Controversy Over Rhee Now to Include Sex, Congress
Report: CCDC Split From UDC Is "Critical To Success"
D.C. United Icon Ben Olsen To Retire
Increased Urban Walkability For The Win
The Manhattan Project
Good morning, Washington. Among this morning's leading stories on the local broadcast outlets was coverage of last night's Mark Twain Prize ceremonies at the Kennedy Center, a fine enough subject for any television news program. And considering it was Bill Cosby, a legendary comedian with ties to D.C., who was being honored, it makes all the more sense for local stations to have sent their cameras down to the show. But tell me if you see the same thing wrong with one of these headlines that I did this morning. WTTG/FOX5 went with the straightforward, "Bill Cosby Honored with Twain Award," a fine choice. WJLA/ABC7 also went with simple: "Cosby Receives Award at the Kennedy Center." But then there's this WUSA9 offering: "Comedian Sinbad Speaks In DC For Bill Cosby Award." Yes, on a night when the Cos is being honored and the likes of Jerry Seinfeld and Chris Rock are there, channel 9 goes with ... Sinbad. A bold editorial decision if we've ever seen one.
Nickles Flip-Flops on Parks Contracts: D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles had a few days to think about his original assertion that the recreation contracts funneled through the D.C. Housing Authority in order to avoid D.C. Council oversight were indeed illegal, and has changed his mind – shocker! – in a way that protects Mayor Adrian Fenty. The Post's Nikita Stewart writes that, in another total non-surprise, the "apparent reversal enraged council members already angered by what they see as the Fenty administration's continued disregard for the council's role in legislating and overseeing city agencies. Council members also criticized Nickles's judgment as the city's top legal official."
Triple Shooting in Southeast: Three men were shot, one fatally, at about 10:10 p.m. last night near the intersection 23rd Street and Savannah Terrace SE, the Post reports. The other two men are expected to survive.
Briefly Noted: Loudoun man shoots two, then himself ... Montgomery school board votes to raise age for compulsory attendance ... D.C. crime lab closer to reality ... Police searching for missing Bethesda teen.
This Day in DCist: In 2008, Sen. Ted Stevens was found guilty, and in 2006, we were getting ready for the District's smoking ban.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Sommer-don't you mean SE, not NE for the shooting?
Yep, typo, thanks!
ok, here's a question—i just got done reading the wapo article on byt. can someone explain to me what the name "bentzen ball" means? did i miss that? is it namesd after someone famous?
"named after Danish audiologist Ole Bentzen, who died from laughter-induced cardiac arrest in 1989 while watching A Fish Called Wanda"
Nickles is trying to make any Council alterations to the contracting laws only applicable to future contracts. You can either read this as trying to avoid the morass of having to re-bid/re-negotiate the tens of millions in existing contracts, or that he's trying to coverrup the filthy lucre and feces-smeared paper trail that leads straight from the oil-soaked fraternity fleshpots of Bahrain to a certain hair-impaired stonewalling lycronaut.
Now, it has never been my intention to imply that politicians are weak-kneed political timeservers who are more concerned with their personal vendettas and private power struggles than the problems of government. Nor to suggest at any point that they sacrifice their credibility by denying free debate on vital matters in the mistaken impression that party unity comes before the well-being of the people they supposedly represent. Nor to imply at any stage that they are squabbling, little toadies without an ounce of concern for the vital social problems of today. Nor indeed do I intend that readers should consider them as crabby ulcerous little self-seeking vermin with furry legs and an excessive addiction to alcohol and certain explicit sexual practices which some people might find offensive.
I'm sorry if this impression has come across.
Dare I say it, but I suspect that it is an "and" proposition rather than an "or" proposition. Unwinding or rebidding existing contracts would create an insurmountable logjam with the city's contracting officers. With too few people, and too many rebids, I would suspect that any re-do would be grossly inefficient.
Grossly inefficient LIKE A FOX!
This is your chance to cha-ching! cash in on DC's ineptitude and lack of oversight by setting up a dummy contracting corporation with all revenues being syphoned by your Cayman Islands offshore holding company. Just make sure you hire at least one minority DC resident to qualify, mention you were in Fenty's fraternity, do a fist bump, and THE WORLD IS YOURS. Just make sure you have a catchy, clever name like "Peacaholics" or "YoYoDyne Propulsion Systems" or "Weyland-Yutani" or "Live Organ Transplants" so you can get a bunch of staff teeshirts printed up with logos just on the odd chance an auditor actually shows up at your self-storage locker "office."
What Nickles said in his second opinion was "Retroactivity is not favored in the law."
This statement merely clarifies what we already knew: when you break the law, any illegal stuff you did before you got caught is A-OK.
I will be robbing banks this week, and will carry a copy of Nickles' memo should I be arrested.
Fenty breaks the law, he and his buddies get to keep all the ill-gotten gains they received up to the point where he was actually busted, and because they obviously didn't understand the law, they can't be held responsible for
I think it's a finer point than that. If you create a "new" law, you can't make it retroactive - that's what Nickles is saying. This is separate from the other aspect of Monkey's tirade, whether someone should be punished for violating the "old" law. You can certainly have it both ways.
To borrow your example, under existing law it's illegal to rob banks, so Nickles' memo wouldn't help you out if you decided to rob one today. However, if you rob a bank today while wearing a diaper and tomorrow the Council passes a law making it illegal to wear and to have worn diapers in public, then you are scott free. At least on the diapers.
Is there any mention of a "new" law here? Nickles originally said that the contracts were awarded illegally, and that the law says (and always has said) that the council will review anything over $1 million. This is not a new law.
What he is actually saying is that because what's done is done, and "retroactivity is not favored in the law," that the contracts should stand, despite being illegally awarded.
So, to make the bank robbing analogy, if I rob a bank, and am caught, I get to keep the money I stole because I said I wasn't aware that robbing banks was illegal.
What do you think a legal opinion is? When given by an AG, even one as smarmy as Nickles, it's binding on executive officials.
So basically you're giving carte blanche to any and all incontinent bank robbers. Now there's some pro-active legislation that Peter Nickles can "get behind."
Speaking of incontinent criminals, I think it's high time we resurrected the DCist classic back-alley-diaper-dude-sex-for-crack-exchange. Just in time for Halloween.
As dirty as it makes me feel, I gotta say I am with Fenty/Nickles on this one.
So they got to you, too? How much did they offer you to hold your tongue? And how much will it cost to turn in your Messiah? Because I've got 12 pieces of silver burning a hole IN MY PANTS.
Nickles showed up at New's front door - New was busy making coffee and cleaning weapons in the nude - and presented him with a shiny new SIG/SAUER with the D.C. flag emblazoned on its ivory grip.
How can anyone take Thomas or Brown seriously?
Exactly. After living in NYC I saw firsthand the impact a strong Mayor can have wresting control from a catatonic school board/city council that legislates to the least common denominator. Now Fenty is no Mayor Mike, but philosophically I agree with the strategy. Fenty just needs to start taking on the council in his own words instead of having Nickles always play the bad cop. It makes him look disinterested.
Caveat: Bloomberg is also a good example of not knowing when enough is enough. He has gone from a "get things done" mayor to Robert Moses-like figure with a God complex. (and he is batshit crazy on guns).
So basically, y'all think that we should just say "to hell with the law" and let our leaders do whatever the hell they want, because, obviously they know what's best?
I'm trying to think of an historical example where that ended in a way other than revolution.
I am not saying Fenty/Nickles are actually good at it, but my opinion of the Council is so low that I don't think it is a bad thing to challenge their authority.
One of my issues with the council is that I don't think it is truly representative of DC. Look at how many 13-0 votes there are. They are like the f'ing politburo.
Although I know it would never happen, I would like to see the size of the Council increased to 30 or 40. The same legislation would probably pass, but there would likely be more debate.
If the council is not representative of DC then how on earth could a single monarch be?
I'm not defending the council's daily idiocy, but this is not about the council. It's about the mayor breaking the law. Fenty clearly broke it, and clearly tried to be as sneaky as possible trying to circumvent it the normal procurement process to funnel nearly $100 million in contracts directly to his longtime friends and frat brothers.
How anyone could not have a problem with that is beyond me.
Okay you are right on the frat brother thing. I am thinking more of other instances, like the whole Rhee stuff.
HCE:
Unanimity does not mean they are following orders, which is what the Politburo did. You are talking about a group that is from different parties, has competing interests, and who generally don't play well with others on their best days.
Unanimity also does not mean they are not representative. (Assuming for the moment that an elected representative should automatically vote based on what they think their constituents would want, instead of making an independent judgment.) If the majority (50% +1) citywide agree on something, then the only "representative" vote would be unanimous. Are you advocating for a Parliamentary system?
Let's say 80% are for something, and 20% against. In DC, the vote would be 13-0. All I am saying is that even tho the 20% would lose on a straight up vote, there is not even any public discourse on their interests. That's why I like the idea of a larger city council-to give a voice to that 20%. In that situation, who knows? Maybe and active minority councilperson could sway a few votes.
And this has nothing to do with party lines. I am just looking at it as it applies to specific issues.
i don't think it's because the councilmembers all think the same way on things, i think it's just that they vote on so few things where anyone has a difference of opinion. i mean, evans v. mendelson v. barry v. wells—these are all councilmembers with pretty different points of view on a lot of things (fiscal policy, crime, schools, baby eating), but for some reason, they all end up agreeing on the meager amount of legislation that gets made in the end.