A nice little factoid:
In a CNN/OpinionResearch poll, 71% think Sarah Palin is not qualified to be president.
Count me in there too.
Ralph
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
The right question
A year ago in the 2008 election, California voters passed a ballot initiative that banned same-sex marriage. But conservative, Bush-era solicitor general Ted Olson has teamed up with a liberal attorney, David Boies, to challenge the case in the federal courts (CA's Supreme Court has already upheld it, reasoning that the right of the people to amend their constitution trumped the right of gay people to marry.)
Now it's in the federal courts, with the expectation that it will go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And therein lies the problem. Many gay rights folks feel it is too soon to go there, thinking that the current Big 9 will not overturn it, that the momentum is in action in individual states (now there are 6), and that it will stand a better chance in court after more states have already made it legal. It's the sort of "laboratories of the states" idea that makes the state opt-out on public health care plan attractive.
Nevertheless, Olson and Boies are pressing forward, and there will be a trial in January. The judge has just rejected the opposition lawyer's motion to dismiss the case. I had commented recently (10-16-09) on the lawyer's response when the judge asked him, "What would be the harm of permitting gay men and lesbians to marry?" He said, "I don't know," and then talked about the need to give some time and see the effect in the states that had allowed it.
Now the New York Times reports more from that conversation, which is delicious and it really destroys the lawyer's argument that the government should be allowed to favor opposite-sex marriages, in order "to channel naturally procreative sexual activity between men and women into stable, enduring unions."
To which Judge Vaughan Walker replied:
Marvelous ! ! !
But I'm afraid the Supremes will not be amused.
Ralph
Now it's in the federal courts, with the expectation that it will go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And therein lies the problem. Many gay rights folks feel it is too soon to go there, thinking that the current Big 9 will not overturn it, that the momentum is in action in individual states (now there are 6), and that it will stand a better chance in court after more states have already made it legal. It's the sort of "laboratories of the states" idea that makes the state opt-out on public health care plan attractive.
Nevertheless, Olson and Boies are pressing forward, and there will be a trial in January. The judge has just rejected the opposition lawyer's motion to dismiss the case. I had commented recently (10-16-09) on the lawyer's response when the judge asked him, "What would be the harm of permitting gay men and lesbians to marry?" He said, "I don't know," and then talked about the need to give some time and see the effect in the states that had allowed it.
Now the New York Times reports more from that conversation, which is delicious and it really destroys the lawyer's argument that the government should be allowed to favor opposite-sex marriages, in order "to channel naturally procreative sexual activity between men and women into stable, enduring unions."
To which Judge Vaughan Walker replied:
"The last marriage that I performed involved a groom who was 95, and a bride of 83. I did not demand that they prove that they intended to engage in procreative activity. Now was I missing something?"And Ted Olson chimed in that his mother had married three years ago at the age of 87.
Marvelous ! ! !
But I'm afraid the Supremes will not be amused.
Ralph
HolyJoe strikes again
Some of you know from my derisive nickname for Lieberman, "HolyJoe," that I have no kind feelings for this man. He is sanctimonious, weasley, and vindictive. I regret ever voting for him, although I guess I had to in order to vote for Gore.
I say: Let the silly Republicans filibuster and claim HolyJoe as one of their own. Their 19% rating on "who do you trust more to do the right thing" isn't likely to improve. Denying health care reform to people in need won't raise that. Call their bluff. See how long Olympia Snowe sticks with them. Let everyone get even more disgusted.
And it looks like HolyJoe must think he's going to play kingmaker, with the power to bring it down. Then let's play hard ball. If they start appeasing him to get his vote, I will denounce the whole lot of them, Obama included. Appease HolyJoe? Hell, strip away his subcommittee.
And now, Mickey Nardo reveals that HolyJoe's wife has a cushy job with a lobbying firm that represents one of the biggest pharmaceutical companies. One month after she began the job in 2005, Lieberman introduced a bill that would award new incentives to such companies to produce flu vaccines at a cost of billions to taxpayers. Perhaps he would have introduced the bill anyway, but it looks damning. It was even more generous to BigPharma than one introduced by the Republican leadership.
And what do voters in his state of Connecticut think about the public plan? They support it 64-31.
Holy Smoke, HolyJoe. You should re-examine your priorities and think about who your constituents are. BigPharma and the BigBlues? Or the people of Connecticutt?
Ralph
I say: Let the silly Republicans filibuster and claim HolyJoe as one of their own. Their 19% rating on "who do you trust more to do the right thing" isn't likely to improve. Denying health care reform to people in need won't raise that. Call their bluff. See how long Olympia Snowe sticks with them. Let everyone get even more disgusted.
And it looks like HolyJoe must think he's going to play kingmaker, with the power to bring it down. Then let's play hard ball. If they start appeasing him to get his vote, I will denounce the whole lot of them, Obama included. Appease HolyJoe? Hell, strip away his subcommittee.
And now, Mickey Nardo reveals that HolyJoe's wife has a cushy job with a lobbying firm that represents one of the biggest pharmaceutical companies. One month after she began the job in 2005, Lieberman introduced a bill that would award new incentives to such companies to produce flu vaccines at a cost of billions to taxpayers. Perhaps he would have introduced the bill anyway, but it looks damning. It was even more generous to BigPharma than one introduced by the Republican leadership.
And what do voters in his state of Connecticut think about the public plan? They support it 64-31.
Holy Smoke, HolyJoe. You should re-examine your priorities and think about who your constituents are. BigPharma and the BigBlues? Or the people of Connecticutt?
Ralph
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Behind the scenes on public plan
Interesting article by Sam Stein on HuffingtonPost about how the big shift in the Senate on the public option came about:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/26/how-reid-found-his-silver_n_334687.html
We progressives would like to think our pressure did it -- how many online petitions did I sign? -- and in fact Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin says it was progressives that forced them to find the opt-out compromise for a public plan. As he says, how long has it been since progressives won a legislative victory?
But here's the back room story, according to Stein's sources: Early enthusiasm for a public plan soured over the summer and seemed dead -- in the Senate, anyway. The public was always in favor. But Baucus was in a dilemma -- conservative Dems wouldn't vote for a bill with it and progressives wouldn't vote for one without it. So they needed a compromise. [See, if progressives hadn't stuck to their guns by saying they wouldn't vote for a bill without a public plan, it would have gone down the tubes.]
Tom Daschle floated the idea of an opt-in plan for the states to choose to sign on to a national plan. That seemed inoffensive enough to conservatives, but the moderates led by Chuck Schumer saw some promise and said it was not too big a stretch then to flip it and make it an opt-out plan. (bait and switch tactic?)
This has many advantages: the states don't have to come up with their own structure for a public plan to opt-in, so it's more likely that many states will do it. It always easier to decide not to opt out than it is to decide to opt in. And yet it preserves autonomy for the states. It has the further advantage that states become laboratories -- some will, some won't -- and we'll get an idea of what works.
Then, in time, maybe we can take the next step to an expanded Medicare-for-All type plan.
I'm elated -- and afraid to hope. This might actually work.
Ralph
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/26/how-reid-found-his-silver_n_334687.html
We progressives would like to think our pressure did it -- how many online petitions did I sign? -- and in fact Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin says it was progressives that forced them to find the opt-out compromise for a public plan. As he says, how long has it been since progressives won a legislative victory?
But here's the back room story, according to Stein's sources: Early enthusiasm for a public plan soured over the summer and seemed dead -- in the Senate, anyway. The public was always in favor. But Baucus was in a dilemma -- conservative Dems wouldn't vote for a bill with it and progressives wouldn't vote for one without it. So they needed a compromise. [See, if progressives hadn't stuck to their guns by saying they wouldn't vote for a bill without a public plan, it would have gone down the tubes.]
Tom Daschle floated the idea of an opt-in plan for the states to choose to sign on to a national plan. That seemed inoffensive enough to conservatives, but the moderates led by Chuck Schumer saw some promise and said it was not too big a stretch then to flip it and make it an opt-out plan. (bait and switch tactic?)
This has many advantages: the states don't have to come up with their own structure for a public plan to opt-in, so it's more likely that many states will do it. It always easier to decide not to opt out than it is to decide to opt in. And yet it preserves autonomy for the states. It has the further advantage that states become laboratories -- some will, some won't -- and we'll get an idea of what works.
Then, in time, maybe we can take the next step to an expanded Medicare-for-All type plan.
I'm elated -- and afraid to hope. This might actually work.
Ralph
BushSpeak
George W. Bush was one of the motivational speakers at the day-long "Get Motivated" seminar in Forth Worth. Here are two nuggets that attendees heard from the xprez:
Expect his book to have all the nuance and complexity of analysis that a 5 year old is capable of, however.
Ralph
"I'm confident I made the right decisions as president."Fine. Let people pay megabucks to hear him work that circuit. At least he's not out there with cheney trying to destroy Obama's credibility and undermine his presidency.
and:
“The marketplace works. It is fair. It is equitable. It is a fair form of democracy.”
Expect his book to have all the nuance and complexity of analysis that a 5 year old is capable of, however.
Ralph
Monday, October 26, 2009
Going global
They're taking the concept of missionary work to a new level of hatred and civil rights atrocities.
Change.org is reporting on the influence that a group of Christian evangelicals and ex-gay ministry proponents has had on proposed, draconian anti-gay legislation in Uganda.
Change.org is reporting on the influence that a group of Christian evangelicals and ex-gay ministry proponents has had on proposed, draconian anti-gay legislation in Uganda.
Uganda is an interesting example of how the radical religious right in the United States has sought to take their battle against all things related to homosexuality to a global level. Earlier this year, a prominent group of evangelicals -- among them representatives from Exodus International and Defend the Family International -- attended a conference in Uganda aimed at discussing ways to fight homosexuality. The goal of the conference was to brainstorm ways that the government, schools and churches in Uganda could "wipe out" homosexuality from the country.
For American religious leaders to participate in something like this shows some pretty gross disrespect for human rights. What's worse, their support has lent credence to a bill introduced in Uganda's parliament this week that will imprison people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, and will imprison straight people who support gay rights. Oh, and let's not forget that the bill also calls for HIV-positive gay people to be put to death.
A leading LGBT rights activist, Wayne Besen, says that these Americans clearly left their stamp on the proposed legislation by giving them a way to justify it based on the ex-gays' much touted claims that homosexuality is a choice and can be changed. And, in fact, almost identical wording wound up in the legislation.
Conservative evangelicals have been feeding this kind of misinformation to Ugandan officials for years. In fact, according to Besen, they have embraced the current Ugandan president as the key man in Africa to help spread conservative Christianity.
This is sickening.
It's bad enough that gays are subject to being executed in Muslim countries. But for this to be a cornerstone of a Christian movement in the 21st century in unthinkable -- but it is apparently happening.It's also terribly disheartening regarding progress in Africa. Just a few years ago, Uganda was being held up as an example of an effective program that actually reduced the spread of AIDS. I try very hard not to resent Christianity itself, and evangelicals in particular, and to remember that these are imperfect humans who are misguided in their interpretation of the message of Jesus, and that it does not represent what Jesus would have done. But it's hard to keep that perspective and not be enraged at the whole lot of them.Ralph
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Overdue pushback
On CNN's "State of the Union," we got some pushback to dick cheney's outrageous attacks on Obama.
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said,
"To listen to Dick Cheney, who was the mastermind of the most failed decade of foreign policy that this country's had at least in my political lifetime, perhaps my whole lifetime, perhaps my parents' lifetime too, to listen to him when they talk about dithering... when their mistake was to attack Iraq and lose sight of Afghanistan... eight years of failure of [Hamid] Karzai, implicitly is eight years of failure and dithering by that administration."
Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) also called cheney's remarks "out of bounds" and said that cheney simpy lacked the credibility to be taken seriously on the issue.
Even Republican Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) got into the act. Although he had to preface it by wondering why Obama would "not follow the advice of all of his generals;" but he then went on to say, "I would never want to call my president dithering."
Apparently the senators have decided that cheney can't simply be ignored. It goes along with the administration's taking on FoxNews.
News for Senator Hatch. The president (and Congress, for that matter) are constitutionally charged with the responsibility for civilian control over major military decisions. There is a reason for that, and Obama is doing what he needs to do. Does anyone really seriously advance the idea that we should increase our committment in Afghanistan before we know who they are going to wind up with as their president?
Obama is not dithering. He is being wise, prudent, and responsible.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
