Friday, June 03, 2011
Tuesday, May 03, 2011
A CAUSE TO CELEBRATE? YES.
Everyone has a 9/11 connection. Whether having known someone who died that day, watching it unfold on scene, or watching it unfold thousands of miles away, it has scarred us all.
The man who facilitated that and at least two other attacks on the US abroad has been killed.
The question has arisen: is it wrong to celebrate that fact? My answer is no.
What are we celebrating exactly? It is short-sighted to simply focus on the death or even the manner of death because it diminishes the significance of that death, which is that a person who was the sworn enemy of this country and vowed to continue killing innocent people until we capitulated and conformed to his narrow vision is no more. That is no small event because he had in fact killed thousands of innocents and had proven willing and capable of killing more. This is the quintessential definition of evil.
There is no shame in celebrating the end of an evil.
Moreover there is no shame in celebrating the end of a threat to our national security. Sure, it is not the only threat, and there are hundreds if not thousands of others that are focused upon us constantly, but unless you're willing to say that the death of this man has *not* reduced the threat, or has elevated it significantly and permanently (and I'm not), you have to come to the conclusion that we are safer with him gone.
Could we have captured him and tried him in court? Well, let's follow that to the end: assuming that we could simply have caught and held him prisoner (and I think that is a huge assumption -perhaps too huge to be reasonable), what would we have then done? Put him on trial? Putting aside the expense and time that would have taken -all the time keeping the threat alive if not amplifying it- In the highly unlikely event that he was found not guilty what would we do? Our own laws would dictate that we release him. Release a sworn enemy to go and perpetrate more atrocities against us. If he were found guilty what then? We would put him to death, right? OK what if we kept him incarcerated? Wouldn't that create an instant cause/target for his followers to attack us to free him?
So even assuming we could capture him it would to have led to either the same or an unacceptably dangerous result.
So we did the right thing here, and for that reason, as well as the reasons above. We have cause to celebrate.
But is that really what the people in the streets are celebrating? Some perhaps, but I think what has caused the knee-jerk reaction some have had against the celebrations is the gut feeling that the public celebrations are unseemly. I think the cause of that gut feeling is that what many seem to be celebrating is both detached from the cold reality and enduring scars of the atrocities this man caused, and other darker ideas: Blind nationalism, and chauvinism.
The idea that we were able to end both a threat and an evil is separate and irrelevant idea to the idea that we as a nation are superior. The chants of "USA! USA!" and the wrapping ourselves in flags broadcast around the world are embarrassing because they trivialize the true cause for celebration and reduce the support for our cause from our allies as well as inflame our enemies.
Should we celebrate this man's death? Yes, but not as evidence of our superiority. That evidence has been presented in Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Syria and Libya.
Perhaps instead we should be chanting "Democracy! Democracy!"
The man who facilitated that and at least two other attacks on the US abroad has been killed.
The question has arisen: is it wrong to celebrate that fact? My answer is no.
What are we celebrating exactly? It is short-sighted to simply focus on the death or even the manner of death because it diminishes the significance of that death, which is that a person who was the sworn enemy of this country and vowed to continue killing innocent people until we capitulated and conformed to his narrow vision is no more. That is no small event because he had in fact killed thousands of innocents and had proven willing and capable of killing more. This is the quintessential definition of evil.
There is no shame in celebrating the end of an evil.
Moreover there is no shame in celebrating the end of a threat to our national security. Sure, it is not the only threat, and there are hundreds if not thousands of others that are focused upon us constantly, but unless you're willing to say that the death of this man has *not* reduced the threat, or has elevated it significantly and permanently (and I'm not), you have to come to the conclusion that we are safer with him gone.
Could we have captured him and tried him in court? Well, let's follow that to the end: assuming that we could simply have caught and held him prisoner (and I think that is a huge assumption -perhaps too huge to be reasonable), what would we have then done? Put him on trial? Putting aside the expense and time that would have taken -all the time keeping the threat alive if not amplifying it- In the highly unlikely event that he was found not guilty what would we do? Our own laws would dictate that we release him. Release a sworn enemy to go and perpetrate more atrocities against us. If he were found guilty what then? We would put him to death, right? OK what if we kept him incarcerated? Wouldn't that create an instant cause/target for his followers to attack us to free him?
So even assuming we could capture him it would to have led to either the same or an unacceptably dangerous result.
So we did the right thing here, and for that reason, as well as the reasons above. We have cause to celebrate.
But is that really what the people in the streets are celebrating? Some perhaps, but I think what has caused the knee-jerk reaction some have had against the celebrations is the gut feeling that the public celebrations are unseemly. I think the cause of that gut feeling is that what many seem to be celebrating is both detached from the cold reality and enduring scars of the atrocities this man caused, and other darker ideas: Blind nationalism, and chauvinism.
The idea that we were able to end both a threat and an evil is separate and irrelevant idea to the idea that we as a nation are superior. The chants of "USA! USA!" and the wrapping ourselves in flags broadcast around the world are embarrassing because they trivialize the true cause for celebration and reduce the support for our cause from our allies as well as inflame our enemies.
Should we celebrate this man's death? Yes, but not as evidence of our superiority. That evidence has been presented in Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Syria and Libya.
Perhaps instead we should be chanting "Democracy! Democracy!"
Friday, February 11, 2011
Saturday, September 19, 2009
SURELY YOU’RE NOT SERIOUS
Let me get this straight Senator Baucus: So if you’ve been dropped from your insurance company because of a “pre-existing condition” (which can be anything the insurance company decides it is) you can sign up for a “high risk” insurance plan, but you have to be uninsured for six months before you’re allowed to do so? The high risk plan would only cover 65% of your treatment and that’s AFTER the $6000 deductible?
And you’re required to pay for that insurance or pay an “excise tax” of up to $3800 dollars if you make 3 times the Federal Poverty Limit (FPL) ($22,050 for a family of 4 in 2009) ?
I don’t understand. You’re diagnosed with a lethal illness e.g.. Your insurance company determines it was caused by a preexisting condition and therefore drops you. You are *required* to wait six months to sign up for the new “high risk” insurance (and let’s be real- what else are you going to get now?) which will only cover 65% of your treatment after the 6k deductible because you’re *required* to have insurance or be fined?
Nope, stating it another way doesn’t help.
And this is to be administered by the ever so trustworthy private insurance companies?
So Senator –when they said we needed healthcare reform or health insurance reform YOU apparently thought they meant that the insurance companies were shouldering too much of the burden?
This is what is known as getting you coming and (quite literally) going.
Let me put this as simply as possible. Insurance is good. Insurance for a profit is bad.
When an insurance company’s reason for being is to make a profit, by definition they must provide their service at the lowest possible cost, as all other businesses do. If you can do it for less, you can take home more. That’s automatic incentive to not cover sick people and only healthy people. That is the *exact opposite* of what insurance is –that is, a mechanism to spread losses throughout a larger pool of resources.
The Swiss have already figured this out. It is ILLEGAL for private health insurance companies to turn a profit in Switzerland for basic coverage (“Cadillac plans” can make a profit)
Um...is there someone more intelligent there that we might be able to speak to about this?
And you’re required to pay for that insurance or pay an “excise tax” of up to $3800 dollars if you make 3 times the Federal Poverty Limit (FPL) ($22,050 for a family of 4 in 2009) ?
I don’t understand. You’re diagnosed with a lethal illness e.g.. Your insurance company determines it was caused by a preexisting condition and therefore drops you. You are *required* to wait six months to sign up for the new “high risk” insurance (and let’s be real- what else are you going to get now?) which will only cover 65% of your treatment after the 6k deductible because you’re *required* to have insurance or be fined?
Nope, stating it another way doesn’t help.
And this is to be administered by the ever so trustworthy private insurance companies?
So Senator –when they said we needed healthcare reform or health insurance reform YOU apparently thought they meant that the insurance companies were shouldering too much of the burden?
This is what is known as getting you coming and (quite literally) going.
Let me put this as simply as possible. Insurance is good. Insurance for a profit is bad.
When an insurance company’s reason for being is to make a profit, by definition they must provide their service at the lowest possible cost, as all other businesses do. If you can do it for less, you can take home more. That’s automatic incentive to not cover sick people and only healthy people. That is the *exact opposite* of what insurance is –that is, a mechanism to spread losses throughout a larger pool of resources.
The Swiss have already figured this out. It is ILLEGAL for private health insurance companies to turn a profit in Switzerland for basic coverage (“Cadillac plans” can make a profit)
Um...is there someone more intelligent there that we might be able to speak to about this?
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
A FEW THOUGHTS ON HEALTHCARE REFORM
By now it’s common knowledge that the latest wave of “protesters” to show up at town hall meetings with Congress members has been proven to be an industry-funded and pundit organized exploitation of the panic and hysteria felt by right wing extremists and other ignoramuses. These “protesters” are overwhelmingly white conservatives, and their consensus (whether their own or the expressed ones of their pundit masters) is predominantly that President Obama is trying to dismantle their America and/or that they want their country back. The “black affairs” correspondent on John Stewart said this last night in jest, but I mean it in all seriousness –That’s exactly what we’re trying to do: dismantle America as they know it.
To clarify, think about what America they’re really (under all the patriotic bullshit) talking about. These are the same people who opposed the Civil Rights Act, the same people who benefited unjustly from the labor of minorities and the poor until labor unions, the same people who opposed aid to the elderly so that they didn’t simply rot after a lifetime of work, and the same people who actually think that the fact that their current skyrocketing healthcare costs have nothing to do with the poor and uninsured resorting to default, ER care, or both.
Do we want to dismantle an America that persists in injustice? Where all are not in fact treated as equal regardless what the documents the founders created say? Where the rights and indeed the lives of the people are dictated by the ledgers of industry? Where the politics of an issue trumps the substance or utility of it? Do we want to dismantle that? You’re goddamned right we do. That’s called progress. That’s called becoming a “more perfect union”. And, newsflash to the idiots –as long as we draw breath that old America is never coming back.
To those who ask “why should I have to pay for healthcare for [the poor, the already sick, the undocumented, etc]?” I say –are you actually stupid enough to think you’re not paying for healthcare for them already?
Let me reintroduce you to one of my Eternal Truths: You can ignore, demean or hate the poor/sick/immigrants/elderly/minorities/disabled/children all you want but you’ll be paying for them somewhere along the line whether you want to or not. Somewhere along the arc of their lives we, that is society, will have to devote resources to their welfare. Somewhere in the time period between and including the medical services rendered post-conception to the disposing of their corpses, we’ll have to pay.
This rule applies to most issues, but follow me as it applies to healthcare: under the current system, people with no health insurance (and even some *with* it) are forced to wait until their health is in dire condition or an emergency arises before they seek treatment. This automatically means that they require MORE treatment and more complex treatment than they would have had if they’d sought treatment sooner. This in turn means that healthcare professionals have to devote more man-hours and more expensive treatments to those with an inability to pay. What do you think happens when the patients eventually default after being presented with the bill? Do the providers and insurance companies keep costs the same or do they spread the loss by raising prices/premiums? If you guessed the latter, give yourself a gold star.
Over time this results in higher premiums, rationing healthcare for those WITH insurance (based on lovely fictions like “preexisting conditions” or “cost/benefit ratio”), and even a greater risk of illness/infection to the healthy population as more people forgo treatment because they can’t afford it, and nonetheless continue to live and circulate among us.
Folks, this is that serious. It’s life or death, and not just for the uninsured, but for all of us.
Social-ism in it’s literal (non political) definition is the idea that benefits to society are valued over Capital –that is, the financial benefits to industry. The opposite is Capital-ism –the idea that money made from/for industry is valued over benefit to society. In that context, healthcare is one of the few areas where your old OP is an out and out Socialist.
Insurance on its own is a great and non-political idea. The idea that the loss suffered by individuals is easier borne over a larger pool of resources is the only logical system in a modern democratic society because of the above “rule”. In other words –since we all will bear the burden in some form of the losses of others, the most efficient and fair way of dealing with them is through the spreading of the risk/loss through the larger population. (“many hands make work light”).
When insurance becomes subject to capitalism however –that is when its rason d’etre becomes to make a profit, the resulting benefit to society is crippled, and in many cases destroyed. Decisions are made not based on what the most equitable and just way to spread the loss is, but whether the reduction in profits is worth it. The result is the current situation in which we find ourselves.
…and still there are those who are allegedly so passionate that we remain on the same course that they’ll shout down or even threaten violence to anyone who dares to try to discuss alternatives. Who are these people? What do they stand to gain from maintaining the status quo?
The Evil vs. Stupid question continues.
To clarify, think about what America they’re really (under all the patriotic bullshit) talking about. These are the same people who opposed the Civil Rights Act, the same people who benefited unjustly from the labor of minorities and the poor until labor unions, the same people who opposed aid to the elderly so that they didn’t simply rot after a lifetime of work, and the same people who actually think that the fact that their current skyrocketing healthcare costs have nothing to do with the poor and uninsured resorting to default, ER care, or both.
Do we want to dismantle an America that persists in injustice? Where all are not in fact treated as equal regardless what the documents the founders created say? Where the rights and indeed the lives of the people are dictated by the ledgers of industry? Where the politics of an issue trumps the substance or utility of it? Do we want to dismantle that? You’re goddamned right we do. That’s called progress. That’s called becoming a “more perfect union”. And, newsflash to the idiots –as long as we draw breath that old America is never coming back.
To those who ask “why should I have to pay for healthcare for [the poor, the already sick, the undocumented, etc]?” I say –are you actually stupid enough to think you’re not paying for healthcare for them already?
Let me reintroduce you to one of my Eternal Truths: You can ignore, demean or hate the poor/sick/immigrants/elderly/minorities/disabled/children all you want but you’ll be paying for them somewhere along the line whether you want to or not. Somewhere along the arc of their lives we, that is society, will have to devote resources to their welfare. Somewhere in the time period between and including the medical services rendered post-conception to the disposing of their corpses, we’ll have to pay.
This rule applies to most issues, but follow me as it applies to healthcare: under the current system, people with no health insurance (and even some *with* it) are forced to wait until their health is in dire condition or an emergency arises before they seek treatment. This automatically means that they require MORE treatment and more complex treatment than they would have had if they’d sought treatment sooner. This in turn means that healthcare professionals have to devote more man-hours and more expensive treatments to those with an inability to pay. What do you think happens when the patients eventually default after being presented with the bill? Do the providers and insurance companies keep costs the same or do they spread the loss by raising prices/premiums? If you guessed the latter, give yourself a gold star.
Over time this results in higher premiums, rationing healthcare for those WITH insurance (based on lovely fictions like “preexisting conditions” or “cost/benefit ratio”), and even a greater risk of illness/infection to the healthy population as more people forgo treatment because they can’t afford it, and nonetheless continue to live and circulate among us.
Folks, this is that serious. It’s life or death, and not just for the uninsured, but for all of us.
Social-ism in it’s literal (non political) definition is the idea that benefits to society are valued over Capital –that is, the financial benefits to industry. The opposite is Capital-ism –the idea that money made from/for industry is valued over benefit to society. In that context, healthcare is one of the few areas where your old OP is an out and out Socialist.
Insurance on its own is a great and non-political idea. The idea that the loss suffered by individuals is easier borne over a larger pool of resources is the only logical system in a modern democratic society because of the above “rule”. In other words –since we all will bear the burden in some form of the losses of others, the most efficient and fair way of dealing with them is through the spreading of the risk/loss through the larger population. (“many hands make work light”).
When insurance becomes subject to capitalism however –that is when its rason d’etre becomes to make a profit, the resulting benefit to society is crippled, and in many cases destroyed. Decisions are made not based on what the most equitable and just way to spread the loss is, but whether the reduction in profits is worth it. The result is the current situation in which we find ourselves.
…and still there are those who are allegedly so passionate that we remain on the same course that they’ll shout down or even threaten violence to anyone who dares to try to discuss alternatives. Who are these people? What do they stand to gain from maintaining the status quo?
The Evil vs. Stupid question continues.
Friday, June 12, 2009
EXAM CRAMMING
A friend is studying for her US citizenship exam. Ever the gentleman, I offered a few nuggets of wisdom gleaned from the last 8 years to help her understanding of the current United States:
1. it's OK to torture people to try to get them to confess to connections that don't exist.
2. the First Amendment only applies to Republicans -all others must stay in their designated "free-speech zones"
3. Government is BAAAAD! Therefore the only people we should hire to do the actual governing should be completely incapable of doing it -thus proving that Government is BAAAD!4. The United States Constitution is an inviolable and sacred document...unless you're reeeeeallly scared.
5. IOKIYAR (A.K.A. the 28th Amendment).
6.If a Republican president does it, it's privileged. If a Democratic president does it, it's criminal.
7. Individual liberties are nice, but are trumped by the "free market".
And finally:
8. It is your patriotic duty to question the actions of your government and demand accountability...unless you're a Democrat, or the actions in question happened more than 6 months ago.
Class dismissed.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
BREAKING THE CODE
Hoo Boy! The code-words are flying around DC and the cable news channels like a food fight in a frat-house!
The nomination of Sonia (even her name is code –more below) Sotomayor to the SCOTUS has all the GOPosaurs in high lingo mode cranking out the wink-winks to their troglodyte base so they’ll know SHE’S BAAAAAAD!
As a public service to the more educated I, your humble scribe, have compiled a (by no means complete) list of phrases you’ll hear in the coming nomination “battle” and their TRUE meanings.
I use the term “battle” loosely, because it’s an all but foregone conclusion she’ll be confirmed, as enough Repubs have said they’ll vote for her that she’ll likely get 70 or so votes, and even if they vote in lock-step the seating of Al Franken will have given the Dems a 60-vote lock by then. The real purpose of these phrases (and indeed the entire fight) are to stir up the fundies so that they’ll empty their pockets to “combat them evil libruls” another day.
In no particular order:
- Empathy: As I commented the other day, though the actual meaning of this is more akin to “putting yourself in another’s shoes”, the right use it to mean “using ones emotions to decide an issue rather than reason and precedent” which is only an OK thing to do if you’re a republican-leaning justice deciding favorably to republicans. (see “Judicial Activism”, see also Bush v. Gore)
- Intellectual Lightweight or “not an Intellectual Heavyweight": This is code for “minority”. This woman graduated 2nd in her class at Princeton and was President of the Yale Law Review. Therefore she’s in the top 1% of the top 1% academically. Therefore (according to republican lore) she must have been given those honors because of Affirmative Action and like policies over some more intelligent white person whom she surpassed because of preference to her race.
- Temperament or Aggressive: Female. They wouldn’t dare accuse a male nominee of the same “tendencies”. According to them any woman who shows even the slightest trace of strength or mettle is an aggressive ball-busting lesbian trying to make up for the fact that she’s not a man. Which leads to…
- Emotions: Histrionics. Whenever you hear cons use this word in reference to judges its code for “hey she’s a woman –they’re too unstable to be judges!" Pure misogyny.
- “Maria”: This is rich. Former Governor and failed presidential hopeful turned FOXNews host Mike Huckabee recently referred to her as “Maria Sotomayor” –yeah because all them dang Messican names soundsa’ same don’t they Merv, er, Mike? Carmen Guadalupe Marisol Maria -whassa dang differunce? This just shows how deeply ingrained the racism is on the right. You’re a talk show host Mike. Her name is Sonia –you might want to take the time to learn the names of the people you’re talking about or at least put them in the teleprompter?
- Judicial Activism: While the right-wing noise machine claim this means “legislating from the bench” what it really means is “deciding in any way unfavorably to conservative causes –even when following iron-clad precedent”. Let’s be clear: Bush v. Gore was the most precedent-ignoring, lower court superseding decision in American History. Even the SCOTUS itself said that it was a one-time-deal and should never be used as precedent (which tells you that they knew EXACTLY what they were doing and were embarrassed about it), but do you ever hear the parrots on the right refer to that as Judicial Activism? Of course not –that’s only used to refer to (perceived) liberal judges deciding in accordance with precedent which is unfavorable to conservatives.
- Stare Decisis: This is the term referring to the legal tradition of judges deciding cases based on decisions of prior case-law. E.g. according to precedent. Lower courts are beholden to higher court decisions unless they can come up with some compelling reason to break with precedent and decide differently. To Republicans however this term only applies (as above) to decisions in accordance with republican orthodoxy. E.g. Roe v. Wade is precedent from the highest court in the land but “bad law” according to GOP mouthpieces (oddly they can never explain WHY it’s “bad law” –probably because the only reason is that is contradicts their tightly held beliefs) and therefore any decision weakening Roe can safely ignore Stare Decisis. In Sotomayor’s case –the “Connecticut Firefighter case” was one where not only did she not write anything relating to the case (not the opinion, not a concurring opinion, nothing) but she merely signed on to the majority opinion of the court which followed both SCOTUS precedent (see Crosson, Adarand) as well as the precedent of her own circuit . Text book example of Stare Decisis -but that’s unacceptable to the cons when it tilts against them. Which leads us to…
- Reverse Racism: Minority. This is the most ridiculous and base assertion of them all. “Reverse Racism” necessarily implies that a) there IS racism, and b) that it is the provenance of whites so that there can be a “backlash” against it from minorities –but according to them racism doesn’t exist, and if it does whites are just as likely the target as minorities. Pretzel logic. Racism is racism no matter who it comes from or is directed to right? And since there is no racism what are they so worried about? This is just more code for “minority”.
This list is as I said by no means exhaustive and I’ll update it when new terms come up, but I hope it serves as a basic glossary to use when viewing the next few months of the cable news circus.
Adding: I know I know, it's been a long time in betweeen posts, sorry! Nothing like a good ol SCOTUS nomination to stir up yer ol OP's typin' fingers! See here, here, here, here, and here for precedent!
Saturday, January 24, 2009
President Barack Hussein Obama. President Barack Hussein Obama.
I never get tired of saying it.
For the last 8 years, every time I heard the word "president" in a newscast I cringed and tigntened for what followed. It wasn't until I had the same conditioned response the other night and then felt an enormous wave of release when I realized that they were talking about Obama that I even realized I'd been doing it.
It's wonderful to be genuinely curious to hear what the president has to say again.
I was telling my wife that one of my desires in the next ten years is to go to Europe and that that felt all but impossible until now. I had paraniod flashes that I'd be snatched off the street unless I spoke with a non-american accent. Silly, I know, but now that fear is gone (and I'm sure the risk, however actually low it was, is lessened).
The inauaguration speech was perfect. Humble. Realistic. Directly pointed at the failures of the Bush administration without actually insulting Bush as he sat there (Bush looked beautifully uncomfortable though). And inspiring. I've never felt that. Ever. The first president I remember being conscious of is Nixon. Carter was fine and did a few good things but was uninspiring. Then the hell of the Reagan years. Bush I who was reagan without the personality. Clinton who made you feel good and in retrospect was a good leader for his time, but still not inspiring. And then Bush II who made the Reagan years seem tame.
I don't know what'll happen to Obama, but I know that the country (me included) is in his corner more than any president in my lifetime.
And that's before I even take into acount the historical significance of his election to the office.
It took someone like him to break that barrier.
I never get tired of saying it.
For the last 8 years, every time I heard the word "president" in a newscast I cringed and tigntened for what followed. It wasn't until I had the same conditioned response the other night and then felt an enormous wave of release when I realized that they were talking about Obama that I even realized I'd been doing it.
It's wonderful to be genuinely curious to hear what the president has to say again.
I was telling my wife that one of my desires in the next ten years is to go to Europe and that that felt all but impossible until now. I had paraniod flashes that I'd be snatched off the street unless I spoke with a non-american accent. Silly, I know, but now that fear is gone (and I'm sure the risk, however actually low it was, is lessened).
The inauaguration speech was perfect. Humble. Realistic. Directly pointed at the failures of the Bush administration without actually insulting Bush as he sat there (Bush looked beautifully uncomfortable though). And inspiring. I've never felt that. Ever. The first president I remember being conscious of is Nixon. Carter was fine and did a few good things but was uninspiring. Then the hell of the Reagan years. Bush I who was reagan without the personality. Clinton who made you feel good and in retrospect was a good leader for his time, but still not inspiring. And then Bush II who made the Reagan years seem tame.
I don't know what'll happen to Obama, but I know that the country (me included) is in his corner more than any president in my lifetime.
And that's before I even take into acount the historical significance of his election to the office.
It took someone like him to break that barrier.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Boy oh boy was I wrong.
However, contrary to the majority of politicians, I am willing to admit it and apologise.
I was laboring under the misaprehension that the fact that we just elected an all but ironclad Democratic majority to the Senate and House meant that the Democratic leadership might actually take it as a sign that they could at last grow a pair and assert themselves -or at least back up something -anything- they assert.
Apparently they are still perfectly willing to roll over and take a "f**k you byatch" from even the most ridiculous locally elected executives.
It never fails to stun me how weak the Democratic leadership can be. So Burris is now the junior senator from Illinois and the Democratic leadership looks like the same bunch of round-heeled milquetoasts they always do.
Understand, for me it was never about Burris' qualifications. I'm sure he was plenty qualified, it's just that there was the appearance of impropriety in his selection. Moreover, Reid's attempt at digging his heels in made him look even more weak when he caved. Too hasty a decision AND a crappy example. No leadership. Just because you're next in line doesn't mean you can lead.
However, contrary to the majority of politicians, I am willing to admit it and apologise.
I was laboring under the misaprehension that the fact that we just elected an all but ironclad Democratic majority to the Senate and House meant that the Democratic leadership might actually take it as a sign that they could at last grow a pair and assert themselves -or at least back up something -anything- they assert.
Apparently they are still perfectly willing to roll over and take a "f**k you byatch" from even the most ridiculous locally elected executives.
It never fails to stun me how weak the Democratic leadership can be. So Burris is now the junior senator from Illinois and the Democratic leadership looks like the same bunch of round-heeled milquetoasts they always do.
Understand, for me it was never about Burris' qualifications. I'm sure he was plenty qualified, it's just that there was the appearance of impropriety in his selection. Moreover, Reid's attempt at digging his heels in made him look even more weak when he caved. Too hasty a decision AND a crappy example. No leadership. Just because you're next in line doesn't mean you can lead.
Saturday, January 03, 2009
NEW YEAR SAME OLD PROBLEMS
Happy New Year!
Here's hoping that yours (and please God OURS) is a more happy healthy and prosperous one than any of the last eight.
So long has passed and there are so many issues to address that I guess I'll attempt a scattershot drive-by. Here goes:
BLAGO-GATE
Well gee the euphoria of one Chicago politician's ascendancy sure was drowned out for a moment by the ascendancy to scandal of another wasn't it? Can you believe this guy? It never ceases to amaze me how the phrase "appearance of impropriety" is completely lost on some public figures. I mean, OK, let's assume for a thinly-stretched moment that Blagojevich was doing nothing legally wrong and that he wasn't really trying to sell Barack Obama's vacated senate seat to the highest bidder -wouldn't you want to make damn sure that you couldn't EVER be misinterpreted as doing so? Wouldn't you want to do everything possible to appear to be open and honest and to fend off any possibility of a federal investigation? Now look at the charges against Blago? WTF? I guess these guys who do this kind of stuff really are that stupid.
And the latest twist is that he still actually thinks that anyone will let him appoint Obama's successor. Unbelievable. So he simply pretends that his selection of Roland Burris will be honored and that that's that? Burris talks as though it's a done-deal and he's already the senator? What the hell are these guys thinking?
Article I Section 5 of the Constitution reads: "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members". That last "and Qualifications" pretty much puts the nail in Burris' senatorial coffin doesn't it? I.e. if the senate decides that the taint of the Bagojevich scandal disqualifies Burris' appointment, what text are they going to use to refite it?
And why oh why would Burris let himself be appointed under these circumstances? Doesn't he realize that if he hitches his career to the Blago train that he's committing political suicide? Either he doesn't really care or greed has made him stupid.
The legal challenges are just warming up so pop some popcorn and find a comfy-chair.
THE ECONOMY
Oh boy.
Well gee that Wall street bailout package Congress rushed to pass worked great didn't it? Apparently they weren't really trying to save the banks -just the bankers. No oversight. Read that again. No oversight. None. Nothing to say how the money was supposed to be spent. No guidelines. No restrictions. Nada. Great.
And now they want to bail out the automakers? HA!
The housing market isn't improving any. Unemployment is at its worst since the 80's. The stock market has lost almost 6000 points since last year. (I've never been so happy to be too poor to be a part of the investment class!)
Obama seems really ready to push this stimulus package hard. I guess the idea is to do the Bush stimulus the right way? I.e. more tax cuts but this time for the "right" people.
I'm honestly conflicted about this: in the short run it might give the intended boost -but things are so tight that I have a hard time imagining that unless it's a huge chunk of change that it'll do more than make a few weeks easier for the majority of paycheck-to-paycheck folks.
In addition I've been hearing (and am starting to believe) that tax cuts (even for the middle-class) have a negligible effect on the economy because what really drives the economy is not how much money the government takes or doesn't take, but wages, jobs and GDP etc. none of which tax cuts or even raises helps. In fact you can make a pretty decent argument that RAISING taxes is better in the long run for wages because if companies have to pay x amount of money to employees (with the assumption that a percentage will go the govt.) and taxes go up the companies have to pay more to offset the taxes so that the take home pay is the same and so over time the general salary for the job raises. Conversely, if you cut taxes, the employer is paying the same but the employee takes home more, and the employer doesn't have to raise the employees wage so that over time wages stagnate.
If the government really wants to goose the economy it should make health care universal to alleviate the expense from individual families and corporations and spread the resources over a larger pool (as Obama is planning on doing) and make raising the minimum wage to a livable (not luxurious, but livable) wage.
Both of these could be done without tinkering with the tax code which frankly needs merely to be rolled back to where it was before Bush took office and then left alone. My humble two cents.
ARE WE STILL AT WAR?
Gee weren't we supposed to be at war on two fronts or something? Seems like we've gotten so caught up in the wave of change that's coming that we've forgotten that ghastly fact. The nightly news is all but bereft of coverage and frankly I can't remember when the last time was that I saw a news story on either Iraq or Afghanistan on any of the major three networks. Maybe I'm just missing them but I'm a news junkie so what does that tell you?
Spoke with a friend over the holidays on leave from one of those fronts and he said (albeit in a tight-lipped manner) that things are getting better over there. That's good news, really. I just hope that means we can leave now. It's not like we could use the money or anything.
The inauguration can't be over soon enough IMO we need to new pols to get to work.
Cheers, you lot. -OP
Here's hoping that yours (and please God OURS) is a more happy healthy and prosperous one than any of the last eight.
So long has passed and there are so many issues to address that I guess I'll attempt a scattershot drive-by. Here goes:
BLAGO-GATE
Well gee the euphoria of one Chicago politician's ascendancy sure was drowned out for a moment by the ascendancy to scandal of another wasn't it? Can you believe this guy? It never ceases to amaze me how the phrase "appearance of impropriety" is completely lost on some public figures. I mean, OK, let's assume for a thinly-stretched moment that Blagojevich was doing nothing legally wrong and that he wasn't really trying to sell Barack Obama's vacated senate seat to the highest bidder -wouldn't you want to make damn sure that you couldn't EVER be misinterpreted as doing so? Wouldn't you want to do everything possible to appear to be open and honest and to fend off any possibility of a federal investigation? Now look at the charges against Blago? WTF? I guess these guys who do this kind of stuff really are that stupid.
And the latest twist is that he still actually thinks that anyone will let him appoint Obama's successor. Unbelievable. So he simply pretends that his selection of Roland Burris will be honored and that that's that? Burris talks as though it's a done-deal and he's already the senator? What the hell are these guys thinking?
Article I Section 5 of the Constitution reads: "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members". That last "and Qualifications" pretty much puts the nail in Burris' senatorial coffin doesn't it? I.e. if the senate decides that the taint of the Bagojevich scandal disqualifies Burris' appointment, what text are they going to use to refite it?
And why oh why would Burris let himself be appointed under these circumstances? Doesn't he realize that if he hitches his career to the Blago train that he's committing political suicide? Either he doesn't really care or greed has made him stupid.
The legal challenges are just warming up so pop some popcorn and find a comfy-chair.
THE ECONOMY
Oh boy.
Well gee that Wall street bailout package Congress rushed to pass worked great didn't it? Apparently they weren't really trying to save the banks -just the bankers. No oversight. Read that again. No oversight. None. Nothing to say how the money was supposed to be spent. No guidelines. No restrictions. Nada. Great.
And now they want to bail out the automakers? HA!
The housing market isn't improving any. Unemployment is at its worst since the 80's. The stock market has lost almost 6000 points since last year. (I've never been so happy to be too poor to be a part of the investment class!)
Obama seems really ready to push this stimulus package hard. I guess the idea is to do the Bush stimulus the right way? I.e. more tax cuts but this time for the "right" people.
I'm honestly conflicted about this: in the short run it might give the intended boost -but things are so tight that I have a hard time imagining that unless it's a huge chunk of change that it'll do more than make a few weeks easier for the majority of paycheck-to-paycheck folks.
In addition I've been hearing (and am starting to believe) that tax cuts (even for the middle-class) have a negligible effect on the economy because what really drives the economy is not how much money the government takes or doesn't take, but wages, jobs and GDP etc. none of which tax cuts or even raises helps. In fact you can make a pretty decent argument that RAISING taxes is better in the long run for wages because if companies have to pay x amount of money to employees (with the assumption that a percentage will go the govt.) and taxes go up the companies have to pay more to offset the taxes so that the take home pay is the same and so over time the general salary for the job raises. Conversely, if you cut taxes, the employer is paying the same but the employee takes home more, and the employer doesn't have to raise the employees wage so that over time wages stagnate.
If the government really wants to goose the economy it should make health care universal to alleviate the expense from individual families and corporations and spread the resources over a larger pool (as Obama is planning on doing) and make raising the minimum wage to a livable (not luxurious, but livable) wage.
Both of these could be done without tinkering with the tax code which frankly needs merely to be rolled back to where it was before Bush took office and then left alone. My humble two cents.
ARE WE STILL AT WAR?
Gee weren't we supposed to be at war on two fronts or something? Seems like we've gotten so caught up in the wave of change that's coming that we've forgotten that ghastly fact. The nightly news is all but bereft of coverage and frankly I can't remember when the last time was that I saw a news story on either Iraq or Afghanistan on any of the major three networks. Maybe I'm just missing them but I'm a news junkie so what does that tell you?
Spoke with a friend over the holidays on leave from one of those fronts and he said (albeit in a tight-lipped manner) that things are getting better over there. That's good news, really. I just hope that means we can leave now. It's not like we could use the money or anything.
The inauguration can't be over soon enough IMO we need to new pols to get to work.
Cheers, you lot. -OP
Friday, December 05, 2008
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION / PROP 8 THE MUSICAL
It's been too long, I know.
So the Obama administration is filling out nicely. I think Hillary's a good choice for Secretary of State -she already has the relationships with many of the world leaders she'll be meeting with which allows her to hit the ground running. She'll be locked into doing Obama's bidding as his diplomatic face (the job has less policy creating power than even senator) so there's no worry she'll go rogue. Great choice. I just wonder if there's a place for Wes Clark in there somewhere he would have made a great Secretary of Defense -maybe Gates is just a place-holder? Richardson as Sec of Commerce is great too. All in all I'm impressed with everyone so far. Folks need to stop carping on the man before he's even sworn in.
In other news: I'm probably the last person to see this, but it's damn funny and has some pretty heavy hitters in it.
So the Obama administration is filling out nicely. I think Hillary's a good choice for Secretary of State -she already has the relationships with many of the world leaders she'll be meeting with which allows her to hit the ground running. She'll be locked into doing Obama's bidding as his diplomatic face (the job has less policy creating power than even senator) so there's no worry she'll go rogue. Great choice. I just wonder if there's a place for Wes Clark in there somewhere he would have made a great Secretary of Defense -maybe Gates is just a place-holder? Richardson as Sec of Commerce is great too. All in all I'm impressed with everyone so far. Folks need to stop carping on the man before he's even sworn in.
In other news: I'm probably the last person to see this, but it's damn funny and has some pretty heavy hitters in it.
See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die
Saturday, November 08, 2008
WHAT IS THIS?
Oh wait -I know I know! Correct me if I'm mistaken but it looks like it's a presidential press conference with a president who knows what the F$%k he's talking about and can actually string a sentence together!
I'd forgotten what that looked like.
Aaaahhh.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
HALLELUJAH! / OH NO!
President Barack Hussein Obama.
Wow.
Just wow.
It's still settling-in how significant this is.
I was reading headlines from foreign newspapers yesterday and the overwhelming feeling from the rest of the world seems to be a huge sigh of relief. As though the rest of the world is thinking "Oh thank God, America is back". After all we are in many ways like the world's big-brother (one of them at least -the favorite one?) and I don't mean that in an Orwellian way -that's how the Bush administration sees it- I mean it more literally. The last 8 years must seem like the first time you see your big brother do something that horribly embarrasses you.
The margin of victory for Obama has proven to the world that we weren't irretrievably lost, just ill for a time, and that the very freedoms we champion allow for the possibility that unsavory elements can rise to power. Let us take that lesson to heart, as we did after the McCarthy era, and be vigilant against it.
The sentiment domestically has come to be that finally we can begin the new millennium.
*********************************************************************
Sadly, here in California the tears of joy were mixed with tears of anguish as the bigoted proposition 8, which bans gay marriage and overturns a state supreme court decision interpreting the California constitution to allow and protect it, passed.
The haters after several tries finally figured out that they couldn't simply pass the ban in CA via statute, and they were right -any statute that discriminates against a classification of people and denies them rights available and protected for other people can't withstand judicial scrutiny without a compelling (dire) or at least important reason -and no, offense to a religious moral code doesn't qualify. Therefore they had to amend the state constitution because amending the constitution means that the statute becomes a part of the constitution and therefore cannot -by definition- be unconstitutional.
Interesting too the historical timeline of the "enlightenment" of these troglodytes: First they passed the federal Defense Of Marriage Act which has only stood for as long as it has because the majority on the SCOTUS has refused to take up the issue. The reason for that is that the precedent is so clear that if they did take up the issue they would either have to allow gays to marry or ignore the entire history of Equal Rights Jurisprudence in this country which would tar their legacy forever and make them look like idiots for antiquity. As long as they can the majority 5 jackbooted thugs on the SCOTUS will therefore ignore the issue.
The bigots however realized that their days are numbered (and a look at the poll results this week confirms the writing on the wall: overwhelmingly voters under 35 voted NO.) so they began working toward a federal Constitutional amendment. The problem is that the Founders were too smart for them and made it exceedingly difficult to change the Constitution without overwhelming support. The Federal Constitution cannot be amended unless 2/3rds of BOTH houses pass the amendment and it is then ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures. Interestingly, the bigots having grasped the enormity of their task, suddenly embraced federalism and opined that it is an issue best left to the individual states.
Which brings us to today: The bigots have now passed a constitutional amendment to the California constitution banning gay marriage which means that the measure cannot be stricken down as unconstitutional.
But not so fast.
A few lawsuits have been initiated against the validity of the initiative and they appear pretty solid. I have to admit that I was pretty shocked at first to find out that the state constitution could be amended so easily -by a simple majority vote on a ballot initiative. The founders warned against a "pure" democracy because it could lead to a tyranny of the majority, and therefore placed protections for the minority into the Constitution and Bill of Rights. A simple majority is too easy to achieve and amending a constitution shouldn't be so easy.
However is appears that my concern has already been addressed: The California constitution CAN be amended via the initiative process for little stuff, but NOT for things that would majorly change the underlying principles under which it was organized. Major changes to the underlying principles of the CA constitution must pass by 2/3 in both state houses AND THEN they can go before the voters. Protecting the rights of minorities is a major principle under which the CA constitution was organized therefore simply putting it on the ballot is improper.
Moreover prop 8 bypasses the Courts and therefore deprives them of performing their essential function of protecting those same minority rights. This is a MAJOR change in the way the courts and the government function in CA and therefore cannot be determined by a ballot initiative which only requires a simple majority.
Additionally I think the CA Supreme Court is going to be a little pissed that their decision was given an end-around by a bunch of out of state religious and in-state wingnut groups and will have a serious desire to slap them back and strike it down. And BTW we need to have a serious discussion in this state about whether we want to continue to allow out-of-state groups to meddle in our state affairs with their money.
So the good news is that this isn't over -not by a long shot, and Jerry Brown the CA Attorney General has stated that the marriages that were performed before the ban are still legal and valid.
**********************************************************************************
Back to the WOW!
Wow.
Just wow.
It's still settling-in how significant this is.
I was reading headlines from foreign newspapers yesterday and the overwhelming feeling from the rest of the world seems to be a huge sigh of relief. As though the rest of the world is thinking "Oh thank God, America is back". After all we are in many ways like the world's big-brother (one of them at least -the favorite one?) and I don't mean that in an Orwellian way -that's how the Bush administration sees it- I mean it more literally. The last 8 years must seem like the first time you see your big brother do something that horribly embarrasses you.
The margin of victory for Obama has proven to the world that we weren't irretrievably lost, just ill for a time, and that the very freedoms we champion allow for the possibility that unsavory elements can rise to power. Let us take that lesson to heart, as we did after the McCarthy era, and be vigilant against it.
The sentiment domestically has come to be that finally we can begin the new millennium.
*********************************************************************
Sadly, here in California the tears of joy were mixed with tears of anguish as the bigoted proposition 8, which bans gay marriage and overturns a state supreme court decision interpreting the California constitution to allow and protect it, passed.
The haters after several tries finally figured out that they couldn't simply pass the ban in CA via statute, and they were right -any statute that discriminates against a classification of people and denies them rights available and protected for other people can't withstand judicial scrutiny without a compelling (dire) or at least important reason -and no, offense to a religious moral code doesn't qualify. Therefore they had to amend the state constitution because amending the constitution means that the statute becomes a part of the constitution and therefore cannot -by definition- be unconstitutional.
Interesting too the historical timeline of the "enlightenment" of these troglodytes: First they passed the federal Defense Of Marriage Act which has only stood for as long as it has because the majority on the SCOTUS has refused to take up the issue. The reason for that is that the precedent is so clear that if they did take up the issue they would either have to allow gays to marry or ignore the entire history of Equal Rights Jurisprudence in this country which would tar their legacy forever and make them look like idiots for antiquity. As long as they can the majority 5 jackbooted thugs on the SCOTUS will therefore ignore the issue.
The bigots however realized that their days are numbered (and a look at the poll results this week confirms the writing on the wall: overwhelmingly voters under 35 voted NO.) so they began working toward a federal Constitutional amendment. The problem is that the Founders were too smart for them and made it exceedingly difficult to change the Constitution without overwhelming support. The Federal Constitution cannot be amended unless 2/3rds of BOTH houses pass the amendment and it is then ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures. Interestingly, the bigots having grasped the enormity of their task, suddenly embraced federalism and opined that it is an issue best left to the individual states.
Which brings us to today: The bigots have now passed a constitutional amendment to the California constitution banning gay marriage which means that the measure cannot be stricken down as unconstitutional.
But not so fast.
A few lawsuits have been initiated against the validity of the initiative and they appear pretty solid. I have to admit that I was pretty shocked at first to find out that the state constitution could be amended so easily -by a simple majority vote on a ballot initiative. The founders warned against a "pure" democracy because it could lead to a tyranny of the majority, and therefore placed protections for the minority into the Constitution and Bill of Rights. A simple majority is too easy to achieve and amending a constitution shouldn't be so easy.
However is appears that my concern has already been addressed: The California constitution CAN be amended via the initiative process for little stuff, but NOT for things that would majorly change the underlying principles under which it was organized. Major changes to the underlying principles of the CA constitution must pass by 2/3 in both state houses AND THEN they can go before the voters. Protecting the rights of minorities is a major principle under which the CA constitution was organized therefore simply putting it on the ballot is improper.
Moreover prop 8 bypasses the Courts and therefore deprives them of performing their essential function of protecting those same minority rights. This is a MAJOR change in the way the courts and the government function in CA and therefore cannot be determined by a ballot initiative which only requires a simple majority.
Additionally I think the CA Supreme Court is going to be a little pissed that their decision was given an end-around by a bunch of out of state religious and in-state wingnut groups and will have a serious desire to slap them back and strike it down. And BTW we need to have a serious discussion in this state about whether we want to continue to allow out-of-state groups to meddle in our state affairs with their money.
So the good news is that this isn't over -not by a long shot, and Jerry Brown the CA Attorney General has stated that the marriages that were performed before the ban are still legal and valid.
**********************************************************************************
Back to the WOW!
Friday, October 31, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
THE GRAMPY CAMPAIGN IN 30 SECONDS
I'm pretty forgiving about slips of the tongue -but COME ON! This is quintessential gramps (courtesy TPM):
Monday, October 20, 2008
IT'S STARTED ALREADY
It's started already.
Did you think that Obama's chances were pretty well settled by now? Think again:
Oh sure this could just be an anomoly and maybe I'm just being paranoid. The point is that we can't ever rest. Can't ever take a breath. We have to completely destroy the ideology that created the mess we're now in or it will rise again. The election, even if we're successful, is just the beginning.
Did you think that Obama's chances were pretty well settled by now? Think again:
WINFIELD, W.Va. -- Three Putnam County voters say electronic voting machines changed their votes from Democrats to Republicans when they cast early ballots last week.
This is the second West Virginia county where voters have reported this problem. Last week, three voters in Jackson County told The Charleston Gazette their electronic vote for "Barack Obama" kept flipping to "John McCain".
In both counties, Republicans are responsible for overseeing elections. Both county clerks said the problem is isolated.
They also blamed voters for not being more careful.
"People make mistakes more than machines," said Jackson County Clerk Jeff Waybright.Shelba Ketchum, a 69-year-old nurse retired from Thomas Memorial Hospital, described what happened Friday at the Putnam County Courthouse in Winfield.
"I pushed buttons and they all came up Republican," she said. "I hit Obama and it switched to McCain. I am really concerned about that. If McCain wins, there was something wrong with the machines.
"I asked them for a printout of my votes," Ketchum said. "But they said it was in the machine and I could not get it. I did not feel right when I left the courthouse. My son felt the same way.
"I heard from some other people they also had trouble. But no one in there knew how to fix it," said Ketchum, who is not related to Menis Ketchum, a Democratic Supreme Court candidate.Ketchum's son, Chris, said he had the same problem. And Bobbi Oates of Scott Depot said her vote for incumbent Democratic Sen. John D. Rockefeller was switched to GOP opponent Jay Wolfe.
"I touched the one I wanted, Rockefeller, and the machine put a checkmark on the Republican instead," Oates said of her experience Thursday.
She said she caught the mistake, called over a worker in the county clerk's office and was able to correct her vote. But she worries other voters may not catch such a mistake.
Oh sure this could just be an anomoly and maybe I'm just being paranoid. The point is that we can't ever rest. Can't ever take a breath. We have to completely destroy the ideology that created the mess we're now in or it will rise again. The election, even if we're successful, is just the beginning.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
3-AND-OUT
A few observations from the final debate last night:
- How great are those snap-polls? Used to be that the narrative re who won the debates was fashioned by the commentary from the pundits afterward. Kerry was slaughtered this way in 2004 -it didn't matter how people'd orignally perceived the debate the "opinion-makers" plowed on with their narrative anyway. The snap polls are a beautiful way to bitch-slap the chatterers back into reality, and it's a riot watching them fumble all over themselves back-pedaling from their declarations in the immediate aftermath as the snap-polls come in.
- McCain is now 0-3 -when's the last time you even heard of that in a presidential race?
- Debate prep 101 -let your WORDS make your arguments, and try to communicate as little non-verbally as possible. No one scores positive points for their reactions to the other guy's points as he's saying them. Textbook display last night -Grampy's eye-rolling, grimacing, and huffing made him look like the asshole he is.
- Last night had to be a grand-slam, slam-dunk, game-changing smack-down or other mixed sports metaphors for Gramps, and it definitively was not.
- Putting quotes around "health of the mother" probably wasn't a very smart move.
- Don't set yourself up by asking your opponent to give "one, just one" example of anything, because if he does give one, just one, you look like a dork. McCain asked for one example when Obama bucked his party leaders and he gave three. Oops.
- Joe the Plumber -it appears is a Republican plant. I expect to hear more of this in the coming days but suffice it to say that even if he's legit and McCain was just using him as a bullsh*t story it was a miserable failure. Maybe they should have asked Bob the Builder instead -oh wait his slogan is "Can we fix it? YES WE CAN!" bad idea, nevermind.
This isn't over folks. Can't let up, gotta keep the pressure on -and not just until the election -until the change we need happens and is chiseled into the American statutory framework. Think the GOP is just going to roll-over and let Obama skate once he's in the door? Think again. Look what happened to Clinton from the moment he assumed office. Can't rest. VIGILANCE!
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
CLARIFICATION (?)
I feel I should clarify my last post, because I re-read it and I think it could appear that while I think same sex marriages should be legal I somehow don't think they are valid. Personally and emotionally to the spouses and their friends, and legally in society they are valid in every way, and anything that adds more love and stability to the world cannot IMHO be invalid.
I was merely trying to point out that that the folks on the political right want to have it both ways -they want to use church doctrine to make secular civil law but would never allow secular civil law to determine church doctrine so their arguments are false.
I.e. I can comfortably assert that if the government were for some reason to ban the Catholic Church (or Mormon or Baptist or whichever) from marrying its parishioners, they'd still do so and recognize the marriages irrespective of the civil law. The Catholic Church e.g. sees marriage as a Sacrament that is both coexisting and separate from the civil contract, and will sanctify marriages based on their own principles regardless what the civil law says. Other churches may or may not consider same sex marriages a sacrament based on their own doctrine, but that is irrelevant to the issue here -which, make no mistake, is one of civil rights.
Therefore talk about "saving" marriage as an "institution" is legerdemain. The religious beliefs are not under attack and can be held regardless what the law says, and yet they want their religious beliefs to substitute for the law in this one instance, regardless whether it tramples the civil rights of others and thus contradicts the civil law.
Finally, I have to say that I find the fact that it's so easy to change the constitution of a state unsettling. There are two ways to change the CA constitution 1) if 2/3 of the state legislature propose an initiative, or 2) if a ballot initiative receives a majority vote. Doesn't that seem contrary to the protections of the minority embodied in the federal Bill of Rights because the Founders feared just such a tyranny of the majority? Scary.
Anyhow I hope the above clears up my position.
OTS: Here's some humor courtesy of the dailyKos:
I was merely trying to point out that that the folks on the political right want to have it both ways -they want to use church doctrine to make secular civil law but would never allow secular civil law to determine church doctrine so their arguments are false.
I.e. I can comfortably assert that if the government were for some reason to ban the Catholic Church (or Mormon or Baptist or whichever) from marrying its parishioners, they'd still do so and recognize the marriages irrespective of the civil law. The Catholic Church e.g. sees marriage as a Sacrament that is both coexisting and separate from the civil contract, and will sanctify marriages based on their own principles regardless what the civil law says. Other churches may or may not consider same sex marriages a sacrament based on their own doctrine, but that is irrelevant to the issue here -which, make no mistake, is one of civil rights.
Therefore talk about "saving" marriage as an "institution" is legerdemain. The religious beliefs are not under attack and can be held regardless what the law says, and yet they want their religious beliefs to substitute for the law in this one instance, regardless whether it tramples the civil rights of others and thus contradicts the civil law.
Finally, I have to say that I find the fact that it's so easy to change the constitution of a state unsettling. There are two ways to change the CA constitution 1) if 2/3 of the state legislature propose an initiative, or 2) if a ballot initiative receives a majority vote. Doesn't that seem contrary to the protections of the minority embodied in the federal Bill of Rights because the Founders feared just such a tyranny of the majority? Scary.
Anyhow I hope the above clears up my position.
OTS: Here's some humor courtesy of the dailyKos:
"John, would you please go in the kitchen and fix me a ham sandwich?"
"Let me say this, Cindy. I know how to fix a ham sandwich, and I will fix a ham sandwich when I'm elected president. For starters, I know where the kitchen is and I know how to find it. I know where the plates are. I know where the bread is, and I will be the one to pull out the right number of slices and place them on the plate in such a way that the mustard can be spread. Yes, my friends, I know where the mustard is and as president I will have a plan to spread it effectively. I know this stuff because I am a maverick. I can do it and I will do it. Let's talk about lettuce. My opponent is inexperienced on this issue. I've been around long enough to know about Romaine, butter, iceberg, bib, Boston and celtuce, as well as loose greens like mesclun. But I promise you this: I will fight every day against the advancing red tide of commie cabbage and I'm not afraid to use force if necessary. I know how to lead this nation in these dangerous leafy times, my friends. Now, I see the yellow light on my lectern is blinking, but if I may for a moment address another critical issue facing this country today, and that is the thickness of domestic pre-packaged ham slices. When I was a POW, we didn’t have ham, my friends, or even a chair..."
"Oh fer god's sake, never mind. I'll have the butler do it."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
