Mojo - April 2013

We're Still at War: Photo of the Day for April 4, 2013

Thu Apr. 4, 2013 9:47 AM PDT

Sgt. Justin R. Pereira, from Gooding, Idaho, and Laika 5, a Tactical Explosives Detection Dog with 2nd Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment, provide security as Afghan Border Police break ground on a new checkpoint March 25, in Spin Boldak district, Kandahar province, Afghanistan. U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Shane Hamann, 102nd Mobile Public Affairs Detachment.

 

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Charts: Look At How Badly Obama Lags on Judicial Appointments

| Thu Apr. 4, 2013 8:02 AM PDT

Last week, President Obama withdrew his judicial nominee for the powerful DC Circuit Court of Appeals—which hasn't had a nominee confirmed since 2006—because Republicans threatened to filibuster her. This high-profile battle is just the tip of the iceberg. Because of Republican obstructionism, the Obama administration's lackadaisical pace of nominations, and problems with the Senate confirmation process, more federal judgeships are staying vacant nationwide under this president than under President Bush, and Obama's nominees are taking longer to get confirmed.

During Obama's first term, the number of appeals court vacancies rose from 14 to 17. During Bush’s first term, by contrast, appeals court vacancies dropped from 27 to 18. Because Obama has been slower to nominate than Bush or Clinton, the average number of days from the opening of a seat to a nomination increased by 44 percent between Bush's and Obama's first terms.

This graph, by the data visualization shop Remapping Debate, shows the average number of vacancies per year, starting in 2001 (scroll to view all years, and hover over for details):

When the president finally does nominate someone, the Senate is generally reluctant to confirm her. Obama has 15 judicial nominees waiting for Senate floor votes right now. Overall, his judicial nominees wait an average of 116 days on the Senate floor for a vote—three times longer than Bush’s average judicial nominee wait time. When the 112th Congress ended in December, the Senate had approved 175 of Obama's judges. By contrast, Bush had 206 judges approved in his first term, and President Clinton had 204.

The figure below, also by Remapping Debate, compares Bush and Obama's first terms, showing the average number of days between vacancy and nomination, and the number of days nominees were pending before the Senate.

Why is the GOP so obstinate on confirmations? Senate Republicans may be giving Democrats a little payback. "Republicans don’t think Bush’s nominees were treated fairly," Russell Wheeler, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, which has tracked the phenomenon, told Bloomberg News on Wednesday.

Confirmation of a nominee to the DC circuit court, which is one step below the Supreme Court, is particularly important for Obama's second term because the court handles all disputes related to regulations and executive actions. "With legislative priorities gridlocked in Congress, the president’s best hope for advancing his agenda is through executive action, and that runs through the D.C. Circuit," Doug Kendall, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, told the Washington Post Tuesday.

Right now that court is conservative-dominated, with four Republican and three Democratic appointees, and four vacancies (twice as many as any other court of appeals). This configuration didn't work out so well in the Obama's first term. The DC circuit court blocked EPA air pollution rules and put a hold on cases related to workers' rights.

Of the DC circuit confirmation, Kendall says "There are few things more vital on the president’s second-term agenda."

Occupy the Department Of Education Returns to DC

| Thu Apr. 4, 2013 3:20 AM PDT
Occupy DOEProtesters from Occupy DOE

Most of the Occupy movement has petered out a year and a half after it exploded in New York’s Zuccotti Park. But one small segment of that movement is rallying in DC this week to focus attention on the evils of “corporate education reform.”

Liberal education luminaries including Diane Ravitch, a former assistant education secretary, and Central Park East schools guru Deborah Meier, will be in Washington as part of a four-day “Occupy the Department of Education” event organized by United Optout, a group that came together last year in the flurry of other Occupy Wall Street events. They’ll be part of non-stop speechmaking from teachers, educators, students, and parents, decrying such things as high-stakes testing and the move towards privatizing public education.

The focus on the Department of Education is intentional. Liberal school advocates are deeply unhappy with President Barack Obama’s education reform agenda, which Peggy Robertson, one organizer of this event, calls “No Child Left Behind on steroids.” Robertson, a veteran teacher from Colorado, says that Obama’s education agenda has “opened the door” to the privatization of public education. His Race to the Top initiative is one of the protest’s primary targets.

Robertson says that this initiative, which has created a competition among states for a large pot of new education funding, requires states to accept certain conditions to receive the new money. These conditions include implementing the Common Core standards, a set of new, national guidelines outlining what students should be expected to learn. (The Occupy activists oppose the standards, which they believe deprive teachers of flexibility and creativity in the classroom by dictating what material they need to cover.) Race to the Top grant recipients are also required to allow more charter schools, create a longitudinal database full of student information to track performance, and tie high-stakes testing to teacher evaluations.

All of these things, Robertson contends, create a windfall for big companies seeking a piece of the enormous public education budget and smother creativity in the classroom. (The Occupiers aren’t the only ones obsessed with the Common Core standards. Glenn Beck has been on a tear against them, too, calling them a form of “leftist ideology” that is “dumbing down schools across the country.”)

The Occupiers descending upon the Education Department this week are trying to draw attention to all of this, along with the rash of public school closings going on around the country, most notably in Chicago and Washington. Robertson recognizes that it’s a tough task. “Most of mainstream media ignores everything we say,” she admits. Last year they had only about 100 people at their rally. This year, she’s hoping for at least a thousand, which isn’t much for a DC protest. But Robertson thinks it’s important to try to present an alternative to the sweeping corporate reform effort. “What’s scary," she remarks, "is how fast it’s happening.”

Alabama Bill Could Shut Down All Abortion Clinics in State

| Wed Apr. 3, 2013 3:24 PM PDT
A pro-choice rally in Mississippi, January 2013.

The Alabama legislature passed a bill on Tuesday that will heavily restrict abortion, potentially shutting down all five of the state's abortion clinics. The state House and Senate passed the bill by votes of 68-21 and 22-10 respectively, and Governor Bentley is expected to sign it soon.

One of the bill's sponsors, Rep. Mary Sue McClurkin, argued in February that this new law was necessary to protect women because "abortion removes the largest organ in a woman's body." 

That comment was neither scientifically accurate nor did it explain what Alabama's Women's Health and Safety Act is designed to do, so here it is: The bill, which copies legislation passed in Mississippi in 2012, mandates that doctors at abortion clinics have admitting privileges at local hospitals. This gives local hospitals the leeway to flat-out deny doctors these privileges. The doctors at Mississippi's last abortion clinic, for instance, were rejected at all seven hospitals they approached for admitting privileges.

One of the bill's sponsors argued the law was necessary to protect women because "abortion removes the largest organ in a woman's body." 

"[The hospitals] were clear that they didn't deal with abortion and they didn't want the internal or the external pressure of dealing with it," Mississippi clinic owner Diane Derzis told the Associated Press in February.

"The reality is the hospital's decisions will be based on ideology and politics" in Alabama, Nikema Williams, vice president of Planned Parenthood Southeast, told Mother Jones. "A lot of boards for public hospitals are appointed by the state."

In Mississippi, litigation filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights has kept the clinic open for now: Last July, a judge blocked the state from penalizing the doctors while they try to secure the new privileges, buying the clinic more time. Williams says she expects women's rights advocates in Alabama will also head to court to try and keep the state's last few clinics open.

The Taliban Are Inadvertently Really Good at Endangered Falcon Conservation

| Wed Apr. 3, 2013 2:21 PM PDT
former Taliban insurgents with weaponsLovers of falcons?

The Taliban, the violent Islamist movement, is responsible for a lot of bloodshed, many human rights violations, and some really mediocre and chauvinist poetry.

They are also at the forefront of protecting endangered falcons, however unintentional their conservation efforts may be.

Ashfaq Yusufzai has the story:

While the Taliban's military activities continue to plague Pakistan's northern Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), the incessant violence has been a blessing in disguise for one creature: the falcon.

Declared endangered by the [International Union for Conservation of Nature], this bird of prey suffered for years at the hands of poachers and hunters, whose unfettered access to FATA and the adjacent Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) province guaranteed the birds a short life span in the wild, with most destined to be trapped, killed or sold.

But "continued militancy has kept the poachers (and hunters) away," Khalid Shah, an official at the KP Wildlife Department, told IPS, adding that the survival rate of falcons and some other migratory birds has "increased tremendously". In 2005 only 2,000 falcons lived in these northern territories, but by 2008 wildlife officials had recorded an increase of up to 8,000 birds.

Experts trace this population growth to the beginning of the insurgency here, which began after the 2001 U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan toppled the government in Kabul and sent scores of Taliban and Al Qaeda members across the border into Pakistan's sprawling mountainous terrain. Being the U.S. 's ally in the so-called "war on terror", the Pakistan army has engaged in a military offensive to root out the insurgents...Under fire from both sides, civilian residents say militancy has made daily activities – among them hunting and poaching — impossible.

On a related note, after the Taliban's rise to power in Afghanistan, the regime made it illegal to own birds in cages. Also, a study conducted by scientists from the New England Aquarium determined that whales greatly benefited from the September 11 Al Qaeda attack on New York's Twin Towers. But Islamist violence is probably not a net positive for local wildlife; during the Taliban's takeover of Afghanistan in the '90s, they ransacked the Kabul zoo, slaughtered animals, maimed a bear, threw a grenade at a lion, and left the other creatures to starve to death.

Accidental falcon conservation aside, the Taliban's treatment of animals often mirrors their treatment of women.

h/t Jon Mooallem

Bush Lying About WMD Is a Conspiracy Theory?!?

| Wed Apr. 3, 2013 1:34 PM PDT

People believe crazy things.The lunar landing was faked; a secret band of "lizard people" controls our society. New survey data from Public Policy Polling released on Tuesday shows notable percentages of Americans embrace a wide variety of conspiracy theories, from Bigfoot to the CIA creating the crack epidemic.

PPP found that:

  • 37 percent of voters believe global warming is a hoax
  • 6 percent of voters don't believe that Osama bin Laden is dead
  • 28 percent of voters believe "secretive power elite with a globalist agenda is conspiring to eventually rule the world through an authoritarian world government, or New World Order"
  • 7 percent of voters think man did not actually walk on the moon
  • 13 percent of voters think President Obama is the anti-Christ
  • 14 percent of voters believe in Bigfoot
  • 44 percent believe George W. Bush intentionally misled the US about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq

Screeeeech. Stop the crazy train. What? Bush did lie about WMD. That's not a wacky conspiracy theory; it is quite well documented at this point. That's a topic for another poll.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Virginia Gov. Candidate Cuccinelli Defending Law That Forbids Oral Sex

| Wed Apr. 3, 2013 10:13 AM PDT
Ken Cuccinelli

Last month, three judges on the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit deemed a Virginia anti-sodomy law unconstitutional. The provision, part of the state's "Crimes Against Nature" law, has been moot since the 2003 US Supreme Court decision overruled state laws barring consensual gay sex, but Virginia has kept the prohibition on the books.

Now Virginia attorney general and Republican gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli is asking the full 4th Circuit to reconsider the case. Cuccinelli wants the court to revive the prohibition on consensual anal and oral sex, for both gay and straight people. (The case at hand involves consensual, heterosexual oral sex, but, as the New York Times explained in 2011, it's "icky": The sex was between a 47-year-old man and two teenagers above Virginia's age of consent.)*

 Here's more from the Washington Blade:

Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli has filed a petition with the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond asking the full 15-judge court to reconsider a decision by a three-judge panel last month that overturned the state’s sodomy law.
The three-judge panel ruled 2-1 on March 12 that a section of Virginia’s "Crimes Against Nature" statute that outlaws sodomy between consenting adults, gay or straight, is unconstitutional based on a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2003 known as Lawrence v. Texas.
A clerk with the 4th Circuit appeals court said a representative of the Virginia Attorney General's office filed the petition on Cuccinelli's behalf on March 26. The petition requests what is known as an en banc hearing before the full 15 judges to reconsider the earlier ruling by the three-judge panel.

Mother Jones confirmed that Cuccinelli had filed the request with the court as well. Given that the Supreme Court has already ruled that gay sex is okay and moved on to the question of gay marriage, I wouldn't expect his appeal to go very far.

This post has been updated to include more details about the case in question.

Study: The GOP Doesn't Care What Americans Think About the Budget

| Wed Apr. 3, 2013 10:02 AM PDT

It doesn't matter whether you have a faded Obama or Romney bumper sticker still plastered to the family car, there a few things that you probably support spending your tax dollars on: Roads, education, social security, health care, aid for the poor, and the military. You're not unique: A recent Pew Research Center polling of about 1,500 Americans found that over 70 percent of Americans don't want to reduce spending on these things, either. But when it comes to funding the services that Americans actually want, Republican budget plans, including the one proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-Wis.) and rejected by the Senate last month, are far less likely than Democratic budget plans to reflect public opinion, a new study by the Center for Effective Government finds. 

"Democrats seem more attuned to the public's views on specific areas of spending," says the report's author, Nick Schwellenbach, a senior fiscal policy analyst for the organization. "I think the difference is due to fundamental philosophical disagreements over the role of government."

The study examined four major budget plans, from Ryan, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the Republican Study Committee, and Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA). Then, in a handy chart, it compared the plans with the results of the Pew poll, looking at Social Security, education, Medicare, roads and infrastructure, scientific research, military defense, health care, and aid to the needy.

According to the report, "Americans reject reductions in the vast majority of specific areas of spending" and the only area where the Ryan and RSC budgets actually aligned with public opinion was defense. Both had no plans to slash defense spending, even though waste in the Pentagon has been extensively documented (useless $380 million ballistic missile, anyone?)

Here's a look at how the plans break down on education:

60 Percent of Americans Support Increasing Funds for Education

Elissar Khalek, Center for Effective Government

So are politicians not listening—or do Americans simply not understand the deficit, or where they want to spend their money? A McClatchy-Marist poll found last month that Americans are split on whether budget cuts will help or hurt the economy (and they prefer tax increases to cutting their favorite programs.) A poll taken by Business Insider last year (below) found that almost half of Americans also think that sequestration increases the national deficit, despite the fact that it's an austerity measure. And as The American Prospect notes, "Voters associate high deficits with poor economic performance—the public might say that it wants more action to lower the deficit, but what it means is that it wants Washington to improve the economy."

Schwellenbach acknowledges that "sometimes perspectives are wrong. For instance, Americans tend to think spending on foreign aid is somewhere around a quarter of the budget, when it's closer to 1 percent." However, he argues that when it comes to taxes, Americans' views are spot on. "The time to pay off the debt is when the economy is back on track, as the US was doing in the late 1990s when we had budget surpluses. We can get back there, but not by doing the best we can to throw the economy back into a recession."

Robert Reich, who served as Secretary of Labor under President Bill Clinton, argues in The Christian Science Monitor that politicians, Republicans in particular, don't listen to their constituents when crafting budgets because politicians are more interested in their financial interests than making people happy. "The American democracy has shown itself far less responsive—and our politicians remarkably impervious—to public opinion concerning economic issues that might affect the fates of large fortunes. This is a distressing feature of our democracy, necessitating change."

 

 

 

We're Still at War: Photo of the Day for April 3, 2013

Wed Apr. 3, 2013 9:18 AM PDT

Cpl. Martin Kim and Lance Cpl. James Brockwell take a rest at Afghan Uniform Police Outpost Mamuriyet April 1. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Sgt. Bobby J. Yarbrough.

 

Reformers: Publicly Funded Elections Will Tackle New York's Corruption Problem

| Wed Apr. 3, 2013 7:27 AM PDT
New York State Sen. Malcolm SmithNew York State Sen. Malcolm Smith.

It was a ham-handed scheme straight out of an episode of "Law and Order." Federal prosecutors revealed on Monday that New York State Sen. Malcolm Smith, a Democrat, allegedly tried to bribe his way onto the New York City mayoral ballot—as a Republican. Envelopes stuffed with cash changed hands in hotel rooms and restaurants. Local Republican officials talked about "money greasing the wheels" and "the fucking money" driving local politics. Smith's plan depended on paying off two Republicans from Queens who could get his name on the ballot in time for the November election. Instead, an undercover FBI agent and a cooperating witness infiltrated the deal and laid bare just the latest seamy corruption scandal to rock New York politics.

Preet Bharara, the US attorney in Manhattan spearheading the Smith case, told reporters on Monday that "today's charges demonstrate, once again, that a show-me-the-money culture seems to pervade every level of New York government." New York City Councilman Daniel Halloran, one of the two Republicans allegedly implicated in Smith's scheme, would seem to agree. In the complaint filed against Smith et al, Halloran offers this nugget of wisdom:

"That's politics, that's politics, it's all about how much. Not about whether or will, it's about how much, and that's our politicians in New York, they're all like that, all like that. And they get like that because of the drive that the money does for everything else. You can't do anything without the fucking money."

The Smith scandal comes as a well-funded coalition of progressive groups are pressuring Gov. Andrew Cuomo and other legislators to pass legislation replacing the state's current elections regime with publicly financed campaigns. Now, those reformers are pointing to the Smith scandal as further evidence that New York's political systems need a major overhaul. "This is the kind of conduct that we believe comes out of a culture that is a pay-to-play, money first, voters don't count culture," Susan Lerner, executive director of Common Cause New York, told the Journal News. "What we're trying to change is the role money plays in our political system."

The editorial page of the Albany Times Union, a supporter of public financing, asked on Tuesday: "What better evidence can there be of the need for such reform than this case, in which one of their own, the onetime Senate president and Democratic leader, stands accused of trying to bribe Republican leaders to get a place on the ballot as a GOP candidate for mayor of New York City?"

The Fair Elections for New York campaign, the main force behind the public financing bill, said in a statement that the Smith scandal will only harden New Yorkers' belief that corruption pervades every corner of state politics. "We can all agree the system is broken," the statement reads. "Now it's time to stand shoulder to shoulder with Governor Cuomo and the growing bipartisan majority of New Yorkers who support comprehensive campaign finance reform, which must include a system of publicly financed elections at its core."

Advertisement