The rapidity with which marriage equality has been gaining legal and public-opinion approval, has been surprising. But it has long been clear that marriage equality was going to win eventually, just because of the demographics. It's biggest opponents, people in my age group, are going to die off (or quit voting because they no longer have Repuplican-required photo IDs).
New Mexico, on Thursday, became the 17th state, along with the District of Columbia, in which same-sex marriages are legal, because of a unanimous ruling by the State Supreme Court. One of the signs of the changing times is that the Republican governor, although on record as opposing same-sex marriage, apparently distanced herself from the legal battle and hasn't commented on the ruling, according to the NY Times this morning. That is similar to how Chris Christie played it in New Jersey.
And then the following day, a Federal District Judge in Utah ruled that Utah's 2004 voter-passed ban on marriage equality was unconstitutional because it denied same-sex couples equal protection under the 14th Amendment.
I particularly love this Utah ruling because of the slap in the face it gives to those people who still like to trot out the argument that this is an issue that needs to be put to a vote of the people, that a judicial decision is somehow less valid. Screw that! Since when do the people get to vote on matters of Civil Rights? What I have read so far gives no indication of how the state of Utah will respond, and what will be the status of the same-sex plaintiffs if the state decides to appeal.
But for now, I'm going to go ahead and count Utah as the 18th fallen domino, and await the outcome of the many similar lawsuits that are pending across the country. All of the pathetic arguments against marriage equality are being shot down one by one, and it is going to be very difficult for judges in other states to ignore the rulings that are accumulating.
Friday, December 20, 2013
Republican Voter Fraud
It has been very well established by now that "voter fraud" is a myth rather than a problem, and that all of the restrictive measures enacted by Republican state legislatures around the country are nothing more than not so sophisticated efforts at voter suppression. Some of their less media-savvy members have been caught on tape admitting as much.
Unfortunately I don't know how much some stories are covered, if at all, by the mainstream media, so I don't know what is already old news by the time it gets to Brazil. Perhaps everyone already knows that Liz Cheney's husband, Phillip Perry, while registering to vote in Wyoming, signed an oath stating that he is not already registered to vote anywhere else, although in fact he is registered to vote in Virginia, where he lives. (Hell, it's where Liz has lived for years and will live once again if she loses in Wyoming.)
As everyone reading this knows, this story is an embarrassment that tends to highlight Liz Cheney's carpetbagger status in Wyoming, but it's not really an example of voter fraud. There is no reason to think Perry ever intended to vote in both states. Most likely he never even considered the fact that he would need to sign such an oath in Wyoming. (I am quite sure that I have never had to do so in all of my moves around the country.) Then, when confronted with the oath, the realization that he had no intent to vote in both states probably, in his mind, justified his signing it. Probably he made a trip to Wyoming for no other reason than to register and, crap!, who wants to do that a second time? Maybe it even crossed his mind to go back and un-register in Virginia.
Who knows? But imagine that Republicans stumbled across a story of some minority voter (it's always a minority with them) registered as a Democrat who had done something similar. They would wear that story out in the press and in key state legislatures around the country, like Reagan and his welfare queen.
One Cheney family member who won't be registering to vote in Wyoming is Liz's sister Mary. And I know everyone is familiar with that story.
Unfortunately I don't know how much some stories are covered, if at all, by the mainstream media, so I don't know what is already old news by the time it gets to Brazil. Perhaps everyone already knows that Liz Cheney's husband, Phillip Perry, while registering to vote in Wyoming, signed an oath stating that he is not already registered to vote anywhere else, although in fact he is registered to vote in Virginia, where he lives. (Hell, it's where Liz has lived for years and will live once again if she loses in Wyoming.)
As everyone reading this knows, this story is an embarrassment that tends to highlight Liz Cheney's carpetbagger status in Wyoming, but it's not really an example of voter fraud. There is no reason to think Perry ever intended to vote in both states. Most likely he never even considered the fact that he would need to sign such an oath in Wyoming. (I am quite sure that I have never had to do so in all of my moves around the country.) Then, when confronted with the oath, the realization that he had no intent to vote in both states probably, in his mind, justified his signing it. Probably he made a trip to Wyoming for no other reason than to register and, crap!, who wants to do that a second time? Maybe it even crossed his mind to go back and un-register in Virginia.
Who knows? But imagine that Republicans stumbled across a story of some minority voter (it's always a minority with them) registered as a Democrat who had done something similar. They would wear that story out in the press and in key state legislatures around the country, like Reagan and his welfare queen.
One Cheney family member who won't be registering to vote in Wyoming is Liz's sister Mary. And I know everyone is familiar with that story.
Friday, December 6, 2013
The Man Who Has Never Made a Mistake
Remember the press conference several years ago when George W. Bush was asked something to the effect of what was his biggest mistake, and he couldn't come up with an answer. He was pretty sure he must have made some mistakes, but he just couldn't think of one under the pressure of a press conference question his handlers hadn't anticipated.
Well I guess Bush and his Vice President made a really good fit, even if they couldn't stand each other by the end of "their" Presidency. Cheney never made any mistakes either. Wasn't it Cheney who recently justified the Iraq War debacle by saying that at least now we know Saddam didn't have any WMD? No apologies? Ok, he wants to claim he did what he thought was right at the time. I think that is bullshit, but let him have it for now. Couldn't he at least have the decency to have some regrets?.
In the 1980s Congress passed, by a large bi-partisan majority, America's Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act. The bill condemned apartheid, called for the freeing of the imprisoned Nelson Mandela, and imposed sanctions against South Africa. Congressman Dick Cheney was one of the few who voted against the bill. After Reagan (good ol' Mr. Freedom) vetoed the bill, congress overrode his veto. It was the first time in the entire history of the country that a presidential veto on a foreign affairs issue had been overturned.
Cheney, even now, will not admit a mistake or even acknowledge that his vote looks bad in hindsight, even if he believed it was the right vote at the time. "The ANC was then viewed as a terrorist organization. I don't have any problems at all with the vote I cast 20 years ago," Cheney said on ABC's This Week. The man has no class whatsoever.
Well I guess Bush and his Vice President made a really good fit, even if they couldn't stand each other by the end of "their" Presidency. Cheney never made any mistakes either. Wasn't it Cheney who recently justified the Iraq War debacle by saying that at least now we know Saddam didn't have any WMD? No apologies? Ok, he wants to claim he did what he thought was right at the time. I think that is bullshit, but let him have it for now. Couldn't he at least have the decency to have some regrets?.
In the 1980s Congress passed, by a large bi-partisan majority, America's Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act. The bill condemned apartheid, called for the freeing of the imprisoned Nelson Mandela, and imposed sanctions against South Africa. Congressman Dick Cheney was one of the few who voted against the bill. After Reagan (good ol' Mr. Freedom) vetoed the bill, congress overrode his veto. It was the first time in the entire history of the country that a presidential veto on a foreign affairs issue had been overturned.
Cheney, even now, will not admit a mistake or even acknowledge that his vote looks bad in hindsight, even if he believed it was the right vote at the time. "The ANC was then viewed as a terrorist organization. I don't have any problems at all with the vote I cast 20 years ago," Cheney said on ABC's This Week. The man has no class whatsoever.
Wednesday, December 4, 2013
That Damn Nanny State
While watching last nights Colbert Report, I learned that The Heritage Foundation has described the FDA's proposed ban on trans fats as "an attack on Freedom." I went to their website and verified that assertion. They say consumers can make "informed and voluntary choices" as to whether to consume trans fats.
There is nothing surprising about that, of course. The right wingers have been complaining about the "food police" for some time and asserting their right to choose to eat whatever junk food they want. I mean some of these people got their shorts in a bind when Michelle Obama said we should drink more water. How totalitarian of her!
Have you noticed, by the way, how many things are an attack on freedom to some of these crackpots? Obamacare is an attack on my freedom to hang around the emergency rooms and watch the uninsured ask for help.
Of course most right wingers probably don't eat much junk food anyway, but they want poor people, who frequently have no choice, to...uh...not have that no choice taken away from them.
While watching Colbert, I wondered what the Heritage Foundation had to say about the campaigns around the country to require foods containing GMOs to be labeled. I knew, of course, that most of the right wing fully supported the Monsanto Pary line, but what about the Heritage Foundation? Yep, turns out they did too.
Keep in mind that what was at issue was whether or not to require labeling so that consumers could know what they were choosing (or not choosing). Or as The Heritage Foundation put it in the case of trans fats, so that consumers could make an "informed and voluntary" choice.
So it seems that the Heritage Foundation wants consumers to have a choice, except when they don't want them to have a choice.
I think maybe I'd like to have a little asbestos in my hamburger. I sure wish the nanny state would just get the hell outta the way.
There is nothing surprising about that, of course. The right wingers have been complaining about the "food police" for some time and asserting their right to choose to eat whatever junk food they want. I mean some of these people got their shorts in a bind when Michelle Obama said we should drink more water. How totalitarian of her!
Have you noticed, by the way, how many things are an attack on freedom to some of these crackpots? Obamacare is an attack on my freedom to hang around the emergency rooms and watch the uninsured ask for help.
Of course most right wingers probably don't eat much junk food anyway, but they want poor people, who frequently have no choice, to...uh...not have that no choice taken away from them.
While watching Colbert, I wondered what the Heritage Foundation had to say about the campaigns around the country to require foods containing GMOs to be labeled. I knew, of course, that most of the right wing fully supported the Monsanto Pary line, but what about the Heritage Foundation? Yep, turns out they did too.
Keep in mind that what was at issue was whether or not to require labeling so that consumers could know what they were choosing (or not choosing). Or as The Heritage Foundation put it in the case of trans fats, so that consumers could make an "informed and voluntary" choice.
So it seems that the Heritage Foundation wants consumers to have a choice, except when they don't want them to have a choice.
I think maybe I'd like to have a little asbestos in my hamburger. I sure wish the nanny state would just get the hell outta the way.
Monday, December 2, 2013
Just More Takers, I Suppose
From Paul Krugman's column today:
’Tis the season to be jolly — or, at any rate, to spend a lot of time in shopping malls. It is also, traditionally, a time to reflect on the plight of those less fortunate than oneself — for example, the person on the other side of that cash register.
Although the national minimum wage was raised a few years ago, it’s still very low by historical standards, having consistently lagged behind both inflation and average wage levels. Who gets paid this low minimum? By and large, it’s the man or woman behind the cash register: almost 60 percent of U.S. minimum-wage workers are in either food service or sales. This means, by the way, that one argument often invoked against any attempt to raise wages — the threat of foreign competition — won’t wash here: Americans won’t drive to China to pick up their burgers and fries.I hope he is right about the fact that a majority of self-identified Republicans (57%) and Conservatives (59%) support an increase in the minimum wage. But, heck, he is always right. The only thing his critics can pin on him is his snarkiness, gawd bless 'im.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)