Unless you are one of the 4.5 million people who live in Washington D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam, and American Samoa:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40930689/ns/politics/
QuoteWASHINGTON — One of the first acts of the new Republican-controlled House is to take away the floor voting rights of six delegates representing areas such as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam and American Samoa.
Five of those delegates are Democrats, while one, from the Northern Marianas Islands, is an independent.
The GOP decision to rescind the ability of delegates to vote on amendments on the House floor was the predictable outcome of a longtime party divide. Democrats extended the voting rights in 1993 when they controlled the House, Republicans disenfranchised the delegates when they became the majority in 1995 and Democrats restored delegate rights when they regained control of the House in 2007.
"This is a very undemocratic way to start the 112th Congress," said Virgin Islands Del. Donna Christensen. With the new GOP rule, she said, "there are over 4.5 million Americans who don't get input into shaping the final bill."
The partisan battle has always been as much about political symbolism as the actual ability of delegates to influence national policy. Under the Democrats, delegates could vote on the floor on amendments — in what is known as the Committee of the Whole — but not on final passage. And their votes came with the stipulation that they could not change the outcome of a vote.
Delegates do have full voting rights at the committee level and can rise through the committee ranks.
Republicans have long argued that the Constitution, which says the House should be made up of representatives chosen by the "several states," rules out voting by non-state delegates. The office of new House Speaker John Boehner on Tuesday said Boehner "continues to believe . that delegates should not vote in the Committee of the Whole because they constitutionally cannot vote on the House floor."
"It's very apparent to me that we need to focus on the Constitution and (under the Constitution) states are to be represented in the House of Representatives," said House Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier, R-Calif.
Republicans also point out that delegate votes violate the concept of equal representation. The average constituency for the 435 House representatives is about 700,000. While Puerto Rico has a population of almost 4 million and the District of Columbia 600,000, the other four, all territories, are considerably smaller. American Samoa has 95,000 residents, and The Northern Marianas 48,000.
But Democrats counter that, when Republicans sued to reverse the 1993 extension of voting rights, two federal courts ruled that Congress had acted within constitutional bounds. They also point out that the delegates represent U.S. citizens who serve in the military and are fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"To me it is unseemly in the 21st century that anyone would be stripped of a vote," said Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, who has represented Washington D.C. since 1991.
Norton said the loss of limited voting rights was a "very bitter pill" for the people of the District, who a year ago where within sight of gaining a full vote in the House. The Senate voted to give the District a fully vested representative, but attached an amendment to weaken the District's tough gun control laws that was unacceptable to some House Democrats.
New Washington Mayor Vincent Gray said at a protest rally Tuesday that the GOP move to remove Norton's remaining voting rights was "the most outrageous insult imaginable."
Norton sought to prevent adoption of the new rule by offering a motion to set up a special committee to study the delegate voting issue, but it was defeated on a party-line vote.
We can send these people to war to serve America but we can't give them representation in Congress. Way to go Boehner!!! A great start!
HOLY FUCKING SHIT.
When Roger's citizenship is revoked, I'm marrying him and moving to Canada.
Sorry, Triple Zero, I know you and I had a nice future together as ex-spouses in Dutchland...but I need a faster out.
The next two years are going to be chock full of horrormirth.
Well, if they continue to follow the Constitution as much as they claim they will be, I think eventually something will bite them in the ass, and they'll be called out on it.
Canada is looking better by the day.
Quote from: Suu on January 06, 2011, 01:21:51 PM
Well, if they continue to follow the Constitution as much as they claim they will be, I think eventually something will bite them in the ass, and they'll be called out on it.
They'll stop as soon as it becomes inconvenient. Or, they'll loudly misinterpret it, and no one will correct them.
I wonder if there are any Tea Parties in any of these territories. I mean, this is where people should actually be screaming about getting their country back.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 06, 2011, 01:41:03 PM
I wonder if there are any Tea Parties in any of these territories. I mean, this is where people should actually be screaming about getting their country back.
Oh I hope so, but probably not.
Yes, the party of exclusion seeks to further exclude. What's hilarious to me is the legitamization of their base of these endeavors--oh, they're not RACISTS, they're not SELFISH BIGOTS, no no no, they only want to give the REAL People of America what they have coming to them.
:lulz:
Who was it that said people get exactly the government they deserve? Oscar Wilde maybe.
anyway, that.
Quote from: MisterDiskord on January 10, 2011, 05:43:12 PM
Who was it that said people get exactly the government they deserve? Oscar Wilde maybe.
anyway, that.
Alexis de Toqueville cribbed it from Jefferson, or the other way around. Nobody's sure.
I think it has less to do with bigotry and more to do with the fact that those places tend to be overwhelmingly Democrat.
Partisan politics FTW!
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 10, 2011, 06:50:48 PM
I think it has less to do with bigotry and more to do with the fact that those places tend to be overwhelmingly Democrat.
Partisan politics FTW!
BAHAHAHAHAAAA. Ok.
Quite probably. But then there's a whole lot of chicken and egg behind that. Do those minorities support the Democrats because of Republican racism? Do Republicans feel no need to appeal for the greater support ethnic minorities provide the party because of their skin colour? Etc etc
Definitely in the short term this is more about screwing over the other side, but the larger, more structural view...it's harder to say.
Do they pay federal taxes in D.C.? If they do, we need to start a Columbia Tea Party. :lulz:
Quote from: Cain on January 10, 2011, 07:04:34 PM
Quite probably. But then there's a whole lot of chicken and egg behind that. Do those minorities support the Democrats because of Republican racism? Do Republicans feel no need to appeal for the greater support ethnic minorities provide the party because of their skin colour? Etc etc
Definitely in the short term this is more about screwing over the other side, but the larger, more structural view...it's harder to say.
...you make a good point, but all I gotta say is, listen to their punditry. The Rushes and the Becks. And I mean their radio shit. It's pretty plain what they FEEL about the "non-American Smudgy People."
Quote from: Jenne on January 10, 2011, 07:06:34 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 10, 2011, 07:04:34 PM
Quite probably. But then there's a whole lot of chicken and egg behind that. Do those minorities support the Democrats because of Republican racism? Do Republicans feel no need to appeal for the greater support ethnic minorities provide the party because of their skin colour? Etc etc
Definitely in the short term this is more about screwing over the other side, but the larger, more structural view...it's harder to say.
...you make a good point, but all I gotta say is, listen to their punditry. The Rushes and the Becks. And I mean their radio shit. It's pretty plain what they FEEL about the "non-American Smudgy People."
Whats funny is that on social issues most of those brown smudgy people agree with republicans, before 9/11 almost all muslims voted R and I have a feeling the deeply religious latinos would vote for them if it wasnt for their heavy anti-immigration stance.
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on January 10, 2011, 08:48:24 PM
Quote from: Jenne on January 10, 2011, 07:06:34 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 10, 2011, 07:04:34 PM
Quite probably. But then there's a whole lot of chicken and egg behind that. Do those minorities support the Democrats because of Republican racism? Do Republicans feel no need to appeal for the greater support ethnic minorities provide the party because of their skin colour? Etc etc
Definitely in the short term this is more about screwing over the other side, but the larger, more structural view...it's harder to say.
...you make a good point, but all I gotta say is, listen to their punditry. The Rushes and the Becks. And I mean their radio shit. It's pretty plain what they FEEL about the "non-American Smudgy People."
Whats funny is that on social issues most of those brown smudgy people agree with republicans, before 9/11 almost all muslims voted R and I have a feeling the deeply religious latinos would vote for them if it wasnt for their heavy anti-immigration stance.
Yes, but that's the LAIL of the GOP.
It's funny how that works out. Ethnic/religious group X would vote for party Y except party Y embraces/historically is (un)associated with Z.
Makes me think of my Irish grandfather and his ineffectual support of Clinton and Obama, due to his view that the GOP are all warmongers (support for neutrality and diplomatic solutions), even though he seems to be a pretty staunch Catholic, with all of the social view disagreements that would normally incline him to the GOP (doesn't approve of divorce, premarital sex, or homosexuality).
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on January 10, 2011, 08:48:24 PM
Quote from: Jenne on January 10, 2011, 07:06:34 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 10, 2011, 07:04:34 PM
Quite probably. But then there's a whole lot of chicken and egg behind that. Do those minorities support the Democrats because of Republican racism? Do Republicans feel no need to appeal for the greater support ethnic minorities provide the party because of their skin colour? Etc etc
Definitely in the short term this is more about screwing over the other side, but the larger, more structural view...it's harder to say.
...you make a good point, but all I gotta say is, listen to their punditry. The Rushes and the Becks. And I mean their radio shit. It's pretty plain what they FEEL about the "non-American Smudgy People."
Whats funny is that on social issues most of those brown smudgy people agree with republicans, before 9/11 almost all muslims voted R and I have a feeling the deeply religious latinos would vote for them if it wasnt for their heavy anti-immigration stance.
It's not the anti-immigration stance. It's the assumption that all Hispanics are immigrants, illegal or otherwise.
All Muslims want to blow up your babies, all non-Christians want to ABORT your babies and send them to hell, all non-whites are lazy job-stealers with no education and no English skills, be suspect of anyone with an accent that may want to 1) doctor you 2) educate you 3) marry your son/daughter/grandchild, all non-whites want to live off the dole and not work for a living, non-whites don't pay taxes like WE DO, if there was a crime done in your neighborhood--esp a violent one--a non-white did it, ...it goes on and on.
And yeah, those sound like some major hyperbolic bigotries, but you hear them threaded into each and every pundit's asshole explosions when the rhetoric runs high. The town halls they did for the health care bill sort of showcased the best of them...
Quote from: Jenne on January 10, 2011, 07:06:34 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 10, 2011, 07:04:34 PM
Quite probably. But then there's a whole lot of chicken and egg behind that. Do those minorities support the Democrats because of Republican racism? Do Republicans feel no need to appeal for the greater support ethnic minorities provide the party because of their skin colour? Etc etc
Definitely in the short term this is more about screwing over the other side, but the larger, more structural view...it's harder to say.
...you make a good point, but all I gotta say is, listen to their punditry. The Rushes and the Becks. And I mean their radio shit. It's pretty plain what they FEEL about the "non-American Smudgy People."
Yes. But with all due respect, I think you're missing my point. How did racism in the first place become acceptable within the ranks and was it a calculated political decision based on cost/benefit analysis or was it the result of entryism by racist individuals or groups? Obviously there is a bit of both, but at the same time it's an important question as to whether calculated political decisions drive the racism, or the racism drives the calculated political decisions. It throws up massive questions about the meta-political strategy that anti-racism groups should pursue to try and reform the political system.
For instance, I don't think most of the idiots on the radio and TV, the big-league ones, are racist to any great degree. Most of them live in urban areas and work in cosmopolitan corporate environments. They come into contact with people of different races and sexual orientations every day. However, they quite likely know that by making appeals to racism and racists they can help shape political commentary in such a way as to create policies which benefit the big backers of the Republicans and punish the (minor) supporters of the Democrats.
Such is politics.
Of course, there is the possibility that while the appeals to racism shape the political commentary, it may stem from nothing more than an easy way to create a narrative that listeners (consumers) can latch onto, which then lures in advertising dollars.
If you attempted to explain and nuance the myriad factors that influence politics and current events, the average person would either be unable or unwilling to listen. But if you have a bipolar drama, that taps into the "US vs THEM" narrative, people will drop everything to listen to whatever it is you have to say.
The US has become a base entertainment culture -- It only makes sense that its news and politics should follow the same themes and fictions as the movies and TV shows it produces.
LMNO is riding the correct newscycle.
But how much actual racism is there in the entertainment media? COPS aside, that is? Shows like 24, The Wire, Law and Order and CSI, where there is ample space for bringing in racist tropes, actually steer away from them or even attempt to deconstruct them. While a facile good/evil view of the world often prevails in such series, they are rarely ever linked to group identities (unless we consider "the main cast" a group identity).
If anything, I would say there is more money in using racism as the basis for classism (set working class blacks and whites against each other, and they're hardly likely to join hands and march on their employers demanding a raise).
That's a good point. It would be easy to say that the entertainment industry is ultimately more clever than the political machine, but that would be a cop out.
There is a possibility of a mixture of genre savvy/genre blindness in the audience, dependent on the context of the story. In film and TV, the audience recognizes the "fiction" of the narrative, and has learned to expect twists and nuance; but when they turn to politics, they are blind to the blatant racist manipulations.
Also too easy of an answer, though.
Quote from: Cain on January 11, 2011, 12:53:54 PM
Quote from: Jenne on January 10, 2011, 07:06:34 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 10, 2011, 07:04:34 PM
Quite probably. But then there's a whole lot of chicken and egg behind that. Do those minorities support the Democrats because of Republican racism? Do Republicans feel no need to appeal for the greater support ethnic minorities provide the party because of their skin colour? Etc etc
Definitely in the short term this is more about screwing over the other side, but the larger, more structural view...it's harder to say.
...you make a good point, but all I gotta say is, listen to their punditry. The Rushes and the Becks. And I mean their radio shit. It's pretty plain what they FEEL about the "non-American Smudgy People."
Yes. But with all due respect, I think you're missing my point. How did racism in the first place become acceptable within the ranks and was it a calculated political decision based on cost/benefit analysis or was it the result of entryism by racist individuals or groups? Obviously there is a bit of both, but at the same time it's an important question as to whether calculated political decisions drive the racism, or the racism drives the calculated political decisions. It throws up massive questions about the meta-political strategy that anti-racism groups should pursue to try and reform the political system.
For instance, I don't think most of the idiots on the radio and TV, the big-league ones, are racist to any great degree. Most of them live in urban areas and work in cosmopolitan corporate environments. They come into contact with people of different races and sexual orientations every day. However, they quite likely know that by making appeals to racism and racists they can help shape political commentary in such a way as to create policies which benefit the big backers of the Republicans and punish the (minor) supporters of the Democrats.
Such is politics.
True, and that point I would never argue, so for me I guess the problem is when it's ingrained in the polemic. It's all well and good for the dog and pony to know it's just a show, for ratings. But the people watching think it's factual and actual, and put their money exactly where their mouths are sucking at the media teat.
Rhetoric quickly became accepted as "actuality" and "factuality" so quickly in the last decade that it made my head spin. We went from political correctness to political badness, because "Jesus said so," in one fell swoop (I'm talking 9/11 here). Rights and liberties that a decade before were held sacred were then smashed to bits on the almighty altar of safety.
But then, I swallowed the KoolAid that America's ingrained isolationist tendencies were not dying out, and I also saw religious fervor on the wane in the 90's. So much for my head being stuck in that Ivory Tower for too long. :lol:
...and btw, I have you to thank for helping me back out of that one. It's too bad my radar wasn't attuned more finely to events and movements that I had once been so keenly interested in (the Middle Eastern conflict for one, and middle America politics for another). I said some dumbass'd things here and on Faust's old site. I've learned to look and listen a bit more now.
Quote from: Cain on January 11, 2011, 01:27:12 PM
But how much actual racism is there in the entertainment media? COPS aside, that is? Shows like 24, The Wire, Law and Order and CSI, where there is ample space for bringing in racist tropes, actually steer away from them or even attempt to deconstruct them. While a facile good/evil view of the world often prevails in such series, they are rarely ever linked to group identities (unless we consider "the main cast" a group identity).
If anything, I would say there is more money in using racism as the basis for classism (set working class blacks and whites against each other, and they're hardly likely to join hands and march on their employers demanding a raise).
I think this is the actual "liberal media bias" and "Hollywoodification" of so-called real life that the rightwingers like to talk about, MSNBC aside (that's a recent knee-jerk reaction to Fox News). Hollywood and the entertainment industry in general have had a longtime battle with the right side of the aisle, from McCarthyism on back. So if there's a political slant to ANYTHING that comes out of the entertainment business, that's usually where it lands. Left of center.
So when a "cause celebre" comes about, you can pretty much guarantee that the Barbara Streisands, Brad Pitts, George Clooneys and Sean Penns get involved in politics, they will also be left-of-center. Sometimes because of their belief systems, but also because they are sort of "brought up in the biz" that way as well, and there'll be a slant GIVEN in the media about what they do as well. I think the more middle of the road or even less politically invested of them do things that are less "US government bad, look we do GOOD" in overall message-making. But perhaps that's just the way I see it.
The truly fuzzy part of it, though, is who OWNS the networks. THAT is the rub, and the fact that the primetimers are losing out to the cable networks means that George Will and his ilk will tear the cable networks a new asshole (or so they think) because they aren't "playing ball." They are taking the conversation somewhere else, or in a direction that the owners of the primetime networks can't control (like that Family Council or whatever it's called that ABC listens to). And like the internet, they are MORE of a rogue space for the media to engage in.
So the message differs there as well.
As many as 129 million Americans under age 65 have medical problems putting them at risk of being rejected by insurance companies or having to pay more for coverage, according to a U.S. government study reported by the Washington Post on Tuesday.
{SNIP}
A Republican House aide, speaking on condition of anonymity because the report was not yet public, told the Post: "When a new analysis is released on the eve of a vote in Congress, it's hard to view it as anything but politics and public relations."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41132734/ns/health-health_care/
The report is somewhat bullshit. Most Americans get their insurance via work, and a different law protects employer provided healthcare from pre existing condition discrimination, and there's nothing in the healthcare bill that prevents insurance companies from charging people with pre existing conditions more money anyway.
There are much worse things repealing the bill will do, like reinstating lifetime payout caps and lowering the bar on single issue caps.
I hope DC becomes a state and in doing so Eastern Washington becomes one as well. They are such a drag and support the stupidest shit for what in return? discounted apples.
"A day after their vote to repeal President Obama's landmark health care law, House Republicans moved yesterday to put their own stamp on the issue, starting with the volatile topic of abortion," the AP writes. "GOP lawmakers introduced two separate bills to toughen restrictions on taxpayer funding of abortions, arguing that the language now in the law is weak. Leaders promised swift action." More: "Among other health care issues getting immediate attention from Republicans: curbs on jury awards in medical malpractice cases, rescinding an unpopular requirement that businesses report purchases of $600 or more to the IRS, and a rollback of cuts to private Medicare Advantage plans."
The Washington Post says, "Congressional conservatives on Thursday demanded far more dramatic reductions in government spending than House GOP leaders have recently proposed, in the first sign of a fissure between old-guard Republicans and tea-party-backed newcomers."
The Boston Globe: "Behind the scenes, conservatives are pressuring GOP leaders to deliver on a promise to immediately pass legislation cutting Cabinet budgets by $100 billion this fiscal year, which began Oct. 1 and is already one-third over. The committee proposed eliminating several programs outright, including the Legal Services Corp., which provides legal help to people who can't afford a lawyer; Amtrak subsidies; community development grants popular with local officials, and economic aid to Egypt. It advocated a five-year pay freeze for federal workers and cutting the federal work force by 15 percent through attrition."
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/21/5891439-congress-focusing-on-abortion
Not one mention of defense spending cuts. Not one.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 21, 2011, 07:11:10 PM
"A day after their vote to repeal President Obama's landmark health care law, House Republicans moved yesterday to put their own stamp on the issue, starting with the volatile topic of abortion," the AP writes. "GOP lawmakers introduced two separate bills to toughen restrictions on taxpayer funding of abortions, arguing that the language now in the law is weak. Leaders promised swift action." More: "Among other health care issues getting immediate attention from Republicans: curbs on jury awards in medical malpractice cases, rescinding an unpopular requirement that businesses report purchases of $600 or more to the IRS, and a rollback of cuts to private Medicare Advantage plans."
The Washington Post says, "Congressional conservatives on Thursday demanded far more dramatic reductions in government spending than House GOP leaders have recently proposed, in the first sign of a fissure between old-guard Republicans and tea-party-backed newcomers."
The Boston Globe: "Behind the scenes, conservatives are pressuring GOP leaders to deliver on a promise to immediately pass legislation cutting Cabinet budgets by $100 billion this fiscal year, which began Oct. 1 and is already one-third over. The committee proposed eliminating several programs outright, including the Legal Services Corp., which provides legal help to people who can't afford a lawyer; Amtrak subsidies; community development grants popular with local officials, and economic aid to Egypt. It advocated a five-year pay freeze for federal workers and cutting the federal work force by 15 percent through attrition."
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/21/5891439-congress-focusing-on-abortion
Not one mention of defense spending cuts. Not one.
Defense is the most important thing to monkeys living in a territorial mindset. Just be glad they didn't up the "poo flinger" budget.
LOL Republic roont
QuoteToday, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), Chairman of the Republican Study Committee (RSC), Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ), Chairman of the RSC Budget and Spending Task Force, and Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), Chairman of the Senate Steering Committee, today unveiled the Spending Reduction Act, which begins to address the rapidly growing national debt by making substantial spending cuts immediately and throughout the next decade.
"The national debt has grown from $8.6 trillion four years ago to more than $14 trillion today," said Jordan. "This mountain of debt, nearly the size of our entire economy, threatens to create a whole new financial crisis. Every day we refuse to change course and instill some fiscal responsibility, the problem grows even larger. Unless Washington acts soon to cut spending, massive tax hikes, economic stagnation, and national bankruptcy will rob our children of the opportunity to reach for the American Dream."
"The Spending Reduction Act gives us a $2.5 trillion head start in the race to preserve the fiscal stability of the United States," said Garrett. "This bill represents the first step in the process, not the last. To achieve long-term fiscal stability, we must finish the race by making the tough decisions Congress has put off for far too long. Only after we tear down barriers to job creation and make reforms to our entitlement programs can we truly resolve our debt crisis."
"Our nation stands on the edge of a fiscal cliff and we face a stark choice: go over the edge into bankruptcy and declining freedom or choose to make the hard decisions today to save our country for our children and grandchildren," said Senator DeMint. "I'm proud to stand with Congressmen Jordan and Garrett against the wave of wasteful Washington spending. The Spending Reduction Act begins the difficult task of shrinking the federal bureaucracy that threatens our future prosperity. Congress must take the steps now to balance the budget, pay off our debt, and preserve freedom for future generations."
Compared to current projections, the Spending Reduction Act would save taxpayers $2.5 trillion through 2021. It starts by keeping House Republicans' pledge to take current spending back to 2008 levels and repeal unspent funds from the failed "stimulus."
At the beginning of the next fiscal year on October 1, 2011, spending is further reduced to 2006 levels and frozen there for the next decade. To help achieve these savings, the bill shrinks the size and cost of the civilian federal workforce and specifically targets over 100 budget items and spending reforms.
http://rsc.jordan.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=220713
For those who don't want to parse the text, the long and short of it is the RNC want to reduce government spending by 2.5
trillion over the next ten years. Let's assume an Obama-esque compromise at 1 trillion...that's still catastrophic. I'm all for reducing debt, but we already know the RNC is going to put up a ring around defense spending and say "can't touch this". So everything else is going to be hit...and you'll see the kind of thing that has been happening in Ireland or even Greece happening in the USA. Too much, too fast, while playing favourites with one of the biggest sources of government spending is a recipe for fiscal disaster.
Consequently, I'm feeling more confident about my China 2018 bet.
Miranda rights are overrated anyways
In an unusual political pairing, liberal Democratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, a libertarian and former Republican presidential candidate, have joined forces in pushing for substantial reductions in the defense budget, including closing some of the 600-plus military bases overseas.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41219824...-capitol_hill/
Dare we hope for sanity?
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 23, 2011, 04:48:23 PM
In an unusual political pairing, liberal Democratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, a libertarian and former Republican presidential candidate, have joined forces in pushing for substantial reductions in the defense budget, including closing some of the 600-plus military bases overseas.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41219824...-capitol_hill/
Dare we hope for sanity?
Im scared to hope. I know Ill only be disappointed again.