Month: February 2011

The Left’s Tea Party?

Wilkinson's theory about Wisconsin's protests:

There’s something about the union demonstrations in Madison, and the excitement it has caused on the left, that reminds me of the Tea Party. I think I’ve figured it out what it is. The advent of the labor movement is at the heart of the left’s sacred creation myth. The sense on the left that unions are under siege gives the them something to fight for with a bracing sense of historically-rooted identity and moral authority. Similarly, the sense on the right that America’s foundational values are under siege gave the Tea Party something to fight for with a bracing sense of historically-rooted identity and moral authority.

DOMA Reax

DOMAGetty2 

I'm absorbing the statement, which you can read here. My thoughts soon. Meanwhile, Jim Burroway:

DOMA is still on the books, and it has not been declared unconstitutional. It does mean however that the Justice Department won’t defend section 3 of the statute which bars federal recognition of marriage of same-sex couples when that portion of the law is challenged in court. And so one possibility is that we may have a national patchwork of DOMA enforcement — it is kaput where Federal judges or their Appeals Courts have ruled against it, while it remains on the books where the courts have upheld the law or haven’t ruled. 

That would make, for example, the IRS’s administering the tax code a logistical nightmare, with some gay couples filing as married couples in some jurisdictions while others are barred from doing so elsewhere. Immigration can become a similar quagmire for transnational couples. Without, ultimately, either an appeal somewhere to the Supreme Court or repeal of DOMA itself, it’s going to be very intresting — and probably frustrating — for a very long time.

Dale Carpenter:

There are many questions to ponder, including: who will now defend DOMA and will they have standing to do so?  The DOJ suggests that members of Congress may be able to defend the federal law, but that is far from clear under the Court’s standing precedents, like Raines v. Byrd, written by Chief Justice Rehnquist. 

Elsewhere Carpenter asks whether the president now supports marriage equality. Adam Serwer:

Both of Holder's statements carefully state that they will cease to defend Section 3, without commenting on the constitutionality of the rest of the law. Section 2 still allows the states not to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. But that doesn't mean that the administration necessarily believes Section 2 is constitutional. 

Jack Balkin:

Under these conditions, it becomes much more likely that DOMA will be struck down by at least one federal Court of Appeals– possibly the Second Circuit, where the latest cases are being brought–and therefore even more likely that DOMA will be struck down when it finally gets to the Supreme Court. All of my previous predictions as to how constitutional challenges to DOMA will go forward must be revised.

(Photo: Aleyna Stroud (L) and Mandy Harris kiss after requesting and being rejected for a marriage license at the County Clerk's Office in Los Angeles on Valentine's Day, February 14, 2011. By Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images)

Palin’s Facebook “Denial”

Readers are ahead of me:

I am certain some other reader will make the same point, but I don't consider what Palin said about her phony Facebook surrogate a "denial."

She doesn't specify the account, so if we find out tomorrow it was her, she can say she never denied. She can also claim, "truthfully" that her only "authentic" FB account is SarahPalinUSA, and the weird ghost one she just made up isn't "authentic" because she says it isn't. She advises to pay no attention to the "fake" accounts, of which there no doubt are some, probably mostly parodies. She hopes we'll lump the non-fake ghost account in with these.

Who can say? Everything in Palin-land is inscrutable, or untrue, or delusional or just plain weird. It's dizzying to try and keep up.

Dissent Of The Day

A reader writes:

The biggest issue in dispute is not collective bargaining but the provisions of the legislation which end payroll deduction of union dues from public employees’ paychecks by the state, and a new requirement that unions be recertified by employee vote annually – and requiring that the vote be by a majority of all workers, and not just workers casting ballots. When New York passed legislation ending automatic payroll deductions for a particular teachers’ bargaining unit a few years ago, that union saw its dues revenue decline by 35%.

When the union workers had to write checks to the union themselves for their dues, rather than the “painless” process of simply never seeing the money in their bank accounts, they suddenly were more reluctant to part with their own money. This “dues pump” is little more than the transfer of union member money into state politician political coffers – Democratic politician political coffers – and the GOP controlled legislature and governor in Wisconsin are perfectly justified in ending it. If the union’s efforts are so valued by the union members, they’ll pay their dues, and the Dems can continue to suck on that teet for campaign funds.

Quote For The Day

“We were not there in Afghanistan to eradicate corruption, or to end poppy cultivation. We were not there to take ownership of Afghanistan’s problems, tempting though it was for Americans of goodwill. If, as some have contended, we never had a plan for full-fledged nation building, or that we under-resourced such a plan, they were certainly correct. We did not go there to bring prosperity to every corner of Afghanistan. Our more modest goal was to rid Afghanistan of al Qaeda, and replace their Taliban hosts with a government that would not harbor terrorists… ” – Donald Rumsfeld on page 682 of his memoir.

Video for Casey Black’s song, The Sarge, off his forthcoming record It Shapes Me As It Goes. Made by Casey Black and Molly Morgan in their apartment.

The Pwning Of Scott Walker

The full prank call from a man impersonating David Koch here and here. There's plenty of pretty devastating moments. The Gonzo journalist who pulled this off just kept calling and somehow got through:

Ian Murphy: I called the number on their website. I kept calling that same number, getting a busy signal, waiting through 20 rings. That Koch would suffer such indignities made it extra ridiculous.

Mother Jones: Did you really think you'd get through?

IM: I couldn't believe it was that easy. Or why they wouldn't check around or something in between my calls. Or be competent. Or just not completely stupid. I blame it on the cheeseheads.

The raw partisanship and threats confirm to me that this is a classic piece of partisan warfare under the guise of fiscal conservatism. It also confirms every left-wing conspiracy theorist on the power of the Koch brothers. "Bring a baseball bat?"

Thousands Of Fatalities?

From Le Monde an account by a French doctor on the scene (translated by a reader):

Benghazi was attacked on Thursday. Our ambulances on the ground counted 75 deaths the first day; 200 on the second; then more than 500. From the third day, I had no more morphine or medications. In the beginning, the forces of repression fired on people in the legs and abdomen, then in the thorax and head. Then we saw mortar shots and rounds of anti-aircraft fire, directly into the crowd. A carnage. People were burned to death, shredded into bits. Altogether, I think there were more than 2000 killed; two hospitals of more than 1500 beds each were filled to capacity.

At Odds With Reality

Jonathan Chait observes that the House Republican budget "would cut at least $272 million in border security and immigration enforcement, including fencing and surveillance technology." He has two observations:

First, Republicans almost surely made cuts like this (and others to things like cancer research) in the assumption they wouldn't come to pass. Democrats control the Senate and White House, there will be negotiations, so Republicans can make cuts they don't want to actually take place and still retain support from their base.

But second, this shows again how utterly at odds with reality the conservative view of the budget is. There just is not a lot of waste to be found. Republicans like to say they've just made a first step, but if the first step means weakening the government function they've been demanding to strengthen, then you have to wonder how many other steps there could be. Most of what government does is either necessary, popular, or both. Now, people don't understand that — they think there are huge savings in foreign aid, welfare, and useless bureaucracy. Republicans can win power by appealing to popular misunderstandings of the budget, but actually implementing a program on the basis of a misunderstanding of reality is quite hard.

Or simply surreal. The obvious way forward is not to deepen austerity and impede the recovery with big cuts in spending now, but to advance a plan to cut the real debt coming later. A serious Bowles-Simpson plan would not necessarily mean immediate spending cuts, but by reassuring markets and Americans that the fiscal future of America is not Greek, the confidence we desperately need would come roaring back. It would be a psychological stimulus.