martin because he could actually, maybe execute. DeVito is really wonderfully impressive at expressing a lovely, momentary melancholy. Anjelica Huston is our most marvelously imperious actress working today—it really would be fun watching her square off with Helen Mirren in something. Kristen Bell is fine in the movie, but it illustrates the risky point she’s at in her career where she’s doing awful, put-upon, relatable-girl crap, when really she should be doing weird and substantive and funny things. Seriously, she and Sarah Michelle Gellar should team up to run a private eye’s office or something, and find mutual career rehab.
When In Rome isn’t remotely worth watching for the small, weird actorly pleasures it provides. Not everything can be elevated above its ridiculousness. But I do think this is one of the compensatory joys of watching like a critic. Sometimes, you just see the gem of craft buried away in the pile of trash, and you get to feel a magpie-like joy in having found it.
Preserving Retail Mix
Lydia DePillis reports on efforts to further constrain the quantity of bars and restaurants allowed to open in the District of Columbia:
For the last several months, a “retail mix committee” of Advisory Neighborhood Commission 6B has been thinking about the problem: How to retain neighborhood services like pet shops and dry cleaners, when bars and restaurants can pay much higher rents? The Barracks Row zoning overlay limiting eating and drinking establishments to 50 percent of street frontage only covers the blocks south of the expressway; most of the core commercial zone can have as many liquor licenses as it can hold.
Last night, Commissioner Norm Metzger laid out next steps. Starting in December, a series of public meetings will contemplate various potential remedies. First up: A moratorium, which would set a cap on the total number of licenses allowed. It’s the most blunt instrument neighborhoods have at their disposal to limit the impact of alcohol, and many have taken that step; Dupont Circle, Georgetown, Adams Morgan, and Glover Park all have caps in place. Councilmember Jim Graham recently raised the idea of slapping a moratorium on U Street.
In my view, the whole conversation around retail mix in this city (and most likely other cities around the country) desperately needs a little bit more economic literacy. A hard cap on liquor licenses is a highly un-optimal way to ensure the availability of dry cleaning services in a given neighborhood. The issue is that for a business to operate, it needs to be able to operate profitably. So in an area where land is valuable, you’re going to need a business whose margins are high enough to cover an expensive rent. Perhaps dry cleaning customers are highly price sensitive, and thus it’s not possible to operate a high-margin dry cleaning shop in a high rent commercial corridor.
My preferred way to deal with this would be to open up more square footage to potential retail use. Maybe the parallel stretches of 7th Street and 9th Street should be opened up to retailing?
But if people are committed to the idea of increasing the number of dry cleaners in the Barracks Row area and also committed to not increasing the overall quantity of retail square footage in the Barracks Row area, then the right thing to do is to offer an explicit subsidy for dry cleaners (or pet shops or whatever else) perhaps paid for with an explicit tax on disfavored activities like the sale of liquor. In policy terms, the advantage of an explicit subsidy is twofold. One, you guarantee that you’re getting what you want—if you make a deal with a businessman to get him to open a dry cleaning shop in exchange for a subsidy, you will in fact get a dry cleaning shop. A mere crackdown on liquor licenses risks having empty storefronts or other deadweight loss. Two, a liquor license moratorium is both a subsidy to non-food/drink businesses (via the mechanism of lower rents) and also a subsidy to incumbent license holders (via the mechanism of restricted competition) and it’s inefficient for the community to create a superfluous subsidy for incumbent licensees.
In political terms the nice thing about people recognizing the preferability of doing things through explicit subsidies is that the neighborhood might become more cognizant of the price of its choices. One of the dangers of pursuing policy objectives through indirect regulatory mandates is that people can easily become confused about the cost of the policies.
