TPM Cafe: Opinion

Andrea Elliott’s masterpiece project in the New York Times documenting the tribulations of a loveable Brooklyn girl named Dasani through the unforgiving maze of social services in New York City became an instant classic. With each word in the five-part series, Elliott unmasks the countless rips in the fabric of our social safety net.

As I read through the gripping ordeal that shines a light on the corners of our society so often left in the dark, I imagined the article forming a giant exclamation mark on what’s undoubtedly been the year of exposing inequality.

Read More →

You're using a product – a phone, a credit card – and something goes wrong. The fees weren't what you thought they'd be. The phone doesn't work as advertised. You try to get relief by calling the company, waiting on hold with customer service. You write letters, to corporate headquarters and the Fair Trade Commission. You're mad, and you feel like you've been ripped off, and you decide to bite the bullet and sue. Except you can't.

You can't sue, because tucked in the fine print of the contract you signed when you bought the phone, or signed up for the credit card, was a mandatory arbitration clause. That piece of the agreement says that if a dispute arises, the only way you can pursue justice is by meeting with an arbitrator. An arbitrator picked by the company, in a place the company chooses. You can't have a day in court. No jury of your peers.

Read More →

“Blood in, blood out,” is the old, stereotypical street gang saying. Joining a gang is supposed to require an intense initiation, perhaps involving the commission of a crime to prove one’s loyalty. Leaving a gang is thought to be rare and risky – potentially even fatal. But these conceptions of gang membership are very outdated, if they were ever true to begin with.

As a criminologist, I learned these facts by interviewing former participants in various Blood, Crip, Folk, People, and Sureno gangs in San Antonio, Texas. Participants explained that gang initiations are not always required, and people often depart from gangs with no dire consequences.

Read More →

Beyond shopping and parties, the holiday season is a time for reflection, so let’s consider the contemporary meaning of the values we say we espouse. Rabbis urge Jewish Americans to ponder tikkun olam, the duty to heal the world; and Christians crowd churches to celebrate the birth of a blessed baby in a manger. As poor travelers far from home, Mary and Joseph found no room at the inn. When her time inexorably came, the baby Jesus was born in a manger.

For Americans the Christmas story has a romantic, far-away ring. But are all of us, especially the most privileged among us, giving any serious thought to today’s equivalents of the holy family? From the misplaced focus and heartless tone of our current debates about America’s new health reforms, it seems not.

Read More →

This is a time of year that is often difficult for liberal Christians in this country. We have to listen to the inane chatter about a “war on Christmas” that makes department stores spiritual battlegrounds. We are treated with the annual secular media effort to characterize contemporary Christianity, in which mainline Protestantism barely exists as a dying phenomenon, liberal Catholics are “cafeteria Catholics” who aren’t serious about their faith and angry conservatives define the Gospel as being about the restoration of 1950s sexual mores. And we are overwhelmed, like all Americans, with the conflation of the Feast of the Nativity with an economically crucial celebration of greed and guilt.

This year there are indeed tidings of great joy — or at least intimations of change — that call into question the usual identification of American Christianity with monolithic and triumphant Christian right.

Read More →

Thanks to a pair of court decisions, New Mexico and Utah became the 17th and 18th states to legalize same-sex marriage. Utah’s case in particular is interesting, because in it a federal judge, citing recent Supreme Court rulings, found that same sex couples have a right to marry under the 14th Amendment’s promise of equal protection.

In the midst of celebration by same-sex marriage supporters, it is important to note that many lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people live in one of the 32 states where they cannot enjoy the full rights and benefits associated with marriage. Two out of every three Americans still live in a state without marriage equality.

Read More →

When op-ed writers take on the problem of dysfunction in Washington by asking the hackneyed “why is Washington broken?” question, they run the risk of offering a “solution” that merely creates new problems. David Brooks’ recent op-ed, “Strengthen the Presidency, is a case in point. Brooks overlooks the root causes of political dysfunction in the U.S. and prescribes a dangerous remedy.

Brooks argues that the solution to legislative gridlock is simple: “[m]ake the executive branch more powerful.” Brooks’ argument depends on generalizations and overlooks the historical record, as well as the foundational principles of American constitutional democracy. The drafters of the Constitution created a document with many flaws, but their work also reflected important pieces of wisdom. Among their most central insights, they rightly understood that concentrating power in any one branch of government was, in James Madison’s words, “the very definition of tyranny.”

Read More →

Hey, Sam Youngman.

It’s me, someone living in D.C. who eats, sleeps, and breathes American politics for a living. I’m taking a break from having my own opinions validated on twitter (or whatever it is you think I do all day) to respond to your recent Politico piece about working in Washington.

Let me tell you a little bit about myself.

Unlike a lot of folks you describe in “Take This Town and Shove It,” I actually have roots here in the DMV.

Read More →

Clarification: This piece has been updated to more accurately reflect the status of the budgeting process. Updated: 1:20 p.m.

The House of Representatives and the Senate have now both signed off on a bipartisan budget deal that the president is likely to sign and clears the way for normal appropriations to begin again. While animated and outraged politicos of every stripe will be busy declaring the end to budget brinksmanship for now with an eye toward pending re-election campaigns, another piece of legislation has flown under the radar. There has been very little attention paid to this: the Senate Finance Committee has already passed legislation likely to be approved by the full Senate that contains funding for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs (ab-only) that have been proven not to work.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), in his ongoing effort to carry water for religious conservatives, spearheaded the reallocation of $250 million dollars to ineffective ab-only programs through 2019 as part of the so-called Medicare doc fix, which would allow doctors to avoid a pay cut under current law. Hatch did the same thing with a $250 million dollar amendment for ab-only which he tacked onto the Affordable Care Act. In fact, ab-only groups have pulled in over a billion dollars in federal funding since 1996, the largest share coming under George W. Bush.

Read More →

Last week, the Michigan legislature passed the “Abortion Insurance Opt-Out Act” which bans private insurance companies from covering abortion services in the state and will force women to purchase additional insurance if they want abortion care to be covered by their health insurance. The bill contains no exception for cases of rape or incest, and you cannot purchase the rider once you are pregnant. It must be purchased prior to a possible pregnancy.

So what does this mean for Michigan? Basically, a woman has to purchase additional insurance on top of her existing insurance in order to have coverage for an abortion before she ever gets pregnant. If a woman is raped and becomes pregnant but has not purchased the separate rider for abortion coverage, she cannot have her health insurance pay for it. Michigan women are now forced to pay more simply because they may possibly become pregnant at some point, no matter the circumstances. Now enshrined in Michigan law is an understanding that women are always pre-pregnant, and it is up to you to pay more simply because you have a uterus.

Read More →
Want to contribute to TPM Cafe? Email ideas for your pieces to us at talk@talkingpointsmemo.com
Want to contribute to TPM Cafe? Email ideas for your pieces to us at talk@talkingpointsmemo.com

TPMLivewire