++I finally found out what happens to Matzos after Passover. They are fed into a shredder that makes them look like little bags of hay.
++Pope Francis called the Argentinian papers to cancel his delivery in Buenos Aires.
++The American Religious Right is upset that Christ is being run out of Easter and replaced by the Easter Bunny. It's all Obama's fault.
++North Korea is acting out again and we've sent stealth bombers over Korea. This is more hinky than usual.
++We had the hearings in Prop 8 and DOMA. It was clear from the oral arguments in Prop 8 that none of the justices wanted the case. Neither side got to discuss the merits of the case and Ted Olson was closed down by Chief Justice Roberts when he tried. The whole argument was whether former Iran-Contra lawyer Cooper had any standing to argue for the law since California never defended it. Judge Kennedy got emotional when he cited the some 40,000 children adopted by gay parents who wanted their parents legalized. But he seemed as befuddled as the other justices about why they should have to rule on Prop.8.The Obama argument to seek legalization in the 8 states that have already approved went over like a lead balloon. You have to second guess Ted Olson and David Boies' strategy to get the case before this Supreme Court. Both men argued the case superbly in California but never got a chance this week. I basically think the reversal of the law will stand and the Supreme Court will kick it back to the lower court and wait for someone else to litigate it.
++DOMA seems DOA. Five justices ripped it apart on everything from bigotry to the issue of the government providing benefits to partners. This one is going down on the basis of federalism. The justices didn't see how Congress could define marriage when it was the prerogative of the states. Lost in the arguments was Edie Windsor who when her partner died was stuck with several hundred thousand dollars in estate taxes even though she had married her partner in New York state. Weirdly Tony Scalia argued that the court had no right to try the case because there was not a victim. At least Edie could meet the press and argue for her love of her departed partner.
++Elaine Kagan deserves credit for raising questions about the argument that marriage is about procreation asking whether heterosexuals over the age of 55 could be banned from marriage if they can't have children. She exposed the ludicrous argument on this issue. Both Justice Kagan and Sotomayer made it explicit that DOMA was intended to express disapproval for the "Homosexual lifestyle" as the bill stated in its introduction. This caught Clements off-guard since he maintained that this was not what he was defending--but it was. Until then, he was ably arguing his case, which was flimsy at best.
++The Court doesn't feel or look like it wants to make a sweeping decision while the states have not resolved the issue. The argument that gay rights is in the realm of the equal protection clause was lost. In fact Justice Roberts emphatically denied this was the case. We are not talking about profiles in courage here. The Court is way behind the revolution in public opinion. They simply are not going to get out in front of it.
++Supporters of equal rights gained this week and opponents got slaughtered but basically the legal issue only got pushed incrementally forward. There will be more to come as case law will be built bit by bit.
++Those hoping for Justice Kennedy to be a profile in courage to make a sweeping decision in favor of gay marriage might shudder to think when he will make such a dramatic decision--at the time Roe V. Wade gets argued again. And it will. The strategy of the anti-abortion crowd has been to push State legislatures to pass highly restrictive laws against abortion to force this issue to a Supreme Court, which is tilted in its favor.
++If gays won this week, women are being mowed down by States severely restricting reproductive rights. North Dakota passed three bills which will in effect end abortions in that state. They have opted to push forward the Personhood bill which will be voted on in a referendum this fall.
++Tiger Woods is again Number 1 in Golf after winning his Eight Arnold Palmer Open, which ties Slammin' Sammy Snead who won 8 Greensboro Opens.
++Nate The Great predicts the Yankees will win 91 games and top the Eastern Division. Yankee fans do not believe the Yankees will make the playoffs. They point to Derek Jeter's awful appearance limping around. But there will always be Mariano for one last year.
++The Lakers seem cursed by injuries just as they started getting their game together. Meta World Peace just got injured.
Showing posts with label Prop 8. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Prop 8. Show all posts
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Sunday Mishmash
Bravo to Nate 'The Great" Silver,baseball's leading statistician, for taking a break from politics to do an analysis of Derek Jeter's salary compared to performance and the compartive prices of other shortstops. I tend to believe this column printed in the New York Times led to the Yankees' upping the offer and snagging Derek for the next 3 years. Jeter now stands to become the first Yankee to pass the 3,000 hit level,to surpass Mickey Mantle's record for most games played as a Yankee, and to top Ricky Henderson's stolen base record for the franchise.
Dick Cheney in a moment of lucidity told Tim Russert that the tax cuts for the wealthy did not create any jobs and that they only account for 25% of the national debt. I have an ingenious solution to Cheney's Interpol problem. Since Cheney literally doesn't have a pulse anymore, his lawyers should claim he's dead, thereby sparring the Obama Administration from having to finesse the arrest warrant. The bonus to this is that he can take advantage of the Estate Tax, which is due to re-appear in 2011.
Since it looks like the tax cuts for the wealthy will be extended, Glenn Beck will get $2,500,000 in tax breaks and Mitch McConnell, whose net worth is $34 million, will get enough of a tax break that he will earn more than the President of the United States. Not bad for saying "no"
James Fallows writes in the Atlantic about how John McCain became a shell of his former self. Fallows likens McCain's fate to that of Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh, who became right-wing crackpots in their old age. Regenary, the right-wing publisher, has printed a new book extolling Lindbergh's politics when he was challenging FDR. It must have been underwritten by the Koch Brothers, who are trying to rehabilitate their families' reputation during that period.
For his part, McCain is trying to run out the congressional clock on DADT as GOP spokespeople claimed in the Sunday news shows,saying DADT is dead for this Congress. Don't bet on this.
Remember to revisit Prop 8 trial tracker tomorrow as the oral arguments begin at the 9th Circuit Court on same-sex marriage in California. So far, no names have been announced about the defenders. Boies and Olson are back up for the same-sex marriage advocates.
Meanwhile in Illinois, the Governor signed the bill allowing same-sex marriage and partnerships. What's interesting about this bill is that it allows for "marriage-lite" for both gays and straights. Straight couples can opt for domestic partnerships instead of marriage. A little shot across the bow was said by government authorities when they told the press, "No church can define marriage." Ouch!
Nate Silver in today's New York Times does a post-mortem about the House races. In short, he concludes that the Republican 60 seat pickup was a result of the polarization in those districts and that over 48 of them were districts where McCain had won in 2008. he also notes that the Democrats picked up all seats in Massachusetts, suggesting that the Coakley candidacy was incredibly weak when she lost to Scott Brown.
Newton Leroy Gingrich sort of thinks he may run for President so far. Stay tuned. He came up with an ingenious suggestion that the "rich" should determine when their tax cuts end. After all aren't they the ones who built America?
Robert Kaplan is an author I have enjoyed over the years but he leaves me today with a sophomoric article in the Washington Post, which will pass in this town as wise, saying that the problems in the world today are the result of the weakening of empires, including our own. He extols the fact that both the United States and the Soviets were "missionizing empires" and deplores China's reluctance to play the same role, exporting their values. He tut-tuts that China is not stepping up to the plate to accept their leadership role in this age. A strange argument but one that was heard on the Senate floor this week uttered by the "Liberator of South Ossetia" himself, John McCain.
Kaplan tells readers--wrongly--that we do not face the same fate as the Soviet union because of our wealth and personal freedom. This stuff just fries me. We have a war against the Middle Class--the Poor lost out two decades ago--,the world's largest debt, and the greatest shrinking of personal freedom in a generation but, no, Robert thinks we can go on with building up our military power. I guess the royalties for his books have been so good that he doesn't have to live in everyday world. I suggest Kaplan may be hanging out too much with Niall Ferguson, who has been on a global speaking campaign saying the American empire is threatened by the country's social benefits.
Dick Lugar risks being renditioned by teabaggers to Arizona to placed in Governor Brewer's death panels. Lugar praised the President for his outreach to Republicans, claimed the Republican leadership appreciated it and said that Repubicans have to come up with some constructive programs and can't be the party of no. The Teabaggers are issuing a Fatwa against Senator Lugar for faintly praising the Muslim President.
Actually the founder of the Tea Party Express said this week we should return to the days when only those who owned property could vote. Does a car count?
The new Teabagger Governor of Maine,LePage, discovered something interesting. He is urging his Attorney-General to sign on to the case against the Healthcare Bill because when Maine becomes the 35th state,the law becomes null and void. Isn't that Great? It's also wrong. A great state now run by a total moron.
But in Virginia, we have the great Cooch, our fanatic Attorney-General, who now wants to streamline his appeal on the healthcare bill straight to the Roberts Court,Inc. You see the first federal court suit here in Virginia upheld the constitutionality of the individual mandate. Now Cooch doesn't just want an appeal he wants the final decision while Gumba Tony Scalia is still on the court.
I recommend reading Andy Rowell and Eveline Lubbers' "Ken Saro-Wiwa was framed, secret evidence shows" in today's The Independent (U.K.). This article details the multi-year investigation by Nigerian authorities into the military's killing of four Ogoni elders whose murders led to the execution of the playwright and activist Ken Saro-Wiwa in 1995. The article should be read not only for this infamous case but also for the tawdry atmosphere around all abuses. Remember Saro-Wiwa was charged with murdering the elders for their moderate stance on issues in Ogoniland. The article details the activities of the military leading to killing the Ogoni elders and later to the whole frame-up and execution of Saro-Wiwa. And one of the details--those gratuitous details that show up in human rights cases--is the delivery of Ghana Must Go Bags filled with money to Lt.Col Okuntimo and how they spill open with guards present. The bags were the Shell Oil Company's payoff to the Colonel. Will anything be done?
The whole Wikileaks controversy has certainly opened the door to politicians' inner fascism around the globe. Both Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin call Julien Assange a traitor--even though he's Australia. Mike wants all leakers executed. I object--I don'tthink Scooty Libby should be executed. Mitch McConnell calls Julian Assange a "high-tech terrorist". Australian journalists are calling for Donald Assange, Julien's 20year old son to be kidnapped and used as ransom for his father's return. I guess this is Colombia-style democracy. Senator Lieberman,I-Knesset, said he got Amazon's cloud network to drop Wikileaks. And the woman who has accused Assange of sex with a broken condom turns out to have worked with the CIA and on other issues with anti-Castro groups organized by Carlos Alberto Montaner. (Full discloser--Carlos is a friend of mine.) Meanwhile,the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom are doing an all-global press to shut down any Wikileaks websites and their new tweeter accounts.
Now,let's focus on what our Government thinks of us. The Middle Eastern governments have basically enforced media censorship on the Wikileaks stories and shut down all internet sites commenting on it. We expect that. And we expect Russia and China to do the same as human rights activists have protested for years about authoritarian governments waging cyberwarfare against dissidents. Aside from the amateur hacker in the first days of the story, it has been the United States' government ,which has unleashed the electronic war to swamp every and all Wikileaks websites. It makes me sick to see our country is the best in the world at this. I had always felt it was Iran and China, working with a software called "Rain" that were the champs in suppressing information.
Now graduates students in Ivy League Schools have been warned not to read Wikileaks if they want a job in the State Department. Government employees have been warned not to read any of the Wikileaks' cables--even in the press? We have heard that lives at danger. American diplomats have been fanning out across the globe to offer their sources the opportunity to relocate for protection. How much of this concern is based on realistic threats I don't know. But the attitude of American politicians to the American public certainly is eye-opening.
Is there anything you have read that suurprises you? Are you shocked to find that Hamid Karzai is not a Jeffersonian Democrat? Are you surprised to find that an American defense contractor procured young boys and drugs for the Afghanis they are training as policemen? Were you stunned to find that the Saudis want to fight Iran to "the last American"? I'm not sure that the American public is shocked by anything in these cables.
But what I cam certain is that the over-reaction to Wikileaks will stir up more anti-Americanism than before. It seems very peculiar that we are hunting down Julian Assange with an insensity we lack against Bin Laden. Our plea to interpol was immediately after Assange said he was going to dump thousands of documents about an American bank. The Iraq and Afghanistan dumps--which were massive--elicited a very nonchalant response from Bob Gates at the Pentagon. Or maybe it has been Assange's call for both Hilary Clinton and Obama to resign for ordering spying on the United Nations that triggered the harsh reactions. I thought both statements showed how Assange was actually very naive about politics in general. We've been spying along with everyone else on the United Nations for decades.
But one question I do have is why the manic urge to shut down Wikileaks but no such effort has been made to close down the Jihadi websitesthat recruit new Al Qaeda members. We have Al Qaeda in Yemen recruiting American college kids from Virginia and relaying praise to the FT. Hood shooter. These websites actually kill people and yet we haven't made a move on them. I know it's so we can obtain intelligence on these groups so we allow them to operate. Meanwhile, troubled youths destroy their own lives and maybe others.
The simple lesson on Wikileaks is to keep your condom on, others the feds will come get you.
If you want to own a part of American history, the Unibomber's parcel of land in Montana is on sale. Unfortunately, it doesn't include the cabin. The last time I looked the cabin was at the Newseum here in Washington.
Dick Cheney in a moment of lucidity told Tim Russert that the tax cuts for the wealthy did not create any jobs and that they only account for 25% of the national debt. I have an ingenious solution to Cheney's Interpol problem. Since Cheney literally doesn't have a pulse anymore, his lawyers should claim he's dead, thereby sparring the Obama Administration from having to finesse the arrest warrant. The bonus to this is that he can take advantage of the Estate Tax, which is due to re-appear in 2011.
Since it looks like the tax cuts for the wealthy will be extended, Glenn Beck will get $2,500,000 in tax breaks and Mitch McConnell, whose net worth is $34 million, will get enough of a tax break that he will earn more than the President of the United States. Not bad for saying "no"
James Fallows writes in the Atlantic about how John McCain became a shell of his former self. Fallows likens McCain's fate to that of Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh, who became right-wing crackpots in their old age. Regenary, the right-wing publisher, has printed a new book extolling Lindbergh's politics when he was challenging FDR. It must have been underwritten by the Koch Brothers, who are trying to rehabilitate their families' reputation during that period.
For his part, McCain is trying to run out the congressional clock on DADT as GOP spokespeople claimed in the Sunday news shows,saying DADT is dead for this Congress. Don't bet on this.
Remember to revisit Prop 8 trial tracker tomorrow as the oral arguments begin at the 9th Circuit Court on same-sex marriage in California. So far, no names have been announced about the defenders. Boies and Olson are back up for the same-sex marriage advocates.
Meanwhile in Illinois, the Governor signed the bill allowing same-sex marriage and partnerships. What's interesting about this bill is that it allows for "marriage-lite" for both gays and straights. Straight couples can opt for domestic partnerships instead of marriage. A little shot across the bow was said by government authorities when they told the press, "No church can define marriage." Ouch!
Nate Silver in today's New York Times does a post-mortem about the House races. In short, he concludes that the Republican 60 seat pickup was a result of the polarization in those districts and that over 48 of them were districts where McCain had won in 2008. he also notes that the Democrats picked up all seats in Massachusetts, suggesting that the Coakley candidacy was incredibly weak when she lost to Scott Brown.
Newton Leroy Gingrich sort of thinks he may run for President so far. Stay tuned. He came up with an ingenious suggestion that the "rich" should determine when their tax cuts end. After all aren't they the ones who built America?
Robert Kaplan is an author I have enjoyed over the years but he leaves me today with a sophomoric article in the Washington Post, which will pass in this town as wise, saying that the problems in the world today are the result of the weakening of empires, including our own. He extols the fact that both the United States and the Soviets were "missionizing empires" and deplores China's reluctance to play the same role, exporting their values. He tut-tuts that China is not stepping up to the plate to accept their leadership role in this age. A strange argument but one that was heard on the Senate floor this week uttered by the "Liberator of South Ossetia" himself, John McCain.
Kaplan tells readers--wrongly--that we do not face the same fate as the Soviet union because of our wealth and personal freedom. This stuff just fries me. We have a war against the Middle Class--the Poor lost out two decades ago--,the world's largest debt, and the greatest shrinking of personal freedom in a generation but, no, Robert thinks we can go on with building up our military power. I guess the royalties for his books have been so good that he doesn't have to live in everyday world. I suggest Kaplan may be hanging out too much with Niall Ferguson, who has been on a global speaking campaign saying the American empire is threatened by the country's social benefits.
Dick Lugar risks being renditioned by teabaggers to Arizona to placed in Governor Brewer's death panels. Lugar praised the President for his outreach to Republicans, claimed the Republican leadership appreciated it and said that Repubicans have to come up with some constructive programs and can't be the party of no. The Teabaggers are issuing a Fatwa against Senator Lugar for faintly praising the Muslim President.
Actually the founder of the Tea Party Express said this week we should return to the days when only those who owned property could vote. Does a car count?
The new Teabagger Governor of Maine,LePage, discovered something interesting. He is urging his Attorney-General to sign on to the case against the Healthcare Bill because when Maine becomes the 35th state,the law becomes null and void. Isn't that Great? It's also wrong. A great state now run by a total moron.
But in Virginia, we have the great Cooch, our fanatic Attorney-General, who now wants to streamline his appeal on the healthcare bill straight to the Roberts Court,Inc. You see the first federal court suit here in Virginia upheld the constitutionality of the individual mandate. Now Cooch doesn't just want an appeal he wants the final decision while Gumba Tony Scalia is still on the court.
I recommend reading Andy Rowell and Eveline Lubbers' "Ken Saro-Wiwa was framed, secret evidence shows" in today's The Independent (U.K.). This article details the multi-year investigation by Nigerian authorities into the military's killing of four Ogoni elders whose murders led to the execution of the playwright and activist Ken Saro-Wiwa in 1995. The article should be read not only for this infamous case but also for the tawdry atmosphere around all abuses. Remember Saro-Wiwa was charged with murdering the elders for their moderate stance on issues in Ogoniland. The article details the activities of the military leading to killing the Ogoni elders and later to the whole frame-up and execution of Saro-Wiwa. And one of the details--those gratuitous details that show up in human rights cases--is the delivery of Ghana Must Go Bags filled with money to Lt.Col Okuntimo and how they spill open with guards present. The bags were the Shell Oil Company's payoff to the Colonel. Will anything be done?
The whole Wikileaks controversy has certainly opened the door to politicians' inner fascism around the globe. Both Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin call Julien Assange a traitor--even though he's Australia. Mike wants all leakers executed. I object--I don'tthink Scooty Libby should be executed. Mitch McConnell calls Julian Assange a "high-tech terrorist". Australian journalists are calling for Donald Assange, Julien's 20year old son to be kidnapped and used as ransom for his father's return. I guess this is Colombia-style democracy. Senator Lieberman,I-Knesset, said he got Amazon's cloud network to drop Wikileaks. And the woman who has accused Assange of sex with a broken condom turns out to have worked with the CIA and on other issues with anti-Castro groups organized by Carlos Alberto Montaner. (Full discloser--Carlos is a friend of mine.) Meanwhile,the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom are doing an all-global press to shut down any Wikileaks websites and their new tweeter accounts.
Now,let's focus on what our Government thinks of us. The Middle Eastern governments have basically enforced media censorship on the Wikileaks stories and shut down all internet sites commenting on it. We expect that. And we expect Russia and China to do the same as human rights activists have protested for years about authoritarian governments waging cyberwarfare against dissidents. Aside from the amateur hacker in the first days of the story, it has been the United States' government ,which has unleashed the electronic war to swamp every and all Wikileaks websites. It makes me sick to see our country is the best in the world at this. I had always felt it was Iran and China, working with a software called "Rain" that were the champs in suppressing information.
Now graduates students in Ivy League Schools have been warned not to read Wikileaks if they want a job in the State Department. Government employees have been warned not to read any of the Wikileaks' cables--even in the press? We have heard that lives at danger. American diplomats have been fanning out across the globe to offer their sources the opportunity to relocate for protection. How much of this concern is based on realistic threats I don't know. But the attitude of American politicians to the American public certainly is eye-opening.
Is there anything you have read that suurprises you? Are you shocked to find that Hamid Karzai is not a Jeffersonian Democrat? Are you surprised to find that an American defense contractor procured young boys and drugs for the Afghanis they are training as policemen? Were you stunned to find that the Saudis want to fight Iran to "the last American"? I'm not sure that the American public is shocked by anything in these cables.
But what I cam certain is that the over-reaction to Wikileaks will stir up more anti-Americanism than before. It seems very peculiar that we are hunting down Julian Assange with an insensity we lack against Bin Laden. Our plea to interpol was immediately after Assange said he was going to dump thousands of documents about an American bank. The Iraq and Afghanistan dumps--which were massive--elicited a very nonchalant response from Bob Gates at the Pentagon. Or maybe it has been Assange's call for both Hilary Clinton and Obama to resign for ordering spying on the United Nations that triggered the harsh reactions. I thought both statements showed how Assange was actually very naive about politics in general. We've been spying along with everyone else on the United Nations for decades.
But one question I do have is why the manic urge to shut down Wikileaks but no such effort has been made to close down the Jihadi websitesthat recruit new Al Qaeda members. We have Al Qaeda in Yemen recruiting American college kids from Virginia and relaying praise to the FT. Hood shooter. These websites actually kill people and yet we haven't made a move on them. I know it's so we can obtain intelligence on these groups so we allow them to operate. Meanwhile, troubled youths destroy their own lives and maybe others.
The simple lesson on Wikileaks is to keep your condom on, others the feds will come get you.
If you want to own a part of American history, the Unibomber's parcel of land in Montana is on sale. Unfortunately, it doesn't include the cabin. The last time I looked the cabin was at the Newseum here in Washington.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Unfinished Business
DADT--Despite Lady Gaga's valiant effort in Portland, Maine, it looks like the GOP will filibuster the entire Defense Appropriations bill to block the repeal of the gay ban. Leading the charge will be Country Last John McCain, who had said during the presidential campaign he would drop DADT if the military agreed--which, with the except of the new Marine Corps commander, they have. The situation is rich in ironies. The allegedly strong defenders of national security would basically de-fund both wars over an issue the federal court has already ruled unconstitutional and the House has already passed its repeal. Then again, with the momentary blip in the Washington media about how friendly to gays the GOP has become, it has to be noted that the court case, which finally doomed DADT, was brought by the Log Cabin Republicans, who are honoring Senator John Cornyn of Texas with their Barry Goldwater Award.
In the end, Barack Obama may have to do a Harry Truman and revoke DADT through executive order as Truman did with racial discrimination in the military.
The Prop 8 Case. Here the the poor 9th Circuit Court is rummaging around for anyone with standing to defend Prop 8 after Vaughn Walker ruled it unconstitutional. Rumors have one town in California trying to recruit a religious Right group to argue the case. Frankly, I don't know whether that would pass the smell test of "having standing."
Sharia Law--Eugene Robinson did an excellent job in blasting Newt Gingrich's speech at AEI, where Leroy raised the new Red Scare of a leftwing conspiracy to get Sharia Law accepted in the United States. In defense of Leroy McPherson, he was coming off a chest-pounding speech at the Value-Less Summit, where the grifters of the religious right eat this up. But Gene put this away in today's column with a calm, eloquence. There existed only one case in recent memory in America where a local judge sided with a Muslim husband over the issue of forced sex with his wife. But on appeal this ruling was over-turned. That is the extent of the threat to America. It's sort of like "terror babies" or "death panels".
Roger Cohen also had an excellent op-ed in today's Washington Post, which simply says that given the GOP candidates this year Republicans are simply not fit to govern. Full stop. You don't need to read the piece.
If you sense that Democrats seem to be a nicer breed of candidate and grounded in reality, you might want to thank Howard Dean's work as DNC chair when he created the 50-state strategy, which believed that no seat was unwinnable. Last night, Howard Dean appeared on the Rachel Maddow show and said calmly that the Democrats would keep both the Senate and the House. He said that President Obama was key and has to keep on the campaign trail. He went on to say that what we are seeing now are the last gasps of the extreme right. He said that the younger American is not homophobic, racist or anti-immigrant and that they will be around in 2012. While you can write off Dean's comments as a good soldier for the party, I was surprised by his calm assurance. He claimed the reason for holding both the House and the Senate was that the Democrats had better candidates and that the average American still knows who got them in the mess.
For a counter opinion, Michael Gerson writes today that the Republican tide is growing as for example the bad fate of Democrat Ellsworth in Indiana and sinking polls in Pennsylvania. Frankly, I'm reading very different polls from Pennsylvania, which actually show the Democrats having a shot at the state house, which I had written off, and winning swing seats, which Republicans need to win to capture the House.
Howard Dean mentioned something else. He said that the Health Reform Bill puts Republicans in a bind. For example, they must tell their base they will repeal. But on Thursday, key provisions of Healthcare kick in--no more rescissions, no more lifetime caps on payouts, no more prohibiting insuring children with pre-existing conditions, and parents can keep covering their children until 26. If President Obama spells out these changes in everyday language, the pressure tightens the bind on the GOP. Howard is right on this.
The Washington Post wrote a front page piece today on how the Tea Party was now a movement raising millions and going to field get out the vote efforts. I even received a call from the DNC about this. The actual problem appears to be a massive effort by the Tea Party and the GOP at voter suppression. This has become clear in Wisconsin, for example. There the Tea Party wants to act as election monitors and challenge voters. Because of the nature of state laws, the GOP and the Tea Party people can actually challenge voters who mail in votes,etc. This is a tactic called "caging voters" and preventing their votes to be counted. As to real Get Out The Vote efforts, it is true the religious Right and the Tea Baggers have purchased very expensive IT systems but their problem is that their average constituent is over 55 and appears at this time to be severely limited technically. In other words, it looks like a very expensive waste of money. Also, the Tea Baggers were to hold a national convention in Las Vegas, but had to cancel.
I get the sense the Nate Silver is pondering his predictions this morning with his comments on recent polls coming from swing seats, which show Democrats in comfortable leads. He is raising questions about how useful the generic vote polling is to determining the final election. He appears to be watching some of the polling I have been watching. For example, there are a handful of House seats in New York,where the constituency is historically Republican but which in 2008 went Democrat. They appear to be staying that way for now. Likewise, three seats in Iowa show Democrats holding them, when the mood in the state has tilted Republican. Chris Van Hollen continues to release internal polls on so-called contested House races, which show Democrats with surprising strength. That 43 number looks very daunting from a Republican perspective. Yesterday's Gallup poll shows Democrats with a 1% edge on Republicans in the generic poll. Normally not great news, this marks another indicator that the Democratic Party may be coming out its summer slump.
If you want to follow Christine O'Donnell's silliness, I recommend Think Progress' piece "The Old Adventures of New Christine", which documents her obsession with sex, gays, God, religion and popular culture. To her credit, she knows that Sarah Palin become a millionaire grifter by advocating these nutty things so she really has made a great career move. However, the recent poll on the Delaware race puts Coons in a commanding position and shows that only 33% of those in the state believe she is qualified for public office.
Barbara Boxer appears to be following her past pattern--bad polling in the beginning of the campaign and widening the distance at the end. She has hit 50% against Carly Fiorina. However, Governor Moonbeam has been running a below the radar campaign. I guess he figures that Meg Whitman's incessant ads will turn everyone off in the end. Queen Meg has obtained the Guinness Book of Records for personal spending on her campaign--surpassing the $120 million mark.
Republicans will be releasing their new Contract with America on Thursday, the same distance from election as their 1994 effort. So far, it's unclear how they are going to deal with the whole tax and deficit issue. President Obama in the last few days has hammered how irresponsible keeping these tax cuts are. Vast majority of Americans in poll after poll after poll agree with the President and are against the tax cuts for the rich. And how are the Republicans going to reconcile their repeal of Healthcare with their "pretend" concern with the national debt. Any tinkering with the Healthcare issue will vastly increase the national debt as several CBO reports maintain.
Then we come back to the social conservatives and the Religious Right. Rachel Maddow did a good service by pointing out that the tea baggers are almost all culture warriors being absolutist against women's choice, anti-gay, against immigrants and anti-anything but Christians. On real economic and political issues, they basically subsume corporate agendas and whatever the Koch brothers funnel to their front organizations. But they simply don't believe any of these things. Their real goal is parallel with the ambitions of the Religious Right. Even Rand Paul, Mr. Libertarian, has been campaigning hard among the Christian Right as opposed to his real anti-government constituency. Since the Christian Right were allowed under Bush-Rove to gain a strangehold on the Republican Party,it is inconceivable for me to believe they can abandon their base. In fact, there has been backlash against Mitch Daniels and others suggesting the GOP abandon these issues in a time of economic hardship.
Ann Coulter was right when she criticized Tan Man Boehner for claiming earlier this summer how large a Republican victory would be, saying that anything less would be considered a loss. I agree. The media narrative has been set--this is a tsunami election and if the Republicans don't win then heads should roll. In fact, people are aleady starting this mantra among House Republicans, who view Boehner as lazy and someone who should not allowed to speak after 3pm.
I'm currentlyagnostic about how much the media really affects our elections. I didn't believe they did in 2008 and I'm beginnning to believe we are going to see the same non-effect this year. One dirty secret among the networks is that all of them were in terrible financial shape until the 2008 primaries and the elections generated revenues to keep them afloat. So they stayed with their winning formula. Then CNN tried to poach the FOX audience by hiring more conservative types to report on politics. This hasn't quite played out as well for them. But it's all business. Unfortunately, I believe they have played an unhealthy role in giving the Teabaggers the media attention they so desire. These people are American Idol wannabes. Politics is nothing but television anyway.
In the end, this year's election comes down to the rational reality-based candidate against the paranoids,psychopaths, meglomaniacs. Forget liberal or conservative. The conservatives vanished into the swamp of lunacy.
Finally, if you are concerned about the deficit, then let's have all the tax breaks expire. This morning's Washington Post shows that if they did expire, our deficit would essentially evaporate.
In the end, Barack Obama may have to do a Harry Truman and revoke DADT through executive order as Truman did with racial discrimination in the military.
The Prop 8 Case. Here the the poor 9th Circuit Court is rummaging around for anyone with standing to defend Prop 8 after Vaughn Walker ruled it unconstitutional. Rumors have one town in California trying to recruit a religious Right group to argue the case. Frankly, I don't know whether that would pass the smell test of "having standing."
Sharia Law--Eugene Robinson did an excellent job in blasting Newt Gingrich's speech at AEI, where Leroy raised the new Red Scare of a leftwing conspiracy to get Sharia Law accepted in the United States. In defense of Leroy McPherson, he was coming off a chest-pounding speech at the Value-Less Summit, where the grifters of the religious right eat this up. But Gene put this away in today's column with a calm, eloquence. There existed only one case in recent memory in America where a local judge sided with a Muslim husband over the issue of forced sex with his wife. But on appeal this ruling was over-turned. That is the extent of the threat to America. It's sort of like "terror babies" or "death panels".
Roger Cohen also had an excellent op-ed in today's Washington Post, which simply says that given the GOP candidates this year Republicans are simply not fit to govern. Full stop. You don't need to read the piece.
If you sense that Democrats seem to be a nicer breed of candidate and grounded in reality, you might want to thank Howard Dean's work as DNC chair when he created the 50-state strategy, which believed that no seat was unwinnable. Last night, Howard Dean appeared on the Rachel Maddow show and said calmly that the Democrats would keep both the Senate and the House. He said that President Obama was key and has to keep on the campaign trail. He went on to say that what we are seeing now are the last gasps of the extreme right. He said that the younger American is not homophobic, racist or anti-immigrant and that they will be around in 2012. While you can write off Dean's comments as a good soldier for the party, I was surprised by his calm assurance. He claimed the reason for holding both the House and the Senate was that the Democrats had better candidates and that the average American still knows who got them in the mess.
For a counter opinion, Michael Gerson writes today that the Republican tide is growing as for example the bad fate of Democrat Ellsworth in Indiana and sinking polls in Pennsylvania. Frankly, I'm reading very different polls from Pennsylvania, which actually show the Democrats having a shot at the state house, which I had written off, and winning swing seats, which Republicans need to win to capture the House.
Howard Dean mentioned something else. He said that the Health Reform Bill puts Republicans in a bind. For example, they must tell their base they will repeal. But on Thursday, key provisions of Healthcare kick in--no more rescissions, no more lifetime caps on payouts, no more prohibiting insuring children with pre-existing conditions, and parents can keep covering their children until 26. If President Obama spells out these changes in everyday language, the pressure tightens the bind on the GOP. Howard is right on this.
The Washington Post wrote a front page piece today on how the Tea Party was now a movement raising millions and going to field get out the vote efforts. I even received a call from the DNC about this. The actual problem appears to be a massive effort by the Tea Party and the GOP at voter suppression. This has become clear in Wisconsin, for example. There the Tea Party wants to act as election monitors and challenge voters. Because of the nature of state laws, the GOP and the Tea Party people can actually challenge voters who mail in votes,etc. This is a tactic called "caging voters" and preventing their votes to be counted. As to real Get Out The Vote efforts, it is true the religious Right and the Tea Baggers have purchased very expensive IT systems but their problem is that their average constituent is over 55 and appears at this time to be severely limited technically. In other words, it looks like a very expensive waste of money. Also, the Tea Baggers were to hold a national convention in Las Vegas, but had to cancel.
I get the sense the Nate Silver is pondering his predictions this morning with his comments on recent polls coming from swing seats, which show Democrats in comfortable leads. He is raising questions about how useful the generic vote polling is to determining the final election. He appears to be watching some of the polling I have been watching. For example, there are a handful of House seats in New York,where the constituency is historically Republican but which in 2008 went Democrat. They appear to be staying that way for now. Likewise, three seats in Iowa show Democrats holding them, when the mood in the state has tilted Republican. Chris Van Hollen continues to release internal polls on so-called contested House races, which show Democrats with surprising strength. That 43 number looks very daunting from a Republican perspective. Yesterday's Gallup poll shows Democrats with a 1% edge on Republicans in the generic poll. Normally not great news, this marks another indicator that the Democratic Party may be coming out its summer slump.
If you want to follow Christine O'Donnell's silliness, I recommend Think Progress' piece "The Old Adventures of New Christine", which documents her obsession with sex, gays, God, religion and popular culture. To her credit, she knows that Sarah Palin become a millionaire grifter by advocating these nutty things so she really has made a great career move. However, the recent poll on the Delaware race puts Coons in a commanding position and shows that only 33% of those in the state believe she is qualified for public office.
Barbara Boxer appears to be following her past pattern--bad polling in the beginning of the campaign and widening the distance at the end. She has hit 50% against Carly Fiorina. However, Governor Moonbeam has been running a below the radar campaign. I guess he figures that Meg Whitman's incessant ads will turn everyone off in the end. Queen Meg has obtained the Guinness Book of Records for personal spending on her campaign--surpassing the $120 million mark.
Republicans will be releasing their new Contract with America on Thursday, the same distance from election as their 1994 effort. So far, it's unclear how they are going to deal with the whole tax and deficit issue. President Obama in the last few days has hammered how irresponsible keeping these tax cuts are. Vast majority of Americans in poll after poll after poll agree with the President and are against the tax cuts for the rich. And how are the Republicans going to reconcile their repeal of Healthcare with their "pretend" concern with the national debt. Any tinkering with the Healthcare issue will vastly increase the national debt as several CBO reports maintain.
Then we come back to the social conservatives and the Religious Right. Rachel Maddow did a good service by pointing out that the tea baggers are almost all culture warriors being absolutist against women's choice, anti-gay, against immigrants and anti-anything but Christians. On real economic and political issues, they basically subsume corporate agendas and whatever the Koch brothers funnel to their front organizations. But they simply don't believe any of these things. Their real goal is parallel with the ambitions of the Religious Right. Even Rand Paul, Mr. Libertarian, has been campaigning hard among the Christian Right as opposed to his real anti-government constituency. Since the Christian Right were allowed under Bush-Rove to gain a strangehold on the Republican Party,it is inconceivable for me to believe they can abandon their base. In fact, there has been backlash against Mitch Daniels and others suggesting the GOP abandon these issues in a time of economic hardship.
Ann Coulter was right when she criticized Tan Man Boehner for claiming earlier this summer how large a Republican victory would be, saying that anything less would be considered a loss. I agree. The media narrative has been set--this is a tsunami election and if the Republicans don't win then heads should roll. In fact, people are aleady starting this mantra among House Republicans, who view Boehner as lazy and someone who should not allowed to speak after 3pm.
I'm currentlyagnostic about how much the media really affects our elections. I didn't believe they did in 2008 and I'm beginnning to believe we are going to see the same non-effect this year. One dirty secret among the networks is that all of them were in terrible financial shape until the 2008 primaries and the elections generated revenues to keep them afloat. So they stayed with their winning formula. Then CNN tried to poach the FOX audience by hiring more conservative types to report on politics. This hasn't quite played out as well for them. But it's all business. Unfortunately, I believe they have played an unhealthy role in giving the Teabaggers the media attention they so desire. These people are American Idol wannabes. Politics is nothing but television anyway.
In the end, this year's election comes down to the rational reality-based candidate against the paranoids,psychopaths, meglomaniacs. Forget liberal or conservative. The conservatives vanished into the swamp of lunacy.
Finally, if you are concerned about the deficit, then let's have all the tax breaks expire. This morning's Washington Post shows that if they did expire, our deficit would essentially evaporate.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Sunday Chelsea Blues
Now that Venezuela has larger oil reserves than Saudi Arabia, does that mean CITGO is going to fund American elections? CITGO for Dennis Kucinich. I can see Hugo Chavez make the case.
Bloggers have been writing about the SCOTUS decision favorably, taking an absolutist position on the First Amendment, something I have always done until recently. But we know from the Founders views about corporations--they are only to exist with the permission of the state and for a limited time--the 1st Amendment wasn't considered for our corporate overlords. We have our own history to rely on for periods when corporations could virtually dictate politics. The stench got so bad that both parties realized something had to be done. Others claim let the voters decide. Preliminary polls are favorable to the ruling. Yet the same polls show the public believes Washington is a cesspool of special interests and lobbyists.
What's curious about all this is that the Supreme Court has always preserved its integrity but refuses to preserve that of other government institutions and seems to be oblivious of the real world harm all of this will do. The House is readying a sheaf of laws to regulate corporate involvement in politics but I'm doubtful they can pass both chambers. Allan Grayson and Barney Frank claim they can neutralize the effects of the bill through corporate regulation. I again am doubtful.
The more I read the decision and the background to the case the more infuriated I become. The Rehnquist Court, which I was no fan of, repeatedly handed down decisions stating that the Court had to defer to Congress on the means it chose to regulate its affairs. It made several rulings upholding the rights of states and Congress to curtail abusive corporate practices in campaigns. So not only did the Court blow away the early laws against corporate financing but they also dismiss out of hand (and without mention) all the recent cases some of their conservative colleagues had decided. The plaintiffs in this case did not ask for such a sweeping ruling. In fact, the Court asked them to come back with their opinion on a Michigan state law regulating corporate contributions, a case which had nothing to do with the circumstances of their complaint. In short, it was a rigged game. Conservative bloggers disingenuously argue that the case was about Citzens United attempting to screen their Hillary Clinton film thirty days before the election. In fact, the Court asked them to come back on something totally different so they could blow away all laws on the issue. The rapid scheduling of the case--each side only had 30 days--makes one suspicious of the motive of the majority. They found a convenient patsy in Judge Kennedy, the only one of the majority who believes in the First Amendment, as Judge Stevens showed when he eviscerated Roberts with all the cases where he restricted whole categories of speech.
This is why I'm skeptical about the Olson-Boies case for same sex marriage. Final statements will occur in March. But the last two days of the trial raised some concerns. the anti-gay proponents tried to mount their case and they were eviscerated by the Olson team. But they in offhand comments raised the prospects they would put forward studies showing the usual litany of complaints about gays being sexual predators,etc. , all of which the expert witnesses destroyed to the satisfaction of reasonable thinking people. But what they are going to do is to try to raise the some say-others say argument and in case of doubt you can't allow same sex marriage. The other line of argument they have been coming back to is to argue that since Houston elected a lesbian Mayor and there are now Hate Crime statutes on the book that gays and lesbians do not suffer discrimination as a "class" of people and therefore one can't rule on the grounds of discrimination.
I doubt the current Judge will fall for this. He has been so engaged and questioning of witnesses that I suspect he will rule for Olson-Boies. But conservative columnist and Prop 8 activist Maggie Gallagher wrote a column calling it a kangaroo court and the Wall Street Journal published extensively excerpts of all the anti-gay witnesses. By the time it reaches this Supreme Court, the bogus scholarship will be accepted as evidence and the Roberts Court will figure out a way to decide the case not on its merits. Here they are liable to write an opinion that it is society at large to decide these matters and therefore the people must decide through the ballot box. That's why I have believed from the beginning that Olson, the last respected conservative lawyer in the country, doesn't realize how radical right conservatives have become and has underestimated the corruption to the law this has done.
This week will be Barack Obama's State of the Union address. Bets on who heckles him. Obama will support a deficit reduction commission to appease the deficit hawks and may call for a freeze on discretionary spending. At the same time expect a full-throated defense of the stimulus package,the auto bailout,the health care bill and calls for stronger regulation of the banking industry and the creation of a Consumer Protection agency. An we will hear about North Korea,Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan and terrorism. Democrats are disappointed in Obama because he is not more FDR. But FDR did not have the Saudis, Chinese and Japan owning America. FDR did face an entrenched reactionary opposition with almost the identical economic theories and beliefs as today's Republicans. But the situation FDR faced was more dire. The remnants of FDR's reforms, which were allowed to survive the Bush-Cheney years, stopped the full impact of a financial collapse. Add to that Obama's stimulus package and the brakes have been put on without the benefit of a recovery.
But the U6 unemployment rate is still 17.5%--in short we are a couple points away from Depression. African-Americans and Hispanics are already in a Depression with unemployment rates in the high twenties. Also, unlike in the Great Depression you have a sizeable portion of the population which still receives social security, medicare and medicaid as well as government and military pensions. A good bunch of these people are the teabaggers and the base of the Republican Party. Even with $14 trillion of private assets wiped out by the Bush-Cheney great Recession, this portion of the population are and will be relatively immune to the total financial devastation done to others. If White unemployment dips below 9% again, then don't expect any sustained enthusiasm for necessary economic or financial reform.
Barack Obama faces the situation FDR did in 1937 when FDR felt the Great Depression was essentially over. He started deficit reduction and tax cuts only to see the situation worsen. President Obama has to walk a tight-line on this while facing resistance among the public and on the Hill. But there are other problems. The American economy can never recover on its old foundation. Western Europe, Korea and China are all leading now in Green technologies and ending their dependence on oil. While Obama has put this in motion with some aspects of the stimulus package, the forces arrayed against any Energy Bill or Climate Change legislation dwarf the resistance to health care reform. With the new Supreme Court ruling expect the oil industry to make a full-court press on this issue. Unfortunately,this may doom us to an economy which has no future viability.
The inability of the American system to make critical choices for its own survival is quite amazing. The Health Care Reform argument is no longer about protecting those less fortunate then ourselves--a good argument anyway--but it's about an economic necessity. You can not have a modern society where a major illness automatically brings bankruptcy to individuals and families. You can not have a modern economy when one-quarter of it is spent on health care costs. You also can not continue to have a modern economy if you are almost exclusively dependent on oil. From my oil friends, we can expect a $200 barrel of oil very soon in our future.
But Gov. Pawlenty's favorite business Sam's Club is laying of 125,000 workers. Now even the WalMarts of America will not hire. Rep. Boehner can taunt Obama "Where are the jobs?" But he knows. The Republicans with their Blue Dog allies are making a bid to save the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and will make a bid to cut tax rates for large corporations. None of which will create a single job.
Maybe our role in the world has already been decided for us. We are to be the policemen of the world with a $1 trillion military-terrorism budget, while other countries such as China benefit from our military actions without taking any of the consequences. But the American people be damned. If you got a job be grateful, you can always be replaced. If you were thinking about retirement, forget about it. If you want to get educated, then make sure you're rich. You, my friends, are on your own. And your young, eloquent, smart President, we have him boxed in at every turn.
If Obama is slightly successful, the United States will enter into a prolonged period of 8% unemployment and will start to cut entitlement programs. If he doesn't succeed in his programs, we could de-develop in a short time.
Bloggers have been writing about the SCOTUS decision favorably, taking an absolutist position on the First Amendment, something I have always done until recently. But we know from the Founders views about corporations--they are only to exist with the permission of the state and for a limited time--the 1st Amendment wasn't considered for our corporate overlords. We have our own history to rely on for periods when corporations could virtually dictate politics. The stench got so bad that both parties realized something had to be done. Others claim let the voters decide. Preliminary polls are favorable to the ruling. Yet the same polls show the public believes Washington is a cesspool of special interests and lobbyists.
What's curious about all this is that the Supreme Court has always preserved its integrity but refuses to preserve that of other government institutions and seems to be oblivious of the real world harm all of this will do. The House is readying a sheaf of laws to regulate corporate involvement in politics but I'm doubtful they can pass both chambers. Allan Grayson and Barney Frank claim they can neutralize the effects of the bill through corporate regulation. I again am doubtful.
The more I read the decision and the background to the case the more infuriated I become. The Rehnquist Court, which I was no fan of, repeatedly handed down decisions stating that the Court had to defer to Congress on the means it chose to regulate its affairs. It made several rulings upholding the rights of states and Congress to curtail abusive corporate practices in campaigns. So not only did the Court blow away the early laws against corporate financing but they also dismiss out of hand (and without mention) all the recent cases some of their conservative colleagues had decided. The plaintiffs in this case did not ask for such a sweeping ruling. In fact, the Court asked them to come back with their opinion on a Michigan state law regulating corporate contributions, a case which had nothing to do with the circumstances of their complaint. In short, it was a rigged game. Conservative bloggers disingenuously argue that the case was about Citzens United attempting to screen their Hillary Clinton film thirty days before the election. In fact, the Court asked them to come back on something totally different so they could blow away all laws on the issue. The rapid scheduling of the case--each side only had 30 days--makes one suspicious of the motive of the majority. They found a convenient patsy in Judge Kennedy, the only one of the majority who believes in the First Amendment, as Judge Stevens showed when he eviscerated Roberts with all the cases where he restricted whole categories of speech.
This is why I'm skeptical about the Olson-Boies case for same sex marriage. Final statements will occur in March. But the last two days of the trial raised some concerns. the anti-gay proponents tried to mount their case and they were eviscerated by the Olson team. But they in offhand comments raised the prospects they would put forward studies showing the usual litany of complaints about gays being sexual predators,etc. , all of which the expert witnesses destroyed to the satisfaction of reasonable thinking people. But what they are going to do is to try to raise the some say-others say argument and in case of doubt you can't allow same sex marriage. The other line of argument they have been coming back to is to argue that since Houston elected a lesbian Mayor and there are now Hate Crime statutes on the book that gays and lesbians do not suffer discrimination as a "class" of people and therefore one can't rule on the grounds of discrimination.
I doubt the current Judge will fall for this. He has been so engaged and questioning of witnesses that I suspect he will rule for Olson-Boies. But conservative columnist and Prop 8 activist Maggie Gallagher wrote a column calling it a kangaroo court and the Wall Street Journal published extensively excerpts of all the anti-gay witnesses. By the time it reaches this Supreme Court, the bogus scholarship will be accepted as evidence and the Roberts Court will figure out a way to decide the case not on its merits. Here they are liable to write an opinion that it is society at large to decide these matters and therefore the people must decide through the ballot box. That's why I have believed from the beginning that Olson, the last respected conservative lawyer in the country, doesn't realize how radical right conservatives have become and has underestimated the corruption to the law this has done.
This week will be Barack Obama's State of the Union address. Bets on who heckles him. Obama will support a deficit reduction commission to appease the deficit hawks and may call for a freeze on discretionary spending. At the same time expect a full-throated defense of the stimulus package,the auto bailout,the health care bill and calls for stronger regulation of the banking industry and the creation of a Consumer Protection agency. An we will hear about North Korea,Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan and terrorism. Democrats are disappointed in Obama because he is not more FDR. But FDR did not have the Saudis, Chinese and Japan owning America. FDR did face an entrenched reactionary opposition with almost the identical economic theories and beliefs as today's Republicans. But the situation FDR faced was more dire. The remnants of FDR's reforms, which were allowed to survive the Bush-Cheney years, stopped the full impact of a financial collapse. Add to that Obama's stimulus package and the brakes have been put on without the benefit of a recovery.
But the U6 unemployment rate is still 17.5%--in short we are a couple points away from Depression. African-Americans and Hispanics are already in a Depression with unemployment rates in the high twenties. Also, unlike in the Great Depression you have a sizeable portion of the population which still receives social security, medicare and medicaid as well as government and military pensions. A good bunch of these people are the teabaggers and the base of the Republican Party. Even with $14 trillion of private assets wiped out by the Bush-Cheney great Recession, this portion of the population are and will be relatively immune to the total financial devastation done to others. If White unemployment dips below 9% again, then don't expect any sustained enthusiasm for necessary economic or financial reform.
Barack Obama faces the situation FDR did in 1937 when FDR felt the Great Depression was essentially over. He started deficit reduction and tax cuts only to see the situation worsen. President Obama has to walk a tight-line on this while facing resistance among the public and on the Hill. But there are other problems. The American economy can never recover on its old foundation. Western Europe, Korea and China are all leading now in Green technologies and ending their dependence on oil. While Obama has put this in motion with some aspects of the stimulus package, the forces arrayed against any Energy Bill or Climate Change legislation dwarf the resistance to health care reform. With the new Supreme Court ruling expect the oil industry to make a full-court press on this issue. Unfortunately,this may doom us to an economy which has no future viability.
The inability of the American system to make critical choices for its own survival is quite amazing. The Health Care Reform argument is no longer about protecting those less fortunate then ourselves--a good argument anyway--but it's about an economic necessity. You can not have a modern society where a major illness automatically brings bankruptcy to individuals and families. You can not have a modern economy when one-quarter of it is spent on health care costs. You also can not continue to have a modern economy if you are almost exclusively dependent on oil. From my oil friends, we can expect a $200 barrel of oil very soon in our future.
But Gov. Pawlenty's favorite business Sam's Club is laying of 125,000 workers. Now even the WalMarts of America will not hire. Rep. Boehner can taunt Obama "Where are the jobs?" But he knows. The Republicans with their Blue Dog allies are making a bid to save the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and will make a bid to cut tax rates for large corporations. None of which will create a single job.
Maybe our role in the world has already been decided for us. We are to be the policemen of the world with a $1 trillion military-terrorism budget, while other countries such as China benefit from our military actions without taking any of the consequences. But the American people be damned. If you got a job be grateful, you can always be replaced. If you were thinking about retirement, forget about it. If you want to get educated, then make sure you're rich. You, my friends, are on your own. And your young, eloquent, smart President, we have him boxed in at every turn.
If Obama is slightly successful, the United States will enter into a prolonged period of 8% unemployment and will start to cut entitlement programs. If he doesn't succeed in his programs, we could de-develop in a short time.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
SCOTUS and POTUS
Probably the California Supreme Court knew what the US Supreme Court was going to rule so they ruled that it was unconstitutional to put legal limits on the amount of medical marijuana you can possess. Take it from there.
Hugo Chavez, the leader of the Bolivarian Revolution, charged the United States caused the destruction in Haiti by testing a "tectonic weapon" to induce the catastrophic earthquake. He told a Spanish newspaper that the US was playing God by testing devices capable of creating eco-type catastrophes. The earthquake followed a test of "weapon of earthquakes" just offshore from Haiti. Venezuelan versions of Seymour Hersh reported that the earthquake "may be associated with the project called HAARP, a system that can generate violent and unexpected changes in the climate". HAARP is a study in Alaska directed at the occasional reconfiguration of properties of the Earth's ionosphere to improve satellite communications. I find this report very re-assuring that someone on planet earth finds us so menacing.
So today Venezuela, Bolivia and France ("We'll always have Paris.") denounced the United States for occupying Haiti. Even conservative Republicans are criticizing our humanitarian aid work as akin to the invasion of Iraq. And Doug Brooks not to be outdone said that the health care reform debate was akin to the long discussion we had before invading Iraq.
Meanwhile, things are settling in. The Coast Guard has cleared the port in Port-au-Prince. The cranes will get to work tomorrow. Plans are underway to evacuate 400,000 Haitians and resettle them in the country. Through a works for food project, they will all build new homes, which they will own. Some of the air traffic has been cleared but over 110,000 flights are logged waiting OKs from the airport to come. Vandalism has quieted down and shops are re-opened. Farmers are appearing with fruits and vegetables to sell. The inflatable operating tents have been erected. And the Hospital Ship has started treating people who are being medevac'd to the ship. The US is planning on taking some Haitian refugees temporarily to Gitmo. Donations keep pouring in. And it looks like Europe and the United States are getting into a diplomatic flap over the future. So everything is normal or "normalized".
Barack Obama, who has been reported on the ropes, appears to have rebounded with his announcement of the "Volcker Principles" to regulate the banks. Tomorrow Republican Senator Shelby from Alabama will sound forth on what his party's take on this is. Already today the usual swarm of lobbyists for the bankers denounced the measures, saying the costs will have to be handed down to the customers. Gee, what a surprise.
The new senator from Massachusetts has already stepped in it. It appears he endorsed a teabagger for congress in 2010 but then discovered the guy was a birther and withdrew the endorsement, provoking the ire of his teabag supporters. He also said that he was for healthcare for everyone and that his main objection to the Health Care Bill was that his state would have to pick up the medicare costs for other states. He was referring to Ben Nelson's sweetheart deal. What will he leadership say when he gets into town? So is he for a new bill or not?
Well, Barack Obama is on the ropes. In a Fox News poll about his present position, they buried some trial heats for the 2012 presidential elections. They tested Obama against Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich. Although meaningless there are fun. Obama leads Romney by 47-35, Palin by 55-31 and Gingrich by 53-29. Each margin included healthy leads among independent voters whom we told Obama lost in Massachusetts. And he also beats the generic teabagger candidate by 48-23.
The Prop 8 trial continued today with some hot testimony. Yesterday, the Olson and Boies team in discovery unearthed a document from the California leader of the Mormans where he instructed his church to place someone in each district to help organize the Prop 8 effort. The persons were to take strategic advice from the organizers so as " to have the appearance of plausible deniability." What's everyone a spy these days? Today we were treated to Hak-Shing William Tam, who serves as secretary to the American Return to God Prayer Movement. He peddled propaganda during the campaign that gays were 12 times more likely to molest children than gays and that same-sex marriage would lead to the legalization of sex with children. I've visited these arguments in other posts about expert witnesses testifying that all this is rubbish.
But my concern is that after ten days of testimony that the Associated Press chose today to report on testimony that had already been destroyed and they treated it as if this man had a legitimate point of view. Then one of the anti-gay lawyers tried to insert that gays had lost political support for "alleged death threats against backers of California's same-sex marriage ban". This has been a sub-theme for several days, including one of the reasons the lawyers claim witnesses backed out of the trial--which was nonsense because their testimony directly contradicted the anti-gay lawyers position. While Olson and company continued to score within the trial itself, the anti-gays scored today by getting AP to perpetrate the basest lies of their case.
And what about Silent Clarence Thomas' dissent today in the Supreme Court case? While he thinks corporations are the greatest thing since sliced bread, he opposed the majority decision's that they must reveal their financial support in political ads and other campaign materials. He didn't think that was wise. Why not, it seemed the only rational part of today's majority decision? Because Clarence's eyes are on California and Washington where gays want to know the backers against same-sex marriage and other anti-gay laws. He knows Ted Olson is coming and he wants to be on record to protect homophobes.
We will deeply miss him when he goes. Justice Stevens wrote the dissenting brief on Citizens United versus Federal Election Commission with Ginsburg,Breyer and Sotomayor dissenting. I will try to reproduce the salient parts soon but he basically addresses the equation that money equals free speech--which the court ruled today. Stevens long and complex dissent got especially heated when he took on the "originalists". He called the majority "judicial activists" , which is the tag so-called conservative judges put on others. He also was very tough in taking on the majority's assertions about the intent of the Founding Fathers' and pointed out that the majority failed to discuss any of the origins of the First Amendment to make their judgment on the intent of the amendment. He said the majority position was actually diametrically opposed to the Founding Fathers and backed it up with textual references.
What he was politely saying with tough legal arguments was that our fine originalist judges are nothing more then conservative political activists masquerading as judges. He also blasted the perversion of Roberts' civil libertarian statements about the absoluteness of the First Amendment, citing chapter and verse Roberts' own decisions on the Court limiting the free expression of several different classes of people.
My 84-year old father-in-law is a Supreme Court junkie, reading every opinion. For years he has called me, railing about Scalia and Thomas. A former FBI agent and small town lawyer, he voted Republican all his life. But the extreme right-wing bent of the party finally drove him with alot of the family to break and vote for Barack Obama. His vote was almost exclusively a protest against any more right-wing judges on the Supreme Court and his confidence in Barack Obama as a constitutional lawyer. He had the very good sense to know that John McCain not only didn't understand the role of the judiciary but would send worse candidates to the court than George W. Bush.
I thought Sotomayor should have knock out one of the majority with a nunchuk, since she demonstrated her knowledge of them so well in her hearings.
Washington radio commentators said the decision simply meant "more money." There would be more money in this town for political consultants and that television revenue would rise dramatically for the 2010 election. For the rest of us, it could forestall any real reforms in our system and block any initiatives the Administration has of fixing the imbalances in our economic system. One conservative said ,"Why are you upset? All they did was decide that corporations have rights just as you do.' Well, you see there is a slight imbalance here. My limited contributions to political causes will always be dwarfed by a corporation. Also, as Judge Stevens said, I could never get into the position of essentially blackmailing a candidate by threatening to run ads against him. I don't have the financial capability of getting into a situation of a quid pro quo relationship with a politician.
And there is another issue here. It's being reported that the ruling allows corporations and unions to give unlimited amounts of contributions. There is a perceived equivalence here between groups of American workers, who only represent 6% of our workforce and have limited union funds, and American corporations, who often have foreign shareholders, who have unlimited funds. It is a grotesque imbalance of power.
In a previous post, I raised the prospect of our society becoming so atomized that we could not agree any longer on the common good or the public good. This was in reference to whole generations of children being homeschooled in Christian fundamentalist schools. We have created a fairly sophisticated apartheid system with the dispersion of the population in age-determined communities, religious-based communities and still existing race-based communities. There is no common civic ethos. Our school systems are being torn apart by political fights over evolution, exclusions in history books and silly battles over sex education.
Now the situation is quite dire when we have private armies carrying out our foreign policy but there is no acountability, private and foreign corporations buying state highways and private companies assuming prison management. The public budgets are in effect subsidizing private corporations without either fiscal accounting or the responsibility assigned "real" public officials.
The issue of torture, for instance, which I find to be profound and troubling really was one of money.
Washington state-based psychologists told the Government they could re-engineer the SERE program and they received an initial grant of $250,000. A high target detainee was found and being successfully interrogated by the FBI, and he was whisked away to be water-boarded under the supervision of these psychologists to see whether their project worked. Since they had to be present, more government grants were given and they studied the results. By the time, the project was officially ended in 2005, even though torture continued until 2007, these guys earned well-over $1 million for a project that lacked all scientific evidence. But our whole image as a country had been seriously harmed.
Blackwater provided the CIA with a capability to assassinate would-be terrorists and to provide security in difficult situations. The company provided their men with the sexual services of underage girls as a morale boost and killed many locals because they weren't restricted by the rules of war. Local reaction is generated against us as a country and not them. By the time the company changes its name, Christian fundamentalist Eric Prince has become a billionaire from government contracts. Now Iraqis, whom we allegedly liberated, are suing Blackwater and the United States.
And the list goes on about the extent of the damage done by privatizing government services. They do give everyone involved "plausible deniability" as the Morman organizer for Prop 8 said. But at some point one has to ask where are we in all this--you and I--American citizens. Thousands of people are becoming millionaires off of us without our ability to have any say in it. We don't know when and where the blowback will come from. We are apt to discover whole new schemes we hadn't known before.
And yet we have reached a point where we don't seem able to make the basic decisions a modern society must make to preserve ourselves and to advance to the future. The majority decision today said that corporations aren't a threat to the government. Not if you allow them to own it. But when was the profit-motive equated with national interest?
Hugo Chavez, the leader of the Bolivarian Revolution, charged the United States caused the destruction in Haiti by testing a "tectonic weapon" to induce the catastrophic earthquake. He told a Spanish newspaper that the US was playing God by testing devices capable of creating eco-type catastrophes. The earthquake followed a test of "weapon of earthquakes" just offshore from Haiti. Venezuelan versions of Seymour Hersh reported that the earthquake "may be associated with the project called HAARP, a system that can generate violent and unexpected changes in the climate". HAARP is a study in Alaska directed at the occasional reconfiguration of properties of the Earth's ionosphere to improve satellite communications. I find this report very re-assuring that someone on planet earth finds us so menacing.
So today Venezuela, Bolivia and France ("We'll always have Paris.") denounced the United States for occupying Haiti. Even conservative Republicans are criticizing our humanitarian aid work as akin to the invasion of Iraq. And Doug Brooks not to be outdone said that the health care reform debate was akin to the long discussion we had before invading Iraq.
Meanwhile, things are settling in. The Coast Guard has cleared the port in Port-au-Prince. The cranes will get to work tomorrow. Plans are underway to evacuate 400,000 Haitians and resettle them in the country. Through a works for food project, they will all build new homes, which they will own. Some of the air traffic has been cleared but over 110,000 flights are logged waiting OKs from the airport to come. Vandalism has quieted down and shops are re-opened. Farmers are appearing with fruits and vegetables to sell. The inflatable operating tents have been erected. And the Hospital Ship has started treating people who are being medevac'd to the ship. The US is planning on taking some Haitian refugees temporarily to Gitmo. Donations keep pouring in. And it looks like Europe and the United States are getting into a diplomatic flap over the future. So everything is normal or "normalized".
Barack Obama, who has been reported on the ropes, appears to have rebounded with his announcement of the "Volcker Principles" to regulate the banks. Tomorrow Republican Senator Shelby from Alabama will sound forth on what his party's take on this is. Already today the usual swarm of lobbyists for the bankers denounced the measures, saying the costs will have to be handed down to the customers. Gee, what a surprise.
The new senator from Massachusetts has already stepped in it. It appears he endorsed a teabagger for congress in 2010 but then discovered the guy was a birther and withdrew the endorsement, provoking the ire of his teabag supporters. He also said that he was for healthcare for everyone and that his main objection to the Health Care Bill was that his state would have to pick up the medicare costs for other states. He was referring to Ben Nelson's sweetheart deal. What will he leadership say when he gets into town? So is he for a new bill or not?
Well, Barack Obama is on the ropes. In a Fox News poll about his present position, they buried some trial heats for the 2012 presidential elections. They tested Obama against Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich. Although meaningless there are fun. Obama leads Romney by 47-35, Palin by 55-31 and Gingrich by 53-29. Each margin included healthy leads among independent voters whom we told Obama lost in Massachusetts. And he also beats the generic teabagger candidate by 48-23.
The Prop 8 trial continued today with some hot testimony. Yesterday, the Olson and Boies team in discovery unearthed a document from the California leader of the Mormans where he instructed his church to place someone in each district to help organize the Prop 8 effort. The persons were to take strategic advice from the organizers so as " to have the appearance of plausible deniability." What's everyone a spy these days? Today we were treated to Hak-Shing William Tam, who serves as secretary to the American Return to God Prayer Movement. He peddled propaganda during the campaign that gays were 12 times more likely to molest children than gays and that same-sex marriage would lead to the legalization of sex with children. I've visited these arguments in other posts about expert witnesses testifying that all this is rubbish.
But my concern is that after ten days of testimony that the Associated Press chose today to report on testimony that had already been destroyed and they treated it as if this man had a legitimate point of view. Then one of the anti-gay lawyers tried to insert that gays had lost political support for "alleged death threats against backers of California's same-sex marriage ban". This has been a sub-theme for several days, including one of the reasons the lawyers claim witnesses backed out of the trial--which was nonsense because their testimony directly contradicted the anti-gay lawyers position. While Olson and company continued to score within the trial itself, the anti-gays scored today by getting AP to perpetrate the basest lies of their case.
And what about Silent Clarence Thomas' dissent today in the Supreme Court case? While he thinks corporations are the greatest thing since sliced bread, he opposed the majority decision's that they must reveal their financial support in political ads and other campaign materials. He didn't think that was wise. Why not, it seemed the only rational part of today's majority decision? Because Clarence's eyes are on California and Washington where gays want to know the backers against same-sex marriage and other anti-gay laws. He knows Ted Olson is coming and he wants to be on record to protect homophobes.
We will deeply miss him when he goes. Justice Stevens wrote the dissenting brief on Citizens United versus Federal Election Commission with Ginsburg,Breyer and Sotomayor dissenting. I will try to reproduce the salient parts soon but he basically addresses the equation that money equals free speech--which the court ruled today. Stevens long and complex dissent got especially heated when he took on the "originalists". He called the majority "judicial activists" , which is the tag so-called conservative judges put on others. He also was very tough in taking on the majority's assertions about the intent of the Founding Fathers' and pointed out that the majority failed to discuss any of the origins of the First Amendment to make their judgment on the intent of the amendment. He said the majority position was actually diametrically opposed to the Founding Fathers and backed it up with textual references.
What he was politely saying with tough legal arguments was that our fine originalist judges are nothing more then conservative political activists masquerading as judges. He also blasted the perversion of Roberts' civil libertarian statements about the absoluteness of the First Amendment, citing chapter and verse Roberts' own decisions on the Court limiting the free expression of several different classes of people.
My 84-year old father-in-law is a Supreme Court junkie, reading every opinion. For years he has called me, railing about Scalia and Thomas. A former FBI agent and small town lawyer, he voted Republican all his life. But the extreme right-wing bent of the party finally drove him with alot of the family to break and vote for Barack Obama. His vote was almost exclusively a protest against any more right-wing judges on the Supreme Court and his confidence in Barack Obama as a constitutional lawyer. He had the very good sense to know that John McCain not only didn't understand the role of the judiciary but would send worse candidates to the court than George W. Bush.
I thought Sotomayor should have knock out one of the majority with a nunchuk, since she demonstrated her knowledge of them so well in her hearings.
Washington radio commentators said the decision simply meant "more money." There would be more money in this town for political consultants and that television revenue would rise dramatically for the 2010 election. For the rest of us, it could forestall any real reforms in our system and block any initiatives the Administration has of fixing the imbalances in our economic system. One conservative said ,"Why are you upset? All they did was decide that corporations have rights just as you do.' Well, you see there is a slight imbalance here. My limited contributions to political causes will always be dwarfed by a corporation. Also, as Judge Stevens said, I could never get into the position of essentially blackmailing a candidate by threatening to run ads against him. I don't have the financial capability of getting into a situation of a quid pro quo relationship with a politician.
And there is another issue here. It's being reported that the ruling allows corporations and unions to give unlimited amounts of contributions. There is a perceived equivalence here between groups of American workers, who only represent 6% of our workforce and have limited union funds, and American corporations, who often have foreign shareholders, who have unlimited funds. It is a grotesque imbalance of power.
In a previous post, I raised the prospect of our society becoming so atomized that we could not agree any longer on the common good or the public good. This was in reference to whole generations of children being homeschooled in Christian fundamentalist schools. We have created a fairly sophisticated apartheid system with the dispersion of the population in age-determined communities, religious-based communities and still existing race-based communities. There is no common civic ethos. Our school systems are being torn apart by political fights over evolution, exclusions in history books and silly battles over sex education.
Now the situation is quite dire when we have private armies carrying out our foreign policy but there is no acountability, private and foreign corporations buying state highways and private companies assuming prison management. The public budgets are in effect subsidizing private corporations without either fiscal accounting or the responsibility assigned "real" public officials.
The issue of torture, for instance, which I find to be profound and troubling really was one of money.
Washington state-based psychologists told the Government they could re-engineer the SERE program and they received an initial grant of $250,000. A high target detainee was found and being successfully interrogated by the FBI, and he was whisked away to be water-boarded under the supervision of these psychologists to see whether their project worked. Since they had to be present, more government grants were given and they studied the results. By the time, the project was officially ended in 2005, even though torture continued until 2007, these guys earned well-over $1 million for a project that lacked all scientific evidence. But our whole image as a country had been seriously harmed.
Blackwater provided the CIA with a capability to assassinate would-be terrorists and to provide security in difficult situations. The company provided their men with the sexual services of underage girls as a morale boost and killed many locals because they weren't restricted by the rules of war. Local reaction is generated against us as a country and not them. By the time the company changes its name, Christian fundamentalist Eric Prince has become a billionaire from government contracts. Now Iraqis, whom we allegedly liberated, are suing Blackwater and the United States.
And the list goes on about the extent of the damage done by privatizing government services. They do give everyone involved "plausible deniability" as the Morman organizer for Prop 8 said. But at some point one has to ask where are we in all this--you and I--American citizens. Thousands of people are becoming millionaires off of us without our ability to have any say in it. We don't know when and where the blowback will come from. We are apt to discover whole new schemes we hadn't known before.
And yet we have reached a point where we don't seem able to make the basic decisions a modern society must make to preserve ourselves and to advance to the future. The majority decision today said that corporations aren't a threat to the government. Not if you allow them to own it. But when was the profit-motive equated with national interest?
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Bummer Wednesday
The late Bayard Rustin and I joked about creating the Committee to Preserve White People in Basketball. Finally, the European leagues started to supply talented players to the NBA so the urgency somewhat diminished. But today out of Augusta, Georgia comes an announcement that there will be an All-American Basketball League that will ban foreigners and blacks. The league will play summerball in twelve cities. Maybe Rush Limbaugh can buy one of the franchises. The owner, a Mr. Moose, said that," It's not that we are against any race. It's just that whites are a minority now." This isn't what Bayard and I had in mind. And with our Senate, maybe we can restore slavery.
Obama's honeymoon is over. That's the headline today. Stop. Replay the tape. Didn't anyone listen to the interview this week with Arlen Specter about why he changed parties? Specter insists that upon inaugeration the Republican Caucus in the Senate held a closed meeting to demand absolute loyalty in voting against the stimulus package--which a broad range of economists supported. I would say the honeymoon stopped on day one. Or howabout the private meeting of the Republican caucus with the "captains of industry" to tell them not to invest until after the 2010 elections.
Speaking of white people. Republicans now have a Senator who posed nude for Cosmo, Diaper Dave Vitters ,whose New Orleans madam claimed had "exquisite taste in lingerie" and a Senator who pays the husband of his mistress hush money from campaign funds Senator Ensign. This gives white people a bad name.
We got the aid airlifts up to 200 yesterday, twice the number of the day before. People cheered, "USA! USA! USA!" when American rescue workers pulled live Haitians from the rubble. We opened two more airports in Haiti to accomodate more aid relief. But as this week is going, Haiti was hit with another 6.1 quake dashing some of the progress made. But, never fear, the Mexican Mole Men are coming to Haiti. Pound for pound this Mexican rescue team is considered the world's best at discovering living people buried under rubble. They excelled in the Asian tsunami disaster.
The Prop 8 trial continues with Boies and Olson checking off all the boxes on all arguments against marriage equality. Today's hearing had testimony on why gays can not be "converted" back to heterosexuality. This is important because of the anti-gay arguments that homosexality is a lifestyle choice and predetermined. Boies ran a videotape of the deposition of one of the defense witnesses who withdrew. During the testimony, Boies led the witness to run through the religious attitudes against homosexuality and got him to admit--frequently--that these beliefs were based on prejudice. This is a central point for Olson and Boies to prove to overturn Prop. 8. Of immense curiosity and legal wrangling was the demand by the Olson team for documents which showed how other anti-gay marriage efforts were connected and the interlinkage of personnel organizing these efforts. So far the anti-gay lawyers had to fork over 20,000 pages of documents but are fighting about the relevance of documents about other states. So far, Olson and Boies are wiping the floor with the opposition. It's such a pleasure to watch good attorneys work. I am getting very curious about what the anti-gay lawyers can possibly turn up to defend their case. Every strawman so far has been burned to the ground.
For those interested in a real expert on terrorism in the Islamic world, the person to consult is Dr.Olivier Roy, research director at the French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS). The two books, which are appropriate for understanding the new generation of unassimilated terrorists, are Globalized Islam and Islamist Networks: The Afghan-Pakistan Connection. Roy has done the pioneer studies of how marginalized Muslims in Europe become drawn to terrorism.
Garry Wills weighs in with Bomb Power:The Modern Presidency and the National Security State, which analyzes the concentration of power within the Presidency. The last two chapters "the Unitary Executive" and "American Monarch" are the heart of the argument on today's problems.
Obama's honeymoon is over. That's the headline today. Stop. Replay the tape. Didn't anyone listen to the interview this week with Arlen Specter about why he changed parties? Specter insists that upon inaugeration the Republican Caucus in the Senate held a closed meeting to demand absolute loyalty in voting against the stimulus package--which a broad range of economists supported. I would say the honeymoon stopped on day one. Or howabout the private meeting of the Republican caucus with the "captains of industry" to tell them not to invest until after the 2010 elections.
Speaking of white people. Republicans now have a Senator who posed nude for Cosmo, Diaper Dave Vitters ,whose New Orleans madam claimed had "exquisite taste in lingerie" and a Senator who pays the husband of his mistress hush money from campaign funds Senator Ensign. This gives white people a bad name.
We got the aid airlifts up to 200 yesterday, twice the number of the day before. People cheered, "USA! USA! USA!" when American rescue workers pulled live Haitians from the rubble. We opened two more airports in Haiti to accomodate more aid relief. But as this week is going, Haiti was hit with another 6.1 quake dashing some of the progress made. But, never fear, the Mexican Mole Men are coming to Haiti. Pound for pound this Mexican rescue team is considered the world's best at discovering living people buried under rubble. They excelled in the Asian tsunami disaster.
The Prop 8 trial continues with Boies and Olson checking off all the boxes on all arguments against marriage equality. Today's hearing had testimony on why gays can not be "converted" back to heterosexuality. This is important because of the anti-gay arguments that homosexality is a lifestyle choice and predetermined. Boies ran a videotape of the deposition of one of the defense witnesses who withdrew. During the testimony, Boies led the witness to run through the religious attitudes against homosexuality and got him to admit--frequently--that these beliefs were based on prejudice. This is a central point for Olson and Boies to prove to overturn Prop. 8. Of immense curiosity and legal wrangling was the demand by the Olson team for documents which showed how other anti-gay marriage efforts were connected and the interlinkage of personnel organizing these efforts. So far the anti-gay lawyers had to fork over 20,000 pages of documents but are fighting about the relevance of documents about other states. So far, Olson and Boies are wiping the floor with the opposition. It's such a pleasure to watch good attorneys work. I am getting very curious about what the anti-gay lawyers can possibly turn up to defend their case. Every strawman so far has been burned to the ground.
For those interested in a real expert on terrorism in the Islamic world, the person to consult is Dr.Olivier Roy, research director at the French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS). The two books, which are appropriate for understanding the new generation of unassimilated terrorists, are Globalized Islam and Islamist Networks: The Afghan-Pakistan Connection. Roy has done the pioneer studies of how marginalized Muslims in Europe become drawn to terrorism.
Garry Wills weighs in with Bomb Power:The Modern Presidency and the National Security State, which analyzes the concentration of power within the Presidency. The last two chapters "the Unitary Executive" and "American Monarch" are the heart of the argument on today's problems.
Friday, January 15, 2010
As the Sun Rotates Around the Earth
The Prop 8 trial descended into anti-science today as the anti-gay lawyers tried to raise questions about climate change and scientists manipulating data at the behest of the government. The poor victim of this was Dr. Michael Lamb, who is at the NIH as part of their developmental psychology team and has studied child development since the 1970s. He has authored or colloborated on 40 books and penned 500 scientific articles as well as been involved in peer reviews of 2,500-3,000 articles. For his 30-40 years of work, he was awarded an award for lifetime contribution to psychology by the Association of Child Psychology. In his testimony he elaborated how studies since the 1970s have moved to a point where by the early 1990s there was a consensus that it wasn't as important that children be exposed to masculine and feminine roles such much as raised by loving and supporting parents of whatever gender. He rattled off a list of professional organizations in the field of psychology that all agree that children raised by gay or lesbian parents were just as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by a heterosexual couple. In short, gays and lesbians can be as good parents as heteros.
Well, that opened the door for the shoes to start dropping. First, the anti-gay lawyers raised the fact that Dr. Lamb was a member of the ACLU and was a committed liberal. They asked him didn't science once believe in phrenology, which he good-humoredly pointed out that most of those people weren't scientists. They then asked him about the East Anglia issue on global warming, the alleged scandal of e-mails stolen by hackers to "prove" climate change was a "hoax". Then they cited studies from the 1950s and 1960s--I can't imagine there was much empirical evidence--that showed "gender disorders" appearing in children of same sex couples. Lamb politely re-defined the issue and said such things were very rare. They asked about the findings that 12% of girls raised by a Lesbian couple turned out to be lesbians--a higher percentage than in the general population. He said he knew of no studies that showed that. They then asked about the greater frequency of child abuse in same-sex families. He again said there was no evidence that it was more than in heterosexual marriages. They went on a long riff about the differences between mothers and fathers and the unique role of both, which he claimed has become less important than nurturing couples. They pointed to his blurb for one of their witness's books, which he said that he guessed he had been diplomatic in the wording. They wanted him to affirm its findings. At points Lamb complained about all the references they made to works based in the 1950s and 1960s. They tried to make the statement that science was political and funded by governments, suggesting the conclusions were tailor made.
The effect was of some time-warp where the anti-gay lawyers were arguing for Ozzie and Harriet as the ideal parental unit when Dr. Lamb was trying to talk about the different forms of families that exist today. Given the testimony yesterday about the stressors ,which effect people undergoing discrimination, it was clear that it was Lamb's subject which is their hot button. Children have to be protected. Girls will become lesbians, children will be sexually abused, and boys will grow up without role models. Gay marriage will lead to the end of civilization as we know it. Some blogger felt that it sounded like the Snopes trial today.
Meanwhile ProtectMarriage.com filed an injunction against the Prop8trialtrackers for using a parody of their Prop 8 symbol, which drew an acerbic letter from their lawyer. The pro marriage lawyer was from Ohio, not California. Also, Dr. Tam of legalizing child sex argument petitioned the court to withdraw from the case as a witness. Observers felt that this was maneuver to prevent his e-mails and correspondance from appearing on the record since Tam was a major organizer of the anti-gay effort and profited handsomely from the whole enterprise.
I am waiting for the religious element to appear. So far it has not. There is one academic listed for the anti-gay side whom we haven't heard from but the gay bloggers clearly know who he is and can't wait for him to be subjected to cross-examination.
But the whole issue that science is politics I found especially disturbing. The expert witnesses brought forward so far represent the opinions of a large section of their disciplines. It was clear that the anti-gay lawyers didn't want to touch them because they carry great authority. But today, it was clear that science to them is just hokum--things that you can make up. Peer review articles absolutely mean nothing to them and I've noticed to the right. We now have a whole industry of anti-science. Whether it's attacking evolution like the Discovery Institute does or Global Climate Change as the George Marshall Institute does, the right simply no longer believes in science or that science should inform our viewpoints or opinions. If an astroid is found travelling to smash into Planet Earth, pay someone else to say it's not. This puts a real burden on real scientists because the scientific method is laborious and methodical. It is not easily comprehended by the layperson.
This becomes dangerous in the attempts just this month of Texas attempting to change their textbooks to eliminate discussions of evolution. Europeans think Americans are ludicrous about this and they are right. But what if you have a generation that grows up with no exposure to science and the scientific method? Can one pretend to be an advanced country in those circumstances. Should we find out that some of our prejudices are not based on reality? Heaven forbid.
Well, that opened the door for the shoes to start dropping. First, the anti-gay lawyers raised the fact that Dr. Lamb was a member of the ACLU and was a committed liberal. They asked him didn't science once believe in phrenology, which he good-humoredly pointed out that most of those people weren't scientists. They then asked him about the East Anglia issue on global warming, the alleged scandal of e-mails stolen by hackers to "prove" climate change was a "hoax". Then they cited studies from the 1950s and 1960s--I can't imagine there was much empirical evidence--that showed "gender disorders" appearing in children of same sex couples. Lamb politely re-defined the issue and said such things were very rare. They asked about the findings that 12% of girls raised by a Lesbian couple turned out to be lesbians--a higher percentage than in the general population. He said he knew of no studies that showed that. They then asked about the greater frequency of child abuse in same-sex families. He again said there was no evidence that it was more than in heterosexual marriages. They went on a long riff about the differences between mothers and fathers and the unique role of both, which he claimed has become less important than nurturing couples. They pointed to his blurb for one of their witness's books, which he said that he guessed he had been diplomatic in the wording. They wanted him to affirm its findings. At points Lamb complained about all the references they made to works based in the 1950s and 1960s. They tried to make the statement that science was political and funded by governments, suggesting the conclusions were tailor made.
The effect was of some time-warp where the anti-gay lawyers were arguing for Ozzie and Harriet as the ideal parental unit when Dr. Lamb was trying to talk about the different forms of families that exist today. Given the testimony yesterday about the stressors ,which effect people undergoing discrimination, it was clear that it was Lamb's subject which is their hot button. Children have to be protected. Girls will become lesbians, children will be sexually abused, and boys will grow up without role models. Gay marriage will lead to the end of civilization as we know it. Some blogger felt that it sounded like the Snopes trial today.
Meanwhile ProtectMarriage.com filed an injunction against the Prop8trialtrackers for using a parody of their Prop 8 symbol, which drew an acerbic letter from their lawyer. The pro marriage lawyer was from Ohio, not California. Also, Dr. Tam of legalizing child sex argument petitioned the court to withdraw from the case as a witness. Observers felt that this was maneuver to prevent his e-mails and correspondance from appearing on the record since Tam was a major organizer of the anti-gay effort and profited handsomely from the whole enterprise.
I am waiting for the religious element to appear. So far it has not. There is one academic listed for the anti-gay side whom we haven't heard from but the gay bloggers clearly know who he is and can't wait for him to be subjected to cross-examination.
But the whole issue that science is politics I found especially disturbing. The expert witnesses brought forward so far represent the opinions of a large section of their disciplines. It was clear that the anti-gay lawyers didn't want to touch them because they carry great authority. But today, it was clear that science to them is just hokum--things that you can make up. Peer review articles absolutely mean nothing to them and I've noticed to the right. We now have a whole industry of anti-science. Whether it's attacking evolution like the Discovery Institute does or Global Climate Change as the George Marshall Institute does, the right simply no longer believes in science or that science should inform our viewpoints or opinions. If an astroid is found travelling to smash into Planet Earth, pay someone else to say it's not. This puts a real burden on real scientists because the scientific method is laborious and methodical. It is not easily comprehended by the layperson.
This becomes dangerous in the attempts just this month of Texas attempting to change their textbooks to eliminate discussions of evolution. Europeans think Americans are ludicrous about this and they are right. But what if you have a generation that grows up with no exposure to science and the scientific method? Can one pretend to be an advanced country in those circumstances. Should we find out that some of our prejudices are not based on reality? Heaven forbid.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Last Thoughts of the Day
I've left the live-blogging of the trial today--missing a new UCLA professor, who is considered the "rock star" of gay, lesbian and transgender studies. I'll catch up tomorrow. But one of the factoids that struck me was that if gays were allowed to marry, then one witness said they would only constitute about 2% of the married population. Hardly reason to run from the room. Asked about de-valuing hetersexual marriage, I'll paraphrase one witness," It's unlikely that Bruce will say to Ann after 30years, since Joe and Frank are getting married, that's it for us--we're getting a divorce."
But concerns about the timing of the case can be found in Margaret Talbot "A Risky Proposal" in the January 18, 2010 issue of The New Yorker. Talbot goes into the reservations voiced by the A.C.L.U., the Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights about the strategy of this case. They argued the Supreme Court doesn't get too far ahead of either public opinion or the law in the majority of the states. While Olson seems focused on Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court case on interracial marriage, these advocacy groups were concerned about Bowers v. Hardwick, where the Supreme Court stunned gay rights advocates and upheld Georgia's antiquated law against sodomy. It took the Supreme Court seventeen years before it revisited the issue in Lawrence v. Texas, when it overturned by 6-3 Texas' sodomy laws. Two-Ton Tony Scalia said that the court had aligned itself with the "homosexual agenda" and that Americans are "protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive."
Gay activists note that California passed in 1964 an anti-black referendum. They fear a Supreme Court case before its time. Today, there are 7 Catholics on the Supreme Court and only two days ago Pope Benedict issued another anti-gay statement. Instead, activists wanted a chance to win a few referenda on the issue and wait until the composition of the Court changes. But people who support Olson's approach point out that some 40% of Americans support gay marriage and more than 50% support civil unions. This compares to only 20% in favor if interracial marriage during the time of Loving v. Virginia. Younger Americans support gay marriage at about 58% and that percentage is growing every year. Scholars on the issue point out that if people are converted in one direction, it's always toward gay marriage. In five years, they expect a majority will support gay marriage because of generational changes and "attitude adjustments". It should be noted that the young seem to be less supportive of the right to choose concerning the abortion issue.
Today, only five states permit gays to marry, while five others such as California have civil union or domestic partnership laws, that confer some of the same benefits without the freighted significance of marriage. But, a few words of caution, after the Supreme Court of Hawaii found that a ban on gay marriage was discriminatory, 29 states passed amendments prohibiting gay marriage. And the backlash culminated in 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which Bill Clinton signed into law. A marriage was defined as between a man and a woman. Ted Olson firmly believes that DOMA is unconstitutional. I agree with him.
Can we read anything in the Supreme Court's prohibition of television and Youtube at the trial? Perhaps, they did not want to color their own opinions. But I believe in the words of Olson it would have been a teachable moment because the only ones who appear normal and solid citizens are the gay couples and the professional experts. The anti-gay lawyers reek of bigotry and hypocrisy. And worse, they are ill-prepared and are relying on the court simply to reaffirm the traditional prejudice of the society. What puzzles me is that the Judge keeps asking about why the state should be involved in marriage in the first place? He's looking for a backdoor escape that might not exist.
Perry v. Schwartzenegger demonstrates why the courtroom is a fair better venue to resolve issues of basic rights than the ballot box. But I do find Olson a bit naive when he talks confidently about how the Supreme Court will take this case seriously and will not want religious attitudes cloud their judgment on the case. Like many old-time conservatives, Ted has lost touch with how theocratic the right has become. But in this courtroom we are getting to hear the history of discrimination against gays and lesbians, the latest studies about the habits of long-time same sex couples and how child abuse has little to do with gay male behavior in particular. And, alas, we're learning that lesbians and gays seem to be born that way, contrary to the beliefs of the religious right.
But concerns about the timing of the case can be found in Margaret Talbot "A Risky Proposal" in the January 18, 2010 issue of The New Yorker. Talbot goes into the reservations voiced by the A.C.L.U., the Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights about the strategy of this case. They argued the Supreme Court doesn't get too far ahead of either public opinion or the law in the majority of the states. While Olson seems focused on Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court case on interracial marriage, these advocacy groups were concerned about Bowers v. Hardwick, where the Supreme Court stunned gay rights advocates and upheld Georgia's antiquated law against sodomy. It took the Supreme Court seventeen years before it revisited the issue in Lawrence v. Texas, when it overturned by 6-3 Texas' sodomy laws. Two-Ton Tony Scalia said that the court had aligned itself with the "homosexual agenda" and that Americans are "protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive."
Gay activists note that California passed in 1964 an anti-black referendum. They fear a Supreme Court case before its time. Today, there are 7 Catholics on the Supreme Court and only two days ago Pope Benedict issued another anti-gay statement. Instead, activists wanted a chance to win a few referenda on the issue and wait until the composition of the Court changes. But people who support Olson's approach point out that some 40% of Americans support gay marriage and more than 50% support civil unions. This compares to only 20% in favor if interracial marriage during the time of Loving v. Virginia. Younger Americans support gay marriage at about 58% and that percentage is growing every year. Scholars on the issue point out that if people are converted in one direction, it's always toward gay marriage. In five years, they expect a majority will support gay marriage because of generational changes and "attitude adjustments". It should be noted that the young seem to be less supportive of the right to choose concerning the abortion issue.
Today, only five states permit gays to marry, while five others such as California have civil union or domestic partnership laws, that confer some of the same benefits without the freighted significance of marriage. But, a few words of caution, after the Supreme Court of Hawaii found that a ban on gay marriage was discriminatory, 29 states passed amendments prohibiting gay marriage. And the backlash culminated in 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which Bill Clinton signed into law. A marriage was defined as between a man and a woman. Ted Olson firmly believes that DOMA is unconstitutional. I agree with him.
Can we read anything in the Supreme Court's prohibition of television and Youtube at the trial? Perhaps, they did not want to color their own opinions. But I believe in the words of Olson it would have been a teachable moment because the only ones who appear normal and solid citizens are the gay couples and the professional experts. The anti-gay lawyers reek of bigotry and hypocrisy. And worse, they are ill-prepared and are relying on the court simply to reaffirm the traditional prejudice of the society. What puzzles me is that the Judge keeps asking about why the state should be involved in marriage in the first place? He's looking for a backdoor escape that might not exist.
Perry v. Schwartzenegger demonstrates why the courtroom is a fair better venue to resolve issues of basic rights than the ballot box. But I do find Olson a bit naive when he talks confidently about how the Supreme Court will take this case seriously and will not want religious attitudes cloud their judgment on the case. Like many old-time conservatives, Ted has lost touch with how theocratic the right has become. But in this courtroom we are getting to hear the history of discrimination against gays and lesbians, the latest studies about the habits of long-time same sex couples and how child abuse has little to do with gay male behavior in particular. And, alas, we're learning that lesbians and gays seem to be born that way, contrary to the beliefs of the religious right.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
God,Guns,Gays,Gitmo and Girls-more Sotomayor
In full throated campaign cry, Barack Obama was in Nevada last night defying his critics to prove that Sotomayor was not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. On the AC360 blog at CNN, Dave Gergen called his pick "one of Obama's finest hours". Noting that Sotomayor first won confirmation to the federal bench by unanimous consent and then to the Court of Appeals by 67-29, Gergen notes that Republican party-builders know the heavy price they paid with Hispanics when they sided with the anti-immigrant Proposition 187 inCalifornia. They have never recovered.
The Washington Post this morning covered the national celebrations among the Hispanic community on the nomination. Forming 15% of the population,Hispanics are the largest minority and one that went 2-1 for Barack Obama in the last election. To be a competitive party, Republicans need to secure 35-40% of this vote, something which they will not do if they mount an attack on the first Hispanic woman nominated to the Supreme Court.
(*For history's sake, technically the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court was Benjamin Cardozo.)
But never fear, reader, the party of torture and the lack of empathy is trudging down the lonely path by attacking Sotomayor as an affirmative action candidate (notwithstanding her excellent academic credentials and many,many years on the bench.) To make the case, they reeled out anti-immigration king Tom Tanredo who accused her of being racist. Karl Rove,a college dropout himself, suggested on Fox News that she was not "intellectually strong"--like,say, Harriet Meirs, and that she was not respected by her colleagues. Richard Viguerie issued a call for an anti-Sotomayor campaign: "This is an enormous opportunity for conservatives to define President Obama as a radical liberal in a way Republicans have so far failed to do." Viguerie said it was a good time to re-identify the conservative movement and replenish the coffers with donations.
n May 1, Bill Kristol spoke at the Washington Federalist Society and suggested she would be hard to oppose , pointing out she was first appointed to the federal bench by President George H.W. Bush. he told the audience he didn't believe she could galvanize meaningful opposition and he didn't encourage a full-scale campaign against her. Knowing Kristol's almost absolute fallibility onall things political and domestic,the attack ads began even before Sotomayor was nominated.
Conservatives have already stepped in it by denouncing Obama's use of the word "empathy". After all, their hero, Clarence Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court in the word of President George H.W. Bush for his"empathy and good humor." Senator Sessions promptly shot himself in the foot when he went on cable news yesterday and said clearly that courts make policy, a line used against Judge Sotomayor for her comments to a conference on judicial interns. To make matters worse,the American Bar Association has rated Sotomayor as a solid moderate on the bench. The reporting side of the Wall Street Journal reviewed her over 4,000 decisions and found she defended corporate interests most of the time.
The Washington Post said an all-out assault on Sotomayor by the Republicans could alienate Hispanic and women voters, deepening the GOP's problems after two crushing electoral cycles. But sidestepping a court battle would deflate the party's base and hurt efforts to rally conservatives going forward. John Weaver, the former campaign adviser to John McCain, confirmed,"You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that we need to tread very carefully." Need and will are two different things.
Both Senators Snowe and Collins of Maine received calls about the appointment beforehand from White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel. Both senators need to be on board as a preventive measure in case the Republicans go complete kamikaze and decide to filibuster.
Followers of Rev. James Dobson have opposed Sotomayor as do the Christian Defense Coalition and the Faith and Action groups who are militantly anti-abortion. Concerned Women of American also weighed in about her "immodest bias"--this is the reverse racism tag--when she said "A Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a while make who hasn't lived that life."
Better yet for those of us who notice that conservatives are still fixated on the 1960s and Saul Alinsky type figures and Bill Ayres, conservatives have found that Sotomayor's senior thesis at Princeton was on Puerto Rican identity. In the thesis, she wrote about the long history of Puerto Rico's status to the United States, covering the Commowealth debate led by Munoz Marin and the various independence efforts. Naturally, in this thesis written in the 1970s, the FALN, the Puerto Rican terrorists are mentioned. And Sotomayor suggests she favors (at that time) independence for Puerto Rico as a way to preserve its culture, noting the disappearance of indigneous culture when both Hawaii and Alaska became states. Ergo, like Barack Obama, she is linked to terrorists.
So far the best line in all this was Rush Limbaugh's line about Barack Obama being a reverse racist. One blogger asked "If you're part white and part black, how can you be a reverse racist?" Never mind, as the great Robert Anton Wilson frequently said,"There is no room for rationality in politics." But you have to feel a little sorry for Pat Buchanan, who now looks lost and weepy about everything.
You can bet the screaming will continue because the screaming hasn't stopped since Obama was elected.
You would think conservatives would rejoice at the California Supreme Court's upholding Prop 8 banning gay marriages. You could also imagine the outrage if Obama had nominated the sole dissenter Carlos Mareno to the Supreme Court. But The California court decision was a small detour on the road to gay marriage. The Court begrudgingly allowed California voters the right to decide the issue at the ballot box. But they also did not backdown from its vigorous support of gay rights and even the use of marriage to describe the legalizing the 18,000 who did get married. Not the most courageous decision but the California court planted the seeds for reversal right in the middle of the decision.
Enter former Bush administration solicitor general Theodore Olson--also the lawyer for the McCain campaign-- who has filed suit with co-counsel David Boies of the Bush v. Gore cases to overturn Prop 8 and re-establish the right of gay couples to marry. The suit filed on behalf of two same-sex couples asks the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to issue an injunction that would stop enforcement of Proposition 8 and allow same sex couples to marry while the case is being decided.
Interviewed by former American Spectator reporter Byron York about conservatives objecting to his asking the court to overturn the will of the people, Olson responded:" It is our position in this case that Proposition 8, as upheld by the California Supreme Court, denies federal constitutional rights under the equal protection and due process clauses of the constitution. The constitution protects individuals' basic rights that cannot be taken away by a vote. If the people of California had voted to ban interracial marriage, it would have been the responsibility of the courts to say that they cannot do that under the constitution. We believe that denying individuals in this category the right to lasting, loving relationships through marriage is a denial to them, on an impermissible basis, of the rights that the rest of us enjoy and I also personally believe that it is wrong for us to continue to deny rights to individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation."
Asked why he took the case, Olson said," I personally think it is time that we as a nation get past distinguishing people on the basis of sexual orientation, and that a grave injustice is being done to people by making these distinctions. I thought their cause was just."
Olson was also the lawyer in the McCain campaign who was most vocal in denouncing the "birthers", who claim that Obama was foreign-born, saying it was "utter nonsense". He also came to the defense of Harold Koh, nominated to be State Department counsel, who was denounced by Fox News as allegedly supporting Sharia Law.
The game is on. The creaking sound you hear is the Republicans closing the casket lid on themselves.
The Washington Post this morning covered the national celebrations among the Hispanic community on the nomination. Forming 15% of the population,Hispanics are the largest minority and one that went 2-1 for Barack Obama in the last election. To be a competitive party, Republicans need to secure 35-40% of this vote, something which they will not do if they mount an attack on the first Hispanic woman nominated to the Supreme Court.
(*For history's sake, technically the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court was Benjamin Cardozo.)
But never fear, reader, the party of torture and the lack of empathy is trudging down the lonely path by attacking Sotomayor as an affirmative action candidate (notwithstanding her excellent academic credentials and many,many years on the bench.) To make the case, they reeled out anti-immigration king Tom Tanredo who accused her of being racist. Karl Rove,a college dropout himself, suggested on Fox News that she was not "intellectually strong"--like,say, Harriet Meirs, and that she was not respected by her colleagues. Richard Viguerie issued a call for an anti-Sotomayor campaign: "This is an enormous opportunity for conservatives to define President Obama as a radical liberal in a way Republicans have so far failed to do." Viguerie said it was a good time to re-identify the conservative movement and replenish the coffers with donations.
n May 1, Bill Kristol spoke at the Washington Federalist Society and suggested she would be hard to oppose , pointing out she was first appointed to the federal bench by President George H.W. Bush. he told the audience he didn't believe she could galvanize meaningful opposition and he didn't encourage a full-scale campaign against her. Knowing Kristol's almost absolute fallibility onall things political and domestic,the attack ads began even before Sotomayor was nominated.
Conservatives have already stepped in it by denouncing Obama's use of the word "empathy". After all, their hero, Clarence Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court in the word of President George H.W. Bush for his"empathy and good humor." Senator Sessions promptly shot himself in the foot when he went on cable news yesterday and said clearly that courts make policy, a line used against Judge Sotomayor for her comments to a conference on judicial interns. To make matters worse,the American Bar Association has rated Sotomayor as a solid moderate on the bench. The reporting side of the Wall Street Journal reviewed her over 4,000 decisions and found she defended corporate interests most of the time.
The Washington Post said an all-out assault on Sotomayor by the Republicans could alienate Hispanic and women voters, deepening the GOP's problems after two crushing electoral cycles. But sidestepping a court battle would deflate the party's base and hurt efforts to rally conservatives going forward. John Weaver, the former campaign adviser to John McCain, confirmed,"You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that we need to tread very carefully." Need and will are two different things.
Both Senators Snowe and Collins of Maine received calls about the appointment beforehand from White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel. Both senators need to be on board as a preventive measure in case the Republicans go complete kamikaze and decide to filibuster.
Followers of Rev. James Dobson have opposed Sotomayor as do the Christian Defense Coalition and the Faith and Action groups who are militantly anti-abortion. Concerned Women of American also weighed in about her "immodest bias"--this is the reverse racism tag--when she said "A Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a while make who hasn't lived that life."
Better yet for those of us who notice that conservatives are still fixated on the 1960s and Saul Alinsky type figures and Bill Ayres, conservatives have found that Sotomayor's senior thesis at Princeton was on Puerto Rican identity. In the thesis, she wrote about the long history of Puerto Rico's status to the United States, covering the Commowealth debate led by Munoz Marin and the various independence efforts. Naturally, in this thesis written in the 1970s, the FALN, the Puerto Rican terrorists are mentioned. And Sotomayor suggests she favors (at that time) independence for Puerto Rico as a way to preserve its culture, noting the disappearance of indigneous culture when both Hawaii and Alaska became states. Ergo, like Barack Obama, she is linked to terrorists.
So far the best line in all this was Rush Limbaugh's line about Barack Obama being a reverse racist. One blogger asked "If you're part white and part black, how can you be a reverse racist?" Never mind, as the great Robert Anton Wilson frequently said,"There is no room for rationality in politics." But you have to feel a little sorry for Pat Buchanan, who now looks lost and weepy about everything.
You can bet the screaming will continue because the screaming hasn't stopped since Obama was elected.
You would think conservatives would rejoice at the California Supreme Court's upholding Prop 8 banning gay marriages. You could also imagine the outrage if Obama had nominated the sole dissenter Carlos Mareno to the Supreme Court. But The California court decision was a small detour on the road to gay marriage. The Court begrudgingly allowed California voters the right to decide the issue at the ballot box. But they also did not backdown from its vigorous support of gay rights and even the use of marriage to describe the legalizing the 18,000 who did get married. Not the most courageous decision but the California court planted the seeds for reversal right in the middle of the decision.
Enter former Bush administration solicitor general Theodore Olson--also the lawyer for the McCain campaign-- who has filed suit with co-counsel David Boies of the Bush v. Gore cases to overturn Prop 8 and re-establish the right of gay couples to marry. The suit filed on behalf of two same-sex couples asks the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to issue an injunction that would stop enforcement of Proposition 8 and allow same sex couples to marry while the case is being decided.
Interviewed by former American Spectator reporter Byron York about conservatives objecting to his asking the court to overturn the will of the people, Olson responded:" It is our position in this case that Proposition 8, as upheld by the California Supreme Court, denies federal constitutional rights under the equal protection and due process clauses of the constitution. The constitution protects individuals' basic rights that cannot be taken away by a vote. If the people of California had voted to ban interracial marriage, it would have been the responsibility of the courts to say that they cannot do that under the constitution. We believe that denying individuals in this category the right to lasting, loving relationships through marriage is a denial to them, on an impermissible basis, of the rights that the rest of us enjoy and I also personally believe that it is wrong for us to continue to deny rights to individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation."
Asked why he took the case, Olson said," I personally think it is time that we as a nation get past distinguishing people on the basis of sexual orientation, and that a grave injustice is being done to people by making these distinctions. I thought their cause was just."
Olson was also the lawyer in the McCain campaign who was most vocal in denouncing the "birthers", who claim that Obama was foreign-born, saying it was "utter nonsense". He also came to the defense of Harold Koh, nominated to be State Department counsel, who was denounced by Fox News as allegedly supporting Sharia Law.
The game is on. The creaking sound you hear is the Republicans closing the casket lid on themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)