May 7, 2013 at 8:44 am #87368
Guess What Black Men in NYC? You aren’t being harassed ENOUGH!
You read right ..so says the Police Commissioner of New York City. It’s downright disgusting to see the lengths they’ll go to in order to defend the profoundly RACIST policy of STOP AND FRISK.
Hat tip-Miranda at POU
By Azi Paybarah
7:43 am May. 2, 2013
In an interview on ABC’s “Nightline” last night, NYPD commissioner Ray Kelly elaborated on a point Mayor Michael Bloomberg made in a speech this week, about the racial breakdown of stop-and-frisks conducted by city police officers
Bloomberg said NYPD critics are unfairly compare the number of black and Latino men stopped to the number of black and Latino men in the general population, whereas they should be comparing the numbers of stops to the descriptions of suspects.
Kelly, in his interview, said that if you use that methodology, “African-Americans are being understopped.”
A year ago, Kelly went even further, telling reporters people in “communities of color” actually “want more” stop-and-frisks.
That kind of rhetoric will effectively require a response from City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who is the only Democratic mayoral candidate who wants Kelly to stay on as commissioner and also wants the department to make fewer stops.
And WHY does the Police Commissioner utter such nonsense without impunity?
Because, this is what his damn boss is saying.
By Aviva Shen on Apr 30, 2013 at 6:00 pm
On Tuesday morning, Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I-NY) launched an impassioned defense of the New York Police Department, which sparked outrage for spying on Muslims and aggressively targeting minorities in their stop-and-frisk program. Bloomberg attacked a bill that would make it easier for stop-and-frisk victims to sue the police and one that would appoint an Inspector General to oversee the NYPD’s counterterrorism operations and penalize officers for using racial profiling.
The mayor warned that the bills’ scrutiny on police would make the city less safe, invoking the Boston bombing, the September 11 attacks, and gun violence. The installation of an Inspector General, Bloomberg claimed, could make intelligence gathering agencies “less willing to share information” if they knew it could be seen by the City Council. “Passing any legislation that undermines our counterterrorism capabilities would be the height of irresponsibility. God forbid terrorists succeed in striking our city because of a politically driven law that undermines the NYPD’s intelligence gathering efforts.”
let me repeat it
2% of the time they got weapons in stop and frisk.
and who the hell is Bloomberg kidding when he invokes the Boston Bombing.
The police wouldn’t have said shyt to the WHITE BOY TERRORISTS FROM BOSTON if they had landed in NYC
Because they’re too busy harassing and violating the civil rights of Black and Brown men.
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 day.May 7, 2013 at 8:55 am #87371
Should Martin O’Malley Be President?
The governor of Maryland is a long shot for the White House—and the best manager in government today.
By Haley Sweetland EdwardsMay 7, 2013 at 9:07 am #87373
The right’s last stand against immigration reform?
Posted by Greg Sargent on May 6, 2013 at 1:01 pm
The Heritage Foundation has just released its long awaited report supposedly documenting that the path to citizenship in the Gang of Eight immigration reform compromise will sock the taxpayer with a multi-trillion-dollar bill. You cannot overstate how much opponents of reform have staked on the hope that this report will be the magic bullet to kill the proposal. This is the report that’s supposed to send House conservatives running away, never to return.
My Post colleague Jennifer Rubin has a long post detailing the substantive pre-buttals of the Heritage study that are coming from other Republicans and conservatives who favor reform and argue Heritage’s methodology is flawed:
The Cato Institute has already come up with a detailed pre-rebuttal of Heritage’s work. And, ironically, even the Congressional Budget Office can figure out that with dynamic scoring of the type pioneered by Heritage (when it was an intellectual trailblazer for conservatives), the country and the Treasury come out ahead.
In a sense, though, the substance here is beside the point. What’s remarkable about this whole spectacle is that no one is even bothering to pretend that the Heritage study isn’t simply a last ditch effort to kill the bill. That’s widely, publicly, explicitly acknowledged to be the case. Indeed, a Heritage study back during the last immigration reform battle is widely credited with giving the right the ammo they needed to scuttle that proposal, and opponents are openly discussing today’s study as providing the chance of a rerun of that glorious moment.May 7, 2013 at 9:10 am #87375
The real Benghazi story: The dogs that aren’t barking
Posted by Jonathan Bernstein on May 6, 2013 at 5:22 pm
If you’re not inside the conservative information feedback loop, you might not be aware that within that loop the Benghazi “scandal” is still going at 100 percent strength. Months after the actual incident, which was back in September. Even though no one has ever made clear exactly what terrible secret was the subject of the supposed cover-up; even though a succession of “revelations” have all turned out to be nonsense (here’s one from just last week). Doesn’t matter; discredited accusations are just forgotten and new ones are substituted.
This week it’s a new round of claims that whistleblowers were suppressed. Over in the House, Darrell Issa’s committee is going to get a hearing out of it. No, there’s no particular reason that it makes any sense…there’s still no core story that this cover-up was (supposedly) covering up for. But there do appear to be plenty of Usual Suspect conservative movement lawyers and flacks involved.
So what are those of us outside of the conservative feedback loop to make of all of this?
Two things. One is that this is another case of how the minimal standards of the GOP-aligned press make Republican politicians lazy. Just chant “Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi” and you’re sure to generate plenty of positive publicity, so what’s the incentive for actually mastering the substantive issues involved?
And second: there’s a real dogs-not-barking aspect to this; the continued focus on what has appeared for months to be a dry well suggests that there are no real Barack Obama (or Hillary Clinton) scandals to investigate.May 7, 2013 at 9:13 am #87377
Filling in the blanks on the debt-ceiling hostage note
By Steve Benen
Mon May 6, 2013 2:12 PM EDT
The very first sentence in the Politico article on congressional Republicans’ debt-ceiling strategy is incorrect: “It’s never been easy for House Republicans to raise the debt limit.”
Actually, it used to be quite easy, indeed. Between 1939, when the debt-ceiling law was originally passed, and 2010, Congress raised the debt limit without incident 89 times. Most of those increases came under a Republican president, under Republican control of at least part of Congress, or both. It suddenly stopped being “easy” for the GOP after President Obama took office.
That said, it’s apparently no longer easy for the party, and Republican leaders now find themselves in an awkward spot. On the one hand, GOP policymakers have convinced themselves they deserve a reward for doing what they must do anyway, and believe they’re entitled to hold the debt ceiling hostage until Democrats give them something in return. On the other hand, Republican leaders also seem to realize that a replay of the 2011 fiasco, when they undermined the economy deliberately as part of a self-imposed crisis, is a blisteringly stupid idea.
The question, then, is what the party intends to write on the ransom note: “Congressional Republicans promise to crash the economy on purpose unless Democrats give us _________.”
Some wanted cuts to Social Security and Medicare, though this has apparently fallen out of favor. Others want an agreement on a budget plan that eliminates the deficit within 10 years. The leading contender, at least for now, is a demand for tax reforms.May 7, 2013 at 9:15 am #87379
Why Illinois’ GOP chair was forced to resign
By Steve Benen
Tue May 7, 2013 8:35 AM EDT.
Ordinarily, when the chair of a major political party is forced to resign, it’s safe to assume there’s been some kind of scandal. Occasionally, there’s suspected embezzlement or a personal scandal that brings a chair’s judgment into question, but as a rule, a resignation is tied to some kind of disgrace.
But not always. The chair of the Illinois Republican Party, for example, has been forced to give up his post for the shocking crime of supporting the right of gay Americans to get married.
Pat Brady, the chairman of the Illinois Republican Party, announced his resignation Tuesday amid a simmering controversy over his support for gay marriage legislation.
Brady had been expected to drop out of the lead GOP role following a tumultuous period that pitted the Republicans’ social moderates against their social conservatives.
The context matters. Illinois, where Democrats control many of the key levers of government, is considering a new marriage-equality proposal, which most Republicans are predictably hoping to derail. In early January, Brady endorsed the effort — in his personal capacity, not as the state GOP chair — which drew immediate condemnations from far-right activists that make up much of the party’s base.May 7, 2013 at 9:19 am #87380
Heritage says immigration reform will cost $5.3 trillion. Here’s why that’s wrong.
Posted by Dylan Matthews on May 6, 2013 at 5:00 pm
Robert Rector and Jason Richwine of the Heritage Foundation have made a splash by releasing a paper claiming that the immigration reform bill being weighed in the U.S. Senate will cost the government $5.3 trillion. Or, more precisely, that undocumented immigrants under current law will cost the government $1 trillion, and legalizing those immigrants will increase that to $6.3 trillion. Subtract one from the other and you get the $5.3 trillion total cost estimate.
The study represents the most notable attack on the reform effort to date from a conservative group, and in conjunction with the Economic Policy Institute’s attempts to throw cold water over the high-skilled immigration sections of the bill, suggests the effort is facing flack from both sides.
So does the Heritage estimate hold up? Not really. They make a lot of curious methodological choices that cumulatively throw the study into question. It’s likely that immigrants would pay a lot more in taxes, and need a lot less in benefits, than Heritage assumes, and that other benefits would outweigh what costs remain
First, let’s review the basic methodology of the Rector/Richwine study. When they’re talking about “cost,” they really mean static fiscal cost. They add up the amount of money they expect undocumented immigrants to contribute in taxes, and subtract that from the amount of money they expect those immigrants to receive in government services. If the result is positive, then the immigrants are a net fiscal drain. If it’s negative, they’re net contributors.May 7, 2013 at 9:20 am #87381
May 06, 2013 10:04 AM
None Dare Call It Treason
By Ed Kilgore
As Brother Benen notes this morning, the National Rifle Association’s new president, James Porter of Birmingham, Alabama, likes to talk about the importance of the Second Amendment as a way to ensure the American people will be able to “resist tyranny”—i.e., shoot and kill law enforcement officers, members of the U.S. armed services, and presumably anyone else (you know, like their neighbors) who might disagree with their definition of their essential “liberties”—at some undefined point in the future. And while I’ve not yet seen evidence of him calling Barack Obama a “tyrant” (though he has called him a “fake president”) I’d be shocked if it doesn’t exist.
So let’s put it this way: Porter seems to be highly representative of the amazingly common type of contemporary “conservatives” who combine extremist language about their political opponents with violent language about their political options—who in effect point their guns at “liberals” while making it known they and they alone will decide what “liberties” to surrender, democracy or laws be damned.
It makes it worse that Porter is one of the old boys who thinks it ha-larious to refer to the American Civil War as the “war of northern aggression” (as “we” put it “down south,” he said to a New York crowd recently). Since that war, whatever else it represented, was without question an armed revolution against the government of the United States, you have to wonder if the Confederacy—or as it was commonly referred to in the north for many decades, “the Rebellion”—is Porter’s model for defense of oneself against “tyranny” (you may recall that John Wilkes Booth shouted “Sic semper tyrannus“—“thus always to tyrants”) after shooting Lincoln.
Am I perhaps being unfair to these people in suggesting that they are behaving like America-haters and are flirting with treason? I don’t think so. Porter and those like him could dispel this sort of suspicion instantly, any time they wanted, by just saying: “Let’s be clear: the kind of ‘tyranny’ we are arming ourselves to forestall is something entirely different from anything Americans have experienced since we won our independence—a regime engaged in the active suppression of any sort of dissent, and the closure of any peaceful means for the redress of grievances. We’re not talking about the current administration, or either major political party, as presently representing a threat of tyranny.”May 7, 2013 at 9:21 am #87382
Yes, Health Insurance Saves Lives
Brian Beutler- May 6, 2013, 10:45 AM
There have been so many hasty and opportunistic reactions to the famed Oregon Medicaid study that containing the spread of misinformation is a bit like standing athwart a tsunami yelling “stop!” Moreover, people like Aaron Carroll and Austin Frakt are much more qualified to comment on it and have been doing an excellent job, so I’d really recommend you read their recent posts on the subject.
But to draw attention to one of Medicaid critics’ most effective sleights of hand, performed most recently and deftly by Ross Douthat, consider the following thought experiment.
Imagine a year-long study of 2000 uninsured people, 1000 of whom were allowed to enroll in Medicaid, the other 1000 of whom were required to remain uninsured. After a year, the aggregate data indicated that Medicaid provided the first 1000 significant economic security and measurable mental health benefits, but showed negligible (or more likely inconclusive) effects on heart health.
Not evident from the aggregate data, though, was that mid-way through the study, one male subject from each group began experiencing chest pains. After a few days, the man with Medicaid went to the hospital, had an abnormal EKG and an emergency angiogram, which revealed a major blockage and required immediate angioplasty. He survived. The man without Medicaid, by contrast, did nothing, until he suffered a massive MI, and died in an ambulance on the way to the hospital.
In other words, it’s possible that being uninsured cost one of my made up subjects his life, even though the made up study didn’t find significant overall improvement in measures of cardiac health. Likewise in the real world, the Oregon study was not designed to address the excess deaths issue, just like studies on insurance’s impact on mortality aren’t designed to test its impact on various health measures across the population.
But of course, most real-world excess death studies link tens of thousands of deaths a year to uninsurance. That’s a very small percentage of the millions of uninsured in the United States. But I doubt even Medicaid’s loudest critics would shrug off 10,000 or 20,000 preventable deaths a year in most other contexts.
So instead they put their heads in the sand. Douthat more or less treats the Oregon study as a de facto refutation of that entire, separate area of research.May 7, 2013 at 9:22 am #87383
Sequester: Domestic Violence Victims Denied Programs & SheltersMay 7, 2013 at 9:23 am #87384
NRA’s Wayne LaPierre ‘LIED’ About Bostonians Wishing To Have GunsMay 7, 2013 at 9:24 am #87385
The Daily Edge @TheDailyEdge
Gomez (R-MA): “I demand Ed Markey stop reminding voters I’m the lying bastard who tried to swiftboat Obama in 2012. That’s ancient history”
8:52 PM – 6 May 2013May 7, 2013 at 9:24 am #87386
NRA Convention Gov. Rick Perry Introduced With a Tasteless AR-15 VideoMay 7, 2013 at 9:26 am #87387
Reid sees Cruz as a ‘schoolyard bully’
By Steve Benen
Tue May 7, 2013 8:00 AM EDT
With both the House and Senate having already approved budget resolutions, Democrats are eager to do what Republicans originally said they wanted to do — follow “regular order” and hash out the differences in a conference committee. Except, as we discussed yesterday, GOP leaders have completely abandoned their own position and refuse to allow the bicameral talks.
Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) once again tried to follow the process that Republicans endorsed as recently as March, and once again, Reid was blocked by the Senate minority. This time, however, it led to an interesting confrontation between the Majority Leader and the chamber’s least popular member.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said he’d allow the budget process to move forward if Senate Democrats agreed to certain conditions: the House-Senate talks could not raise any taxes on anyone by any amount, and the result of the negotiations could not raise the debt ceiling, which Cruz and others still hope to use as leverage as part of another hostage crisis later this year.
Reid patiently explained that the budget process already included several hundred amendments, and that Cruz’s suggestions lost. The Texas Republican was effectively arguing that he’ll block the budget process unless the side that won these fights agrees to unilaterally concede because Ted Cruz says so. The Nevada Democrat called this “ridiculous,” adding:
“[Cruz] is s like the school yard bully — he pushes everybody around and is losing, and instead of playing the game according to the rules, he not only takes the ball home with him but changes the rules. That way no one wins except the bully who tries who indicate to people he has won. We’re asking Republicans to play by the rules and let us go to conference.”May 7, 2013 at 9:27 am #87388
The politics of online sales taxes
By Steve Benen
Tue May 7, 2013 9:15 AM EDT.
When there are 69 votes in the Senate for anything, it’s an uncommon day in the chamber, but when there are 69 Senate votes for a tax bill, something unusual is going on.
The Senate sided with traditional retailers and financially strapped state and local governments Monday by passing a bill that would widely subject online shopping — for many a largely tax-free frontier — to state sales taxes.
The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 69 to 27, getting support from Republicans and Democrats alike. But opposition from some conservatives who view it as a tax increase will make it a tougher sell in the House. President Barack Obama has conveyed his support for the measure.
The politics of this one were a pleasant change of pace. For the most part, Democrats supported the bill and Republicans didn’t, but take a look at the roll call and note the non-traditional pairings. In this bill, several conservative Republicans from red states like Mississippi, Nebraska, and Alabama voted for online sales taxes, while more progressive Democrats from blue states like Oregon and New Hampshire voted against it.
Put it this way: when Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) votes for a tax increase and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) votes against it, you know the “Marketplace Fairness Act” isn’t the usual bill.
So, what’s the story? The law currently only requires online outlets to charge a sales tax if the business has a brick-and-mortar building in the state. This system, in turn, creates a disjointed series of advantages and disadvantages — it hurts local retailers who don’t want to lose customers to Internet retailers, but it also hurts online outlets like Best Buy and Target which are trying to compete in both markets, and don’t want to lose online customers to websites that won’t have to charge sales taxes.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.