Saturday, February 26, 2011
Traveling
Going to Florida, then Maryland on family business. Be back Tuesday. Probably will blog little, if at all. Behave yourselves until then.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Gay Marriage Bill Passes Maryland Senate
The final tally was 25 ayes to 21 nays. The bill now moves to the state Assembly, which had traditionally been considered more friendly to gay marriage than the Senate. But according to the WaPo, equal rights supporters are still counting votes, and are not 100% confident of passage ("confident but not overconfident", is how the majority leader puts it).
Fiscal Hackery FTW
Can you smell the seriousity?
I'm not sure how serious to take any one on the question of deficits (I'm not sure how much I care about the topic myself). But with Republicans, I really think it's difficult to even draw a coherent line through their fiscal positions. They support slashing public programs to groups they don't like, but they turn around and plow the savings back into tax breaks for the wealthy -- a massively regressive upwards wealth distribution. None of it goes into deficit reduction. And of course, there are plenty of governmental spending categories -- particularly on the federal level (defense) but also in terms of state-subsidies -- that Republicans absolutely refuse to cut.
Democrats may not be interested in cutting spending (though I'm sure they have their list of programs worth cutting -- starting with overblown weapons budgets and continuing over to abstinence-only education), but at least they're willing to support the tax rates necessary to pay for their ambitions.
Wisconsin's Republican governor, Scott Walker, says that concern over his state's relatively modest budget crisis motivates his drive to strip public-sector employees of their ability to bargain collectively. And, yet, he just decided to put Wisconsin into a fiscal strait-jacket, signing a bill Tuesday that would require a two-thirds supermajority in the state legislature or a state-wide referendum to raise a range of taxes. This is not the sign of a serious budget hawk, whatever you think of Walker's policies on public-sector unions.
I'm not sure how serious to take any one on the question of deficits (I'm not sure how much I care about the topic myself). But with Republicans, I really think it's difficult to even draw a coherent line through their fiscal positions. They support slashing public programs to groups they don't like, but they turn around and plow the savings back into tax breaks for the wealthy -- a massively regressive upwards wealth distribution. None of it goes into deficit reduction. And of course, there are plenty of governmental spending categories -- particularly on the federal level (defense) but also in terms of state-subsidies -- that Republicans absolutely refuse to cut.
Democrats may not be interested in cutting spending (though I'm sure they have their list of programs worth cutting -- starting with overblown weapons budgets and continuing over to abstinence-only education), but at least they're willing to support the tax rates necessary to pay for their ambitions.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Union-Busting as Health Care Reform
As Steve Benen reports, what once looked like a wave of Republican union-busting legislation has been more or less arrested at Wisconsin, with a parallel bill in Indiana being withdrawn and GOP Iowa Governor Terry Branstad declaring he isn't interested in similar legislation in his state.
If you had asked me in advance what issue would arouse the soporific left from its torpor, I wouldn't have guessed that collective bargaining legislation would be it. After all, the Democratic salvo in this controversy -- the card-check bill -- died with little more than a whimper last Congress. But hey, catch what can.
It seems to me that this controversy is beginning to trace the trajectory of the debate over PPACA. There, like here, the governing party thought it had the mandate to make a sweeping change. There, like here, opponents were convinced that the other party had overreached, and were able to muster massive and highly publicized protests that fired up their base and re-energized their flagging electoral prospects.
The question is -- what happens next? In the health care debate, Republicans rapidly decided that a mutually-amenable compromise was their enemy. The important thing was prolonging the debate for as long as possible, keeping it in the news as an example of a radical administration that must be stopped. So while there was a lot of talk about "slowing down" and not "ramming the bill" through, the GOP was very careful to not actually make any substantive concessions or proposals of its own.
And Democrats played along, trying, futilely, to garner GOP approval; searching for an elusive bipartisanship that, by design, was never to be. And in their failure, the GOP won the media narrative -- PPACA couldn't be a sensible, practical approach to a serious national problem. Since only Democrats supported it, and we all know that any legislation worth supporting is bipartisan, it must be a partisan hatchet-job, Democratic maximalism promulgated by overconfident, out of touch party leaders. And so it was that a health care reform bill whose primary components were originally Republican ideas became the greatest instrument of socialism since the Cold War.
I'd be interested to see if Democrats play the same game. If you have momentum, don't let the GOP off the hook. Characterize everything as renewed union-busting, the kissing cousin of the radical Scott Walker proposals (how do we know they're extreme? Because real, heartland Americans are protesting them!). No compromises, no mercy -- just hammer it home, day after day: Republicans want to hurt teachers, police officers, and firemen. They want only the middle class to sacrifice while the fatcats get tax breaks. On and on -- a drum beat of progressive fury that does to the GOP what the Tea Party did to us.
Of course, there were many voices within the Democratic Party during the health care debate that understood precisely what was happening, and urged Democrats to actually take a maximalist position. After all, if you're going to get blamed for it anyway, you might as well get some of the sweet with the bitter -- a genuinely ambitious, single-payer health care system. And one wonders if Republicans are keen enough to adopt this strategy -- if they're going to get raked over the coals regardless, they might as well please their corporate clients and blow up the unions.
Anyway, I'm not saying that's how it's going to play out. But I do find it interesting the way that this issue seems to be developing into a genuine Democratic parallel to the Tea Party during PPACA.
If you had asked me in advance what issue would arouse the soporific left from its torpor, I wouldn't have guessed that collective bargaining legislation would be it. After all, the Democratic salvo in this controversy -- the card-check bill -- died with little more than a whimper last Congress. But hey, catch what can.
It seems to me that this controversy is beginning to trace the trajectory of the debate over PPACA. There, like here, the governing party thought it had the mandate to make a sweeping change. There, like here, opponents were convinced that the other party had overreached, and were able to muster massive and highly publicized protests that fired up their base and re-energized their flagging electoral prospects.
The question is -- what happens next? In the health care debate, Republicans rapidly decided that a mutually-amenable compromise was their enemy. The important thing was prolonging the debate for as long as possible, keeping it in the news as an example of a radical administration that must be stopped. So while there was a lot of talk about "slowing down" and not "ramming the bill" through, the GOP was very careful to not actually make any substantive concessions or proposals of its own.
And Democrats played along, trying, futilely, to garner GOP approval; searching for an elusive bipartisanship that, by design, was never to be. And in their failure, the GOP won the media narrative -- PPACA couldn't be a sensible, practical approach to a serious national problem. Since only Democrats supported it, and we all know that any legislation worth supporting is bipartisan, it must be a partisan hatchet-job, Democratic maximalism promulgated by overconfident, out of touch party leaders. And so it was that a health care reform bill whose primary components were originally Republican ideas became the greatest instrument of socialism since the Cold War.
I'd be interested to see if Democrats play the same game. If you have momentum, don't let the GOP off the hook. Characterize everything as renewed union-busting, the kissing cousin of the radical Scott Walker proposals (how do we know they're extreme? Because real, heartland Americans are protesting them!). No compromises, no mercy -- just hammer it home, day after day: Republicans want to hurt teachers, police officers, and firemen. They want only the middle class to sacrifice while the fatcats get tax breaks. On and on -- a drum beat of progressive fury that does to the GOP what the Tea Party did to us.
Of course, there were many voices within the Democratic Party during the health care debate that understood precisely what was happening, and urged Democrats to actually take a maximalist position. After all, if you're going to get blamed for it anyway, you might as well get some of the sweet with the bitter -- a genuinely ambitious, single-payer health care system. And one wonders if Republicans are keen enough to adopt this strategy -- if they're going to get raked over the coals regardless, they might as well please their corporate clients and blow up the unions.
Anyway, I'm not saying that's how it's going to play out. But I do find it interesting the way that this issue seems to be developing into a genuine Democratic parallel to the Tea Party during PPACA.
Indiana Assistant Attorney General Advocates "Live Ammo" Against Protesters
Absolutely shocking:
I mean, I've enjoyed the solidarity messages coming from North Africa to the American Midwest, but I'd really prefer the similarities end before we have state officials advocating the massacre of unarmed protesters.
UPDATE: The official in question has been fired.
On Saturday night, when Mother Jones staffers tweeted a report that riot police might soon sweep demonstrators out of the Wisconsin capitol building—something that didn't end up happening—one Twitter user sent out a chilling public response: "Use live ammunition."
From my own Twitter account, I confronted the user, JCCentCom. He tweeted back that the demonstrators were "political enemies" and "thugs" who were "physically threatening legally elected officials." In response to such behavior, he said, "You're damned right I advocate deadly force." He later called me a "typical leftist," adding, "liberals hate police."
Only later did we realize that JCCentCom was a deputy attorney general for the state of Indiana.
I mean, I've enjoyed the solidarity messages coming from North Africa to the American Midwest, but I'd really prefer the similarities end before we have state officials advocating the massacre of unarmed protesters.
UPDATE: The official in question has been fired.
DOJ No Longer Will Defend DOMA
This just out from the DOJ:
I think this makes sense. It is exceptionally difficult to justify declining heightened scrutiny to gays and lesbians; as my Comment points out, the lack of constitutional protection for GLBT persons is more attributable to the badly inconsistent use of "political power" as an operative element in the Court's tiered-scrutiny jurisprudence than anything that can be truly characterized as a "legal" reason (the DOJ announcement also buttresses my larger claim that the constitutional status of gay legal claims will rise in tandem with their increased political and social clout -- the DOJ explicitly notes both legal and political advances by gay rights forces as part of the reason for its reversal). Where there is explicit precedent -- however bogus -- that anti-gay classifications receive rational basis review, it makes sense to defend the law on that axis. Where that precedent is absent and we are reviewing the law of the legal land untainted, the clearly correct position is that these laws are subject to heightened scrutiny, and cannot survive it.
In the two years since this Administration took office, the Department of Justice has defended Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act on several occasions in federal court. Each of those cases evaluating Section 3 was considered in jurisdictions in which binding circuit court precedents hold that laws singling out people based on sexual orientation, as DOMA does, are constitutional if there is a rational basis for their enactment. While the President opposes DOMA and believes it should be repealed, the Department has defended it in court because we were able to advance reasonable arguments under that rational basis standard.
Section 3 of DOMA has now been challenged in the Second Circuit, however, which has no established or binding standard for how laws concerning sexual orientation should be treated. In these cases, the Administration faces for the first time the question of whether laws regarding sexual orientation are subject to the more permissive standard of review or whether a more rigorous standard, under which laws targeting minority groups with a history of discrimination are viewed with suspicion by the courts, should apply.
After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.
I think this makes sense. It is exceptionally difficult to justify declining heightened scrutiny to gays and lesbians; as my Comment points out, the lack of constitutional protection for GLBT persons is more attributable to the badly inconsistent use of "political power" as an operative element in the Court's tiered-scrutiny jurisprudence than anything that can be truly characterized as a "legal" reason (the DOJ announcement also buttresses my larger claim that the constitutional status of gay legal claims will rise in tandem with their increased political and social clout -- the DOJ explicitly notes both legal and political advances by gay rights forces as part of the reason for its reversal). Where there is explicit precedent -- however bogus -- that anti-gay classifications receive rational basis review, it makes sense to defend the law on that axis. Where that precedent is absent and we are reviewing the law of the legal land untainted, the clearly correct position is that these laws are subject to heightened scrutiny, and cannot survive it.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Strange Bedfellows
Glenn Beck is now calling Reform Jews -- a plurality of the American Jewish population -- "almost like" "radical Islam". The line was that, like "radicalized Islam", Reform Jews (specifically, Reform Rabbis) are more about "politics" than they are "religion" -- thus creating two entirely separate points of offense: Comparing the bulk of American Jewry to a movement Beck believes to be at the heart of contemporary international evil, and arrogating to himself the right to define what Jewish religious experience is.
Of course, unlike PG -- who, by merely omitting to play the "do you deny you beat your wife" game, became the greatest enemy of the Jewish people ever to spill ink on this comment section -- some continue to harbor doubts over whether it is really fair to accuse Beck of anti-Semitism. Creating overwhelmingly Jewish "enemies lists? Meh. Accusing a prominent Jewish financier (and Holocaust survivor) of trying to create a "shadow government", being a Nazi collaborator, and manipulating global financial markets for his own personal gain? Shrug.
We'll just "keep watching".
UPDATE: The ADL has condemned Beck for his "bigoted ignorance."
Of course, unlike PG -- who, by merely omitting to play the "do you deny you beat your wife" game, became the greatest enemy of the Jewish people ever to spill ink on this comment section -- some continue to harbor doubts over whether it is really fair to accuse Beck of anti-Semitism. Creating overwhelmingly Jewish "enemies lists? Meh. Accusing a prominent Jewish financier (and Holocaust survivor) of trying to create a "shadow government", being a Nazi collaborator, and manipulating global financial markets for his own personal gain? Shrug.
We'll just "keep watching".
UPDATE: The ADL has condemned Beck for his "bigoted ignorance."
That Can Be Arranged
Well, he doesn't appear to be in Venezuela, and embattled Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi has promised to stay in the country he's ruled for 40 years and die as "a martyr".
I have to admit, that doesn't strike me as the worst outcome in the world -- though I suspect the "martyrdom" aspect of it will be limited. Perhaps Daniel Ortega can give a toast in his honor.
I have to admit, that doesn't strike me as the worst outcome in the world -- though I suspect the "martyrdom" aspect of it will be limited. Perhaps Daniel Ortega can give a toast in his honor.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Report: Gaddafi Flees to Venezuela
It isn't confirmed, but reports are that Libyan autocrat Muammar Gaddafi is fleeing to Venezuela. Hugo Chavez -- recipient of Gaddafi's joke human rights award -- is a close ally of the Libyan dictator.
Meanwhile, there are reports that the Libyan air force is firing on protesters, and two pilots have defected along with their jets to Malta after reportedly being ordered to fire on civilian demonstrators.
Meanwhile, there are reports that the Libyan air force is firing on protesters, and two pilots have defected along with their jets to Malta after reportedly being ordered to fire on civilian demonstrators.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
The Only Difference
There's a ton of talk out there about what Obama should or shouldn't have done with respect to the Egypt and Tunisian rebellions. One major refrain is that the success of the revolts in these two countries show that, had Obama pushed a little harder during Iran's 2009 Green Revolution, that country's dictatorship could have fallen too.
I'm dubious. The US didn't really do much of anything but watch and try and stay out of the fray in Egypt (Tunisia we barely even had time to react to). And when you think about it, how much can we do? Ultimately, any revolution is going to be in the hands of the people revolting -- it's their concerns and their conditions which dictate the course of the movement. Except where the US can credibly threaten to intervene militarily -- implausible in all the countries we're talking about -- there is very little we can do to influence the situation, at least overtly.
Actually, I think there is one very simple reason why Egypt succeeded where Iran failed. As LGM put it, the Tank commander said "no":
And that's the key difference. Protesters rarely stand any chance, pound-for-pound, against a halfway decent state military apparatus. The question is whether, when push comes to shove, the military is actually willing to crush the demonstrations violently, or whether they link up with them. In Egypt, they weren't willing to fire on their own people. In Iran, they were. And so we have our different outcomes.
In any event, we're going to get a bunch of new data points on this shortly. New protests are emerging in Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, and Iran again. Obviously, I hope for the best in all of these countries. But I think the ultimate outcome is not likely to be contingent on what Americans say or do. It has to do with the nerve of the protesters, and the ultimate decisions of the country's military forces -- to join the revolution, or crush it.
I'm dubious. The US didn't really do much of anything but watch and try and stay out of the fray in Egypt (Tunisia we barely even had time to react to). And when you think about it, how much can we do? Ultimately, any revolution is going to be in the hands of the people revolting -- it's their concerns and their conditions which dictate the course of the movement. Except where the US can credibly threaten to intervene militarily -- implausible in all the countries we're talking about -- there is very little we can do to influence the situation, at least overtly.
Actually, I think there is one very simple reason why Egypt succeeded where Iran failed. As LGM put it, the Tank commander said "no":
Last night, a military officer guarding the tens of thousands celebrating in Cairo threw down his rifle and joined the demonstrators, yet another sign of the ordinary Egyptian soldier's growing sympathy for the democracy demonstrators. We had witnessed many similar sentiments from the army over the past two weeks. But the critical moment came on the evening of 30 January when, it is now clear, Mubarak ordered the Egyptian Third Army to crush the demonstrators in Tahrir Square with their tanks after flying F-16 fighter bombers at low level over the protesters.
Many of the senior tank commanders could be seen tearing off their headsets – over which they had received the fatal orders – to use their mobile phones. They were, it now transpires, calling their own military families for advice. Fathers who had spent their lives serving the Egyptian army told their sons to disobey, that they must never kill their own people.
Thus when General Hassan al-Rawani told the massive crowds yesterday evening that "everything you want will be realised – all your demands will be met", the people cried back: "The army and the people stand together – the army and the people are united. The army and the people belong to one hand."
And that's the key difference. Protesters rarely stand any chance, pound-for-pound, against a halfway decent state military apparatus. The question is whether, when push comes to shove, the military is actually willing to crush the demonstrations violently, or whether they link up with them. In Egypt, they weren't willing to fire on their own people. In Iran, they were. And so we have our different outcomes.
In any event, we're going to get a bunch of new data points on this shortly. New protests are emerging in Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, and Iran again. Obviously, I hope for the best in all of these countries. But I think the ultimate outcome is not likely to be contingent on what Americans say or do. It has to do with the nerve of the protesters, and the ultimate decisions of the country's military forces -- to join the revolution, or crush it.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Scareware is Evil
Laptop is deader than dead, thanks to some particularly nasty scareware malware. I'm trying to get my files off the hard drive and then reinstall Windows, but, you know, who knows how that's all going play out (or how long it will take).
Blergh.
Blergh.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Step Backward in NH
As Maryland edges closer to legalizing gay marriage, New Hampshire, which already has such a law, is teetering precariously close to repealing it after Republicans took supermajorities in both legislative houses (they'll need the extra margin, as Democratic Governor John Lynch has pledged to veto any repeal vote).
There is a weird asymmetry between how I perceive failures to legalize gay marriage, and repeals of prior legalization. Obviously, in one sense the difference is obvious -- the loss of something we once had. But I think there's more than that.
I noted in the wake of President Obama's election that there was extra pain in the simultaneous repeal of California's gay marriage legalization, as it represented an affirmative decision to consciously exclude a group of citizens from one of the most important symbols of American inclusion in our nation's history.
From the perspective of New Hampshire law as it currently stands, gays and straights are treated entirely equally. What is being proposed is electing to strip only one of those two classes of the rights and privileges of marriage. At least in situations where the law does not allow gay marriage, one could say with a straight face that the law was written without thinking about gay people, and then rely on inertia for why it wasn't being changed to include them. Here, there is no denying the conscious anti-gay character of the enactment. It is evil by commission, not omission.
There is a weird asymmetry between how I perceive failures to legalize gay marriage, and repeals of prior legalization. Obviously, in one sense the difference is obvious -- the loss of something we once had. But I think there's more than that.
I noted in the wake of President Obama's election that there was extra pain in the simultaneous repeal of California's gay marriage legalization, as it represented an affirmative decision to consciously exclude a group of citizens from one of the most important symbols of American inclusion in our nation's history.
From the perspective of New Hampshire law as it currently stands, gays and straights are treated entirely equally. What is being proposed is electing to strip only one of those two classes of the rights and privileges of marriage. At least in situations where the law does not allow gay marriage, one could say with a straight face that the law was written without thinking about gay people, and then rely on inertia for why it wasn't being changed to include them. Here, there is no denying the conscious anti-gay character of the enactment. It is evil by commission, not omission.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
The Votes
We last left off the Maryland gay marriage bill at 21 of the 24 votes needed for passage on the floor, following the stunning and stirring reversal by Sen. Jim Brochin (D). Brochin had been a primary advocate for "civil unions", saying he "stumbled" over the word marriage. But after hearing what he called the "venom" flowing from gay marriage opponents, he decided that his problem with the word marriage was his problem, not the law's.
The bill just passed a key committee vote today, and now heads to the Senate floor. The Washington Post reports that the bill appears to have exactly 24 votes at the moment, with two members undecided. But there are some awfully waver-y folks among that number, and everyone expects the vote to be agonizingly close (the House of Delegates, by contrast, is expected to pass the bill much more easily).
The bill just passed a key committee vote today, and now heads to the Senate floor. The Washington Post reports that the bill appears to have exactly 24 votes at the moment, with two members undecided. But there are some awfully waver-y folks among that number, and everyone expects the vote to be agonizingly close (the House of Delegates, by contrast, is expected to pass the bill much more easily).
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Silly Studies
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) has a list of federal studies he wants to strip funding from. The Wall Street Journal labels the studies in question "silly-sounding research", and it's obvious that Issa -- who, though evil, is no idiot -- selected them as examples of ridiculous, wasteful government programs. Here's a taste:
Is it just me, or are all of these interesting studies? I think it's pretty relevant if video games improve mental health amongst old people. I think we probably want to know the effects of drug and alcohol use amongst our citizen. It's probably pretty valuable to know the rates and effectiveness of condom usage, insofar as we don't like the spread of STDs and unwanted pregnancies. If yoga helps reduce the negative impacts of hot flashes, or a soda tax would improve population health, that's valuable information!
Obviously, one can say simply that we need to cut back on scientific research during a budget crunch. I'm not sure I agree -- I think scientific research and study is the backbone of our economy, and essential to maintaining American dominance in the global marketplace. But as examples, not of discretionary programs we can cut if we have to, but of foolish bureaucrats wasting government resources on frivolity -- I'm unconvinced.
AMENDMENT NO. 417: At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used by the National Institutes of Health to study the impact of integral yoga on hot flashes in menopausal women.
AMENDMENT NO. 418: At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used by the National Institutes of Health to examine the potential impact of a soda tax on population health.
AMENDMENT NO. 419: At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used by the National Institutes of Health to research the use of marijuana in conjunction with opioid medications, such as morphine.
AMENDMENT NO. 420: At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used by the Department of Health and Human Services to study condom use skills in adult males.
AMENDMENT NO. 421: At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used by the Department of Health and Human Services to study the concurrent and separate use of malt liquor and marijuana among young adults.
AMENDMENT NO. 422: At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used by the National Science Foundation to study whether video games improve mental health for the elderly.
Is it just me, or are all of these interesting studies? I think it's pretty relevant if video games improve mental health amongst old people. I think we probably want to know the effects of drug and alcohol use amongst our citizen. It's probably pretty valuable to know the rates and effectiveness of condom usage, insofar as we don't like the spread of STDs and unwanted pregnancies. If yoga helps reduce the negative impacts of hot flashes, or a soda tax would improve population health, that's valuable information!
Obviously, one can say simply that we need to cut back on scientific research during a budget crunch. I'm not sure I agree -- I think scientific research and study is the backbone of our economy, and essential to maintaining American dominance in the global marketplace. But as examples, not of discretionary programs we can cut if we have to, but of foolish bureaucrats wasting government resources on frivolity -- I'm unconvinced.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
The George Tiller Had It Coming Homicide Endorsement Act
A law currently working its way through the South Dakota legislature (it just passed a committee vote, so at the very least it isn't only a few cranks) would establish an affirmative defense in homicide cases where the killer was attempting to protect the life of a fetus. On face, this would seem to sanction the murder of abortion providers -- and there is little evidence that this isn't exactly the outcome the legislators proposing the bill had in mind.
Scary.
The bill, sponsored by state Rep. Phil Jensen, a committed foe of abortion rights, alters the state's legal definition of justifiable homicide by adding language stating that a homicide is permissible if committed by a person "while resisting an attempt to harm" that person's unborn child or the unborn child of that person's spouse, partner, parent, or child. If the bill passes, it could in theory allow a woman's father, mother, son, daughter, or husband to kill anyone who tried to provide that woman an abortion—even if she wanted one.
Scary.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Grouchy V-Day Roundup
Jill and I typically don't really celebrate Valentine's Day (coming so soon after my birthday, we're all celebrated out). But I'm feeling a little bit grumpy this week, so I think snuggling up with some candy and a movie might be just what the doctor ordered.
* * *
Bill Russell gets the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Justice Thomas' silence on the bench reaches 5 years. While my feeling going into the article was that I didn't really care whether Justice Thomas felt compelled to speak or not (viewing much of oral argument as a bit of a charade), I did think one attorney had a point when he noted the unfairness of Thomas deciding cases on grounds not briefed or argued, yet not giving lawyers the opportunity to at least respond to his concerns.
Two posts at TNC's place on Black people getting away with things.
Maryland Democrat joins the state legislative Tea Party caucus, chaos ensues.
Scott Lemieux on the individual mandate and federal power.
Dutch parliament voices opposition to unilateral Palestinian statehood, urges Palestine to recognize Israel as a Jewish state as part of a final peace agreement.
Jordan's Justice Minister calls for a pardon of a Jordanian soldier who murdered 7 visiting Israeli schoolchildren. The Minister previously served as the convicted criminal's defense attorney.
The Iranian government is vigorously suppressing Egypt-inspired protests cropping up in Tehran, Hillary Clinton remarks that Iranians and Egyptians deserve the same rights.
CPAC in a nutshell: "I witnessed someone calling Ron Paul people a 'cult' while eating a cake shaped like Reagan's face."
* * *
Bill Russell gets the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Justice Thomas' silence on the bench reaches 5 years. While my feeling going into the article was that I didn't really care whether Justice Thomas felt compelled to speak or not (viewing much of oral argument as a bit of a charade), I did think one attorney had a point when he noted the unfairness of Thomas deciding cases on grounds not briefed or argued, yet not giving lawyers the opportunity to at least respond to his concerns.
Two posts at TNC's place on Black people getting away with things.
Maryland Democrat joins the state legislative Tea Party caucus, chaos ensues.
Scott Lemieux on the individual mandate and federal power.
Dutch parliament voices opposition to unilateral Palestinian statehood, urges Palestine to recognize Israel as a Jewish state as part of a final peace agreement.
Jordan's Justice Minister calls for a pardon of a Jordanian soldier who murdered 7 visiting Israeli schoolchildren. The Minister previously served as the convicted criminal's defense attorney.
The Iranian government is vigorously suppressing Egypt-inspired protests cropping up in Tehran, Hillary Clinton remarks that Iranians and Egyptians deserve the same rights.
CPAC in a nutshell: "I witnessed someone calling Ron Paul people a 'cult' while eating a cake shaped like Reagan's face."
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Stirring up a Reaction
Rabid anti-gay remarks during committee hearings have flipped one Maryland state senator from nay to yay on a bill to legalize gay marriage.
What delicious irony. And, I should say, great credit to Senator Brochin, for looking deep into what's going on and deciding to not let his own inner conflict align him with merchants of hate and discrimination.
The measure now has 21 of the 24 votes it needs to pass; there are at least 5 members still undecided.
Any law would likely be subject to an attempt by opponents to reverse it via referendum -- a move which has been the bane of democratically-passed gay marriage laws in the past.
I am going to vote for gay marriage," [Jim] Brochin [D] said. "I'm going to vote for gay marriage because the stumbling block with the word 'marriage' is my stumbling block, and it's my problem."
"I'm not going to be part of the vilification of gays on the senate floor," Brochin said. "I'm uncomfortable with the word 'marriage' but I am much more uncomfortable with the vilification of gays and homosexuality."
What delicious irony. And, I should say, great credit to Senator Brochin, for looking deep into what's going on and deciding to not let his own inner conflict align him with merchants of hate and discrimination.
The measure now has 21 of the 24 votes it needs to pass; there are at least 5 members still undecided.
Any law would likely be subject to an attempt by opponents to reverse it via referendum -- a move which has been the bane of democratically-passed gay marriage laws in the past.
First Time for Everything
Linking to this column, Conor Friedersdorf labels Dennis Prager as one of the more "thoughtful" right-wing commentators. Which is ironic, because I once labeled Prager "most likely to piss me the hell off."
This column, on the benefits of global travel is admittedly better than normal, although foolishness hardly is absent ("After visits to about a dozen African countries, I came to realize that the spread of Christianity holds the best hope for that sad continent. If anyone can name a better solution, this Jew would be interested in hearing it." Jesus Christ, why doesn't he start worshiping Jesus Christ already?). But that marks a first for me, as until now the universal quality that linked all my exposure to Dennis Prager was breath-taking ignorance. Let's canvass some of my favorites:
- There aren't many Black people at Tea Party rallies because Black people aren't rational.
- Keith Ellison swearing his oath of office on the Koran "undermines American civilization."
- A constant trend of conflating Judaism and Christianity.
- Giving the totally-not-self-serving marital advice that women should have sex with their husbands, even if they don't want to.
Godless Heathens
Article title: Atheists head for high schools with new clubs for Godless teens.
Additional info link at the bottom: "See photos of: Judaism."
Uhh ... recognizing that there are atheist Jews (one was mentioned in the article), and fully supporting the equal rights of Atheists to organize student groups around the country in opposition to the rampant social prejudice they still face, I still think that might not be quite right.
Additional info link at the bottom: "See photos of: Judaism."
Uhh ... recognizing that there are atheist Jews (one was mentioned in the article), and fully supporting the equal rights of Atheists to organize student groups around the country in opposition to the rampant social prejudice they still face, I still think that might not be quite right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
