Man Stops Traffic at 17th and K to Demand $200 Million
Morning Roundup: Goodbye, Abe Edition
Judge Throws Out WTU Suit Over Teacher Layoffs
Vegetate to Close at the End of the Month
Morning Roundup: Rain Won't Go Away Edition
With a hat tip to the City Paper's Mike DeBonis, today we find that one of our esteemed D.C. Council members isn't just complaining about a congressional amendment that would gut the District's gun laws -- he's trying to get even with one of its sponsors.
In a letter sent yesterday to D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Council member Kwame Brown (D-At Large) asked that the Democratic leadership consider making it a crime for U.S. citizens to cross state lines in order to solicit sex, whether or not it's legal in that state or not.
What does this have to do with anything? Nevada is one of two states in which prostitution is legal, and one of its congressional delegates is none other than Republican Sen. John Ensign, who inserted the gun law-gutting language into legislation that would grant the District a voting seat in the House of Representatives. Similar language has stalled the bill in the House.
In the letter, Brown argues that local laws should be left to local officials, not members of Congress. "As a local elected official, in addition to having full federal representation, I believe that citizens have the right to determine the best means by which to secure the safety of themselves and their families. If we must compromise our local governing authority in order to satisfy the moral arguments of a few representatives, I believe it is reasonable to ask them to consider our moral values in return," wrote Brown. "If elected officials from states, namely Nevada, can introduce legislation that alters the local laws of the District, I believe the District should offer an amendment that imposes our moral values on such states where prostitution is legal."
Even though this is sure to go nowhere -- voting rights supporter Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is a Nevada man himself, and he's not a guy to piss off right now -- we give Brown points for creativity. All too often we complain of the indignity of having Congress step in to tell us how to run our affairs, and a little creative dissent can be a good thing. Brown also scores on the name of his proposal -- the "Roses amendment." Why roses? "I believe we should fight guns with roses and continue moving the DC Voting Rights Act forward," explains Brown.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Give it a rest Martin, please!
This whole DC gun rights vs voting rights is a development worthy of a Brookings or Cato Institute Study. We wouldn't even be having this debate if this was 1980. But the massive democratic shift of longtime DC residents to PG County, and the subsequent influx of relatively affluent transplants, has completely shifted political priorities, even if the Council is slow to catch up. Ask the guy taking a dump in your treebox what he'd rather have: a vote in Congress or a gun. (I know. Trick question. He'd probably ask for toilet paper first. Or a squirrel.) Because a voter registration card isn't going to help you when RayRay is breaking into your basement with a screwdriver and a knife. And with hundreds of thousands of parolees on their way back home over the next decade with no job training on the horizon, and the economy in the crapper, RayRay is definitely on his way.
What it comes down to are two fundamentally different ways of regarding representative democracy. Voting rights advocates look upon government as a benevolent grandma, handing out hugs and Hersheys Kisses and enfranchisement, regardless of whether you actually deserve anthing. Gun rights advocates see government as a psycho needy ex-girlfriend who called you "Brad" when you were banging eachother and then wept bitterly afterwards. In both cases, government is a manipulative jerk that needs to be taught a lesson in manners. No wonder grandpa shot himself and hooked up with Angelina.
DC hasn't had anything resembling voting representation in over a hundred years. You know what? We've still done alright considering. People go to work, go to school, and lurch through another day. If this attempt at voting rights goes the way of every other attempt at voting rights, life will go on as it always has. But if you think getting two senators and reps will mean an end to congressional meddling, you're fooling yourself. Once your gerrymandered voting district has accepted budget earmarks for the usual bloated pork projects, the mark of Cain is upon you. Those jobs and that infrastructure comes at a price. Hopefully, one day, DC will be in the same boat as every other state in having to bail out the AIGs and Madoffs of the world, in that you get to pretend that your Senator is actually listening to what you have to say.
So until Matthias and his Family come after me with their flaming turd catapults, I'll just hunker down in my bunker surrounded by machineguns and frozen White Castles and piles of cocaine and stroke mags. One creature, caught. Caught in a place he cannot stir from in the dark, alone, outnumbered hundreds to one, nothing to live for but his memories, nothing to live with but his gadgets, his cars, his guns, gimmicks... and yet the whole family can't bring him down from that, that... honky paradise.
The Omega Man! YES!
Additionally, Guns and Roses? This sounds like an intern's idea.
Somebody get Monkey a syndicated column. Please.
For anyone who's ever been called 'Brad' in a moment of passion with a member of the DC Council, this man gives us a voice. Praise almighty!
What is "Tat" and how do I trade it for the other thing?
I know machineguns go "rat-a-tat-tat." I've seen this in old cartoons. But what goes "tit-a-tit-tit" and how can I get one as soon as possible?
I believe "tat" is short for "taint," and I really don't think you want to be offering that up.
But not all tit-fer and tat-fers are of the same size and substance. One could be foolishly giving away a tat of equal or greater value if one were not careful.
lol. I actually think that is funny. It's a losing battle, but good for Brown.
Shouldn't it be tit for tat-tat-tat-tat?
"If we must compromise our local governing authority in order to satisfy the moral arguments of a few representatives..."
A few??? If it were really "a few" then it wouldn't be much of an issue, would it.
The thing that Martin doesn't realize, and why his words fall on so many deaf ears here is that many of us have been listening to the righteous indignation "It's just not right!" whine for decades...and it hasn't gotten us anywhere.
It's an easy stance to take (as demonstrated by the Council) but it does nothing to move the cause forward.
HCE,
Just because it has been said a thousand times before doesn't make it any less worthy of saying, in my opinion. And though every voting rights activist in this city has periodically tired of this never-ending battle, they haven't given up. Nor should they -- this is a worthy, principled cause. Nothing of this sort ever comes easy, as history has repeatedly shown.
And once again you misframe the argument. NO ONE suggested "giving up." All I am saying is that they should stop the "its not fair" whining, acknowledge reality, and set a strategy for success.
You are right that "its not fair," but by making that your only contribution to the discussion you are doing NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING to advance the cause.
Like I said, it is an easy position to take. It is more difficult to work out real solutions.
And once again a DC politician completely misunderstands the Constitutional realities of the District's status as a fiefdom of Congress.
The DC City Council is a laughing stock. Now one of their own is suggesting unconstitutional Federal legislation.
How about fixing some potholes Kwame? Stay in the minors where you belong.
Walter Washington, Barry, Sharon Pratt Incompetence, Barry Redux, The Whiz Kid...Kwame, Bow-Tie Man, the Gay Republican, the Manly Female Republican...where does it all end?
Hillvada,
I don't ever think to call all of our elected leaders marvels of public service, but D.C. by no means has a monopoly on bad ideas or bad public servants.
And saying "Stay in the minors" is a pretty immature thing to throw out there, wouldn't you say?
You might be able to make an argument for its constitutionality under the interstate commerce clause. Besides, he's proposing something that most people would think is patently ridiculous to make a point about the absurdity of Congress interfering with our right to legislate local issues for ourselves.
Also, it's hilarious.
We should raise an ambiguously armed militia, march to Nevada and lock up their whores.
I think we should take the idea one step further -
Why not choose a different Congressional district every year that will be governed by Congress for that year?
That way citizens from all across the US could experience just how vested Congressmen from other districts are in local matters. We could even strip away voting powers for their delegation for that time just to make it official.
I think it'd be better if Congress agrees that the gun rights legislation applies to itself - so we can all pack heat into every part of DC. If that was part of the legislation, you know we'd see pretty fast who the hypocrites are.
I'm not sure what's more pathetic, this proposal, or DCist's taking it seriously and giving it publicity. It's a good thing the voting rights issue is only one dead horse, otherwise Budweiser would be turning to squirrels for its Super Bowl commercials.
From Brown's letter:
And that is what the SCOTUS said too.Martin, not to do your job for you, but oooof! If this continues, we're not going to get a vote.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gun-question-delays-dc-vote-again-2009-03-26.html
This amendment couldn't be a publicity stunt connected to the free Guns N' Roses concert for voting rights on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial next weekend, could it?
This amendment couldn't be a publicity stunt connected to the free Guns N' Roses concert for voting rights on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial next weekend, could it?
I really wish folks would get a dose of political reality here. If we screw the vote here, the gun amendment will just be inserted into the budget. Then, we will have lost some sovereignty and gotten nothing for it. Amazingly, Congressmen won't respond to DC's shrill cries of "its not fair."
Why isn't anyone who claims to be concerned about the vote getting up Mendo's butt to pass gun regs that would take some of the steam out of the gun support in Congress?!!? Ilyereyre should be asking for his, EHN should be asking for this, and Martin should be asking for this.