Rachel Maddow's Blog, page 3381
June 28, 2013
Obama admin acts quickly post-DOMA
White House photo
President Obama during his call to Edie Windsor on Wednesday.
After the Supreme Court's decision on Wednesday striking down the Defense of Marriage Act, Obama administration officials vowed to move quickly to implement the ruling throughout the federal government.
And while I believed them, I didn't realize they'd move this fast (thanks to my colleague Cory Gnazzo for the heads-up). Chris Geidner reports:
"[T]he United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) will now be able to extend benefits to Federal employees and annuitants who have legally married a spouse of the same sex," OPM acting director Elaine Kaplan writes to the heads of executive departments and agencies today.
What does this mean in practical terms? The Human Rights Campaign added:
The United States Office of Personnel Management has begun the process of extending federal rights and benefits to married gay and lesbian federal employees and their families.... Now that the federal government recognizes legally married same-sex couples, federal employees' spouses and their families may now access health insurance benefits, life insurance, dental and vision insurance and retirement benefits.
BuzzFeed posted the full OPM memos online.
What Texas' Perry sees as 'praise'
Associated Press
Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) raised quite a few eyebrows yesterday, appearing at the National Right To Life conference and commenting on his chief Democratic rival, state Sen. Wendy Davis, and her pregnancy as a teenager. Today, the governor's office tried to downplay the controversy (thanks to my colleague Tricia McKinney for the heads-up).
Perry's office defended his statement, saying Friday that he was "praising Sen. Davis for her success despite coming from difficult circumstances."
I obviously can't read the governor's mind, and it's certainly possible he intended his condescending and offensive comments to be "praise."
But there's no reason Perry's defense should be taken seriously. Perry didn't just say yesterday that Davis had overcome difficult circumstances; he said it's "unfortunate that she hasn't learned from her own example."
In other words, the Republican governor has looked at Davis' life, and has taken it upon himself to decide what lessons she should have drawn from it. And if Davis looks at her own life and draws different conclusions, well, Perry thinks that's "unfortunate."
Is anyone seriously prepared to believe the governor was "praising" his adversary with this talk?
Even Perry allies aren't prepared to defend him on this one. Texas state House Speaker Joe Straus (R) told The Texas Tribune today, "Disagreements over policy are important and they're healthy, but when he crosses the line into the personal, then he damages himself and he damages the Republican Party."
What's more, as Garance Franke-Rutajun explained, Perry also offered a classic reminder of a larger phenomenon.
It was classic mansplaining -- as Elyse Fradkin pithily summarized it on Twitter, "when a man explains to a woman how she should view the meaning of her own life experience."
The term derives from Rebecca Solnit's article, "Men Explain Things to Me," which opens with a wealthy older man hosting an event in Aspen at which he lectures her on "a very important Muybridge book that came out this year" after she brings up the photographer in casual conversation. He goes on and on at great length until she finally realizes he is playing the expert and seeking to educate her about the book she herself wrote.
The idea of mansplaining has grown to be applied to any situation in which men believe they are the experts and drone on and on about something on which the women being lectured are the actual experts. It also refers to the social syndrome in which women cast themselves as listeners who doubt their own expertise in the face of such masculine certainty.
In Texas, the latter part of that seems extremely unlikely to happen.
On the contrary, Davis is sparking a "Democratic organizing bonanza" in the Lone Star State, just as Texas prepares for another legislative special session, set to begin on Monday.
'LGBT folks live literally in every town across the South, and the solution to the discrimination we face is not for us to move.'
We've been talking about new and renewed efforts to win marriage equality in unlikely places. Just today, a friend back home in Mississippi sent me news that the Southern Equality folks are trying again, in Mississippi. Our homestate banned marriage for gay couples in 2004, with every county voting for the ban. Overall, 86 percent of the people said no then to marriage equality, the record for any anti-equality referendum in the nation.
But that was then. From Southern Equality's new video:
Sometimes when you're looking at bigotry and discrimination, you have to scratch at the surface a little bit, the way you an infection. Let it breathe to cure it.
LGBT folks live literally in every town across the South, and the solution to the discrimination we face is not for us to move. I get this all time: "Why don't you just move to New York, or Iowa, or Washington State?" Because it's cold. I don't want to live there.
What happens when real people say, "Enough. I'm not leaving, but I am standing up?"
In Mississippi, they're about to find out. Couples with Southern Equality ask for marriage licenses in local town halls; the next round of requests starts in Poplarville, population 2,800, on July 10. (Below, our segment about this from last night, including some -- but not all! -- of the folks trying for marriage rights in Arkansas.)
Missing the point of sex ed
Associated Press
Conservative opposition to sex-ed lessons in public schools isn't new, but Traci G. Lee flags Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) taking this to a Gohmert-like level. (Right Wing Watch has the audio.)
Congressman Louie Gohmert said Monday that children should not be forced to sit through sexual education classes.
"You don't have to force this sexuality stuff into their life at such a point," Gohmert said on the conservative radio program WallBuilders Live. "It was never intended to be that way. They'll find out soon enough."
He continued, "Mankind has existed for a pretty long time without anyone ever having to give a sex-ed lesson to anybody."
Gohmert added that sex-ed lessons in public schools "reminds me so much of the summer that I was an exchange student in the Soviet Union back in the Seventies." No, really, that's what he said.
I suppose it's true that "mankind" existed for "a pretty long time" without sex-ed lessons, but I'm not sure if Gohmert understands the point of educators teaching young people about sexual health. Specifically, these lessons are intended to prevent unwanted pregnancies and discourage the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Indeed, as Roll Call noted, "Sex education has been taught in U.S. schools since the early 1900s, and became part of the curriculum to stop the spread of venereal diseases."
"Mankind" will certainly exist either way, but if schools can help young people make smarter, healthier decisions, isn't that preferable to ignorance?
Best of all, there's ample evidence that these classes are very effective -- which is more than we can say about abstinence-only education.
So, really, what in the world is Louie Gohmert talking about?
Those who find facts inconvenient
Erick Erickson had a curious rant the other day about those out-of-touch Americans inside "the NYC-DC corridor" and everyone out in the real America, and how they perceive current events differently. The conservative pundit argued, for example, that most Americans are "nervous about," among other things, "the price of a gallon of milk and loaf of bread that keep going up though Ben Bernanke tells them there is no inflation."
Paul Krugman, as is his wont, wrote up an item in response, pointing out that the price of a gallon of milk and a loaf of bread have been quite steady in recent years. Krugman even included charts.
That probably would have been the end of it, except Politico's Dylan Byers got in touch with the Fox News pundit, asking about the discrepancy between his claim and the facts. Erickson responded in an email (via Simon Maloy):
"Paul uses a chart to try to disprove the reality that Americans with small kids actually experience at the grocery store.... Not everything is academic or chartable and sometimes the accuracy of the chart isn't as real to people as the perception they have that their grocery store bills are getting more expensive though their shopping habits haven't changed. [...]
"Seriously, Paul's point is correct, but it is an issue of perception of people versus the reality of his chart. He can certainly go tell people milk prices haven't gone up, but good luck getting them to believe him."
This is about the point at which Erickson morphs into Stephen Colbert's on-air persona, perhaps unaware that it's satire.
It doesn't matter what is true, the argument goes, but rather, what seems true. Sure, liberals can find value in facts and accuracy, but isn't it better to have perceptions?
If we want to know whether the price of a gallon of milk has increased, we could look at the data and get a reliable answer. But why bother when we can guess, assume our conjecture is correct, and know in our gut we're right -- even if we're not?
Erickson's point to Byers seems to be that perception is reality. A Nobel laureate can tell folks the price of milk and bread has been stable, but if people don't believe the facts, the facts don't matter.
But isn't that why we have media professionals, pundits, and commentators? Not to put too fine a point on this, but I'm reasonably certain Erickson gets paid to provide information to his audience -- from his own unique perspective -- helping them make sense of current events. Americans sometimes need a hand separating fact from fiction, and they turn to journalists and news organizations they consider reliable to bring reality into focus.
Erickson is effectively saying his role as a media professional is irrelevant -- people will simply perceive truths whether they're consistent with the facts or not. Sure, Erickson could provide the public with facts, but good luck getting them to believe them.
We already know Erickson is wrong about the economy; here's hoping he's wrong about the value of empiricism, too.
The imaginary White House immigration ruse
Associated Press
Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.)
Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.) told Dave Weigel yesterday one of the main reasons and he and his House Republican colleagues will not support comprehensive immigration reform.
"If you're the White House right now," he theorized, "and you have a signature law -- that is, Obamacare -- that is completely a legacy issue for the president, and it's looking like implementation is going to be a disaster, and if you're on your heels in terms of these scandals, and you're flummoxed by the NSA, there's one issue out there that's good for the White House. That's immigration. The question is: How much energy does the White House actually put into getting the legislation, or do they want to keep the issue for 2014?"
I hear this quite a bit from the right. Democrats say they want to pass reform legislation, the argument goes, but it's a sham. What those rascally Democrats really want, conservatives argue, is for immigration reform to fail so Democrats can use the issue against the GOP in the 2014 midterms and beyond.
And every time I hear this, I'm convinced our public discourse has slipped a little deeper into madness.
Look, this isn't complicated: Democrats want to pass immigration reform. President Obama wants to pass immigration reform. When the reform bill reached the Senate floor yesterday, it received 100% support from Democratic senators, and support is expected to be at a similar level among House Dems. If the party were engaged in some elaborate ruse, they've apparently managed to fool everyone, including themselves.
In fact, I'd love to hear Roskam and others who share his ideology explain the electoral rationale behind their strategy. He seems to be arguing, "Democrats want immigration reform to fail so they can use it against us, therefore, we should make sure reform fails so that they can use it against us. That'll show 'em!"
If Roskam and his like-minded allies really believe their own rhetoric, wouldn't they want to pass a reform bill, take the issue off the table, and undermine Democratic efforts to beat them over the head with the issue?
As for the notion that the president is keeping a low profile on immigration, Roskam thinks it's part of a fiendish plan. In reality, Obama is giving lawmakers space because proponents in both parties asked him, too -- the more the president is directly associated with the legislation, the harder it is to earn support from Republicans who are reflexively against anything and everything Obama is for.
Behind the scenes, however, the White House is heavily invested in helping reform's succeed -- it's not because the president's team secretly wants it to fail, delusional arguments to the contrary notwithstanding.
As for the policy approach Roskam would prefer, Weigel's report added:
Roskam insisted again and again that "up until now, the immigration issue has been a powerful political issue for the White House," and that Team Obama likely wouldn't be "willing to give that up in 2014 in order to have a bill." But "if they're willing to get a remedy, that suggests we go to the consensus. The consensus is on a border that's secure."
First, the bipartisan bill that passed the Senate includes so much border security one of its conservative Republican supporters characterized it as "almost overkill."
Second, Roskam is describing a fascinating scenario. The point of comprehensive reform is that the two sides effectively accept the others' condition -- Dems get a pathway to citizenship; the GOP gets increased border security.
Roskam's argument is amazing: as soon as Democrats agree to give Republicans what they want, in exchange for nothing, then there will be a "consensus" bill.
And if Dems don't agree to this, it'll prove once and for all that they're secretly against immigration reform.
And to think some policymakers find it difficult to negotiate with the House GOP....
June 27, 2013
Links for the 6/27 TRMS
Citations for Thursday's show are listed after the jump.
Attorney General letter to Texas Director of Elections
Supreme Court vacates Texas Voter ID and redistricting rulings
Texas AG Greg Abbott: Voter ID law 'will take effect immediately'
After Supreme Court, Congress must move on Voting Rights Act
U.S. government says Texas voter ID law targets minorities
Supreme Court ruling sets stage for voter ID battle
Lamda Legal to file suit on behalf of same sex couples
Arkansas Initiative for Marriage Equality
The Arkansas Marriage Equality Amendment
Kasich: No comment on abortion vetoes
North Carolina House passes abortion education bill 68-42
Educators speak out on abortion curriculum bill
Morning Memo: Abortion bill puts McCrory in spotlight, Monday protests grow
Filibustering Sen. Wendy Davis inspires nail art
Texas state senator Wendy Davis filibusters her way to Democratic stardom
Senate filibuster turns Wendy Davis into Texas' newest political star
Wendy Davis, feminist superhero
Filibuster Hero Wendy Davis Dares Texas To Draft Her For Run At Governorship
Meet Wendy Davis, The Texas State Senator Who Became A Liberal Folk Hero Last Night
Texas blue future seen in popular backlash against GOP abortion bill
Wendy Davis, next Texas governor?
Texas' Perry tries mansplaining abortion to Wendy Davis
Ex-Pentagon general target of leak investigation, sources say
Obama Order Sped Up Wave of Cyberattacks Against Iran
CIA CRACKS DOWN ON ITS OWN TO STOP LEAKS
Senate approves massive immigration bill
Supreme Court Bolsters Gay Marriage With Two Major Rulings
Court Upends Voting Rights Act
Star Scientific CEO financed shopping spree for first lady
Donor bought Rolex watch for Virginia Gov. McDonnell, people familiar with gift say
Probe into gifts to McDonnells finds new undisclosed items valued at tens of thousands
Probe finds more gifts to Maureen McDonnell from campaign donor
Gov. Bob McDonnell explains donor's $15,000 wedding gift to daughter
McDonnell, Cuccinelli on defensive over Star Scientific
'Those of us who oppose gay marriage aren't bigots, bro!'
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Opponents of same sex marriage are naturally upset by yesterday's Supreme Court rulings, but what really has some of them cheesed off is the prospect of anyone accusing them of bigotry. Ignore our repeated actions, America. What's inside, that's what matters. Take Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote in his dissent: "It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race."
So back off-- nobody calls Justice Scalia hostes humani generis and gets away with it. Similarly, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, who would like very much to be your president some day, seems to be on the same super-touchy page:
"My hope is that those of us who believe in the sanctity and uniqueness of traditional marriage will continue to argue for its protection in a way that is respectful to the millions of American sons and daughters who are gay. It is also my hope that those who argue for the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex marriage will refrain from assailing the millions of Americans who disagree with them as bigots."
To which Chris Joseph of the Broward-Palm Beach New Times, channeling Rubio, responds:
Those of us who oppose gay marriage aren't bigots, bro! We're TOTALLY about constitutional provisions and laws. This has NOTHING to do with our own religious beliefs and us wanting to force those beliefs on other people. That would be wrong. No, no. I'm just about tradition, and not at all involved with gay-hate groups, or basing my reasons on my personal belief that you will burn for all eternity if you're a gay. I mean, just because one believes that another person is doomed to an eternal place of darkness to suffer forever doesn't make me hateful at all! Pffft.
When one offers the world set-ups, one should expect punch lines.
Ahead on the 6/27 Maddow show
Tonight's guests include:
Rep. Marc Veasey, (D) Texas, has announced he will sue the state of Texas to prevent voter identification requirements
Jeremy Bird, senior advisor for Battleground Texas and former field director for the Obama campaign
Here's executive producer Bill Wolff on tonight's show, worth crawling across the floor for:
Thursday's Mini-Report
Today's edition of quick hits:
* President Obama's travels throughout Africa are well underway, and he has a substantive and symbolic agenda in mind.
* The White House issued a statement immediately after the Senate approved comprehensive immigration reform, hailing its passage. "Today, the Senate did its job," Obama said. "It's now up to the House to do the same."
* Consequences for Bangladesh: "The Obama administration on Thursday announced plans to suspend trade privileges for Bangladesh over concerns about safety problems and labor rights violations in that country's garment industry."
* On Edward Snowden, Obama rejected the suggestion that he might order the military to intercept any plane that might be carrying the leaker. "I'm not going to be scrambling jets to get a 29-year-old hacker," the president said.
* Keep an eye on this one: "Congressional Democrats have sent a letter to House Republicans formally demanding that they call the author of the now-infamous audit on IRS targeting of conservative groups to come back to the Hill and testify under oath -- where he'll be pressed to explain why the audit failed to detail that progressive groups had also been targeted."
* Laws aren't suggestions: "A remarkable document released by The Guardian gives the public its first in-depth look at the legal process that justified the dragnet surveillance programs undertaken during President George W. Bush's first term. And they make clear that lots of people involved in the process -- government lawyers, judges, and the lawyers of private telecommunications companies -- believed the Bush administration had stepped over the legal line."
* That was easy: "The Senate unanimously confirmed Anthony Foxx to be President Barack Obama's next transportation secretary, becoming the second cabinet member confirmed this week."
* Coal lobbyists won't be pleased: "President Obama on Thursday will nominate Ron Binz, a strong proponent of renewable energy and former Colorado utility regulator, to head Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, according to individuals familiar with the decision who asked not to be identified because the announcement has not been made public."
* Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) replies to James Taranto: "There is no war on men."
* And Rep. Tammy Duckworth's (D-Ill.) epic takedown of an IRS contractor at a hearing yesterday is as amazing as you've heard, if not more so. Take the eight minutes to watch this one.
Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.
