Government
Mayor, Councilmembers arrested; what's next?
Mayor Gray, Kwame Brown, Tommy Wells, Muriel Bowser, Yvette Alexander, Sekou Biddle and Michael Brown were arrested by Capitol Police along with several other activists today, protesting Congress' abusing their power to step on DC's rights to make its own governance decisions.
Photo by Anne Phelps.
According to various press reports and tweets they will be charged with misdemeanor "unlawful assembly," which comes with a $50 fine. The DC Office of the Attorney General would have to prosecute, which raises the interesting question of whether they can simply use their prosecutorial discretion to ignore the charge.
Vincent Orange, who along with Biddle is considered the front-runner for the April 26 special election, attended but didn't join in the civil disobedience. Dorothy Douglas moved to the curb when asked by the police.
Several people asked, where was Eleanor Holmes Norton? And where were the DC Republicans?
In one of my favorite tweets not directly about the incident, Wells' chief of staff, Charles Allen, wrote: "It's a walkable community. Just walked from protest site to the jail cell. #dcfightsback"
Several people have asked, what's next? How about again tomorrow?
Markus Batchelor, recently Youth Mayor of DC, is looking into getting a youth protest together for next week, when DCPS is on break.
The DC government also provides a lot of assistance to the feds, like MPD clearing streets for motorcades or special federal events. Should they stop doing this? Are there ways the DC government can or should itself be civilly disobedient?
What else?
Many DC residents are cheering their leaders today. Those that showed up and got arrested took a great step for DC rights today. But we can't stop here.
Residents and elected officials alike have to keep this energy going, whether it's with more protests or other acts that draw attention to DC's cause. More people may need to get arrested.
And what can make this issue get more attention far outside the Beltway?
 | David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington. He has had a lifelong interest in great cities and great communities. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater.   |
Comments
- Understanding can help cyclists, drivers better share the road
- Anti-transit ideology endangers Silver Line
- Give up your seat on the bus or train to those in need
- Last of K Street's great mansions is threatened
- McDonnell's roadblocks threaten Silver Line's phase 2
- Metro tests secure parking with new "bike and ride"
- Support a growing city and join Pro-DC
by Naomi on Apr 11, 2011 8:30 pm
by Sivad on Apr 11, 2011 8:34 pm
Why weren't these same people getting arrested in Harry Reid's office and Nancy Pelosi's office when those two had the votes to end this stuff permanently?
Another squandered opportunity by a supposedly pro-democracy congress.
If DC was 90% Republicans do you think it would be different? If Republicans had 60 Senate seats and a majority of the House, we would be a state. No doubt about it. Do you think the likes of Tom Delay would give up an opportunity for two permanent GOP Senate seats and one permanent House seat?
by Michael Rogers on Apr 11, 2011 8:37 pm
by Adam Eidinger on Apr 11, 2011 8:42 pm
by Nicoli on Apr 11, 2011 8:43 pm
by eve on Apr 11, 2011 8:47 pm
by andrew on Apr 11, 2011 8:58 pm
by Anon on Apr 11, 2011 8:59 pm
by Katmere on Apr 11, 2011 9:01 pm
by Pat O on Apr 11, 2011 9:05 pm
There need to be more protests. More people need to be arrested. Protests should be public, loud, and attention grabbing. This could mean getting arrested in the middle of the Mall or on the steps of Congress with tourists all around. That's one way to educate the rest of the country.
by Jamie Scott on Apr 11, 2011 9:07 pm
That argument has long since been thrown away. The issue is the rights of US taxpaying citizens not the territory of the District of Columbia. If we have no FULL voting representation then taxing us is illegal. It is one of the principle reasons there was a revolution in this country. See Rep. Gohmert's bill: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1014/text
by Sivad on Apr 11, 2011 9:12 pm
by Hilary1121 on Apr 11, 2011 9:31 pm
I agreet the Gohmert bill, what I was trying to raise is there seems to be several sides to this idea of DC taxation, one is the route of Gohmert treating DC like other terrorities, the other is the route of full DC voting rights like the rest of the states. I think the later would be a mistake for the country as DC is not a state and the constitution calls for a Federal territory.
by Anon on Apr 11, 2011 9:40 pm
Joe '00
by Joe DiPasquale on Apr 11, 2011 9:43 pm
by William on Apr 11, 2011 10:03 pm
Throw away the key.
Who are the real criminals here? If Congressional officials and police think it is ok to arrest city officials on city streets on trumped up charges, perhaps the DC police ought to start arresting Capitol police for blocking streets and arrest their bosses for interfering with the tight of the people to petition their government.
by D.C. Russell on Apr 11, 2011 10:03 pm
The problem is not that the rest of the country does not know. The problem is that the rest of the country does not care. Not because they're malicious, but because they've got sh!t to do.
You gotta think from their perspective. How much do you care, and actually act on behave of other deprived citizens? Do you care about the abominable circumstances in which many native Americans live? Do you care about the latest oil pipe leak up in the Alaskan tundra? Do you care about the mess after Katrina that's still not been cleaned? Do you care about Detroit being a ghost town? or about all the other local crises? No, you don't. Because you don't know (enough) about it, nor care to investigate, let alone actually do something about it. And that's the same for people who live more than say 50 miles away from DC.
They simply have better stuff to do. Like walk the dog. Pay some bills. Take a nap. Do homework with the kids. Anything.
by Jasper on Apr 11, 2011 10:08 pm
by Adam L on Apr 11, 2011 10:08 pm
You do realize that you could have an independent federal district while still allowing those residents of said federal district representation in the national legislature, right?
Lots of democracies have federal districts. Only one of them - the United States - does not have any representation for the citizens of that area in the legislatures that control said federal district.
by Alex B. on Apr 11, 2011 10:11 pm
by Bob on Apr 11, 2011 10:16 pm
Monday they should do this again.Fixed your typo.
by Jack Love on Apr 11, 2011 10:18 pm
Hello, hyperbole. What the hell does that even mean?
DC is not a state and the constitution calls for a Federal territory.
And it used to allow slavery, but we changed it. The constitution is not the Bible. We can change it.
by David C on Apr 11, 2011 10:19 pm
by David C on Apr 11, 2011 10:21 pm
The District of Columbia should exsist as a teritory and exsist to represent the best interests of the republic as a whole, not just those in the boundaries of DC. So at current population, do you advocate for DC to have a full voting member of the House and two full voting members of the Senate?
I get the taxation without represenation part, but just don't think the same constituency who think Eleanor Holmes-Norton is the best since sliced bread, and have perks such as in state tutition in all 50 states (http://seo.dc.gov/seo/cwp/view,A,1226,Q,536777,seoNav_GID,1510.asp) would like to give up all of their perks to simply be treated like another state.
Agreed that the constitution can be changed, why don’t we also change the location of the nation’s capital? How about we make DC a state and move the capital and Federal territory to Iowa? My point is that with DC being treated like all other states and also the center of the nation’s capital, it puts the delicate checks and balances of this republic at stake. There are many various theories as to the fall and collapse of the Roman empire, but a republic that puts the interest of the federal capital above those of the rest of the country, is not likely to prevail. DC is one of the most corrupt jurisdictions in this country, and I am including Detroit, Chicago, New Jersey, etc. It’s time that DC elected some “diversity” to offices, rather than bringing in the usual trash of Eleanor Holmes-Norton, Vincent Gray, Marrion Barry, etc. Mayor Fenty had it right by hiring Michelle Rhee and look how well that went. DC, one of the top places to spend money per child on education and look what little they have to show for it.
by Anon on Apr 11, 2011 10:34 pm
If you want to make a case about home rule, that's fine. I disagree, but home rule is a separate issue.
Congressional representation is another matter entirely. How is it just that more than 600,000 residents do not have any representation in the body that controls their city? How is that democratic? How is that just?
by Alex B. on Apr 11, 2011 10:43 pm
here's what I advocate for. So you're half right, DC should be treated like a territory and territories should be represented (at least the ones with US citizens). DC's population, btw, is larger than Wyoming's.
just don't think the same constituency who think Eleanor Holmes-Norton is the best since sliced bread, and have perks such as in state tutition in all 50 states would like to give up all of their perks to simply be treated like another state.
What does EHN have to do with this? The downside of letting people vote for who they want is that you may not like who they choose. And I think the polling in DC shows that we'd very much give up in-state tuition for representation. Y'know some people actually die for freedom. But the two need not be related. We don't get the tuition deal as a payoff for no voice.
How about we make DC a state and move the capital and Federal territory to Iowa? That's fine, but a massive waste of money.
My point is that with DC being treated like all other states and also the center of the nation’s capital, it puts the delicate checks and balances of this republic at stake.
Poppycock. DC would have a tiny little voice in the government and would not be able to dominate the US the way Rome did the Roman Empire.
DC is one of the most corrupt jurisdictions in this country
Poppycock, and irrelevant.
It’s time that DC elected some “diversity” to offices, rather than bringing in the usual trash of Eleanor Holmes-Norton, Vincent Gray, Marrion Barry, etc.
So you have a problem with democracy and majority rule? Or is it with black people?
by David C on Apr 11, 2011 10:46 pm
by Lance on Apr 11, 2011 10:47 pm
by Joe in SS on Apr 11, 2011 10:47 pm
by Lance on Apr 11, 2011 10:47 pm
I see your second point, but again, how would it be just for those 600,000 people to dictate how the federal territory that controls the republic is managed? As you can see from this event, it goes with everything from law enforcement, land, etc. Why not allow those in DC to vote in the surrounding Maryland/VA districts or to reduce the size of the federal territory to only what is needed?
by Anon on Apr 11, 2011 10:48 pm
Or as an alternative,
Follow the example of more established societies where there exists a federal district with residents that can fully participate in national legislative processes.
The push to gain representation and full participation in the national legislature is logical. Of course, logic is not one of Congress' virtues.
Protests are, sadly, one of the few options left to get people's attention.
by otavio on Apr 11, 2011 10:57 pm
Just exactly how does preventing trash pickup or continuing the spread of HIV/AIDS benefit the republic? How does squandering the democratic underpinnings of our country benefit the republic?
"So at current population, do you advocate for DC to have a full voting member of the House and two full voting members of the Senate?"
Yes. Next.
"perks such as in state tutition in all 50 states would like to give up all of their perks to simply be treated like another state."
Wait. We get in-state tuition anywhere!?! That's definitely worth not being able to vote and being subject to the will of members of Congress from far-flung areas of the country.
"Agreed that the constitution can be changed, why don’t we also change the location of the nation’s capital? How about we make DC a state and move the capital and Federal territory to Iowa?"
Sure, you can try. Not sure what good it would do. Why not just decrease the size of the federal territory to allow the District to become a state instead? Sure is easier.
"There are many various theories as to the fall and collapse of the Roman empire, but a republic that puts the interest of the federal capital above those of the rest of the country, is not likely to prevail."
You're right. There are many theories to the collapse of the Roman Empire... problems governing the city of Rome is not one of them.
"DC is one of the most corrupt jurisdictions in this country, and I am including Detroit, Chicago, New Jersey, etc. It’s time that DC elected some “diversity” to offices, rather than bringing in the usual trash of Eleanor Holmes-Norton, Vincent Gray, Marrion Barry, etc."
Ahhh... so the truth comes out. A thinly veiled attempt at Constitutional law melts away to reveal what is purely a political motive for people who want to continue to deny D.C. residents the right to vote and self-determination. While Detroit and Chicago may be corrupt, I'm pretty sure they still have the right to self-government. And whatever the faults of D.C.'s leaders, the people still have the right to select who govern them.
by Adam L on Apr 11, 2011 11:00 pm
You dismiss points as poppycock, look what the federal government has already done to that of state rights. The burden of federal taxes has grown exponentially over the years. As each state is added to the union it diminishes the power/authority of that individual state and shifts it to the federal government. This happens slowly over time and people become numb to what is going on.
Although DC would still be relatively small compared to the other representation in Congress, they would have a quite a representation in the Senate, where as you know, the minority rights are protected even more, with such proceedings as the filibuster.
Regarding your last race baiting question. I don't have issues with black people, the issues are with elected representatives who are wholly corrupt and do anything and everything to get elected and maintain their power over the people. I am no fan of term limits, but people need to wake up and start realizing what is happening before it is too late.
by Anon on Apr 11, 2011 11:00 pm
@Anon , DC is not a state, nor should it be. It is a territory as everyone correctly states, but that is irrelevant. There are other ways for DC residents to have full voting rights (Constitutional Amendment, make DC a congressional district of Maryland, etc.) The simple fact of the matter is that US government is stealing money from 650,000 disenfranchised US citizens. Either we have full voting rights (not creating an equal representative from Utah) or we should not be taxed. It's that simple. Making ghost slots in ballots for congressional members and having Norton sit on committees is a waste of time.
by Sivad on Apr 11, 2011 11:01 pm
I don't want to deny anyone rights to their representation, I once lived in DC.
Why not look at other approaches including those that @otavio mentioned? The size of DC should be limited to only what is necessary and I would propose the rest be given back to VA and MD, similar to what was done with Alexandria around the time of the Civil War.
by Anon on Apr 11, 2011 11:06 pm
by Anon on Apr 11, 2011 11:08 pm
I trust Gohmert as far as I can throw him.
by David C on Apr 11, 2011 11:11 pm
The other approaches otavio mentioned have all been proposed and have all gone nowhere. If members of Congress from either party was as passionate about addressing the problem of D.C.'s lack of representation and self-determination as they are about school vouchers, needle exchanges, abortion, and gun rights we could get this issued settled once-and-for-all. However, what is clear is that leaders in Congress have no real interest in the District except to use it as a bargaining chip/sacrificial lamb to abuse whenever politically expedient.
by Adam L on Apr 11, 2011 11:14 pm
by David C on Apr 11, 2011 11:14 pm
by David C on Apr 11, 2011 11:15 pm
Because I'm also in favor of DC being taxed and not having any representatives.
by TGEoA on Apr 11, 2011 11:21 pm
"The District of Columbia and its residents were wrongly used as a political bargaining chip in the recent budget negotiations between the House, Senate, and President Obama. This deeply disturbs me and my administration, and I am immediately forced to reconsider how the DC government accommodates the political activities of federal officials. If we in DC are a political bargaining chip, then we cannot--in any way--assist the political activity of Congressmen and the President. Our city budget is tight enough, and I refuse to spend a dime helping them use the citizens of the District.
That is why I am issuing a new directive to all city agencies and employees: if a federal official asks for the assistance of the city to perform official duties, we will do everything we can to be of assistance. If my administration discovers that any activity is substantially political in nature, this city's resources will be unavailable to officials involved. That goes for all officials, Democrat or Republican. If anyone--President Obama, Speaker Boehner, or anyone else--needs to meet with a world leader or cabinet secretary, we stand willing to help. If any of them plan to head across town for a fundraiser, I wish them the best of luck. And that's all they'll get from me, or anyone else in this city."
by Matt I on Apr 11, 2011 11:42 pm
The Congress shall have Power ... To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States
It does not require. It grants permission. Additionally, it does not require that Congress have exclusive legislation over the district, it only allows.
Here's what I propose, and it's completely constitutional: statehood. Congress can, with a simple majority, invite DC to become a state. No amendment required. And since the federal district is not required, there wouldn't be any problem there either.
And the idea that the federal government needs a district is hogwash. Think about all the important government functions that happen in states, with no problem. Has Virginia overthrown the EPA? Has California kicked its federal courts to the curb? No and no. The federal government still has eminent domain and can take complete control over any territory it needs, as it does often.
by Tim on Apr 11, 2011 11:44 pm
The problem with your argument is that you are over emphasizing the strict definition of territory in the Constitution. That merely defines the size and Congressional authority. That authority can not usurp individual rights. People were allowed to live and own land in DC. The US Government does not own all lands in the territory of the District and under Article I Section 8 they should have, but for whatever reason that was not done. I own my property fee simple just like every other real property owning citizen in the United States. My property taxes do not go to the US Treasury, but to the government of the District of Columbia. So there are really three solutions. Congress can purchase all lands in DC and evict all residents, DC residents can have full voting rights or DC residents should not pay federal taxes.
by Sivad on Apr 11, 2011 11:52 pm
by Trulee Pist on Apr 11, 2011 11:58 pm
As I reflected on in my piece over on the GU Progressive (http://bit.ly/eFKCwX) in 1996 Justice for Janitors formed a human blockade on the 14th street bridge and didn't just get local coverage, they got attention from national outlets, Congress, and President Clinton.
Keep it up DC!
by Jake on Apr 11, 2011 11:58 pm
by Tim on Apr 12, 2011 12:02 am
Not tracking you. the Gohmert bill says:
"(a) General Rule- In the case of an individual who is a bona fide resident of the District of Columbia during the entire taxable year, gross income shall not include-
‘(1) income derived from sources within the District of Columbia, and
‘(2) income effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business by such individual within the District of Columbia."
You can't have tax on a gross income of zero.
by Sivad on Apr 12, 2011 12:08 am
I think it says a lot of an area of land that Maryland would not want to take back.
For those of you who haven't read the book Atlas Shrugged, check out the movie, www.atlasshruggedpart1.com.
by Anon on Apr 12, 2011 12:17 am
+1 octavio- The federal district can be the federal building area downtown. That's always been in the proposals.
Most Americans already think DC is a state. It's on every pull-down list of states I ever fill out. Statehood is a simple vote of Congress. It took decades to get rid of slavery, decades to get women the vote, decades to get gay rights but eventually the public will of fairness prevails- so long as there's a steady drumbeat.
I'd be fine with Gohmert but the issue needs to be narrowed to statehood or no taxation- no in betweens. Norton did a disservice by confusing the issue with the clearly unconstitutional scheme. It wasted the huge Obama 1 majorities. But conservatives believe in the issue too- just has to be framed simply for them.
by Tom Coumaris on Apr 12, 2011 12:26 am
"To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to tax bona fide residents of the District of Columbia in the same manner as bona fide residents of possessions of the United States."
The way I described above is how Puerto Rico is taxed and the exact same language "Section 933 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 exempts bona fide citizens who are residents of Puerto Rico for the entire taxable year from Federal taxes on income earned in Puerto Rico" is in Gohmert's bill.
The heritage foundation loves Gohmert's bill and wrote "Puerto Ricans who are employees of the federal government or members of the military do pay tax on income from those sources; applying the same rule to District residents would provide a needed boost to private businesses within the District." So they agree, federal employees will pay income taxes.
It also means that if you make money outside the District you pay income tax on that, even though you have no voice in the government.
So like I said, "less taxation for some without representation for all."
by David C on Apr 12, 2011 12:26 am
by David C on Apr 12, 2011 12:29 am
I think all of these books and Atlas Shrugged simply paint a vision of things we will hopefully never become. I would much rather watch this movie than nonsense like Cameron's Avatar.
These things are happening all around us. Read in the paper that Chicago is banning students from bringing their own school lunches, because the schools have dictated that they should eat government provided meals which are better for them. This nanny state has got to end, it creeping from cradle to grave.
by Anon on Apr 12, 2011 12:45 am
I saw that story about the school lunches... it's a private school in Chicago, the government doesn't have anything to do with it. If parents don't agree with it they can stop paying for their ridiculous school. However, I don't know what any of this talk about a nanny state has to do representative democracy and self-determination.
by Adam L on Apr 12, 2011 12:54 am
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thisisbossi/sets/72157626355911973/with/5612468946/
Couple videos, too... but my camera's not the best at shooting video:
http://www.youtube.com/user/thisisbossi
by Bossi on Apr 12, 2011 1:35 am
You comparison of DC representation to gun rights is false. One is explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, and the other is explicitly prohibitted.
by betox on Apr 12, 2011 1:50 am
Tonight 41 residents--black, white, men, women, gay, straight, young, old, blue collar and white collar made a long overdue statement about the second class citizenship we endure. Sure, the recently passed riders precipitated the demonstration, but they simply tipped the scales--the icing on the cake if you will.
The representatives in Congress will not give a damn about what we did tonight, but, hopefully, other residents of the District and a few beyond will pay attention to what transpired, and what it means for pursuing full representation for 600,000 tax paying citizens. Maybe a few more will get involved, convince a relative or friend that disenfranchisement is fundamentally wrong, or, perhaps, block a street or two.
Personally, I did not spend 6 long and grueling Summer months of 2009 in Iraq, risking the lives of 150 men to spread the virtues of liberty and genuinely trying to convince Kurds, Sunnis, Shias and Yezidis to work out their problems through democratic and civil processes, only to return here to a less than perfect Union. That is the great hypocrisy that we must collectively confront. Idealism abroad rings hollow when we have so much to do to improve our Democracy at home. It's just that simple.
Hopefully this protest is a wake up call.
#8 of #41
by B Pate on Apr 12, 2011 3:32 am
I've lived in Mexico City, where they had no trouble having voting representation within the Distrito Federal. Other capitals in the civilized world, such as it is, also have full representation. So the idea itself is neither unheard of nor scandalous; it's the denial that is.
My belief is that there are two kinds of provisions within the Constitution and the other founding documents (specifically the Declaration of Independence)
ones that deal with fundamental rights, and ones that are technical and administrative in nature. The second paragraph of the Declaration of independence says it all, and should be looked to as expressing the fundamental basis for the founding of our nation, "We hold these truths to be self evident; that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienableRights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed....but when a long train of abuses and usurpations invariably pursuing the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such Government and to provide new guards for their future Security.."
Ladies and gentlemen, the Declaration of Independence says it all. We are being governed without our consent, and we are certainly suffering a long train of abuses and usurpations, and I think it is long overdue that we seek an orderly way to throw off such Government and provide guards for our (present and) future security, What could be more fundamental to the definition of democracy than that it derives its just powers from the consent of the governed? We have not given our consent - that is clear and not subject to denial. Let a Federal District be set up without population, and give the rest of us a State! Nothing less meets the test of a requiring a governing body that derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, and nothing less should be tolerated.
by smeehan on Apr 12, 2011 7:05 am
by David Alpert on Apr 12, 2011 8:20 am
DC is larger than Wyoming in population right now. Should Wyoming not be allowed to have any representation in Congress?
by David Alpert on Apr 12, 2011 8:21 am
by Wounded Eagle on Apr 12, 2011 8:28 am
by RJ on Apr 12, 2011 8:30 am
I realize the realities of the situation and that Obama/Reid felt they needed to agree to the DC riders to avoid a shutdown. But they threw us under the bus, even if they did so begrudgingly and with good intentions, knowing that we would still vote for them. I challenge anyone to argue that any of the following are fair or constituent with American values:
-I pay DC taxes, but my elected officials do not get to determine how that is spent as they would anywhere else in the US.
-I pay federal taxes, but have no say over what that is used for, as any other resident in the US would.
-If DC were given 2 Senators and a representative, we would still have less representation per person proportionally than Wyoming.
-While the constitutionality of DC representation may not be clear, the founders could not have expected to DC to become the metropolis that it is today, and I am certain did not intend with their words to prevent over half a million Americans from being represented.
-We have amended the constitution before to repair the mistakes it unfortunately had. If need be, why not amend it to grant DC residents a voice?
And to anyone who thinks otherwise, this debate has never been about abortion, needle exchanges, charter schools or gun rights, but about the ability to make our own decisions under the same rules of any other city or state in this country and not be the political playground of meddling representatives.
by fivepercentyak on Apr 12, 2011 8:34 am
by fivepercentyak on Apr 12, 2011 8:43 am
by charlie on Apr 12, 2011 8:48 am
Having MPD not provide traffic control for presidential motor-cades would be interesting. Does the President have the power to order MPD to do something -- Congress, after all, is the one who really owns DC.
by charlie on Apr 12, 2011 9:14 am
@Tom Coumaris: It doesn't matter what "shall" means, it could be "does" and it'd mean the same thing: Congress has the power to do X. Congress is not required to do X. They're called "enumerated powers," not "requirements."
But even if they were requirements, history has shown that Congress can devolve its powers to other bodies. For example, Congress does not establish post offices. It created USPS to do that. Congress has already devolved some of its power over the District to the District's elected and appointed officials, and it definitely has the power to devolve more of that power (like budget autonomy).
I challenge anyone to tell me the last time that the federal government did something with DC that both a) was necessary to the operation of the federal government and/or the country as a whole and b) would not have been possible in a state because Congress doesn't have exclusive legislative authority over the states.
Or, put another way, why does Congress need exclusive legislative authority over DC?
by Tim on Apr 12, 2011 9:15 am
No. Those were good books. They made their point in less than 1200 pages. They aren't filled with ridiculous 70-page long speeches. They don't browbeat you with an idea over and over and over again. And the ideas they hold are not that greed is good, elitism is good and government is bad.
The best response ever is actually a video game called BioShock. What happens when everyone pursues their "rational self-interest" devoid of government regulation? Everyone gets completely addicted to genetically engineered drugs. Awesome.
As Paul Krugman wrote "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
by David C on Apr 12, 2011 9:36 am
Let's face it, this was one of the 10 biggest screw-ups of the Founding Fathers, and it's one that needs to be fixed.
by David C on Apr 12, 2011 9:57 am
by Lance on Apr 12, 2011 10:03 am
by Lance on Apr 12, 2011 10:03 am
by David C on Apr 12, 2011 10:10 am
by Lance on Apr 12, 2011 10:20 am
How would you propose having an independent District for the republic if it is mixed in with that of another state? Would we separate all federal buildings, the White House, Capitol, etc. and make that the District of Columbia and have a state of Holmes-Norton or state of Georgetown? Logistically making the current landscape of DC a state and not interfering with the operations of the District would be very difficult. There are already enough turf wars in this very small parcel of land.
This arguement is one I here often and is easily countered. The Pentagon is in Virginia, NIH is in Maryland, does these federal facilites existing within the border of a State cause problems? No. Well then why what it be a problem in Washington? The federal district could be something a small as the Capital complex and the White House.
by nathaniel on Apr 12, 2011 10:23 am
by Lance on Apr 12, 2011 10:26 am
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
Also, as others have pointed out, DC has more residents (without representation) than Wyoming, which has two Senators and a Representative. You make the fundamental mistake (that seems quite popular among a subset of American "conservatives) of mistakenly believing each acre of land in America is entitled to the franchise--not each citizen.
"Well, goll-dangit! How could the Demon-crats win a national election??? Lookit how red the map of America is! Obama must'a cheated!"
by oboe on Apr 12, 2011 10:27 am
by Tina on Apr 12, 2011 10:32 am
The reason we don't have voting rights is because we, the citizens of DC being denied what the American Revolution fought for, would rather live our safe little lives and go to our safe little jobs rather than shut the city down and face arrest day after day till the rest of America realizes how unjust the situation is. The American people does not take this issue seriously, because we the people whose fundamental rights are being violated do not take it seriously.
There should be organized civil disobedience starting tomorrow that prevents the government from functioning and continues every day till we get voting rights. No meaningless symbolic gestures like Gray's, actual, non-violent disruption.
by wdcab on Apr 12, 2011 10:43 am
by w on Apr 12, 2011 10:44 am
The money is to be used for private schools, not charter schools. Private schools are not under the same requirements as the public schools, including they don't require the same testing or requirements to graduate and they can teach religion. And my issue with the fact that these can be used for religious schools is that there should be a seperation of church and state and in this case the state is funding the church.
Charter schools are completely seperate and are apart of the DCPS system.
by Ashley on Apr 12, 2011 10:51 am
To really push a point on this issue, the district could rent the land to a private company that donates all tolls collected to abortion funding.
by d on Apr 12, 2011 10:57 am
C'mon, Lance. The money has nothing to do with charter schools. Congress didn't give DC money for any kind of education. It gave private citizens federal money to defray the cost of private schools. It has nothing to do with improving public education in any way.
by dcd on Apr 12, 2011 10:58 am
by HogWash on Apr 12, 2011 11:00 am
Thanks for the explanation. I still don't think we should be turning up our noses at extra funding the feds want to throw us ... but I do agree there's a problem with the fact that DC is involved in private education. I remember reading that one of our biggest educational expenses is for private schooling for students with special needs ... and that the bar for getting classified as a student with special needs is pretty low. I.e., this turns out to be a way for middleclass parents to avoid the DCPC schools and instead send their children to private schools in the burbs at taxpayer expense. I also see your issue with the funding going to religious schools ... but all schools, officially religious or not, have their 'value system' they teach ... so, I'm less concerned with that. The minute we decide it's okay for the taxpayer to pay for other peoples' kids to go to school, we enter a situation where 'someone's values' get taught to them. If a religious person prefers that it be their religious values, and not secularist values, I have no problem with that. If anything, it prevents the government from having a monopoly on deciding what is a good moral value and what isn't.
by Lance on Apr 12, 2011 11:07 am
That's the opposite of what I said. As for the school vouchers, I actually like the program and support it. But you know what I support more than that? The right of my neighbors to outvote me. Just because it's their ox being gored that doesn't make it any more palatable.
As for DC getting money from this...the Boston tea party protested a law that made tea CHEAPER, but it forced Americans to pay a tax on the tea, without them being represented. So they protested. Sounds familiar, right?
by David C on Apr 12, 2011 11:09 am
For example, historians nowadays pretty much agree that the whole 'taxation without representation' justification for the American Revolution occured after the fact ... in the early years of the 19th century when the founding fathers were aging and wanted to make their cause a just one ... vs. the practical one it was. The American Revolution actually happened because the colonists wanted to be able to expand into the French held territories to the west of the original 13 colonies. They eagerly prodded Britain to engage the French here (French and Indian War) as part of a larger conflict occuring between the French and British in Europe thinking the result would be the right of the American colonists to settle in the French lands once the British had conquered them. General Washington himself participated in the campaigns in helped the British win. But then, the British, because they had other international considerations to keep in mind, didn't allow the colonists to expand their colonies westward. And hence the American Revolution began ... and eventually resulted in the new American nation winning the Northwest Terrritories from Britain.
by Lance on Apr 12, 2011 11:19 am
As for what "historians pretty much agree on"....that is utter poppycock. There may be some revisionists who think that, but that is not the common belief. If your summation were true, why did the French help us win the war?
by David C on Apr 12, 2011 11:22 am
Now, that's not to say it wouldn't cause a hullabaloo and get us some attention. It probably would.
by Tim on Apr 12, 2011 11:39 am
Pulling Marshall McLuhan from behind a theater sandwich board in 3...2...1...
by oboe on Apr 12, 2011 11:40 am
The Constitution does not actually *require* that the seat of government be a special district. Rather, in Article I, section 8 (a list of things that "Congress shall have the power" to do), it merely gives Congress the power to create a District, and to exercise "exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such District." It was widely assumed when the Constitution was adopted that an independent seat of government was necessary because rivalries between the states were so strong that it would cause problems to make one state the seat of government, and that states might try to interfere. Indeed, imagine if the seat of government had been located in Virginia when it seceded from the Union. But nowadays, with our highly mobile population and the ease of travel, state boundaries are much less significant than they used to be, and its not so clear that the capital city has to be independent of any state.
In any case, I don't see how there would be any constitutional impediment to Congress deciding to cede the entire District of Columbia back to Maryland (if Maryland would take it) so that DC residents would have the same right to vote as everyone else in Maryland. The Federal government would still be able to maintain exclusive control over the many Federal buildings and plots of National Park Service land, just as it currently does in the rest of the country. (Yellowstone is located mostly in Wyoming; every city of any size has a "Federal building" housing the local offices of various Federal agencies; and there are post offices all over the place. There is no problem about Federal law applying to all of this real estate.) And if there were any doubt on this score, the "District" could be reduced to a much smaller entity, encompassing only the monuments, mall, and core federal buildings, leaving the residential areas of the city to be part of Washington, MD.
by Mike on Apr 12, 2011 11:44 am
As for DC getting money from this...the Boston tea party protested a law that made tea CHEAPER, but it forced Americans to pay a tax on the tea, without them being represented. So they protested. Sounds familiar, right?
You're conflating the Stamp Act and the Tea Act, which were two separate things.
@Lance
Your explanation of the "real" reason for the revolution sounds like total bunk and a revisionist fabrication. Can you find any source that backs you up? Because I just went looking and couldn't.
by MLD on Apr 12, 2011 11:51 am
I am not, though they were. From Wikipedia "The protest movement that culminated with the Boston Tea Party was not a dispute about high taxes. The price of legally imported tea was actually reduced by the Tea Act of 1773. Protestors were instead concerned with a variety of other issues. The familiar "no taxation without representation" argument, along with the question of the extent of Parliament's authority in the colonies, remained prominent. Some regarded the purpose of the tax program—to make leading officials independent of colonial influence—as a dangerous infringement of colonial rights."
by David C on Apr 12, 2011 11:59 am
I think you underestimate how well-informed the general electorate is about the relationship between DC and Congress. When I tell people who just moved here that Congress has to give approval over local legislation and budgets, they are almost always shocked. A lot of people are unaware of the exact nature of the lack of autonomy here. We have a lot more work to do. At a minimum, we need to engage the student population throughout DC and get them involved like many of them are in social justice movements thousands of miles from here (the Sudan divestment movement was popular on several local campuses not long ago).
by Alan Page on Apr 12, 2011 12:04 pm
Because Britain, their arch enemy had won the earlier war (The French and Indian War) and already held almost all the former French territory and was poised to control the world with their acquistion of these terrritories. Better to let the colonists form a separate nation than let Britain gain that world advantage.
by Lance on Apr 12, 2011 12:08 pm
Your reading of this may be wrong because I think you're taking 'shall' to mean the same thing as 'will'. As someone who's lived in a land where shall is still commonly used, I can tell you it does not mean the same thing. It invokes 'command' ... as in 'you must' ... and not 'if you want'. Although US English has lost that distinction in common parlance, legally 'shall' still retains to 'must' ... for example in contracts with the government, the contractor needs to use 'shall' while the government uses 'will' ... reflecting the fact that the contractor's feet can be held to the fire for not doing what they committed to, while the government can always opt out.
by Lance on Apr 12, 2011 12:13 pm
As for "Congress shall have the power." Replacing shall with "must" doesn't really change Mike's point. Congress must have the power to...doesn't mean Congress must do anything. Just that they must be able to.
by David C on Apr 12, 2011 12:18 pm
It is a bit of a game of chicken that risks Congress passing overly punitive laws, but these types of things would definitely make a point.
by d on Apr 12, 2011 12:30 pm
by Tina on Apr 12, 2011 12:30 pm
Lance - you need to brush up on the rules of statutory construction - or at least focus on the whole clause, not kust the word "shall." If Article I, Section 8 said "Congress shall create a federal district . . . " or something similar, you'd have a point. But that's not what it says, is it? It says, as Mike wrote, that "Congress shall have the Power To . . . " That means exactly what it says - Congress can if it wants, but isn't required to. And that's not even taking into account the language in the specific clause: "over such District . . . as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States." MAY become the seat of government. That's not mandatory.
by dcd on Apr 12, 2011 12:34 pm
The other important part of that clause is that the district "may ... become the Seat of the Government of the United States." That's may, not must.
by Tim on Apr 12, 2011 12:36 pm
But the federal interest in Washington is far greater than maintaining exclusive control over buildings. For example, as we saw when Klein installed a bike path on Pennsylvania Avenue that detracted from the grandness and purpose of the avenue, the feds were able to get that undone. Now they're trying to string wires all over the place, and the feds will be able to stop that. I agree that the feds don't have a federal interest in whether we want to pay for abortions and shouldn't get involved in many other similar issues as Congress and the President just did, but they do have a federal interest in the City of Washington as a city that hosts the national capital ... and those interests in the land usage, transportation, etc. of the national capital goes a lot lot further than just an interest in buildings ... or even in a large park. If no other federal interest comes to mind, think of 'security' ... and the right of the feds to close streets to traffic if and when they see fit.
by Lance on Apr 12, 2011 12:37 pm
More revisionist history. That isn't what happened Lance. Either Fetny or Klein made that call, not the feds.
And who the hell thinks Pennsylvania is grand avenue? It's rather ugly.
by David C on Apr 12, 2011 12:58 pm
I'll tell you.
The Mayor and Council should DEFY the GOP hacks in Congress and spend DC's money on what DC wants.
What can Congress do? Lock them up? They can't keep the Mayor and Council locked up forever.
An act of defiance would be a great way to bring worldwide attention to the absurd "special relationship" DC has with Congress, which is the equivelant of slave and massa. And you can bet that once that happens, the Republicans will think twice about "flexing" on DC again.
by ceefer66 on Apr 12, 2011 1:34 pm
by rg on Apr 12, 2011 1:58 pm
by Bob on Apr 12, 2011 2:22 pm
No, actually some of them are big "statehood" advocates. I think they are misguided and certainly dreaming (much as I support voting congressional representation for our city).
by Bob on Apr 12, 2011 2:26 pm
by Lance on Apr 12, 2011 3:15 pm
by Lance on Apr 12, 2011 3:18 pm
by David Alpert on Apr 12, 2011 3:18 pm
I was, but that was never reported, because it didn't happen. Perhaps you have a citation that proves me wrong?
by David C on Apr 12, 2011 3:21 pm
by David Alpert on Apr 12, 2011 3:24 pm
Rhetoric is dead. It is time for action. Candidates and current councilmembers, Mary Cheh, Jim Graham, David Catania, Harry Thomas, Marion Barry and Phil Mendelson, need to know that we will not continue to elect them if they simply choose to stand on the sideline. We start electing leaders in the District who are willing to make sacrifices for statehood and then take the issue to surrounding (Maryland and Virginia) Congressional races. Those who choose to support statehood will find the additional support for canvassing and other forms of assistance on the campaign trail. Those who choose to continue to tread on DC will find that we have the power to assemble and make our voices heard. Republicans and Democrats need to know that we are no longer interested in waiting for their schedules to clear to negotiate. Sovereignty in the District is officially an emergency.
by Jon Mandel on Apr 12, 2011 3:41 pm
I think it was Fritz .. or someone else who mentioned it on here. I also heard it first hand from someone who used to work for Fenty. Fenty essentially got a call from the feds that it had to be changed and that it had to happen prompto. (And it did.)
by Lance on Apr 12, 2011 4:11 pm
by Lance on Apr 12, 2011 4:13 pm
by David C on Apr 12, 2011 4:51 pm
by Lance on Apr 12, 2011 5:17 pm
When I said "Either Fetny or Klein made that call, not the feds." you said "If you'd been reading GGW back then, you'd have known that." But that turns out to not be true, so now you've got some unnamed source in DC Government.
Luckily, I too have an unnamed source. He knows your unnamed source, and says that your unnamed source is a total liar. Sorry to break that to you.
by David C on Apr 12, 2011 5:29 pm
You can't be serious. When I saw this on the news, I was ashamed that my (un)democratically-elected city representatives were behaving like children. This silly stunt achieved nothing, save for the perpetuation of stereotypes. Things like this certainly draw "attention," but almost all of it is negative. Remove your blinders and at least TRY to see how this sort of thing is perceived by a great majority of the country (you know - those people who live outside of the beltway and from whom we'll need support in order to get statehood).
by asuka on Apr 12, 2011 11:34 pm
You are so right. I am so tired of neighborhood children getting arrested as a form of civil disobedience. They're always running around saying "we should protest injustice" and "we're willing to go to jail for our convictions." Where are their parents? They behave like they don't have a lick of sense in their heads, like a bunch of Nobel Peace Prize winners. It's so obnoxious.
As for how it's perceived in the rest of the country, all the media I've seen has been either positive or neutral. What have you seen?
by David C on Apr 12, 2011 11:50 pm
But can we stop characterizing it by using phrases like "go to jail for their convictions." This is not jail, these are staged CD arrests and while the protestors (and I've been arrested at CD protests) may spend a few hours in a holding pen, this is hardly "jail."
There are plenty of people who have gone to jail for their civil disobedience. It's crazy to elevate this short-term detainment as imprisonment.
Again, I'll ask as I did earlier... What good is any of this doing now? Too little, too late. Where were these people two years ago and why weren't they getting arrested in Reid and Pelosi's offices demanding statehood?
We get the shaft from both sides.
Of course, anyone who is a member of the Republican party by extension supports Boehner's move. Are there any honest members of the Republican party left? If so, they are doing a great job of hiding. Perhaps we need a Committee on Un-American Activities to investigate GOP District residents and expose them. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
by Michael Rogers on Apr 13, 2011 12:15 am
How do you concentrate with all the echo in that chamber?
by asuka on Apr 13, 2011 12:29 am
After all, it won't be the first time Mayors of DC have arrested. How much time did Marion Barry spend in the can?
An honest and efficient administration would be a good first step towards resolving this situation
by Bud Miller on Apr 13, 2011 6:56 am
?? I think you mean that I overestimate how well-informed the public is?
Regardless, it is not what I meant to say. My point what that regardless of the public's knowledge of DC's position, they just don't have the time to care, let alone do something about it. People in Wilson NC, Volcano HI, Zanesville OH and Chico CA are busy leading their lives.
Even if they know about it, and find it unfair, even then, it is hard to imagine that they will actually act upon their feelings of unfairness. And why would they? They have much bigger problems. Like raising kids, keeping employed, taking care of loved-ones, calling a bank about another stupid fee. You know, stuff.
by Jasper on Apr 13, 2011 7:01 am
Didn't all of the Founding Fathers break the law of Great Britain ?
How many scandals have there been since 1800 over areas that are and were apart of the US.
How many Senators, Governors, Representatives have been removed from office since the country has started ?
We can also include, slavery, segregation, treatment of the natives and the treatment of territories that we have held (pretty sure that American Samoa, Guam and the Mariana Islands have something to say on that issue).
----------
@Anon
It is easy to separate federal district from the rest of the city.
Capitol, Mall, Ellipse, White House, Potomac Park, Bolling AFB, Homeland Security/CoastGuard complex (west side of St E.)
Everything south of Penn Ave NW between 17th Street and 3rd Street then Constitution Ave up to 2nd Street SE and south to C street SE then west to the Potomac. From there you wrap around grabbing Potomac Park, Ft McNair, Bolling AFB and the west part of St E.
Treat that area like Rome does Vatican City
by kk on Apr 13, 2011 9:18 am
You've just given a pretty compelling reason for why Jim Crow persisted in the South from Reconstruction until around 1970. Or the inertia faced by any civil rights movement anywhere, for that matter.
by oboe on Apr 13, 2011 9:19 am
I'm reminded of the scene in Hotel Rawanda when the hotel manager tells everyone to call people back home and tell them goodbye because they're pretty sure they're going to die. He makes the point that you have to shame them into action. Along the same lines whenever I get an email asking me to contact my congress member for blah blah blah... I always tell them I don't have a congress member. But if they would write THEIR congress member and tell them to give me one, I will gladly write that person. Not quite the same in scale, but the same idea.
by David C on Apr 13, 2011 9:48 am
Our Founding Fathers as members of the Continental Congress used the power of the pen and their intellectual ability to write the Declaration of Independence to formally declare rebellion. Prior to that event individual citizens took to the streets to demonstrate their opposition to The Crown.
I support DC votings rights, I believe in No Taxation without Representation. I do not support our elected officials, that when they take office swear to uphold the law, then instead of using the power of their legislative office take to the streets, intentionally break the law and get arrested. Where is their leadership and intellect? I would like to see a return to the power of the pen and not unlawful conduct to get media attention.
by Wounded Eagle on Apr 13, 2011 10:03 am
@ asuka How do you concentrate with all the echo in that chamber?
How do you keep avoiding my questions? If there is a negative reaction to this out there, show it to me. Insulting me is not the same as making an argument.
@Wounded Knee Our Founding Fathers as members of the Continental Congress used the power of the pen and their intellectual ability to write the Declaration of Independence to formally declare rebellion.
Which was illegal
Prior to that event individual citizens took to the streets to demonstrate their opposition to The Crown.
They did. In ways that were illegal, like the Boston tea party, and the battles of Lexington and Concord (which occurred BEFORE the declaration of Independence). Hell, the writing of Common Sense was probably illegal. I could list more, but my point is made.
by David C on Apr 13, 2011 10:37 am
Yes your point of illegal activity Boston Tea Party, etc. is made. However, these were not committed by elected officials. Are these the examples we want to perpetuate by elected officials?
As for the Declaration of Independence, any legislative document wanting to change the current law could be considered illegal, then the law would never change. We do have a civilized legislative process.
by Wounded Eagle on Apr 13, 2011 11:24 am
Even if that is how you see it, the Founding Fathers still failed. We were in active, violent rebellion for 15 months before the Declaration of Independence was signed. The Continental Congress, which included numerous elected officials, were actively supplying the militia that were fighting the British. Richard Henry Lee, John Adams, Benjamin Harrison V, etc... were all elected officials who were involved in armed insurrection against their country without the benefits of a Declaration of Independence. They were running a shadow government, completely out of compliance with the law. There were a lot of "elected officials" involved in fighting the British well before the DoI was signed.
Keep trying to thread the needle though.
And then when you're done, you can explain why this is wrong, but the arrests of MLK and other civil rights leaders from the 60's were not.
by David C on Apr 13, 2011 12:21 pm
Well said. If anything they just struck a fierce blow against greater autonomy for the District. You get handed adult responsibilities by acting like adults and not like children having a temper tantrum. I felt very ashambed for the District when I saw that on the news. And seeing Kwame in handcuffs, given all his recent problems, didn't help matters.
by Lance on Apr 13, 2011 8:00 pm
by B Pate on Apr 13, 2011 9:23 pm
by Lance on Apr 13, 2011 10:05 pm
by Alex B. on Apr 13, 2011 10:13 pm
"If anything she just struck a fierce blow against greater equality for blacks. You get handed adult responsibilities by acting like adults and not like children having a temper tantrum. I felt very ashambed for black women when I saw that on the news."
by David C on Apr 13, 2011 10:17 pm
by David C on Apr 13, 2011 10:18 pm
by Lance on Apr 13, 2011 10:29 pm
How about this, on the march from Selma to Montgomery, marchers led by Josea Williams walked in the road - where they did not have a 'universal human' right to be anymore than Gray et.al. had a right to be in this road - and they were beaten by Alabama State Troopers who warned them that they were involved in an "unlawful assembly." So, were those protesters acting like children or heroes? [MLK wanted to be there, but members of his team begged him not to go because they rightly feared violence] If heroes, how will you create a gap between them and our city council?
by David C on Apr 13, 2011 10:47 pm
by David C on Apr 13, 2011 10:54 pm
Our elected officials could have acted like grown UPS by (1) before the 'agreement' declaring 'all our services and employees are essential and we won't be participating in the games between the president and congress',and after the agreement saying 'thank you Mr. President and Congress, but we will decide how we spend our money' and then doing it ....even if it involved consequences. That is the adult and responsible thing to do. Sitting in the street for a photo op that accomplishes nothing more than getting you more votes is not.
When you were a teenager and your parents said you couldn't do something it buy aomething, did you go out and get yourself a job and so it or buy it yourself or sit in the street and whine about it? Taking responsibility for yourself is the difference between being an adult and being a child and throwing a tantrum. Those folks threw a tantrum the other night ... including Gray who as you know I supported for mayor in the last election.
by Lance on Apr 13, 2011 11:28 pm
by Lance on Apr 13, 2011 11:36 pm
That is not what happened.
Our elected officials could have ... (1) before the 'agreement' declaring 'all our services and employees are essential and we won't be participating in the games between the president and congress',and after the agreement saying 'thank you Mr. President and Congress, but we will decide how we spend our money' and then doing it ....even if it involved consequences.
Holy Moly, Lance and I are in agreement....I'm speechless...
by David C on Apr 13, 2011 11:37 pm
Lance, don't ruin this. You can't just make up history. Well, you can, but those of who us who like facts can't. Why "suspect" anything? Why not, y'know, look it up. Are you now calling MLK a liar?
by David C on Apr 13, 2011 11:39 pm
Sure, why not. Hell, he just argued that secular public school curriculum is somehow a violation of the separation of church and state.
by Alex B. on Apr 13, 2011 11:50 pm
Basically my point is that you don't make a good case for upholding just, universal human laws and rights by breaking other just, human rights. Civil disobedience has to be about claiming rights that are due you and not about trampling others just, human rights. If the folks who laid down in the street the other night had been less concerned about photo ops and truly been concerned about our rights, they would have known that.
by Lance on Apr 13, 2011 11:58 pm
Some things are a matter of interpretation and some things are facts. There is no one who doubts the reasons why King wasn't there. And you have a lot of nerve to say that he and those around him lied about it.
It also means that you think that the people who were brutalized on Bloody Sunday were a behaving like a bunch of children.
you don't make a good case for upholding just, universal human laws and rights by breaking other just, human rights.
What human right did they "break"? Is driving on Constitution Avenue a "human right"?
by David C on Apr 14, 2011 12:46 am
Okay, you don't get it ... that trampling a just law means infringing on someone else's rights ... Laws don't exist to just exist. And when they are just, they exist to protect someone's right. Now I'm understanding why these folks went out there and sat in the road and whined. They knew that people like you would think it accomplished something ... even if it really didn't.
by Lance on Apr 14, 2011 3:07 am
In return for your concession, I'll agree with your earlier point that among the best strategies would have been to simply declare all DC employees essential and to spend the money as seen fit--regardless of the limitations placed on spending. Hopefully they'll still do the later.
by B Pate on Apr 14, 2011 8:41 am
Our resident anti-historian continues his public service of illuminating issues by making the shadows just a bit darker.
by oboe on Apr 14, 2011 8:51 am
"It rarely takes me more than 60 seconds to post a reply. In the time it takes you to sit around thinking about your next task, at work, chances are I've already finished mine and moved on to the next one."
Lance, Dec. 7, 2010.
Translation - Lance doesn't put a lot of thought into his posts. Not a news flash, but worth remembering.
by dcd on Apr 14, 2011 9:03 am
Oh no, I get it. You don't know what a human right is. A human right is not created by law. It transcends law. It exists in the absence of law, and even when the law specifically denies it. It is, one might even say, inalienable. The right-of-way to a road is not a human right. It exists solely because of the law and can be taken away by it.
They knew that people like you would think it accomplished something ... even if it really didn't.
The story was carried nationwide. Gray was on CNN and Fox (that I know of) talking about this. That's exposure to the issue. And the act, in and of itself, was signaling. Ask an economist about the power of signaling...or, just make something up that's crazy and not true (might as well dance with who brung you right?).
by David C on Apr 14, 2011 9:22 am
by Lance on Apr 14, 2011 1:13 pm
What other cities have had their budgets and their home rule systematically dismantled by a legislative body that they have no representation in?
by Alex B. on Apr 14, 2011 1:27 pm
by Lance on Apr 14, 2011 1:34 pm
Even a right-wing whacko like Bill O'Reilly didn't spin this one as "elected officials getting hauled to the slammer like criminals" so I don't think you have much of a point. If you can find some news outlet that DID spin it that way, feel free to post it - otherwise you're just posturing and throwing theoreticals out there and treating those as facts; but that's your MO so I don't know why we should expect anything else.
by MLD on Apr 14, 2011 1:39 pm
www.theintelligencer.net/page/content.detail/id/554023/Washington--D-C---Waste-Is-Gigantic.html?nav=511
by Lance on Apr 14, 2011 1:55 pm
http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2934790
by Lance on Apr 14, 2011 2:05 pm
www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/09/facebook-users-cancel-protest-dump-trash-boehners-residence/
by Lance on Apr 14, 2011 2:12 pm
http://online.worldmag.com/2011/04/14/do-gray-and-brown-want-fewer-blacks-in-d-c/
by Lance on Apr 14, 2011 2:15 pm
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/75698/d-c-mayor-arrested-protesting-new-federal-budget/
by Lance on Apr 14, 2011 2:18 pm
Can I remember what I would have thought if something that didn't happen happened? No. Unlike you, I can only remember things that actually happened. I can speculate. I would've thought "good for them, DC deserves to be treated better." People in my hometown might have thought differently, because they were a bunch of racist hicks, but they wouldn't have thought less of DC.
So your examples are a foreign paper, a few obviously ill-informed right wing papers (the WV one is just plain wrong about the purpose of the protest - which is why MORE education is needed, not less) and some unrelated stuff.
by David C on Apr 14, 2011 2:57 pm
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/04/washingtons_predicament
...and before you snarkily observe that the author is a DC resident, please make note of the overwhelmingly supportive comments.
by B Pate on Apr 14, 2011 4:38 pm
Wow, inner-city urban areas spend more per pupil on schools than other districts? Who knew?!
by MLD on Apr 14, 2011 4:45 pm
by Lance on Apr 14, 2011 4:50 pm
by Lance on Apr 14, 2011 4:57 pm
You know, angry fire-breathing Christians who read http://worldmag.org...normal American mainstream folks.
by oboe on Apr 14, 2011 5:31 pm
by Lance on Apr 14, 2011 11:17 pm
"Thousands of Syrian women and children holding white flags and olive branches blocked a main coastal highway Wednesday, demanding authorities release people detained during a crackdown on opponents of the regime, witnesses said."
I wonder what the West Virginia Intelligencer thinks about that?
by David C on Apr 14, 2011 11:28 pm
Nothing but tolerance here; this country was founded on the right of people to believe whatever they like. But let's not pretend we're talking about some persuadable "average person out in middle America" when linking to a screed by religious fanatics.
by oboe on Apr 15, 2011 10:17 am
;)
by Lance on Apr 15, 2011 1:15 pm
Add a Comment