Month: January 2013

Earlier today, the Senate passed a “scaled-back filibuster deal.” Sahil Kapur provides an overview:

The new rules would permit a Senate majority to bypass the filibuster on a motion to proceed to debate with the condition that either a group of senators on each side of the aisle agrees, or the minority is guaranteed the chance to offer amendments. The new rules limit debate time for sub-cabinet and district court nominations and reduces the number of required hours between cloture and final confirmation from 30 to two. It also lowers the number of cloture motions required to go to conference with the House.

Brian Beutler “can’t call them filibuster reforms, because they don’t reform the modern filibuster at all.” He explains why senators don’t really want changes:

If you enjoy using the threat of killing legislation to lock in goodies for your state or paymasters, then you probably don’t support any effort that will limit or eliminate your power to impose a supermajority requirement. The other side of that coin is that a supermajority requirement often allows senators to “support” legislation they’re actually happy to see fail. If, say, breaking up big banks is important to your constituents but abhorrent to your party or your donors, then being the 58th vote for a bill to break up big banks is actually hitting the sweet spot.

Chait sums up today’s developments:

Basically, what happened here is that the good government instinct met the senatorial ego, and the latter prevailed because it is the most powerful force on Earth.

Let us not forget that the extension of this massive new abuse of power is due as much to the Democrats as to the Republicans. Harry Reid effectively surrendered to a relatively recent and indefensible abuse of the filibuster. If you want to know why however much I lament the current state of the GOP – which is infinitely worse than the Democrats – then this is why my disdain for the Democrats endures. They’re pathetic. And it’s always worth remembering what a pile of luke-warm ordure lies behind the empty suit of Reid.

(Photo: Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) speaks about the debt ceiling, on January 23, 2013 in Washington, DC. The Senate Democrats discussed the House’s scheduled vote on suspending the debt ceiling. By Mark Wilson/Getty Images.)

Tomio Geron heralds its rise:

The sharing concept has created markets out of things that wouldn’t have been considered monetizable assets before. A few dozen square feet in a driveway can now produce income via Parking Panda. A pooch-friendly room in your house is suddenly a pet penthouse via DogVacay. On Rentoid, an outdoorsy type with a newborn who suddenly notices her camping tent never gets used can rent it out at $10 a day to a city slicker who’d otherwise have to buy one. On SnapGoods, a drill lying fallow in a garage can become a $10-a-day income source from a homeowner who just needs to put up some quick drywall. On Liquid, an unused bicycle becomes a way for a traveler to cheaply get around while visiting town for $20 a day.

McArdle wonders about the consequences of this trend:

Peer to peer sharing could create something like a tax on low-density housing: you have to have your own car, and your own tools, and you can’t rent your house out while you’re on vacation. There’s a good chance this would translate into  [higher] prices for urban housing, or lower prices for rural homes.

In a recent interview, Lee Thompson (aka “Uncle Poodle” from Here Comes Honey Boo Boo) claimed that he brought charges against his ex-boyfriend for infecting him with HIV, resulting in a five-year sentence. Todd Heywood casts doubt on Thompson’s story. Zooming out, Scott Burris has cited cases of incarceration for the HIV transmission as an example of the trend of “overcriminalization” in America:

One of the best examples of criminal law rushing in where angels fear to tread is the criminalization of HIV exposure. From the start, there was reason to fear that these laws would not reduce HIV transmission, and might exacerbate stigma and social hostility towards people with HIV. There was concern they might be used selectively, or just randomly. This summer, the UN’s Global Commission on HIV and the Law advised states to repeal or abstain from enacting such laws. … In this country, the President’s National AIDS Strategy suggested states reconsider these laws, but no laws have been repealed and prosecutions continue.  Fortunately, so does research, and it continues to show that these laws are not promoting public health.

And actual transmission of HIV is irrelevant in many many cases – around 90 percent in one study. This video tore my heart apart:

An activist reader in this area writes:

The around 36 states that have HIV specific statutes are almost all just about HIV, although a few do encompass hepatitis.  I don’t know of any states that have just a hepatitis-specific statutue (or HPV specific or whatever else).  Other STIs aren’t associated specifically with an outlaw sexuality, or with people of color.

These prosecutions have little or nothing to do with whether or not one actually transmits the virus; viral transmission occurs in only a very small percentage of the prosecutions (<10% from SERO’s research to date).  Whether or not HIV was transmitted, or even the extent to which there was any actual risk of transmission, usually is not a factor in the prosecutions.  They typically boil down to whether or not the person charged can prove they disclosed.

That’s why I resist referring to them as “HIV transmission statutes”, because it reinforces the idea that transmission is relevant to getting charged.

The fact that someone is in jail for thirty years for not infecting anyone with HIV blows my mind. This is something we need to do something about – with urgency. The SERO Project can be found here. Please do what you can.

(Hat tip: Joe. My. God. More stories of the incarceration of people with HIV here at the SERO Project YouTube page.)

Some sanity from the non-neocon right in Britain:

A jihadist takeover in Mali would impact regional, not international security. The militant Islamists there are not ‘a global, existential threat’, as the Prime Minister claims, but rooted in local politics. We do not need to prevent the creation of a safe haven in North Africa, but simply prevent the terrorists’ ability to move beyond it. Given West Africa is primarily a French sphere of influence, responsibility for dealing with the danger should be delegated to them. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary said as much to me a few months ago.

British interests would not be well-served by us bungling into another war out of fear of bad history.

Serwer responds to the churlish tweet:

Carlson is a political journalist, so he might be expected to know that there is a woman US Army veteran amputee named Tammy Duckworth currently serving in Congress. Duckworth, who represents Illinois’ 8th District, lost her legs after an attack brought down the helicopter she was piloting in Baghdad.

The new policy that Carlson mocks takes account of female soldiers like Duckworth:

Because women have not been eligible for “combat role” positions—even though they were shooting and being shot at—they were denied access to certain career opportunities. The plaintiffs in a lawsuit the American Civil Liberties Union filed against the Department of Defense over the exclusion of women from combat roles offer great examples of this discrimination. Two of the plaintiffs in that case have received Purple Hearts, and two have received combat medals. One of the plaintiffs, Air Force Major Mary Jennings Hegar, a helicopter pilot, was shot down in Afghanistan attempting to evacuate wounded US service members. She engaged in a firefight with enemy forces and was shot before escaping.

Women are already “getting their limbs blown off in war.” Panetta’s announcement will ensure they are recognized for it.

You can read our entire “Females At The Front” thread here.

Robin Yassin-Kassab wants the US to fund “the moderate Islamists and secularists of the Syrian National Coalition, which will then feed the hungry and fund the fighters, empowering them to buy the weapons they need.” Marc Lynch agrees but adds that “there should be no illusions that this will lead to easy success”:

There are virtually no examples in modern history of the external arming of rebels succeeding – no, the support for the Afghan jihad most certainly doesn’t count given what followed – and many examples of such aid making conflicts bloodier, longer, and more intractable. But we are where we are.

And we should leave well alone. After all we are now finding out about the unintended consequences of the Libyan intervention – done by a president contemptuous of Congress’s sole constitutional right to declare war – we should start arming rebels in Syria whom we cannot truly know or understand? After Iraq? After Afghanistan? Unless any of these actors have the capability or intent of attacking the US, we should leave well alone. Sometimes, doing nothing is easily the best of all the bad options.

Grow one:

Thanks to a reader.

Just to remind readers who asked why we didn’t cover the hearings yesterday, even though they had some great TV moments: we don’t cover non-stories. We have covered the legitimate issue that there was not enough security in Benghazi, that there should have been, and that the State Department failed in its foresight and planning. But we are not going to cover a spectacle created entirely by a fake cable news network as a way to save a losing election campaign. Hillary’s face yesterday said all we needed to.