First the power goes out for a night, which is understandable, what with a blizzard hitting. Then it's restored. Then the cable and internet go out. Odd that this happens the day after the blizzard, but such is life. Then, as I was leaving for rehearsal (the Georgetown Gilbert & Sullivan Society's production of "A Midsummer Night's Dream" opens in two weeks!), the power went out again.
Grr.
All of this would be fine if the cat could just grasp the concept of shitting in the litter box instead of on the floor nearby. Now my house is dark and cold and smells like crap.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Thursday, January 27, 2011
I hate to say "I told you so," but...wait, no, I love it.
Me on Tuesday:
The Illinois Supreme Court today:
Mountains of law school debt: totally worth it!
My reading of the statute (and I'm willing to bet the reading that the Ill.Sup.Ct. will adopt in the next day or two) is that being a legal resident of Chicago for the year prior to the election--which Rahm was--is all that's really required.
The Illinois Supreme Court today:
Yeah, what JR said.
Mountains of law school debt: totally worth it!
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Looks like the Class of 2010 may have its first dropout
According to numerous sources, Republicans are making plans to cope with an ongoing scandal involving newly elected Representative David Rivera.
In my experience, the first step in "draining the swamp" is to stop dumping in water. Just sayin'.
In my experience, the first step in "draining the swamp" is to stop dumping in water. Just sayin'.
My prediction: Reversed and Rahmanded
The Illinois Supreme Court (as I expected) issued an emergency stay preventing Chicago from printing mayoral ballots without Rahm Emanuel's name on them, as a divided appellate panel ordered yesterday.
The law at issue reads:
The appellate majority held that the second prong was not met, and that Rahm does not qualify to run for office since, in their interpretation, he hasn't "resided" in Chicago even though he maintained his legal residence there and remains qualified to vote there (which, likewise, is based on a concept of residency).
I don't have anywhere near the experience of people like Rick Hasen when it comes to this little corner of the law, but campaign and elections law is one of my areas of focus (I'm currently the president--ironically appointed by executive fiat--of the Georgetown Election Law Society). And, for whatever it's worth I'm fairly sure that Rahm gets to run. I think the appellate majority misinterpreted the statute at issue. My reading of the statute (and I'm willing to bet the reading that the Ill.Sup.Ct. will adopt in the next day or two) is that being a legal resident of Chicago for the year prior to the election--which Rahm was--is all that's really required.
If you want a better discussion than this of the case, check out Rick Hasen's article in Slate. Richard Winger has Rahm's brief here.
The law at issue reads:
Sec. 3.1‑10‑5. Qualifications; elective office. (a) A person is not eligible for an elective municipal office unless that person is a qualified elector of the municipality and has resided in the municipality at least one year next preceding the election or appointment;
The appellate majority held that the second prong was not met, and that Rahm does not qualify to run for office since, in their interpretation, he hasn't "resided" in Chicago even though he maintained his legal residence there and remains qualified to vote there (which, likewise, is based on a concept of residency).
I don't have anywhere near the experience of people like Rick Hasen when it comes to this little corner of the law, but campaign and elections law is one of my areas of focus (I'm currently the president--ironically appointed by executive fiat--of the Georgetown Election Law Society). And, for whatever it's worth I'm fairly sure that Rahm gets to run. I think the appellate majority misinterpreted the statute at issue. My reading of the statute (and I'm willing to bet the reading that the Ill.Sup.Ct. will adopt in the next day or two) is that being a legal resident of Chicago for the year prior to the election--which Rahm was--is all that's really required.
If you want a better discussion than this of the case, check out Rick Hasen's article in Slate. Richard Winger has Rahm's brief here.
Monday, January 24, 2011
eBay is a dangerous place for nerds
He's far from the greatest orator of his age (in fact, he's a formalistic, long-winded bore in a lot of speeches), but considering the era he ran on some seriously radical positions. For example:
"So far as the nation is concerned, I favor the equality of women with men in all political and governmental matters, and I favor an equal wage for equal service whether rendered by a man or a woman."
That was part of a speech given on Halloween, 1928. I mean, we JUST passed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act last year.
General Rules to Live By:
www.boingboing.net
As for the workaday world, he says the next step toward escaping his felonious past is a petition to get his gun-owning rights restored. "I have a 12-year-old daughter and it won't be that long before she'll be dating," he says. "I want to be cleaning a gun when the guy comes to pick her up."
Even worse, I'm pretty sure he got the idea from a scene in "Twilight."
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Sargent Shriver, dead at 95.
Hard to call this an untimely passing, but we're still a poorer nation for the loss. Condolences to his family.
WaPo thinks Rep. Bill Young is Illegally Seated in Congress!
The Washington Post ran a story on Monday suggesting that Rep. Gabrielle Giffords might be stripped of her seat in Congress, due to a provision of Arizona law that deems a seat vacant in the event that the occupant fails to discharge the duties of office for three consecutive months.
So how come Bill Young can still be a Congressman, even three decades past his state constitutionally mandated retirement date?
See, Bill Young is a Congressman from Florida, and has been since the 1970s. His district's voters continue to re-elect him every two years, and he continues to serve them in Washington. In fact, he's currently the longest-serving Republican in Congress. But ever since 1992, there's been a provision in the Florida constitution setting term limits for U.S. Representatives and Senators (as well as members of the state legislature, the Lieutenant Governor, and all cabinet posts). The maximum any elected official can serve in a single office under that law is eight years.
So why is Rep. Young still allowed to serve?
The answer is actually pretty simple. The state term limit law is invalid as applied to federal officers.
States can enact all sorts of laws on all manner of issues, from voting rights to abortion. Sometimes, however, those laws run afoul of the Constitution. If a state passes a ban on all abortions, the courts will rule it unenforceable. If a state says you have to be 30 to vote, they can write such a law in stone and it won't matter: it will not be enforced as written. If a state authorized slavery, or outlawed all firearms, or wrote that all crimes would be punishable by life in prison, those laws would be invalidated as well. But that doesn't mean the laws would disappear from the books!
No, dead-letter law exists in any number of places. And for good reason: a future Supreme Court majority might overturn an old precedent, making the previously unenforceable law kosher once more. But these are very, very rare moments, because while the Court may from time to time reinterpret the Constitution's text, I doubt they would be willing to reinterpret the basic principles of federalism. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land: it tells us so itself!
The easiest way to dispose of this article's ridiculous premise is to note that there isn't really a way for Representatives to not "discharge the duties of office," since there are really only two affirmative duties the Constitution places on Members of Congress. "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers," and "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned...shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution." Beyond that, it really is just a matter of (putting it bluntly) being able to fog a mirror. Sure, Congress has power to do certain things, and is enjoined from doing others, but as for affirmative obligations of office, those two are it, and Giffords already did both during the 112th Congress (famously casting a vote for Rep. John Lewis to be Speaker).
But that easy workaround aside, the whole issue is one of a state trying to impose additional conditions for congressional service beyond those set by the Constitution. If the Courts won't let Congress impose such conditions, there's no way on earth they'll let the states do it. Imagine if a state allowed its governor to unilaterally recognize a vacancy in Congress whenever he felt like it. A hapless Member could take off from Dulles a Congressman and land back home a pensioner. It's simply unworkable, and it's constitutionally unsound.
In fact, this is so obvious a point that I have to wonder why the Washington Post would indulge in such speculation. As the article's authors themselves noted, this is a very obscure provision in Arizona law, and it doesn't take a Supreme Court clerk to tell that there's no cause for concern, legally or politically, about Rep. Giffords being removed from office (seriously, can you imagine the outrage if Gov. Brewer attempted to call a special election to replace Gabby while the Congresswoman is recovering?). I have to wonder who pointed these reporters to this provision of the law, and what their agenda was in so doing.
So how come Bill Young can still be a Congressman, even three decades past his state constitutionally mandated retirement date?
See, Bill Young is a Congressman from Florida, and has been since the 1970s. His district's voters continue to re-elect him every two years, and he continues to serve them in Washington. In fact, he's currently the longest-serving Republican in Congress. But ever since 1992, there's been a provision in the Florida constitution setting term limits for U.S. Representatives and Senators (as well as members of the state legislature, the Lieutenant Governor, and all cabinet posts). The maximum any elected official can serve in a single office under that law is eight years.
So why is Rep. Young still allowed to serve?
The answer is actually pretty simple. The state term limit law is invalid as applied to federal officers.
States can enact all sorts of laws on all manner of issues, from voting rights to abortion. Sometimes, however, those laws run afoul of the Constitution. If a state passes a ban on all abortions, the courts will rule it unenforceable. If a state says you have to be 30 to vote, they can write such a law in stone and it won't matter: it will not be enforced as written. If a state authorized slavery, or outlawed all firearms, or wrote that all crimes would be punishable by life in prison, those laws would be invalidated as well. But that doesn't mean the laws would disappear from the books!
No, dead-letter law exists in any number of places. And for good reason: a future Supreme Court majority might overturn an old precedent, making the previously unenforceable law kosher once more. But these are very, very rare moments, because while the Court may from time to time reinterpret the Constitution's text, I doubt they would be willing to reinterpret the basic principles of federalism. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land: it tells us so itself!
The easiest way to dispose of this article's ridiculous premise is to note that there isn't really a way for Representatives to not "discharge the duties of office," since there are really only two affirmative duties the Constitution places on Members of Congress. "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers," and "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned...shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution." Beyond that, it really is just a matter of (putting it bluntly) being able to fog a mirror. Sure, Congress has power to do certain things, and is enjoined from doing others, but as for affirmative obligations of office, those two are it, and Giffords already did both during the 112th Congress (famously casting a vote for Rep. John Lewis to be Speaker).
But that easy workaround aside, the whole issue is one of a state trying to impose additional conditions for congressional service beyond those set by the Constitution. If the Courts won't let Congress impose such conditions, there's no way on earth they'll let the states do it. Imagine if a state allowed its governor to unilaterally recognize a vacancy in Congress whenever he felt like it. A hapless Member could take off from Dulles a Congressman and land back home a pensioner. It's simply unworkable, and it's constitutionally unsound.
In fact, this is so obvious a point that I have to wonder why the Washington Post would indulge in such speculation. As the article's authors themselves noted, this is a very obscure provision in Arizona law, and it doesn't take a Supreme Court clerk to tell that there's no cause for concern, legally or politically, about Rep. Giffords being removed from office (seriously, can you imagine the outrage if Gov. Brewer attempted to call a special election to replace Gabby while the Congresswoman is recovering?). I have to wonder who pointed these reporters to this provision of the law, and what their agenda was in so doing.
Monday, January 17, 2011
A day of King quotes, Part IX
"Bull Connor next would say, "Turn the fire hoses on." And as I said to you the other night, Bull Connor didn't know history. He knew a kind of physics that somehow didn't relate to the transphysics that we knew about. And that was the fact that there was a certain kind of fire that no water could put out. And we went before the fire hoses; we had known water. If we were Baptist or some other denomination, we had been immersed. If we were Methodist, and some others, we had been sprinkled, but we knew water." -Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
A day of King quotes, Part VIII
"In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty." -Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
A day of King quotes, Part VII
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial 'outside agitator' idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds." -Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
A day of King quotes, Part VI
"We must recognize that the evil deed of the enemy-neighbor, the thing that hurts, never quite expresses all that he is. An element of goodness may be found even in our worst enemy." -Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
A day of King quotes, Part V
"We have a mandate both to conquer sin and also to conquer ignorance. Modern man is presently having a rendezvous with chaos, not merely because of human badness, but also because of human stupidity." -Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
A day of King quotes, Part IV
"Far from being the pious injunction of a Utopian dreamer, the command to love one's enemy is an absolute necessity for our survival." -Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
A day of King quotes, Part III
"Our world is threatened by the grim prospect of atomic annihilation because there are still too many who know not what they do." -Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Great piece in TNR
Jason Zengerle writes a powerful account of State Sen. Jeff Smith's (D-MO) fall from grace. If you're into campaign speech or finance law at all, you should give it a look.
A day of King quotes, Part II
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
A day of King quotes, Part I
"Wisdom born of experience should tell us that war is obsolete. There may have been a time when war served as a negative good by preventing the spread and growth of an evil force, but the destructive power of modern weapons eliminates even the possibility that war may serve as a negative good." -Martin Luther King, Jr.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
BCS: The Aftermath
As someone who still thinks the only reason the Braves lost the 1991 World Series was because the Twins cheated, I at least respect the passion behind this video:
"The enemy's wrist is down!"
"The enemy's wrist is down!"
Not bad for 4'11"
Meant to mention this when it happened, but forgot. My Senator is now the longest-serving female member in the history of the U.S. Senate. Congratulations, Senator Mikulski!
"Is this seat taken?"
Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) have decided to sit together at this year's State of the Union Address, in a symbolic move to combat partisanship.
I like the sentiment, and it's a good visual move for an event that's essentially a national pageant.
I've seen some suggestions that party-line seating helps the viewing public to know which side favors what (based on who stands when, who claps where, etc.), but it's not like the average SOTU viewer doesn't already know that the GOP hates social spending and taxes, and the Democrats love equal rights and health care. We don't need to see who claps at the idea of extending Medicaid provisions to know how the parties tend to view these issues.
What we do need to see is that the partisan rancor that fuels so much of our politics stops where the work of governing starts. We need to be reassured--because it isn't at all clear from how Members behave and speak--that all who serve in the Legislative Branch are willing to embrace a recognition of a common goal: promoting the welfare of all Americans.
So what I want to see at the State of the Union is this: when the doors open and the Members file in, Nancy Pelosi should walk in with Eric Cantor and take a seat right next to him. Steny Hoyer should lock arms with Kevin McCarthy. And throughout the House chamber, Republicans and Democrats should circulate among each other, point to seats near their colleagues, and ask, "may I join you?"
I like the sentiment, and it's a good visual move for an event that's essentially a national pageant.
I've seen some suggestions that party-line seating helps the viewing public to know which side favors what (based on who stands when, who claps where, etc.), but it's not like the average SOTU viewer doesn't already know that the GOP hates social spending and taxes, and the Democrats love equal rights and health care. We don't need to see who claps at the idea of extending Medicaid provisions to know how the parties tend to view these issues.
What we do need to see is that the partisan rancor that fuels so much of our politics stops where the work of governing starts. We need to be reassured--because it isn't at all clear from how Members behave and speak--that all who serve in the Legislative Branch are willing to embrace a recognition of a common goal: promoting the welfare of all Americans.
So what I want to see at the State of the Union is this: when the doors open and the Members file in, Nancy Pelosi should walk in with Eric Cantor and take a seat right next to him. Steny Hoyer should lock arms with Kevin McCarthy. And throughout the House chamber, Republicans and Democrats should circulate among each other, point to seats near their colleagues, and ask, "may I join you?"
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Jon Meacham: Ban Hi-Cap Pistol Magazines
What he said.
Obligatory add-on: There is actually a little bit of gun oil on my keyboard right now, as I was cleaning my 12 gauge last night in my office. Also in the arsenal: a semi-automatic Ruger 10/22 compact rifle. I used to own a single-shot .22 bolt action and a Marlin .35 repeater as well. I'm a gun owner, I'm a Southerner, I'm an Eagle Scout, I'm more than passingly familiar with the Constitution, and I'm 100% in favor of a ban on high-capacity handgun clips.
Obligatory add-on: There is actually a little bit of gun oil on my keyboard right now, as I was cleaning my 12 gauge last night in my office. Also in the arsenal: a semi-automatic Ruger 10/22 compact rifle. I used to own a single-shot .22 bolt action and a Marlin .35 repeater as well. I'm a gun owner, I'm a Southerner, I'm an Eagle Scout, I'm more than passingly familiar with the Constitution, and I'm 100% in favor of a ban on high-capacity handgun clips.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Don't underestimate this guy.
There's a man in Georgia named Herman Cain, and he's probably running for President.
I've actually seen him in person many times. Back in 2004, I worked on a Democratic Senate campaign in Georgia while he was seeking the Republican nomination. I was our candidate's personal assistant and driver, so I went out on the road to most events Most "meet the candidates" events sponsored by civic groups were bipartisan, so he was frequently speaking while we were present. He's personable and telegenic, yet hyperbolic and bombastic. He's beyond right-wing on all social hot-button issues.
He's like Sarah Palin without the massive disapproval ratings. Oh, and did I mention he's black?
Normally, we could right him off as just another rich conservative running a vanity campaign (like a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morry_Taylor">Morry Taylor or Hugh Cort). But Cain knows one big rule of politics is timing. To that effect, he's putting himself out there in advance of the first debate of the campaign, an event at the Reagan Presidential Library being held this spring.
All he has to do is make a scene and look more conservative than any of the other early birds who've made early announcements. If he does, he could become the Howard Dean of 2012 (remember, Dean rocketed to popularity on the heels of a widely circulated video of a California speech given in March 2003).
Is that enough for Cain to win the nomination? Almost certainly not. My memory isn't great, but I don't think either party's nominated someone for President who wasn't a current or former elected official since Wendell Willkie in 1940 (excepting, of course, the Man Who Won WWII). But this could be Cain's coming out party, a chance for him to burst onto the national stage in a shower of confetti and political insanity.
Keep an eye on him.
I've actually seen him in person many times. Back in 2004, I worked on a Democratic Senate campaign in Georgia while he was seeking the Republican nomination. I was our candidate's personal assistant and driver, so I went out on the road to most events Most "meet the candidates" events sponsored by civic groups were bipartisan, so he was frequently speaking while we were present. He's personable and telegenic, yet hyperbolic and bombastic. He's beyond right-wing on all social hot-button issues.
He's like Sarah Palin without the massive disapproval ratings. Oh, and did I mention he's black?
Normally, we could right him off as just another rich conservative running a vanity campaign (like a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morry_Taylor">Morry Taylor or Hugh Cort). But Cain knows one big rule of politics is timing. To that effect, he's putting himself out there in advance of the first debate of the campaign, an event at the Reagan Presidential Library being held this spring.
All he has to do is make a scene and look more conservative than any of the other early birds who've made early announcements. If he does, he could become the Howard Dean of 2012 (remember, Dean rocketed to popularity on the heels of a widely circulated video of a California speech given in March 2003).
Is that enough for Cain to win the nomination? Almost certainly not. My memory isn't great, but I don't think either party's nominated someone for President who wasn't a current or former elected official since Wendell Willkie in 1940 (excepting, of course, the Man Who Won WWII). But this could be Cain's coming out party, a chance for him to burst onto the national stage in a shower of confetti and political insanity.
Keep an eye on him.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
You don't see that everyday
Thanks to election law guru Rick Hasen, I got to see something pretty strange: a merits brief that cites The Bluebook as an authority.
Not improper or necessarily wrong (though I'm rooting for the other guys in that particular case), but certainly seems unusual. I can't think of many other instances where an attorney has told the judge how to interpret the word "see" in an opinion.
Not improper or necessarily wrong (though I'm rooting for the other guys in that particular case), but certainly seems unusual. I can't think of many other instances where an attorney has told the judge how to interpret the word "see" in an opinion.
Rep. Wasserman Schultz and Sen. Gillibrand describe Giffords' eye-opening moment
Read this, and see if you can keep from crying.
Seriously, if you can read that whole account without your cheeks getting damp, you're a stronger person than I.
"And then you have to recognize, her eyes hadn't opened -- we didn't know that -- and so she started to struggle. And one of her eyes is covered with a bandage because it was damaged in the gunfire. So her eye is flickering. And Mark sees this and gets extremely excited. And we didn't -- I didn't know what that meant. And so he said, Gabby, open your eyes, open your eyes. And he's really urging her forward. And the doctor is like perking up and everyone is coming around the bed. And she's struggling and she's struggling and it's a good -- we couldn't figure it out, maybe 30 seconds, where she's really trying to get her eyes open, like doing this, this, this.
"And then she finally opens her eyes and you could she was like desperately trying to focus and it took enormous strength from her. And Mark could just -- can't believe it. I mean, he's so happy. And we're crying because we're witnessing something that we never imagined would happen in front of us."
Seriously, if you can read that whole account without your cheeks getting damp, you're a stronger person than I.
Champion of Smaller Government
...except when his driveway needs plowing.
I'm not going to fault the guy for wanting to get his driveway cleared. And I'm willing to forgive a minor abuse of discretion by the county commissioner who sent a public works crew to spend an hour digging his two cars out and sanding his driveway during the middle of a snow emergency.
This, on the other hand, is a bit of a middle finger to the county's taxpayers, considering how "panicked" Holt claimed to be:
Not that it even needs to be noted, but Holt campaigned on a platform of fiscal discipline.
The Newton County Public Works Department was instructed to spread sand on the driveway of state Rep. Doug Holt, R-Social Circle, and move his vehicles so he could get to the state Capitol on Monday.
Holt, who lives in east Newton, called the Citizen Tuesday to explain the situation and apologize for what he called “an error in judgment.” An Atlanta news station was informed through an anonymous tip and had just left Holt’s house midday Tuesday when he made the call.
Holt said he was panicked Monday when he could not get his vehicles out of his driveway to participate in the General Assembly session. At that time, the session was under way and was expected to take place Tuesday as well. Since then, Gov. Nathan Deal canceled the session for Tuesday.
I'm not going to fault the guy for wanting to get his driveway cleared. And I'm willing to forgive a minor abuse of discretion by the county commissioner who sent a public works crew to spend an hour digging his two cars out and sanding his driveway during the middle of a snow emergency.
This, on the other hand, is a bit of a middle finger to the county's taxpayers, considering how "panicked" Holt claimed to be:
Even though the crew spread sand and moved two vehicles Monday, Holt wasn't at the Capitol, according to voting records.
Not that it even needs to be noted, but Holt campaigned on a platform of fiscal discipline.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Fun with numbers
Richard Winger, proprietor of Ballot Access News, points us to this amazing statistic:
Interesting times.
The Libertarian Party candidates for the office at the top of the ballot, together, polled 1,016,270 votes on November 2, 2010. The office at the top of the ballot is deemed to be Governor, in all states electing a Governor in 2010. For states that didn’t elect a Governor, it is U.S. Senator. For the four states with neither office up, it is U.S. House of Representatives.
This was only the fourth time that any party, other than the Democratic and Republican Parties, had polled as much as 1,000,000 votes for the office at the top of the ballot, in a midterm year in the 20th or 21st centuries. The other instances had been the Progressive Party in 1914, the Reform Party in 1998, and the Libertarian Party in 2002.
The Constitution Party’s 2010 vote for office at the top of the ballot was 925,583, its best showing ever. The Green Party’s 2010 figure was 520,830. The Green Party’s best showing had been in 2006, when its top-of-the-ticket vote was 942,604.
...
The total share of the vote in 2010 for the office at the top of the ballot, that did not go to either of the two major parties, was 5.50%. That is the highest “other” vote for the top-of-the-ticket in midterm years since 1934.
Interesting times.
Signs that God loves us and wants us to be happy
David Tennant and Catherine Tate will play Benedick and Beatrice in a West End production of "Much Ado About Nothing."
Rejoice, humans.
Rejoice, humans.
Illinois poised to end the Death Penalty
A repeal bill passed the legislature, and now awaits Gov. Quinn's signature.
Gov. Ryan's moratorium went into place a decade ago after 13 death row inmates--including one less than two days from execution--were exonerated. Think about that: they knew two crooked governors ago that the system was irreparably broken. The wheels of state grind slow.
Gov. Ryan's moratorium went into place a decade ago after 13 death row inmates--including one less than two days from execution--were exonerated. Think about that: they knew two crooked governors ago that the system was irreparably broken. The wheels of state grind slow.
"Blood libel"
Yes, this is sure to make people think twice about questioning her rhetoric.
It's just not a national tragedy unless somehow Sarah's a victim.
It's just not a national tragedy unless somehow Sarah's a victim.
Yes, this. (II)
Ruth is right.
And I really, really hate it when I agree with Ruth Marcus!
[ed.: No, I only mildly dislike it. It makes me feel so Establishment.]
And I really, really hate it when I agree with Ruth Marcus!
[ed.: No, I only mildly dislike it. It makes me feel so Establishment.]
Monday, January 10, 2011
Yes, this.
Senator Lautenberg plans to reintroduce a federal ban on high-capacity magazines.
Good. Magazine capacity limits have been done in the past, they don't infringe on the Second Amendment, and, as Bill Ruger rightly noted, no honest man needs more than ten rounds in any gun.
Good. Magazine capacity limits have been done in the past, they don't infringe on the Second Amendment, and, as Bill Ruger rightly noted, no honest man needs more than ten rounds in any gun.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Another voice in the chorus
Count me in as supporting the calls to give Daniel Hernandez a Congressional Gold Medal.
"The law is a ass - a idiot."
Politico reports that Rep. Carolyn McCarthy is planning to introduce a new gun control law as soon as tomorrow. Good. Nobody should have 31-round handgun magazines.
Reports from yesterday are still a bit confused, but it seems clear that one woman--still unnamed in the press--managed to save many lives by slapping a magazine out of the assassin's hand as he tried to reload, after she herself was shot. Nineteen people were shot, six killed, a Congresswoman permanently damaged if not mortally wounded (she's not out of the woods yet)...all with one magazine.
If that doesn't call for a change in the law, then what exactly does?
Reports from yesterday are still a bit confused, but it seems clear that one woman--still unnamed in the press--managed to save many lives by slapping a magazine out of the assassin's hand as he tried to reload, after she herself was shot. Nineteen people were shot, six killed, a Congresswoman permanently damaged if not mortally wounded (she's not out of the woods yet)...all with one magazine.
If that doesn't call for a change in the law, then what exactly does?
Saturday, January 8, 2011
This was not a political event, and that matters.
For all the news today, this seems like a minor point, but it's sticking in my craw. On both CNN and MSNBC, today's shooting has been described as occurring at a "political event."
This is incorrect. This was not a political event.
"Congress on Your Corner" is a program wherein Members and staffers offer constituent services at highly trafficked locations, instead of just in their district offices. It's not political: there is no fundraising or vote-seeking. It's direct contact between the federal government and the public, not between a campaign and an electorate. It's ground-level democratic government, not retail politics. So let's get that straight.
The distinction is important because it's about who was targeted today. We can't say this was a Democratic congresswoman with Democratic staffers attacked at a Democratic event, because that isn't exactly what happened.
Today, America was attacked. All of America.
I think Bernie Sanders's statement hits the right note:
Speaker Boehner was on track as well:
Howard Fineman suggested that this will lead to a greater distancing between the people and their representatives. I hope he's wrong.
I hope that every member of Congress will take this next week (since all House business has effectively been postponed) and return to their districts, and throw open their office doors. I hope they shutter their campaign offices for the week, cancel their fundraisers, and host their own constituent services programs. I hope they spend the week making sure that their constituents are receiving their Social Security and military pension checks, and that visa applications are being processed in a timely manner, and that federal student loans are being disbursed, and that improper foreclosures are being halted.
And, in time, I hope they return to Washington, remembering not just the people they've helped, but the ones they haven't yet been able or willing to. And I hope they remember the tragedy that struck today, and work to prevent it from ever happening again.
If we turn this tragedy into an attack against only one political party, then it loses its force, and we'd be doing a disservice to the rest of the nation that was attacked. Today was a blow struck against our government, which is--and ever has been--ourselves. How we respond to that blow will tell us about our character as a nation.
This is incorrect. This was not a political event.
"Congress on Your Corner" is a program wherein Members and staffers offer constituent services at highly trafficked locations, instead of just in their district offices. It's not political: there is no fundraising or vote-seeking. It's direct contact between the federal government and the public, not between a campaign and an electorate. It's ground-level democratic government, not retail politics. So let's get that straight.
The distinction is important because it's about who was targeted today. We can't say this was a Democratic congresswoman with Democratic staffers attacked at a Democratic event, because that isn't exactly what happened.
Today, America was attacked. All of America.
I think Bernie Sanders's statement hits the right note:
This is a sad day for all Americans. This senseless & cowardly shooting occurred as the Congresswoman Giffords and her constituents were engaged in the kind of event that makes our democracy work and represents America at its best. Anti-government sentiment carried to a violent and deadly extreme is a sad reflection of America at its worst. America is better than this.
Speaker Boehner was on track as well:
An attack on one who serves is an attack on all who serve. Acts and threats of violence against public officials have no place in our society.
Howard Fineman suggested that this will lead to a greater distancing between the people and their representatives. I hope he's wrong.
I hope that every member of Congress will take this next week (since all House business has effectively been postponed) and return to their districts, and throw open their office doors. I hope they shutter their campaign offices for the week, cancel their fundraisers, and host their own constituent services programs. I hope they spend the week making sure that their constituents are receiving their Social Security and military pension checks, and that visa applications are being processed in a timely manner, and that federal student loans are being disbursed, and that improper foreclosures are being halted.
And, in time, I hope they return to Washington, remembering not just the people they've helped, but the ones they haven't yet been able or willing to. And I hope they remember the tragedy that struck today, and work to prevent it from ever happening again.
If we turn this tragedy into an attack against only one political party, then it loses its force, and we'd be doing a disservice to the rest of the nation that was attacked. Today was a blow struck against our government, which is--and ever has been--ourselves. How we respond to that blow will tell us about our character as a nation.
He who learns must suffer.
Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget
falls drop by drop upon the heart,
until, in our own despair,
against our will,
comes wisdom
through the awful grace of God.
-Robert F. Kennedy, quoting Aeschylus, 4/4/68
Rest in peace, Rep. Gabby Giffords.
UPDATE: Thank God for erroneous news reports. She's clinging to life, and her doctors are optimistic.
Friday, January 7, 2011
What's wrong with the Senate.
The guys who will be the beneficiaries of filibuster reform soon enough only seem supportive of the part that lets them pervert legislation.
Actually, that's fine. Having the GOP make every legislative vote uncomfortable is still better than having them filibuster 136 times in two years.
Actually, that's fine. Having the GOP make every legislative vote uncomfortable is still better than having them filibuster 136 times in two years.
Raise the roof, suckers.
At least Paul Ryan is behaving somewhat like a grown-up:
I'm not a giant Paul Ryan fan (though one of my best friends interned with him and thinks he's the bee's knees), but at least he doesn't ascribe to the logic that says you should wait until flames are threatening half of downtown to discuss whether or not the cost of gassing up the fire truck is too high.
Fiscal policy is more important than fits of pique. I hope Rep. Ryan explains this to the incoming freshmen.
Some conservative Republicans have urged their GOP colleagues to resist raising the ceiling -- which currently clocks in at $14.3 trillion -- under any circumstances. Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota is collecting signatures on her PAC's website "to force our elected officials to stop spending cold turkey," and Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina has advocated for a "big showdown" with Democrats by blocking the raise.
But House Budget Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan says that tactic isn't viable. "Just refusing to vote for it, I don't think that's really a strategy," he said, noting that a failure to raise the ceiling could result in the nation defaulting on its debts to investors.
"Will the debt ceiling be raised? Does it have to be raised? Yes," he said at an event sponsored by economics21 and the Manhattan Institute at the National Press Club Thursday.
I'm not a giant Paul Ryan fan (though one of my best friends interned with him and thinks he's the bee's knees), but at least he doesn't ascribe to the logic that says you should wait until flames are threatening half of downtown to discuss whether or not the cost of gassing up the fire truck is too high.
Fiscal policy is more important than fits of pique. I hope Rep. Ryan explains this to the incoming freshmen.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Applying
Sent out job applications for some public interest jobs today (mostly public defenders' offices). I have two versions of my resume: one that's pretty apolitical and suitable for a guy at a law firm, and one that somewhat screams "former political hack likely to relapse." I ended up using the second one more often.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Gibbs to resign as Press Secretary
those two, I can't think of a major misstep, at least not anything on par with the Bush Administration's four flaks. Though perhaps that's due more to the relatively light output of scandals from this Administration than to his talent as a spokesperson.
Best of luck to him.
R.I.P. 2010 (January 1, 2010-December 31, 2010)
A life cut short.
No, seriously, last year sucked. I know everybody else is piling on, and it's bad form to hit a year when it's down, but 2010 was an epic disaster, personally and globally.
Massive unemployment continued, the war in Afghanistan continued, the Gulf of Mexico exploded, Haiti exploded, Greece imploded, the only Republicans who lost their federal races were either former witches or guys who dressed like members of the Waffen SS, Sarah Palin got a TV show about shooting animals, Snowmaggedon and Snowpocalypse both struck, my mother died of lung cancer, Ted Sorensen died, Tony Curtis died, Elizabeth Edwards died, and every top song featured autotune.
On the plus side, we have "Fallout: New Vegas," a trip to Cardiff, a great run of "Chicago" with the Georgetown Gilbert & Sullivan Society ("A Midsummer Night's Dream" opens next month: come see me playing Egeus) and the discovery that I can rock a fedora. Nationally, we got rid of a few truly bad laws, made a few good new ones, pretended to end the Iraq War, and--though it's not my thing--the McRib returned. Internationally, Putin sang "Blueberry Hill."
Can't even pretend I'll miss 2010. Good riddance.
No, seriously, last year sucked. I know everybody else is piling on, and it's bad form to hit a year when it's down, but 2010 was an epic disaster, personally and globally.
Massive unemployment continued, the war in Afghanistan continued, the Gulf of Mexico exploded, Haiti exploded, Greece imploded, the only Republicans who lost their federal races were either former witches or guys who dressed like members of the Waffen SS, Sarah Palin got a TV show about shooting animals, Snowmaggedon and Snowpocalypse both struck, my mother died of lung cancer, Ted Sorensen died, Tony Curtis died, Elizabeth Edwards died, and every top song featured autotune.
On the plus side, we have "Fallout: New Vegas," a trip to Cardiff, a great run of "Chicago" with the Georgetown Gilbert & Sullivan Society ("A Midsummer Night's Dream" opens next month: come see me playing Egeus) and the discovery that I can rock a fedora. Nationally, we got rid of a few truly bad laws, made a few good new ones, pretended to end the Iraq War, and--though it's not my thing--the McRib returned. Internationally, Putin sang "Blueberry Hill."
Can't even pretend I'll miss 2010. Good riddance.
"I need an old economist and a young economist! The power of Keynes compels you!"
Can someone please game this out and let the rest of us know if it's actually sound on the numbers?
And no, I'm not asking just because I'm a youngish guy looking for work in a field run by the old hands.
In the United States, the financial crisis has left the country with 11 million fewer jobs than Americans need now. No matter how aggressive the policy, we are not going to find 11 million new jobs soon. So common sense suggests we should make some decisions about who should have the first crack: older people, who have already worked three or four decades at hard jobs? Or younger people, many just out of school, with fresh skills and ambitions?
The answer is obvious. Older people who would like to retire and would do so if they could afford it should get some help. The right step is to reduce, not increase, the full-benefits retirement age. As a rough cut, why not enact a three-year window during which the age for receiving full Social Security benefits would drop to 62 -- providing a voluntary, one-time, grab-it-now bonus for leaving work? Let them go home! With a secure pension and medical care, they will be happier. Young people who need work will be happier. And there will also be more jobs. With pension security, older people will consume services until the end of their lives. They will become, each and every one, an employer.
And no, I'm not asking just because I'm a youngish guy looking for work in a field run by the old hands.
A simple enough rule
If someone on TV says someone else did something "questionable," it means they have an agenda to push but don't have a leg to stand on.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
They can't seriously be thinking this
Last month, Joe "Three-Way Tie for Third Place" Lieberman said he'd been asked for a meeting by Patty Murray, the incoming head of the DSCC, to discuss running for the Senate again in 2012 as a Democrat.
Of course, any meeting between Joe and the DSCC wouldn't be about him running as a Democrat, but about the national party sitting out the race and not backing any Democratic candidates who run against him, giving him a better chance at the seat.
This is lunacy. Joe Lieberman isn't getting re-elected. His approval figures in Connecticut are only slightly above cancer's. And the only way the Senate Democratic Caucus can hold that seat is if they help to knock him out of the Senate. If the party won't field a real Democrat in Connecticut, and the Republicans nominate anyone who's 1) to the brighter side of Palin and 2) to the left of Attila the Hun, they'd crush him in a two-way race.
If Murray agrees to sit out the Connecticut race in 2012, and our nominee is halfway decent, she'll look like an idiot when the party inevitably reverses course as the President gives in to activist pressure to campaign with the Democratic candidate. If our nominee sucks, then the GOP gets the independents and centrists who don't like Lieberman, and the seat's theirs. And the best-case scenario would be that a high-order miracle allows Lieberman to squeak out a victory, whence he will remain extremely unpopular and politically unmoored.
Keeping that seat Blue requires a better standard-bearer than someone with a 54% disapproval rating. Our best bet at holding the seat with Lieberman running would be a three-way race with three strong contenders and no institutional support for Lieberman. Our best bet overall would be getting Joe the hell out of the way.
Patty Murray needs to step up. Helping Joe Lieberman lose by a more respectable margin isn't her job. Keeping that seat in the Democratic caucus is.
Of course, any meeting between Joe and the DSCC wouldn't be about him running as a Democrat, but about the national party sitting out the race and not backing any Democratic candidates who run against him, giving him a better chance at the seat.
This is lunacy. Joe Lieberman isn't getting re-elected. His approval figures in Connecticut are only slightly above cancer's. And the only way the Senate Democratic Caucus can hold that seat is if they help to knock him out of the Senate. If the party won't field a real Democrat in Connecticut, and the Republicans nominate anyone who's 1) to the brighter side of Palin and 2) to the left of Attila the Hun, they'd crush him in a two-way race.
If Murray agrees to sit out the Connecticut race in 2012, and our nominee is halfway decent, she'll look like an idiot when the party inevitably reverses course as the President gives in to activist pressure to campaign with the Democratic candidate. If our nominee sucks, then the GOP gets the independents and centrists who don't like Lieberman, and the seat's theirs. And the best-case scenario would be that a high-order miracle allows Lieberman to squeak out a victory, whence he will remain extremely unpopular and politically unmoored.
Keeping that seat Blue requires a better standard-bearer than someone with a 54% disapproval rating. Our best bet at holding the seat with Lieberman running would be a three-way race with three strong contenders and no institutional support for Lieberman. Our best bet overall would be getting Joe the hell out of the way.
Patty Murray needs to step up. Helping Joe Lieberman lose by a more respectable margin isn't her job. Keeping that seat in the Democratic caucus is.
An easy way to tell Georgians from Non-Georgians:
See if they are surprised by Chick-Fil-A sponsoring an anti-gay marriage group's conference.
Real Georgians will probably already know at least one even better "Truett Cathy helps hate on gays" story.
Real Georgians will probably already know at least one even better "Truett Cathy helps hate on gays" story.
Monday, January 3, 2011
R.I.P. Pete Postlethwaite
He succumbed to cancer at age 64.
Though he was never hurting for gigs these past 20 years, his talent constantly surpassed the roles he received. His ice-cold Kobayashi in "The Usual Suspects" is one of my favorite consigliere characters of all time.
Though he was never hurting for gigs these past 20 years, his talent constantly surpassed the roles he received. His ice-cold Kobayashi in "The Usual Suspects" is one of my favorite consigliere characters of all time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)