I've been of divided mind about the best way to gain equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians -- whether to go all out for the Supreme Court to overturn all state laws, as it did in decriminalizing sodomy; or whether to allow the process to proceed state by state until a larger percent of the country already has it in their states. Then go for a knockout blow by the Supremes.
I had thought the only disadvantage to the immediate Supreme Court route was the likelihood that the current Court would not overturn laws such as CA Prop8, and thus it would be a setback for some time.
But now I'm seeing the positive side to the gradual, state by state approach. As each new state (now there are six) approves same-sex marriage, we get the cumulative effect of another demonstration that the dire effects predicted by opponents do not materialize. And with each one, there is likely to be less and less backlash.
Now comes a report of a poll in Iowa, whose courts overturned its laws against gay marriage earlier this year. In this poll, conducted by the Des Moines Register, 92% of respondents said that "gay marriage has brought no real change to their lives."
I haven't see the actual questions, so it's hard to know quite how to interpret that. On the face of it, it is highly significant. But it might be even more so, if some of those 8% who presumably said that it did bring change to their lives might have meant a positive change -- ie, same-sex couples who got married or were close friends or relatives. So those who felt a negative change might be even less than that 8%.
Now there's some data that is hard to deny or for the opponents to distort.
New York and New Jersey: Are you listening? The corhhuskers are leaving you urban sophisticates behind.
Ralph
Monday, September 21, 2009
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Zipper denial
I guess male politicians with zipper problems just lose their good sense along with it. They never seem to learn that, in today's goldfish bowl and with the marketability of scandal, nothing is going to stay a secret. The lies and coverup will bring you down when the truth might not.
John Edwards. What a disappointment. I was a strong supporter and contributor early in his presidential campaign. I believed in his sincerity. I especially believed in Elizabeth and felt that she gave him credibility that made up for the suspicion of excessive narcissism that his pretty boy image created.
But I did not at the time suspect that he had a zipper problem.
Even more, he has a problem with telling the truth. How many lies has he told about the affair with Rielle Hunter and about the now-almost-certain fact that he is the father of her baby? He has involved not only his wife in the cover-up, but he apparently induced one of his close associates, Andrew Young, to claim to be the father. This young man was himself married. So what must have been his reward for falsely claiming to have fathered someone else's child?
There is now a grand jury looking into whether campaign funds were used in the affair. We know Hunter was paid by the campaign for documentary filming, which makes it easy to hide money for other purposes. But the big payoff, apparently, came from a wealthy Texas trial attorney, Fred Baron, who was the campaign's national finance director. He has said that he made secret payments to both Hunter and Young from his personal funds. Sounds like a deal to me.
And now this twist: apparently one question the grand jury is looking at: if an individual makes such hush money payments to prevent a scandal from destroying a political campaign, does that constitute a campaign contribution? If so, then this would have been a violation of campaign finance laws.
The big problem for Edwards now is that Young is shopping a book proposal that retracts his fatherhood confession and seems to be "telling all." Book advances trump silence money, I suppose.
Wow !! This is far worse than anything Bill Clinton was ever accused of. Here's what I resent most in my fallen hero.
I still think Edwards has done a lot of good in fighting poverty and working to help the underdog. And I think he was right on most of the big issues. But he is unqualified to be president -- not because of his zipper problem but because he would risk so much for so little and be so blind to that risk. For me, it's not so much a moral issue as one of judgment and perspective and maturity.
Such is the power of a zipper to change the course of history. I'm glad that Edwards' lack of success in the early primaries led me to switch my backing to Obama as having a better chance of defeating Hillary. We are so much better off with Obama as president than we would have been with Edwards.
Ralph
John Edwards. What a disappointment. I was a strong supporter and contributor early in his presidential campaign. I believed in his sincerity. I especially believed in Elizabeth and felt that she gave him credibility that made up for the suspicion of excessive narcissism that his pretty boy image created.
But I did not at the time suspect that he had a zipper problem.
Even more, he has a problem with telling the truth. How many lies has he told about the affair with Rielle Hunter and about the now-almost-certain fact that he is the father of her baby? He has involved not only his wife in the cover-up, but he apparently induced one of his close associates, Andrew Young, to claim to be the father. This young man was himself married. So what must have been his reward for falsely claiming to have fathered someone else's child?
There is now a grand jury looking into whether campaign funds were used in the affair. We know Hunter was paid by the campaign for documentary filming, which makes it easy to hide money for other purposes. But the big payoff, apparently, came from a wealthy Texas trial attorney, Fred Baron, who was the campaign's national finance director. He has said that he made secret payments to both Hunter and Young from his personal funds. Sounds like a deal to me.
And now this twist: apparently one question the grand jury is looking at: if an individual makes such hush money payments to prevent a scandal from destroying a political campaign, does that constitute a campaign contribution? If so, then this would have been a violation of campaign finance laws.
The big problem for Edwards now is that Young is shopping a book proposal that retracts his fatherhood confession and seems to be "telling all." Book advances trump silence money, I suppose.
Wow !! This is far worse than anything Bill Clinton was ever accused of. Here's what I resent most in my fallen hero.
He let his self-importance and blind illusion of invulnerability put at risk the chances for the Democrats to win the presidency.Suppose he had been nominated? And then two weeks before the election, all this came out? We would have lost the election.
I still think Edwards has done a lot of good in fighting poverty and working to help the underdog. And I think he was right on most of the big issues. But he is unqualified to be president -- not because of his zipper problem but because he would risk so much for so little and be so blind to that risk. For me, it's not so much a moral issue as one of judgment and perspective and maturity.
Such is the power of a zipper to change the course of history. I'm glad that Edwards' lack of success in the early primaries led me to switch my backing to Obama as having a better chance of defeating Hillary. We are so much better off with Obama as president than we would have been with Edwards.
Ralph
Civility and honesty
Jay Mulberry who moderates one of the blogs I follow, The Back Fence, said something that I think is very important.
The meta-discussion of the whole meme of uncivility in criticism of Obama, Joe Wilson's "You lie," and the raucousness of the tea-party protesters has taken a turn toward issues of freedom to speak truth to power. When does uncivility serves legitimate protest and when does it serve the status quo?
Jay wrote:
The meta-discussion of the whole meme of uncivility in criticism of Obama, Joe Wilson's "You lie," and the raucousness of the tea-party protesters has taken a turn toward issues of freedom to speak truth to power. When does uncivility serves legitimate protest and when does it serve the status quo?
Jay wrote:
Civility is generally a good thing, but foolish civility can become mere acquiescence to the status quo. Incivility is often an appropriate way, probably the only way of "speaking truth to power." If you don't believe this, you must believe that power is willing to give way to reason, and if you believe that you are naive.The current examples of Tea-Party raucousness do not, from my point of view, speak truth to power but use incivility, lies, threats and racism to serve the status quo.
It is their basic dishonesty that disturbs me, not their uncivility.
For me, this settles the question about "uncivil discourse." Be uncivil if need be to make your point -- but be honest.
Ralph
Ralph
Saturday, September 19, 2009
MLK's sad family legacy
The King children are back in the news, with Martin III and Bernice still struggling to protect their parents' reputation and legacy from the seeming greed and exploitiveness of brother Dexter, who is out in California living a high life style and trying to make money off the legacy. A judge has ordered them (meaning Dexter) to have a meeting of the corporation next week, which the other two have long been demanding.
Once the corporation set up to handle the King legacy had five members: these three plus widow Coretta and sister Yolanda. Now there are only the three. Dexter is the CEO and has apparently been running things on his own. Martin and Bernice say that he has not held a meeting in five years, will not give them financial accounting, and there have been embarrassing public disputes between the two camps over Coretta's papers and now some love letters between the parents. Dexter wants to turn everything into money; the other two seem to want a more dignified handling of the legacy. And they also want their share of the money, which they claim they have not been getting.
It's sad.
It seems clear that if there is a meeting, the other two will outvote Dexter, and there will be some changes. On the other hand, according to the AJC, the charter says a meeting requires 80% of the members of the corporation to be present. When there were five, it meant four of them had to be there. Now it means that all three must be present. So Dexter can avoid a meeting simply by not coming. Unless a judge orders it -- and he has.
So, stay tuned. Unless it's more than you want to know about the sad tarnishing of an iconic family's reputation.
Ralph
Once the corporation set up to handle the King legacy had five members: these three plus widow Coretta and sister Yolanda. Now there are only the three. Dexter is the CEO and has apparently been running things on his own. Martin and Bernice say that he has not held a meeting in five years, will not give them financial accounting, and there have been embarrassing public disputes between the two camps over Coretta's papers and now some love letters between the parents. Dexter wants to turn everything into money; the other two seem to want a more dignified handling of the legacy. And they also want their share of the money, which they claim they have not been getting.
It's sad.
It seems clear that if there is a meeting, the other two will outvote Dexter, and there will be some changes. On the other hand, according to the AJC, the charter says a meeting requires 80% of the members of the corporation to be present. When there were five, it meant four of them had to be there. Now it means that all three must be present. So Dexter can avoid a meeting simply by not coming. Unless a judge orders it -- and he has.
So, stay tuned. Unless it's more than you want to know about the sad tarnishing of an iconic family's reputation.
Ralph
Where's the logic?
I have been opposed to capital punishment since I first wrote an essay on the subject as a college freshman, almost 60 years ago.
"Capital punishment." What a euphemism for the State's act of cold-bloodedly and with all due deliberation killing people that are in its custody and who pose no immediate threat to anyone.
Now wait. I am in no way meaning to minimize what horrible crimes these prisoners may have committed. But I do not think a civilized society should pursue "an eye for an eye" policy. Keep them from further crime, sure; protect the public, definitely. But that can be done by life without parole.
This came to my attention today in a news article about the man in Ohio whose execution by lethal injection was botched when they couldn't get a needle into a vein despite repeated attempts. His lawyer says it violates the constitutional protection against "cruel and unusual punishment." A judge has ordered a 10 day stay of execution.
Where is the logic? If you're going to kill someone, what does it matter if it hurts? Why wouldn't you want it to hurt a lot? If you can't find a vein, why not just shoot him or cut off his head, like they used to?
Likewise, we don't execute people who are too mentally retarded to understand why we're killing them, nor do we execute the psychotic until we can make them sane with drugs so they know what's happening. Then we kill them.
My argument is this: if we're going to be brutal (in my opinion) why get fastidious about the details?
My larger argument is not that we should be insensitive but that we should rethink the whole practice of capital punishment. I consider it barbarous. And the heinous behavior of the convicted does not excuse our descending to their level of barbarism as well.
That's what I think.
Ralph
"Capital punishment." What a euphemism for the State's act of cold-bloodedly and with all due deliberation killing people that are in its custody and who pose no immediate threat to anyone.
Now wait. I am in no way meaning to minimize what horrible crimes these prisoners may have committed. But I do not think a civilized society should pursue "an eye for an eye" policy. Keep them from further crime, sure; protect the public, definitely. But that can be done by life without parole.
This came to my attention today in a news article about the man in Ohio whose execution by lethal injection was botched when they couldn't get a needle into a vein despite repeated attempts. His lawyer says it violates the constitutional protection against "cruel and unusual punishment." A judge has ordered a 10 day stay of execution.
Where is the logic? If you're going to kill someone, what does it matter if it hurts? Why wouldn't you want it to hurt a lot? If you can't find a vein, why not just shoot him or cut off his head, like they used to?
Likewise, we don't execute people who are too mentally retarded to understand why we're killing them, nor do we execute the psychotic until we can make them sane with drugs so they know what's happening. Then we kill them.
My argument is this: if we're going to be brutal (in my opinion) why get fastidious about the details?
My larger argument is not that we should be insensitive but that we should rethink the whole practice of capital punishment. I consider it barbarous. And the heinous behavior of the convicted does not excuse our descending to their level of barbarism as well.
That's what I think.
Ralph
Friday, September 18, 2009
The best commentary on Baucus' plan
Forget the pundits, the policy makers, the passionate supporters of health care reform.
The simplest, cleanest judgment of the Baucus plan happened on Wall Street.
As soon as the plan was released, stock values for health insurance companies and drug makers shot up.
Enough said.
When their money is involved, people cut through the crap and figure out which side of the bread is buttered.
Ralph
The simplest, cleanest judgment of the Baucus plan happened on Wall Street.
As soon as the plan was released, stock values for health insurance companies and drug makers shot up.
Enough said.
When their money is involved, people cut through the crap and figure out which side of the bread is buttered.
Ralph
Food for thought
Jim Wooten, retired conservative editor of the Atlanta Journal and now writing a column, is someone I disagree with 90% of the time. Today he said something finally that I agree with -- and it's given me something to think about.
Wooten wrote:
But am I just biased and deluding myself? Am I infected with the kind of blind certitude that I ascribe to the bushcheneys of the world from the other direction?
So I sat and pondered: what are some of those beliefs cum policy that differentiate us from the conservatives? And I don't just mean the T-party crazies with their guns or the Wall Street greedies with their obese bonuses.
Well, what about the concept of sharing? Being your brother's keeper? Using common resources (i.e. government) to help those who are less fortunate? Treating everyone equally? Trying to level the playing field of opportunity? Putting moral principles ahead of profits? Defining social values in terms of human values rather than sectarian prohibitions? Doing unto others as you would have them do unto you?
WWJD? What would Jesus do? That was quite a fad among the religious right for a while, with their bracelets and all; but in my opinion it perverted the message of one of the greatest moral teachers of all time, regardless of where you stand on the divinity question.
WWJD? I have no doubt that, if he took on any political label at all, Jesus would be a liberal/progressive/socialist. Just read over the Sermon on the Mount and think about it.
So, yes, I still believe that liberal beliefs and policies are superior -- not snooty-superior as in 'I'm better than you' -- but in the sense of being more in keeping with the lessons of our great moral teachers of all time.
Ralph
Wooten wrote:
"The Joe Wilson flap, taken nuclear by former President Jimmy Carter and others on the left, is a reminder that liberals really do believe that they and their policy positions are morally superior."Well, yes, come to think of it, I do believe that -- very strongly too.
But am I just biased and deluding myself? Am I infected with the kind of blind certitude that I ascribe to the bushcheneys of the world from the other direction?
So I sat and pondered: what are some of those beliefs cum policy that differentiate us from the conservatives? And I don't just mean the T-party crazies with their guns or the Wall Street greedies with their obese bonuses.
Well, what about the concept of sharing? Being your brother's keeper? Using common resources (i.e. government) to help those who are less fortunate? Treating everyone equally? Trying to level the playing field of opportunity? Putting moral principles ahead of profits? Defining social values in terms of human values rather than sectarian prohibitions? Doing unto others as you would have them do unto you?
WWJD? What would Jesus do? That was quite a fad among the religious right for a while, with their bracelets and all; but in my opinion it perverted the message of one of the greatest moral teachers of all time, regardless of where you stand on the divinity question.
WWJD? I have no doubt that, if he took on any political label at all, Jesus would be a liberal/progressive/socialist. Just read over the Sermon on the Mount and think about it.
So, yes, I still believe that liberal beliefs and policies are superior -- not snooty-superior as in 'I'm better than you' -- but in the sense of being more in keeping with the lessons of our great moral teachers of all time.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
