The Atlantic Wire quotes me writing in anger

This Will Have to Be Settled in Court, claims Joel at Cup O' Joel.

via theatlanticwire.com

No credit cards at Christmas

Christmas will no longer be on credit for many shoppers, despite tempting offers from retailers and credit card companies trying to coax the plastic out of consumers’ wallets.

The lowest percentage of shoppers in the 27-year-history of a national survey said they used credit cards over the Thanksgiving weekend, while the use of general credit cards like Visa and MasterCard fell 11 percent in the third quarter from a year earlier, according to the credit bureau TransUnion.

via nytimes.com

This strikes me as a good trend. Too many people spend months paying off their Christmas spending spree -- and too many people never get it entirely paid off. Living within your means isn't sexy or even fun, but it's relatively sustainable.

Did Obama just surrender on the environment?

The Obama administration is retreating on long-delayed environmental regulations — new rules governing smog and toxic emissions from industrial boilers — as it adjusts to a changed political dynamic in Washington with a more muscular Republican opposition.

The move to delay the rules, announced this week by the Environmental Protection Agency, will leave in place policies set by President George W. Bush. President Obama ran for office promising tougher standards, and the new rules were set to take effect over the next several weeks.

Now, the agency says, it needs until July 2011 to further analyze scientific and health studies of the smog rules and until April 2012 on the boiler regulation. Mr. Obama, having just cut a painful deal with Republicans intended to stimulate the economy, can ill afford to be seen as simultaneously throttling the fragile recovery by imposing a sheaf of expensive new environmental regulations that critics say will cost jobs.

via nytimes.com

I don't get the logic here. The EPA rulemaking process was intended, partially at least, to circumvent a do-nothing Congress. Now that a Congress has been elected that has even *less* inclination to address environmental issues, the president has decided he shouldn't use the executive branch's rulemaking power after all? Because critics might say boo? The critics who were going to say boo in any case?

I'm not saying that it's not legitimate to balance regulation against the economy. But the only real change to the calculations of that balance seems to be that the president now believes action would hurt his re-election. And that seems simply craven. What am I missing here?

Joe Manchin's weird, kind of offensive apology on DADAT

"While I believe the 'Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell' policy will be repealed someday, and probably should be repealed in the near future, I do not support its repeal at this time," Manchin said in the statement. "I truly understand that my position will anger those who believe repeal should happen now and for that I sincerely apologize. While I am very sympathetic to those who passionately support the repeal, as a Senator of just three weeks, I have not had the opportunity to visit and hear the full range of viewpoints from the citizens of West Virginia."

via thehill.com

It's a weird apology: I'm sorry for voting according my belief that repeal shouldn't happen right now. It's clear Manchin is somehow trying to have his cake and eat it too, but why?

As for his "as a Senator of just three weeks" comment, I call bullshit. He's just been through a campaign in which he took plenty of strong stands. There is no "probationary Senator" time: You've got to go to the Capitol with your big-boy pants on. And are we really to believe that a man who won election to federal political office had never really given thought to the prospect of DADT repeal? Unlikely. You made the vote, Joe Manchin, you should own it. Your avoidance just compounds the offensiveness of your original vote.

Philadelphia Police Heroism Watch

There are also good and brave and honest cops in the city, and it should be acknowledged that they do have a dangerous job:

A Philadelphia Police Officer was shot overnight during a chase in North Philadelphia, according to police.

Officer Kevin Gorman was treated for a gunshot to the shoulder at Temple University Hospital and released about 5 a.m. today, according to Police Officer Christine O'Brien.

Gorman was wounded on the 3300 block of N. Howard Street in North Philadelphia.  He is a 3 and 1/2 year veteran of the Philadelphia Police Department.

Philly Police Corruption Watch

An officer is suspended after repeated accusations that he steals from North Philadelphians:

It wasn't the first time that (Officer Joseph) Sulpizio, a narcotics officer with Strike Force North, had been accused of theft. He'd been taken off the street twice since 2008 for allegedly stealing money from people he detained but never arrested.

At least two high-ranking narcotics supervisors have repeatedly contacted the Internal Affairs Bureau - in memos and phone calls - to voice concern that Sulpizio might be a thief.

Next month, Sulpizio is scheduled to go before the Police Board of Inquiry to explain why he took Castro to Front and Tusculum and failed to radio in his whereabouts.

Yesterday, Commissioner Charles Ramsey removed Sulpizio from street duty for a third time after the Daily News asked Sulpizio's superiors for comment.

"I benched him," said Ramsey, who added that the department had taken Sulpizio's gun from him.

Thank God for Barbara Laker and Wendy Ruderman.

DADT repeal fails; time for some judicial activism

The theory by propounded by haters of "judicial activism" is that America's political arguments are best settled in a political -- not legal -- arena. Judges should defer to Congress, the thinking goes, because Congress is elected by the citizenry, and thanks to elections every couple of years, is accountable to that citizenry.

But: It's clear that overwhelming majority of Americans favor a repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell." And a nearly overwhelming majority of the Senate does so, as well: 57 Senators voted today for cloture on a bill that would repeal DADT. These aren't close numbers in either case. Yet there will be no repeal of DADT. Procedures.

Meanwhile, a case against the law sits in front of the U.S. Court of Appeals -- slowed down, apparently, to allow the political process to take the lead. I hope the case now goes forward with all due speed. And I hope the courts affirm the decision that DADT is unconstitutional.

This will surely bring more cries of "judicial activism" from the right, if it happens. But who cares? If the political arena can't be responsive not only to the wishes of a large majority of the citizens, but a large majority of its own members, what good is it? There's a plausible argument to be made that DADT is unconstitutional; the courts should feel free to act on that argument. They'll be hewing closer to the wishes of the citizenry than the political branches.