Monday, August 2, 2010

Bust the Filibuster? Senate Leaders Support Making America’s House of Lords More Democratic (10:15 am)

Murmurings of filibuster reform bounced around the blogosphere last week, and not for the first time. But some think the partisan gridlock of the last 18 months may have finally triggered a “This Is It” moment for changing one of the more curious features of American “democracy.”

Rabble rousing on July 24 at the Netroots Nation conference in Las Vegas, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told liberal bloggers “we’re going to have to change it.” “It,” of course, being the requirement that 60 senators support a bill in order to end debate and move the legislation forward.

The Senate has never been a particularly democratic institution. Its membership is notoriously white, male and wealthy, and the fact that two senators from Wyoming representing less than 0.2 percent of the American population have the same legislative sway as Sens. Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein representing 12 percent of Americans in California seems downright silly, absent the historical context of our bicameral system.

Filibuster reform is a nonpartisan issue. Except when it’s not, which is whenever one party holds a cloture-thwarting minority threatened by the radical notion that a less than 60 percent majority in the Senate might pass legislation. The practice has become ubiquitous in recent years.

Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) reiterated his support for reform on Wednesday. The Senate’s majority whip had already been pushing for a change to the rules in February via an online petition, and his comments last week reflect a sentiment many on the left are feeling. “I think there’s a high level of frustration and a feeling that we missed many opportunities,” he said.

That about sums up this issue for progressives; it’s the opportunities missed that should provide the impetus for reform. It’s not just some of the big ticket still-to-dos (climate change, immigration reform) that should inspire a concerted push by the left. It’s about those moments when basic fairness and principles of democratic majority rule are savaged by those seeking to “play politics” for electoral gain. It’s about preventing another case of unemployment benefits held hostage by a super-empowered minority of senators whose combined worth... read more

posted by Andrew Kaspar | 2 comments

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Weekly Diaspora: Modified SB 1070 Goes Into Effect; How Federal Law Paved the Way (1:06 pm)

by Annie Shields, Media Consortium blogger

Yesterday, 9th Circuit Judge Susan Bolton struck down many of the most controversial provisions in Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070, including the section requiring police to ask anyone they suspect of being undocumented for proof of citizenship. It’s a small victory. Today, a modified version of the bill goes into effect.

Although Bolton’s decision weakened the state law, several problematic provisions remain in place, including one that allows Arizona residents to sue local police for not enforcing SB 1070, as well as one that makes it a crime to knowingly transporting an undocumented immigrant under any circumstance, even in an emergency. ColorLines has a good breakdown of pending lawsuits against SB 1070.

How 287 (g) paved the way for SB 1070

As GritTV’s Laura Flanders explains, both supporters and opponents of SB 1070 agree that the feds laid the groundwork for such stringent enforcement measures. Section 287 (g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act made it possible to contract law enforcement to arrest immigrants on suspicion. Arizona’s then-Governor Janet Napolitano was the first to sign up for the program, and the biggest federal contract was given to none other than infamous Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona’s Maricopa County.

The passage of SB 1070 made it clear that the federal government had created a monster. It remains to be seen what will happen next, but fully striking down SB 1070 may have to take a backseat to revisiting the precedent set by 287 G.

Record enforcement under Obama

Conservatives have continuously attacked President Barack Obama and his administration for being weak on immigration, failing to enforce laws, or to secure the border. But, as Elize Foley explains for the Iowa Independent, immigration enforcement is at an all time high.

It’s estimated that the number of deportations this year will increase by nearly 10 percent over 2008’s total under the Bush administration. In addition, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency has been auditing companies business? at a rate about four times higher than in 2008. What’s more, rates of illegal immigration have actually fallen in recent years. But... read more

posted by Annie Shields, Media Consortium blogger | 1 comment

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Weekly Pulse: Skewed Teen Sex Stats Lead to Multiplication (11:31 am)

by Lindsay Beyerstein, Media Consortium blogger

The American Life League (ALL) has seized upon the Center for Disease Control’s (CDC) latest teen sex stats as proof that kids don’t need sex ed after all. The data show that 58 percent of girls and 57 percent of boys between the ages of 15 and 19 report that they had never had intercourse. According to the ALL, these stats somehow prove that sex ed is a waste of time.

Amanda Marcotte of RH Reality Check argues that ALL is disingenuously lumping all non-sexually active teens together: A 15-year-old virgin is not necessarily a committed proponent of abstinence. The CDC data suggest that many teens of these erstwhile virgins are doing their best to shed their virginity. Marcotte notes than only about 12 percent of teens are interested abstinence messages, and presumably, an even smaller percentage of those kids will live up to their ideals. What the study really shows is that nearly half of teenagers are already having sex, and many others are doing their best to get in on the action. It’s hard to imagine a more perfect audience for comprehensive sex ed.

Protecting sex workers

Scientists, policy-makers, and activists gathered in Vienna last week for the International AIDS Conference. The conference is supposed to be a global meeting of the minds, but some groups feel left out of the discussion. Sex workers are on the global front lines of the battle against HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. Yet, Titania Kumeh reports in Mother Jones that President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), a key U.S. program to fund AIDS prevention in the developing world, continues to shut out sex worker activist groups unless they repudiate their clients’ livelihood. As you might expect, denouncing sex work is not an effective way of winning the trust of sex workers.

Kumeh profiles Peninah Mwangi, an AIDS activist and sex worker. She works with several NGOs that have been turned down for PEPFAR funding because they refuse to reject sex work. Mwangi and 100 other sex workers marched outside the International AIDS Conference in... read more

posted by Lindsay Beyerstein, Media Consortium blogger | 1 comment

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Weekly Audit: Why Are Unemployment Benefits A Major Political Fight? (9:28 am)

by Zach Carter, Media Consortium blogger

Congress finally authorized an extension of unemployment benefits on Wednesday, providing a critical lifeline to families across the country and an absolutely essential boost to the economy.

But with the jobless rate hovering near 10 percent, minimum measures like unemployment benefits shouldn’t be a source of controversy. Lawmakers should be debating big-picture jobs packages to get people back to work, not drips and drabs that keep a worst-case-scenario from getting unbearable.

As Annie Lowrey notes for the Iowa Independent, Senate Republicans blocked the unemployment benefits bill for two months, causing benefits to lapse for 2.6 million Americans. That’s a humanitarian outrage. When people don’t have access to this minimal support, they can’t pay bills or feed their kids. There is no excuse for anyone in a position of power to cut off access to such basic social necessities. So what’s the hold up?

It’s a mix of talking points and public misconception. Conservatives have been demonizing the unemployed and using erroneous claims about the federal budget deficit as an excuse to block unemployment benefits, and that narrative has been reinforced by President Barack Obama’s handling of the public debate over the economic stimulus package approved in February 2009.

Unemployment Benefits = Economic Stimulus

In addition to the humanitarian imperative, there’s a broader economic case for extending unemployment benefits. When people are out of work, they can’t spend money. If people don’t spend money, businesses can’t sell anything. And if businesses can’t sell anything, they have to lay off more workers. Putting money in the pockets of the unemployed isn’t just a humanitarian necessity—it also prevents layoffs and creates jobs.

But you wouldn’t know it from the economically illiterate nonsense that conservatives have been spewing during the unemployment benefits debate. Writing for The Nation, Robert Scheer quotes prominent conservative intellectual Niall Ferguson. Here’s Ferguson’s vile diatribe blaming lazy, unemployed people for the recession:

“If you pay people to do nothing, they’ll find themselves doing nothing for very long periods of time. Long-term unemployment is at an all-time high in the United States, and it is a... read more

posted by Audrey McLain | 2 comments

Friday, July 23, 2010

Weekly Mulch: How Reid’s Energy Bill Undermines Senate Climate Efforts (10:04 am)

by Sarah Laskow, Media Consortium blogger

Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) introduced a limited energy bill that responds to the oil spill and promotes energy efficiency. Reid’s action is a signal that the Senate will not pass climate legislation before November, although Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) said that a climate bill could come up in the lame-duck session following the election.

“The Senate’s climate bill is officially dead,” Kate Sheppard writes at Mother Jones. “And given that Democrats will almost certainly hold fewer seats in Congress next year, major action on the climate is unlikely to be revived anytime soon.”

Since 2009, expectations for a bill regulating carbon emissions have steadily declined. After this latest failure in the Senate, the best near-term hope for addressing climate change comes from the Environmental Protection Agency, which still has the power to regulate carbon emissions.

At the Washington Independent, Andrew Restuccia reports that Sen. Reid’s bill will likely hold oil companies more financially accountable for spills by lifting the cap on their liability for economic damages and will nudge homeowners towards energy efficiency.

But, Restuccia writes, a sources tells him that “significantly…the bill might not include a renewable energy standard.” Such a standard would require an increasing percentage of the country’s electricity to come from sources like wind and solar.

The energy bill could create jobs

Sen. Reid has often emphasized that an energy bill is also a jobs bill: Innovation in the clean energy sector creates employment opportunities at a time when they’re sorely needed. Dropping the renewable energy standard could also mean diminishing the potential for job creation.

Public News Service reports that in rural areas, a standard could create thousands of jobs.

“The Department of Energy says, if we get to 20 percent of the nation’s electricity from wind by the year 2030”—one of the less ambitious standards proposed—“it would mean 3,000 to 4,000 new jobs in most of our states,” Chuck Hassebrook, executive director of the Center for Rural Affairs, said. “There’s not a lot of things out there bringing that kind of new economic opportunity to rural... read more

posted by Sarah Laskow, Media Consortium blogger | 1 comment

Thursday, July 22, 2010

Weekly Diaspora: Evangelicals Unexpected Allies for Immigration Reform (9:57 am)

by Annie Shields, Media Consortium blogger

With only a week remaining before Arizona’s contentious Senate Bill 1070 becomes law, Arizona human and immigrant rights groups have found unlikely allies among the religious community.

The American Prospect reports that a growing group of evangelical Christian leaders, like Rev. Samuel Rodriguez Jr., president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, are rejecting the traditional conservative stance on immigration, instead supporting President Barack Obama’s call for comprehensive reform.

Southern Baptist and Catholic leaders are also among those who have come out in favor of a path to citizenship, according to New American Media. Following last week’s blacklist scandal in Utah, the stance on immigration reform in the Mormon Church (Utah’s dominant social institution) is under scrutiny. After the news broke of the blacklist of undocumented immigrants— which contained Social Security numbers, phone numbers, even the due dates of pregnant women— a firestorm of controversy erupted.

Many religious leaders chimed in, condemning the list and those who compiled it. However, Mormon clergy have come under fire for remaining neutral
on the issue of immigration, despite the Church’s high-profile
public support for Prop 8, the gay marriage ban.

Voicing Dissent

Opponents of SB 1070 are pulling out all the stops and preparing for a “statewide mobilization” in Arizona on July 29th. Activists are planning rallies, vigils and civil disobedience protests to be held across the state.

Jennifer Allen, director of the Border Action Network, is helping organize the statewide mobilization. She says that the immigrant rights community isn’t in favor of illegal immigration, but rather a better path to citizenship and an alternative to the enforcement-only approach to dealing with immigration. Speaking to Public News Service, Allen explained her position:

“I have yet to meet somebody who’s undocumented that wouldn’t prefer to be here with documents and prefer to be here legally. We need a system and a policy in which people can come out of the shadows, can come into this country in a safe and legal way.”

DREAM on

Immigration protests aren’t just happening in Arizona, as Campus Progress reports. Advocates of the DREAM... read more

posted by Annie Shields, Media Consortium blogger | 3 comments

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

France Moves Closer to Banning Burqa—and Betraying Its Own Values (11:35 am)

By Camille Lepage

Last week, the French government voted in favor of banning the burqa, the traditional covering for Muslim women, which covers a woman from head to foot with an opening for the eyes). The law must still be approved by the French Senate, which will likely happen this September, and be reviewed by France’s Constitutional Council, which ensures that legislation does not violate the country’s constitution.

The legislation would arguably move France further from its self-adorned reputation as the country of human rights and the Age of Enlightenment. The country I’ve called home for so many years, is now beginning to re-enact the discrimination, racism and disregard for human rights that took place in Germany 70 years ago. On July 13, the French National Assembly voted 335 to 1 to ban women from wearing the full-face Muslim veil in public spaces. (Two-hundred and forty-one assembly members abstained from voting.) This law is intolerant, immoral and harmful, but a clear majority of French political representatives approved of it.

The current French reality seems to reflect Anna Arendt’s account of the start of the Holocaust in her book Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil: evil is now (or at least about to become) ordinary. Even the communist and socialist parties have accepted this French evil, as well as one of the most influential French feminist organizations: Ni Putes, Ni Soumises (Neither Whores, Nor Submissives).

Under the proposed law, any woman wearing a burqa or niqab (a face veil covering the lower part of the face) in a public space will be fined 150 Euro or be ordered to partake in citizenship classes. (Of Franc’s estimated 2 million adult Muslim women, only 2,000 wear a full face veil.)

Are citizenship classes intended to suggest that a person can be a bad citizen simply because of her religious beliefs? Will the next step be to distinguish Muslims by ordering them to wear a crescent moon on their clothes? Muslim women are not arbitrarily forced to wear the full-faced veil; it is a part of their religion. Women who wear... read more

posted by Camille Lepage | 7 comments

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Weekly Audit: Why Elizabeth Warren Should Head New Consumer Protection Bureau (10:13 am)

by Zach Carter, Media Consortium blogger

With the Wall Street reform bill finally cleared through Congress, activists and intellectuals are pushing hard to make sure that this bill isn’t the last word Congress utters about Big Finance. We need deeper and more robust reforms, but it’s also critical to ensure that the new bill is implemented as effectively as possible. Part of that means appointing officials with a proven record as robust reformers—people like Elizabeth Warren.

Too-big-to-fail lives on

What more do we need to keep Big Finance from ravaging the middle class? As Stacy Mitchell notes for Yes! Magazine, the bill Congress just signed off on doesn’t really address the core problems posed by our out-of-control banking system. Too-big-to-fail is alive and well, and lawmakers must push to break up the megabanks during the next legislative cycle or risk another economic calamity. Mitchell writes:

“Since the collapse, giant banks have only grown bigger and more powerful, and less responsive to the needs of the real economy. While the financial reform bill includes several worthwhile measures, it will not set the industry right or entail a fundamental alteration of its scale and structure.”

There are still some great reforms in the current round of legislation, among them the creation of a strong new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to write and enforce rules on mortgages, credit cards, overdraft fees and more. The first person to head this new regulatory body will be tremendously important to its future. They will set the tone for the bureau’s operations and establish a culture that will define it for years to come.

Elizabeth Warren: The Obvious Choice

The most obvious pick to head the agency is Elizabeth Warren, who currently chairs the Congressional Oversight Panel for the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Warren has been a rare force of accountability for the Wall Street bailout. She’s also a capable and committed reformer. Her current post has almost no formal statutory power, but Warren has used a series of reports and hearings to publicize previously obscure failures on issues ranging from the AIG bailout to the unmitigated... read more