And don’t forget Colbert’s legendary speech a couple years ago:

Yesterday I was  reading a friend’s copy of the Nation, and I started feeling guilty about not subscribing to some of my favorite magazines and  thereby contributing to their decline and demise. I browsed their websites determined to spend at least some of my stimulus money propping up quality journalism.

I discovered that, yes, I can afford to subscribe to a couple of rags, so they’ll be piling up next to my bed unread soon. But the real point is that I discovered the recently launched New Yorker Book Club.  In their own words:

A spinoff of The Book Bench, the magazine’s blog on all matters literary, The Book Club will be an ongoing collaboration between our editors and writers and our audience.

Each month, we will tackle a different book, of the past or the present. The selections will be eclectic, but will share one main criterion: they resist easy answers….

This isn’t the first online book club, but it might actually motivate me to close the damn Google Reader and to consume book cover-to-cover. Why?

First of all the bait is great: April’s selection is Down and Out in Paris in London by George Orwell.

Second, the language describing the club is just so damn endearing.  I didn’t know such experiences existed, but I desperately want “Adventures in Communal Reading.”

Finally, this book club gives me something Oprah never could:  Essays by smarty-pants New Yorker staff writers like George Packer  to accompany my reading adventure…

I ran to my local bookstore and dropped thirty bucks on Down and Out… and next months selection Jeff in Venice, Death in Varanasi by Geoff Dyer.

I’ve already plowed through half of Down and Out… so I’m optimistic. I’ll let you al know how it goes.

While the DC Voting Rights Act is stalled in the House due to the unfortunate gun amendment.  I came across (via Rober Schlesinger) this editorial in The Utah Standard-Examiner by Ken Starr and Viet Dinh. Seems that even with the Prop 8 oral arguments only recently passed, Starr and his Patriot Act loving buddy, took a break from their busy schedules to argue on behalf of the constitutionality of the DC Voting Rights Act.

Puzzling indeed.

The argument goes, in Starr’s trademark tone, that “The District Clause” of the Constitution trumps any and all other Constitutional provisions:

This is perhaps the most complete, all-encompassing, no-exceptions language in the entire Constitution. It stemmed from the conviction of America’s founders that the District should be beholden exclusively to Congress for any and all purposes.

This power is greater than the Utah Legislature has over Utah, greater than Congress has over legislation affecting all the states. It is truly majestic in scope.

In other words, Congress owns DC, period. What more assurance does anyone need of this than the gun amendment? Congress can and will dictate the bottom line in DC with or without the consent of the governed.  One measly vote in the House of Representatives is not going to change this fact.

Why do two conservatives come to the defense of the DC Voting Rights act? Because rather than really enfranchising DC residents to the level of other states, this act further solidifies DC’s lack of self-determination.

Voting rights for District of Columbia residents has become a gun rights issue thanks to the NRA.  Senate leaders did leave the opportunity open for them. I suppose it’s not that unbelievable that politicians and lobbyists would play politics with the rights of DC’s nearly 600,000 residents.

NPR, did some nice reporting on this issue yesterday.

Also, check out the City Paper on gun seizures by the DC Police Department.

“D.C. leaders hoped that provision would not be included in the House version, but the National Rifle Association indicated this week that it might keep track of which House members voted in favor of bringing the voting rights bill to the floor without the possibility of amendments. Those members would be judged by the NRA as opposing gun rights, a position that could be unpopular in many of their home jurisdictions.

House leaders have concluded that they have 190 solid votes in favor of blocking all amendments, 28 fewer than necessary for approval, sources with knowledge of strategy discussions said. To round up enough support, the voting rights supporters will target the group of more than 60 members from conservative areas.” – The Washington Post

As I mentioned before I have a lot to say about this but in short:

1) The legislation if passed would likely be subject to judicial scrutiny: It might not be Constitutional.

2)  DC should not accept less than full representation in Congress (Statehood).

3) The gun amendment is a silly. It’s tacked on in an effort to either derail the bill or give a blow to DC sovereignty to begin with.

For her part, DC’s non-voting delegate to the House is working hard on a series of “Free and Equal DC” bills to try to wrestle the city from federal control.

The DC Voting Rights Act of 2009 passed the Senate in amended form on February 26, 2009. It’s up for a vote in the House this week according to a statement by House Majority Leader Stacy Hoyer. The bill turns Washington DC into a Congressional district and provides it with a voting member in the House of Representatives. The bill also provides an additional Congressional district in a largely conservative area of Utah. Both seats would be elected in the fall and sworn for the 112th Congress. Utah would retain its seat until after the first reapportionment of House seats following the 2010 Census.

The bill was amended to take away the DC Council’s right to regulate firearms in the District of Columbia. Otherwise, S 160 introduced by Senators Lieberman and Hatch on January 6th, 2009 is identical to H.R. 1905 that passed in the House in April 2007. The bill was killed in the Senate in September 2007 by a Republican filibuster despite a Senate majority willing to vote on the legislation.

The District of Columbia’s non-voting Delegate to Congress Eleanor Holmes Norton introduced the DC Voting Rights Act to the House of Representatives as H.R. 157 on January 6th, 2009.  She predicts swift passage of the bill.

If the bill passes in a House vote this week it would be a definite victory for DC rights activists who’ve been working against.  Nevertheless, many questions remain. Is the DC Voting Rights Act is constitutional? Desirable? More on both later.

See DC Vote for more info.