June 25, 2013 at 8:46 am #91377
Congratulations to the Chicago Blackhawks – the 2013 Stanley Cup Champions!!!
As you go through your day, don’t forget JJP at TWiB.
Drop those links. Engage in debate. Give us trivia and gossip too.
And always, have a peaceful dayJune 25, 2013 at 8:48 am #91378
Good Morning, EveryoneJune 25, 2013 at 8:51 am #91379
Just observing how a certain segment of White America prove every day that having a Black POTUS has driven them mad. Both left & right.June 25, 2013 at 8:57 am #91380
Updated 06/24/2013 11:34 PM
Mayor, Police Commissioner Blast Stop-And-Frisk Bills
By: Courtney Gross
The City Council is taking heat from the mayor over legislation proposing more oversight in law enforcement.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg joined Police Commissioner Ray Kelly on Monday to condemn two proposed bills that are part of the Community Safety Act.
The council will vote on the act’s two parts later this week, after deciding to move it out of the committee stage.
One bill would create an independent inspector general to oversee the New York City Police Department’s policies and practices.
The other would open the door for lawsuits against police for “disparate impact,” if a New Yorker feels they were targeted based on their age, gender, race or sexual orientation.
If passed, the mayor and commissioner say the NYPD would be left crippled, and flooded with frivolous lawsuits.
They say it will prevent officers from flooding high crime areas and prevent them from going after gang members who they say could be both young and male.June 25, 2013 at 9:00 am #91381
Immigration reform clears key hurdle, on track for big win
By Steve Benen
Tue Jun 25, 2013 8:00 AM EDT
After last night’s vote, the question isn’t whether comprehensive immigration reform will pass the Senate, but by what margin. A couple of weeks ago, there was still some chatter about whether the bipartisan bill could overcome a Republican filibuster, but that talk has since ended
The bipartisan push to overhaul the nation’s immigration laws took a major step forward Monday evening when the Senate endorsed a proposal to substantially bolster security along the nation’s southern borders as part of a measure that would provide a path to citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants already in the country.
The 67-to-27 vote prevented any filibuster of the plan to devote roughly $40 billion over the next decade to border enforcement measures, including nearly doubling the number of border agents to 40,000 and completing 700 miles of fencing. Opponents of the measure questioned whether the security steps would ever be taken and said that the legislation should require that the border be secure before undocumented immigrants could seek legal status.
At issue was the so-called “border surge” amendment crafted by Sens. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and John Hoeven (R-N.D.), and tolerated by Senate Democrats, which is intended to resolve the one thing reform opponents said they wanted: more border security. And the push was largely successful: 67 senators backed the measure, which was widely seen as a test vote for the overall bill.
What’s more, the actual vote total would have been even higher, but two Democrats had travel problems and couldn’t reach the floor in time. Had Senate attendance been 100%, we would have seen a 69-31 vote.June 25, 2013 at 9:10 am #91382
did you all see this?
they didn’t learn anything from Mama’s horrible video.
they really should have called the real-life Olivia Pope.
Paula Deen’s son tells CNN’s @NewDay that people are engaged in “character assassination” and “extortion” against their mom.
6:30 AM – 25 Jun 2013
Paula Deen’s sons are denying that Deen said what she said in her deposition.
6:32 AM – 25 Jun 2013
Paula Deen’s sons: “We were not raised in a home where that word was used.” Paula Deen: I sometimes use the N word.
6:33 AM – 25 Jun 2013
“It was a different time when my mother was growing up” — Paula Deen’s sons on CNN’s @NewDay.
6:34 AM – 25 Jun 2013
Paula Deen’s son says that there is a “pretty good chance” that other employees will accuse her of racism b/c they are opportunists.
6:37 AM – 25 Jun 2013
Paula Deen’s sons: “It really is an extortion case…there are opportunists.”
6:38 AM – 25 Jun 2013
Hard to imagine that Paula Deen’s sons’ CNN interview could have gone any worse than those apology videos, but it did.
6:39 AM – 25 Jun 2013June 25, 2013 at 9:14 am #91383
Star Jones @StarJonesEsq26s
CAPTURE, ARREST, PROSECUTION, JUDGMENT, PRISON. NEXT…>RT @rebeccamacatee: what would you like to see happen next with edward #snowden?June 25, 2013 at 9:17 am #91384
Party that let Osama bin Laden run loose for 10 years is now calling Obama WH “incompetent” for not apprehending Snowden in a matter of daysJune 25, 2013 at 9:19 am #91385
Stick a fork in the IRS controversy; it’s done
By Steve Benen
Tue Jun 25, 2013 8:53 AM EDT
The good news for conservatives is that new information about the IRS controversy came to light late yesterday, which renewed coverage of the story Republicans are heavily in. The bad news for conservatives it that the revelations were the opposite of what they wanted to hear.
Following up on Rachel’s segment from last night, the last remaining pillar of the Republican talking points — groups on the right were singled out for unfair scrutiny — has collapsed.
The instructions that Internal Revenue Service officials used to look for applicants seeking tax-exempt status with “Tea Party” and “Patriots” in their titles also included groups whose names included the words “Progressive” and “Occupy,” according to I.R.S. documents released Monday.
The documents appeared to back up contentions by I.R.S. officials and some Democrats that the agency did not intend to single out conservative groups for special scrutiny. Instead, the documents say, officials were trying to use “key word” shortcuts to find overtly political organizations — both liberal and conservative — that were after tax favors by saying they were social welfare organizations.
But the practice appeared to go much farther than that. One such “be on the lookout” list included medical marijuana groups, organizations that were promoting President Obama’s health care law, and applications that dealt “with disputed territories in the Middle East.”June 25, 2013 at 9:25 am #91386
The Price Is Racist: When Women and Minorities Are Asked to Pay More
Untangling the weirdness of sexism and racism in the car and auto-repair market
Jun 24 2013, 5:53 PM ET
The first rule of prices is that nobody knows anything. That makes us exquisitely sensitive to little tricks and biases. Research suggests that getting something extra “for free” tends feels better than getting the same thing for less. Expensive items are placed strategically near the front of a store to make other high prices seem like a bargain.
Merchants use prices to manipulate us. That’s frustrating, but inevitable. More worrisome is research that finds merchants charging different prices to different people based entirely on their race and gender.
A study by economists Meghan R. Busse, Ayelet Israeli, and Florian Zettelmeyer looked at car repair shops and found that women tend to be quoted consistently higher prices than men when the callers didn’t mention a price. The most reasonable explanation, as Nanette Fondas explained on TheAtlantic.com, was that repair shops believe women are less informed about prices than men. So they’re gullible.
But get this. When women and men suggested a price — any price, fair or too high — both genders got the same offer. Just saying a number closed the price gap. Once the mechanic had data telling him exactly how well-informed his potential clients were, gender was no longer “a useful basis.” In fact, repair shops were more likely to offer a price concession if asked by a woman.
Remember the first rule of prices? Nobody knows anything. Biases and anchors rule our brains. When mechanics had no information but gender, they were anchored by gender bias. But once they heard a price, they were anchored by the price.
But where does the demographic bias even come from? Another car study by economists Ian Ayres and Peter Siegelman might have some answers. This survey of new-car dealerships revealed that merchants quoted lower prices to white males than to black (or female) test buyers. “In negotiations for more than 300 new cars, Chicago car dealers offered black and female testers significantly higher prices than the white males” even with identical bargaining strategies, they found.June 25, 2013 at 9:27 am #91387
Bernie Sanders’ Plan to Create 400,000 New Jobs Scores A Major Senate Victory
By: Jason Easley
Jun. 24th, 2013
Sen. Bernie Sanders’ Youth Jobs Act that would create 400,000 new jobs scored a major victory in the Senate when it was passed as part of the Border Surge amendment.
Sen. Sanders said, “At a time when real unemployment is close to 14 percent and even higher among young people and minorities, it is absolutely imperative that we create millions of decent-paying jobs in our country.”
The Sanders plan would provide $1.5 billion over two years for states and local communities to help find summertime and year-round jobs for more than 400,000 16- to 24-year-olds.
The Sanders Youth Jobs Plan is designed to balance out a provision in the immigration bill that would allow students from colleges other countries, and other guest workers to take American jobs. As Sen. Sanders said, “Today the J-1 program has morphed into a low-wage jobs program to allow corporations like Hershey’s and McDonald’s and many others to replace young American workers with cheaper labor from abroad.”
We have been following the progress of the Youth Jobs Act, since Sen. Sanders introduced it. With each hurdle that the legislation overcomes, Sen. Sanders is showing that he is not only an effective voice for the voiceless, but also an effective legislator.
The Youth Jobs Plan is based on both the stimulus and the American Jobs Act, and it may be the first piece of real job creation legislation to come out of the Senate since the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was passed early in President Obama’s first term. The American Jobs Act was killed by Republicans who didn’t not want to give President Obama a win before the 2012 election, so it is ironic that some of these same Republicans are desperate for a win on immigration would help to pass an amendment that is modeled after legislation that they claimed to despise.June 25, 2013 at 11:07 am #91392
Clarence Thomas is a Slave Catching CoonJune 25, 2013 at 11:07 am #91393
From SCOTUSblog, succinct opinion re: today’s VRA decision and why, with current teaparty Congress, it’s so impactful:
Amy Howe: Today’s holding in Shelby County v. Holder, in Plain English: Today the Court issued its decision in Shelby County v. Holder, the challenge to the constitutionality of the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act. That portion of the Act was designed to prevent discrimination in voting by requiring all state and local governments with a history of voting discrimination to get approval from the federal government before making any changes to their voting laws or procedures, no matter how small. In an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts that was joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, the Court did not invalidate the principle that preclearance can be required. But much more importantly, it held that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which sets out the formula that is used to determine which state and local governments must comply with Section 5’s preapproval requirement, is unconstitutional and can no longer be used. Thus, although Section 5 survives, it will have no actual effect unless and until Congress can enact a new statute to determine who should be covered by it.June 25, 2013 at 11:13 am #91394
Chief Just. Roberts has been trying his entire life to gut the Voting Rights Act. He finally succeeded http://www.motherjones.com/pol… …June 25, 2013 at 11:14 am #91395
Supreme Court strikes down part of Voting Rights Act
By Steve Benen
Tue Jun 25, 2013 10:13 AM EDT
In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court this morning ruled that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. The ruling was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, a long-time VRA critic, with Justices Ginsburg, Breyer Sotomayor, and Kagan dissenting. More soon.
First Update: The entirety of the ruling is online here (pdf). For more background, here’s the overview from Scotusblog.
Second Update: The court majority rejected Section 4 on the grounds that it was based on a legitimate formula in 1966, but that formula can no longer be used today. Apparently, these five justices believe institutional racism and systemic discrimination in voting rights have effectively vanished to their satisfaction.
Third Update: The decision draws a distinction, saying it’s striking down Section 4, not Section 5, but since the former provides the coverage formula for the latter, it looks like the issue will return to Congress to write a new formula.
Fourth Update: Justice Thomas, true to form, explains he wanted to go ahead and strike down Section 5 altogether, rather than leaving it to Congress to fix. To his mind, there is no adequate formula.
Fifth Update: Good write-ups from NBC News’ Pete Williams and Erin McClam, as well as the AP. The key detail: “The court did not strike down the advance approval requirement of the law that has been used, mainly in the South, to open up polling places to minority voters in the nearly half century since it was first enacted in 1965. But the justices did say lawmakers must update the formula for determining which parts of the country must seek Washington’s approval, in advance, for election changes.” Raise your hand if you have confidence in this Congress’ ability to do that fairly and effectively.
Sixth Update: So, just to clarify, the principle of pre-clearance is intact, but for voting-rights advocates, that’s cold comfort, since the standards that provide the foundation for those principles has been struck down as unconstitutional. Section 5 is, in other words, in semi-permanent limbo, awaiting Congress’ eventual attention.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.