Why yes, I do continue to rip off everyone and everything for my headlines. Thanks for noticing.
I wrote about 3,529 posts on gay rights last year, but have neglected to wrap up some loose ends on that topic. (Goody!)
As it turns out, we do have an open democratic process in this country, when we take the trouble to defend it.
The Supreme Court thinks so too. It said as much last month, when the Supremes ruled 8-1 that if you want a referendum on the ballot and you sign your name to get it there, that becomes a matter of public record.
From Chief Justice John Roberts, who I would usually only quote in a fit of mockery, but not this time, I suppose: "Public disclosure thus helps ensure that the only signatures counted are those that should be, and that the only referenda placed on the ballot are those that garner enough valid signatures. Public disclosure also promotes transparency and accountability in the electoral process to an extent other measures cannot."
Add a tally to the side in favor of an open records; subtract a point (more, if you feel like it) from the fearmongering hatecrowd. (Fine, OK, you have permission to take all their points.)
So what we had happen here in the last year or so, chronologically:
1. State legislators decide all adult citizens should have same civil rights
2. Angry people think that's a bad idea
3. Angry people seek anonymity even as they sign petition to get their anti-equality referendum on the ballot
4. Angry people win skirmish in lower court, receive anonymity
5. Secretary of State sues to make list of referendum signers public
6. Referendum fails anyway. Voters affirm civil rights actually apply to all citizens! (Narrowly. But still.)
7. Case makes its way to the Supreme Court
8. Open records win!
9. Gay couples continue to inch closer to full equality with straight married citizens.
10. We wait for court injuction to be lifted, and names become public.
And then, of course, 11: Violent Bitter Gay People get a hold of the list of referendum's signers and harass them mercilessly. Things escalate, and many people are injured and/or killed. Riots ensue.
Oh, that? That's just the theory put forward by the group dedicated to keeping civil rights segregated to their favorite list of Americans. Yeah, those people are generally right on the money, so that's probably what'll happen. Uh huh.
P.S.: WA Secretary of State Sam Reed and AG Rob McKenna, both Republicans, praised the Supreme Court's decision. Good for them. I generally like those guys. I voted for them once and I will again.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
A Bloodbath of Epic Proportions / 7-23-10
There's a regular poster on my favorite political blog, fivethirtyeight.com, and this conservative dude likes to make predictions. That's fine. I like to make predictions. I made some last fall, and I need to revisit them, amend them, and own up to the completely inane ones. Unlike people on TV ever do. Will anyone except for Jon Stewart ever hold pundits accountable?
So this guy on 538 (and yeah, he's clearly a guy, I trust my Guydar) regularly informs us that the left is about to experience, electorally, a "bloodbath of epic proportions." It's his stock phrase. He's been using it since, oh, mid-2008. It's kind of like a tradition now.
That fall turned out OK for the Democrats, most observers agree. Still, Bloodbath Man kept coming back for more, week after week, reminding us that McCain was going to wipe the floor with Obama, that conservatives were going to sweep 2009 elections and take back Congress in 2010.
And several things went well for the GOP in '09, although plenty went wrong for them too. Not a bloodbath for any one side, by any stretch of the imagination.
Then 2010 came around, Teddy Kennedy's old seat went to a Republican, the stock market's tremendous rally fizzled a little, unemployment stubbornly stayed in the high nines, the public had to watch health insurance reform finish winding its ugly way through Congress, poll numbers started to suggest this could be the year of the GOP comeback, especially since midterm elections are historically unkind to the party in power... and everyone wondered if batsh!t crazy ultraconservative poster man was, gulp, re-gulp, right this time.
I mean, the White House press secretary acknowledged the Republicans might even take back the House. He probably didn't use the terms "BLOODBATH OF EPIC PROPORTIONS," but he acknowledged that the outlook is far less than desirable for Democrats.
So with my head planted firmly as ever in the sand, I say, Pffthhththbdt.
(John 1, Spell-check 0.)
This fall isn't going to be that bad for us lefties. We're going to lose some seats in the House, and some in the Senate. But it'll be the typical amount. 16 is the average. There are 70 more D's than R's in the House. It'll be manageable.
Why? Because the Republicans have been the Party of No for too long, and their No-shouting has surfaced in too many places now.
They opposed health care reform, which will only gain in popularity as its features are made known.
They opposed new financial regulation, which is popular across all swaths of America. I love America. Very swathy population.
They opposed, in a very public manner, the extension of unemployment benefits at a time of high unemployment.
They trashed both of Obama's Supreme Court nominees - qualified, intelligent women on a Court that was embarrassingly short on female representation.
They opposed new regulations for credit card companies - new rules that are consumer-friendly, mind you. You can see the new laws on your statements and in the letters from your card issuers, letters that say things like "We are no longer able to raise rates as much as we want, whenever we want" or "Here is exactly how much interest you will pay if you make only the minimum payment each month" or even "We will stop setting your minimum payment so low that your debt grows faster than you can repay it." Good things. Thank the Democrats. The Republicans fought all of that tooth-and-nail and filibuster and all.
They fought the gradual repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," the policy that keeps gays from serving openly in the military, and whose repeal is highly popular, according to many polls.
They have no legislative victories since 2008, which is to be expected, as they control no branch of government, but still, they have only their opposition of the above and of President Obama in general to run on.
It's flimsy. The people who don't like the president already voted against him in '08. The people who like him and most the policies enacted in the past 18 months are unlikely to rebuke him for doing stuff they like.
Yes, the right has enthusiasm on its side. But I'm not sold on the electoral power of the Tea Party, especially when its favored candidates actually appear on the ballot... hey look, that's like a series of 12 posts for this fall. Cool.
So this guy on 538 (and yeah, he's clearly a guy, I trust my Guydar) regularly informs us that the left is about to experience, electorally, a "bloodbath of epic proportions." It's his stock phrase. He's been using it since, oh, mid-2008. It's kind of like a tradition now.
That fall turned out OK for the Democrats, most observers agree. Still, Bloodbath Man kept coming back for more, week after week, reminding us that McCain was going to wipe the floor with Obama, that conservatives were going to sweep 2009 elections and take back Congress in 2010.
And several things went well for the GOP in '09, although plenty went wrong for them too. Not a bloodbath for any one side, by any stretch of the imagination.
Then 2010 came around, Teddy Kennedy's old seat went to a Republican, the stock market's tremendous rally fizzled a little, unemployment stubbornly stayed in the high nines, the public had to watch health insurance reform finish winding its ugly way through Congress, poll numbers started to suggest this could be the year of the GOP comeback, especially since midterm elections are historically unkind to the party in power... and everyone wondered if batsh!t crazy ultraconservative poster man was, gulp, re-gulp, right this time.
I mean, the White House press secretary acknowledged the Republicans might even take back the House. He probably didn't use the terms "BLOODBATH OF EPIC PROPORTIONS," but he acknowledged that the outlook is far less than desirable for Democrats.
So with my head planted firmly as ever in the sand, I say, Pffthhththbdt.
(John 1, Spell-check 0.)
This fall isn't going to be that bad for us lefties. We're going to lose some seats in the House, and some in the Senate. But it'll be the typical amount. 16 is the average. There are 70 more D's than R's in the House. It'll be manageable.
Why? Because the Republicans have been the Party of No for too long, and their No-shouting has surfaced in too many places now.
They opposed health care reform, which will only gain in popularity as its features are made known.
They opposed new financial regulation, which is popular across all swaths of America. I love America. Very swathy population.
They opposed, in a very public manner, the extension of unemployment benefits at a time of high unemployment.
They trashed both of Obama's Supreme Court nominees - qualified, intelligent women on a Court that was embarrassingly short on female representation.
They opposed new regulations for credit card companies - new rules that are consumer-friendly, mind you. You can see the new laws on your statements and in the letters from your card issuers, letters that say things like "We are no longer able to raise rates as much as we want, whenever we want" or "Here is exactly how much interest you will pay if you make only the minimum payment each month" or even "We will stop setting your minimum payment so low that your debt grows faster than you can repay it." Good things. Thank the Democrats. The Republicans fought all of that tooth-and-nail and filibuster and all.
They fought the gradual repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," the policy that keeps gays from serving openly in the military, and whose repeal is highly popular, according to many polls.
They have no legislative victories since 2008, which is to be expected, as they control no branch of government, but still, they have only their opposition of the above and of President Obama in general to run on.
It's flimsy. The people who don't like the president already voted against him in '08. The people who like him and most the policies enacted in the past 18 months are unlikely to rebuke him for doing stuff they like.
Yes, the right has enthusiasm on its side. But I'm not sold on the electoral power of the Tea Party, especially when its favored candidates actually appear on the ballot... hey look, that's like a series of 12 posts for this fall. Cool.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Fathers' Day / 6-20-10
The apostrophe is in the right place.
So you know me, I'm perfectly willing to give the other side a chance to present its views, to make an argument, and I will listen with an open mind. That being said, I reserve the right to point out idiocy when it pops up. Or indefensible positions. Or easily debunked claims.
The Prop 8 trial gave us all of the above. The other side's people (the warm-hearted folks seeking to keep same-sex marriage illegal in CA through the continuance of Prop 8) had a chance to express their lovely views. And in a splendid trifecta, their lawyers filled all three stoopid boxes. Somebody say Bingo!
In the Idiocy Category, we were treated to: "You need only go back to your chambers, Your Honor, and pull down any dictionary, pull down any book that discusses marriage, and you will find this procreative purpose at its heart wherever you go."
That's a quote from the closing argument of pro-Prop 8 lawyer Charles Cooper, who spent the trial insisting that marriage's existence rests upon the foundation of procreation, that the two are inseparable. And he's right, in a way. People can make kids when they're married. (I should know.) And they often do. (They do.) But you have to ignore so many facts, circumstances and reality-based real events that really happen to real people in order to define the purpose of marriage as "It's there to help us make babies." Yet that's what he did all spring long, as this trial progressed: make the argument that procreation is an essential component of wedlock, so folks who can't procreate don't qualify. More on that later.
Cooper's a gem. More from him, on that same day (Thursday, since you asked):
"Marriage is to channel the sexual behavior between men and women into a procreative union. The state's main concern in regulating marriage and seeking to channel procreation is to minimize what I would call irresponsible procreation. The state doesn't need to worry about irresponsible sexual procreation with same-sex couples. Same sex-couples must be responsible to procreate."
Remember, he's fighting to keep SSM illegal, so I had to read what he said again and again to decipher it. It sounds like he's saying that marriage is there because kids do better when they're raised by a married couple. And that same-sex marriage would cut down on unwanted kids. And that responsible procreation would happen with gay parents.
Wait, whose side is he on again? I'm so confused.
In the Indefensible Position Category, I offer you this: Prop 8 itself.
The Supreme Court (of the United States, perhaps it rings a bell?) has stated the following:
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law." That's from a 1967 decision.
Then, the same Burrito Supreme Court stated in 2003: "the intimate, adult consensual conduct at issue here [sodomy] was part of the liberty protected by the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process protections." This was the argument the court used to strike down anti-sodomy laws.
So the Nacho Supremes are saying marriage is a constitutionally guaranteed civil right (a "basic" one!) and homosexual behavior is constitutionally protected.
So same-sex marriage is unconstitutional how? Oh right, because you can't make kids out of it. Clearly, Sterile-Americans who plan to wed shouldn't bother to apply for a license. And you guys, you two widowers out there whose combined age just hit 168? Marriage is out of bounds. You know, constitutionally. Your union is unhelpful to society. Because you can't generate any kids (hopefully). Yeah, I'm sorry about that emergency hysterectomy you had when you were a teenager, you know, after that nasty car accident. No wedding for you. For legal reasons.
Laughable. Just laughable. Or at least it would be, if professional lawyers weren't trying so hard to make those arguments.
(Speaking of interesting positions, my research turned up the fact that convicted child molesters are permitted to marry in California. Not gay ones. Straight ones, mind you. Just saying. Of course they can, and I don't want to deny them anyway: marriage is a "basic civil right," after all.)
In the Easily Debunked By Actual Scientific Evidence Claims Category, zees ees wut aye hav, voila:
"We simply expected to find no difference in psychological adjustment between adolescents reared in lesbian families and the normative sample of age-matched controls. I was surprised to find that on some measures we found higher levels of [psychological] competency and lower levels of behavioral problems. It wasn't something I anticipated."
That's one conclusion of a 25-year study (uh, 25 years, chew on that for a while) which aimed to track the development of kids raised by lesbian mothers. The head researcher, one Nanette Gartell, gave us that money quote earlier this month. Suprisingly, the study was NOT commissioned by and published on communistgaysex.blogspot.com, but in the esteemed journal Pediatrics.
So how do you fight for Prop 8 again? I mean, the haters' lawyers have to have more bullets in their guns, right? More arguments? Better rationales?
They don't. But that doesn't mean the fight will end when judge Vaughn R. Walker issues his ruling, expected sometime this summer but not until at least July. Both sides' attorneys have signaled their intent to appeal to the California Taco Supreme Court, and perhaps even to the highest court in the land, the one that has already established that homosexual intercourse is legal and marriage is a fundamental right.
I wish I felt optimistic.
So you know me, I'm perfectly willing to give the other side a chance to present its views, to make an argument, and I will listen with an open mind. That being said, I reserve the right to point out idiocy when it pops up. Or indefensible positions. Or easily debunked claims.
The Prop 8 trial gave us all of the above. The other side's people (the warm-hearted folks seeking to keep same-sex marriage illegal in CA through the continuance of Prop 8) had a chance to express their lovely views. And in a splendid trifecta, their lawyers filled all three stoopid boxes. Somebody say Bingo!
In the Idiocy Category, we were treated to: "You need only go back to your chambers, Your Honor, and pull down any dictionary, pull down any book that discusses marriage, and you will find this procreative purpose at its heart wherever you go."
That's a quote from the closing argument of pro-Prop 8 lawyer Charles Cooper, who spent the trial insisting that marriage's existence rests upon the foundation of procreation, that the two are inseparable. And he's right, in a way. People can make kids when they're married. (I should know.) And they often do. (They do.) But you have to ignore so many facts, circumstances and reality-based real events that really happen to real people in order to define the purpose of marriage as "It's there to help us make babies." Yet that's what he did all spring long, as this trial progressed: make the argument that procreation is an essential component of wedlock, so folks who can't procreate don't qualify. More on that later.
Cooper's a gem. More from him, on that same day (Thursday, since you asked):
"Marriage is to channel the sexual behavior between men and women into a procreative union. The state's main concern in regulating marriage and seeking to channel procreation is to minimize what I would call irresponsible procreation. The state doesn't need to worry about irresponsible sexual procreation with same-sex couples. Same sex-couples must be responsible to procreate."
Remember, he's fighting to keep SSM illegal, so I had to read what he said again and again to decipher it. It sounds like he's saying that marriage is there because kids do better when they're raised by a married couple. And that same-sex marriage would cut down on unwanted kids. And that responsible procreation would happen with gay parents.
Wait, whose side is he on again? I'm so confused.
In the Indefensible Position Category, I offer you this: Prop 8 itself.
The Supreme Court (of the United States, perhaps it rings a bell?) has stated the following:
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law." That's from a 1967 decision.
Then, the same Burrito Supreme Court stated in 2003: "the intimate, adult consensual conduct at issue here [sodomy] was part of the liberty protected by the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process protections." This was the argument the court used to strike down anti-sodomy laws.
So the Nacho Supremes are saying marriage is a constitutionally guaranteed civil right (a "basic" one!) and homosexual behavior is constitutionally protected.
So same-sex marriage is unconstitutional how? Oh right, because you can't make kids out of it. Clearly, Sterile-Americans who plan to wed shouldn't bother to apply for a license. And you guys, you two widowers out there whose combined age just hit 168? Marriage is out of bounds. You know, constitutionally. Your union is unhelpful to society. Because you can't generate any kids (hopefully). Yeah, I'm sorry about that emergency hysterectomy you had when you were a teenager, you know, after that nasty car accident. No wedding for you. For legal reasons.
Laughable. Just laughable. Or at least it would be, if professional lawyers weren't trying so hard to make those arguments.
(Speaking of interesting positions, my research turned up the fact that convicted child molesters are permitted to marry in California. Not gay ones. Straight ones, mind you. Just saying. Of course they can, and I don't want to deny them anyway: marriage is a "basic civil right," after all.)
In the Easily Debunked By Actual Scientific Evidence Claims Category, zees ees wut aye hav, voila:
"We simply expected to find no difference in psychological adjustment between adolescents reared in lesbian families and the normative sample of age-matched controls. I was surprised to find that on some measures we found higher levels of [psychological] competency and lower levels of behavioral problems. It wasn't something I anticipated."
That's one conclusion of a 25-year study (uh, 25 years, chew on that for a while) which aimed to track the development of kids raised by lesbian mothers. The head researcher, one Nanette Gartell, gave us that money quote earlier this month. Suprisingly, the study was NOT commissioned by and published on communistgaysex.blogspot.com, but in the esteemed journal Pediatrics.
So how do you fight for Prop 8 again? I mean, the haters' lawyers have to have more bullets in their guns, right? More arguments? Better rationales?
They don't. But that doesn't mean the fight will end when judge Vaughn R. Walker issues his ruling, expected sometime this summer but not until at least July. Both sides' attorneys have signaled their intent to appeal to the California Taco Supreme Court, and perhaps even to the highest court in the land, the one that has already established that homosexual intercourse is legal and marriage is a fundamental right.
I wish I felt optimistic.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
They Can't Be Serious... Right? / 5-25-10
In my web travels, I found this. I have to re"print" it. With minimal comment.
"What do homosexuality, the health-care overhaul and British advertising standards all have in common? They're all things that have ticked God off, some religious leaders say, and he's venting his frustration with the angry fires of Iceland's Eyjafjallajokull volcano.
Moscow's Interfax newswire reported that the Association of (Russian) Orthodox Experts called the April 14 eruption -- whose gigantic cloud of ash grounded transatlantic flights for more than a week -- a response to gay rights in Europe and Iceland's tolerance of "neo-paganism." Conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh said God was angry over health-care legislation. San Antonio megachurch pastor John Hagee, founder of Christians United for Israel, said God was unleashing his wrath on Britain for deciding that Israeli tourism ads featured parts of the disputed Palestinian territories, not Israel."
Blogger Omar Sacirbey splashed this on the Washington Post's site on May 1. I'm simply passing it along for your enjoyment, with the completely unnecessary postscript that all the parties named therein deserve your scorn and ridicule. Laugh away.
"What do homosexuality, the health-care overhaul and British advertising standards all have in common? They're all things that have ticked God off, some religious leaders say, and he's venting his frustration with the angry fires of Iceland's Eyjafjallajokull volcano.
Moscow's Interfax newswire reported that the Association of (Russian) Orthodox Experts called the April 14 eruption -- whose gigantic cloud of ash grounded transatlantic flights for more than a week -- a response to gay rights in Europe and Iceland's tolerance of "neo-paganism." Conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh said God was angry over health-care legislation. San Antonio megachurch pastor John Hagee, founder of Christians United for Israel, said God was unleashing his wrath on Britain for deciding that Israeli tourism ads featured parts of the disputed Palestinian territories, not Israel."
Blogger Omar Sacirbey splashed this on the Washington Post's site on May 1. I'm simply passing it along for your enjoyment, with the completely unnecessary postscript that all the parties named therein deserve your scorn and ridicule. Laugh away.
You Don't Ask, Don't Tell, What Do You Do? / 5-25-10
Let's combine two stories here. And I think I now owe royalties to the Adam And the Ants or something.
Story One: Dude who claims homosexuals can be cured of the disease of being gay, and who once charged taxpayers $120,000 for an appearance in court to serve as an expert witness, goes on 10-day vacation to Europe with gay male escort he found online. Good story all on its own. Juicy and everything. Follow the links. They're great. But wait. There's more.
Story Two: Same dude's activist group, the Family Research Council (co-founded with fellow gay-hater James Dobson), placed an ad in Politico Tuesday, asking oh so rhetorically, "What do Kagan, Levin and Pelosi have in common? Using the military to advance their radical social agenda." (It's nice they answered their own question. I was worried they'd just let it sit out there, lonely and ambiguous.)
Superfluous But Fun Background: Elena Kagan is President Obama's most recent Supreme Court nominee. Carl Levin is the chairman of the Senate's Armed Services Committee. Nancy Pelosi, you may have heard, is the Speaker of the House. Her district is in San Francisco, so she's automatically evil and is to be opposed as a matter of principle, no matter what.
Combo Story: The FRC is worried that Congress might repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the law that gives gays the distinct privilege of being dishonorably discharged from the military for being, well, you know, GAY. Which has happened to 13,000 homosexuals since the policy's implementation. Rekers may have conveniently "left" the FRC and its subsidiaries, but that doesn't stop them from continuing to try and deny equal rights to gay citizens. (Wonder how Rekers feels about their efforts now.)
Congress is in fact considering a repeal, which would take effect Dec. 1 if approved by important people such as the President, the SecDef and the Joint Chiefs. Gays would be allowed to serve openly, as they do in places like Israel, Russia, and Great Britain. I should mention, however, that those nations have been tragically invaded by non-gay armies in recent years and will soon cease to exist entirely.
My unsolicited advice to gay-rights opponents, in Congress or otherwise: Don't get in the way of this repeal. It's hateful and you're on the wrong side of history. Oh, and the wrong side of public opinion, too, but that's kind of inconsequential here, as far as the ethics of the situation go. As far as your re-election efforts go, that's up to you. Yes, I'm speaking to you, Scott Brown.
One way I've been considering the validity of DADT is by framing it through the lens of equal opportunity employment practices. Ask yourself if you agree with the statement: "Should the U.S. military be allowed to not hire gay men and women?" Then, for fun, substitute the military for Microsoft. Or Jamba Juice. Or Wal-Mart.
I realize the job description of "armed forces operative" isn't exactly equivalent to that of "superstore greeter." (There may be plenty of crossover. I've never been either of those things, so feel free to enlighten me.) Bottom line: discrimination is discrimination, no matter its professional location. And I don't think that's what I want my country to be about.
Story One: Dude who claims homosexuals can be cured of the disease of being gay, and who once charged taxpayers $120,000 for an appearance in court to serve as an expert witness, goes on 10-day vacation to Europe with gay male escort he found online. Good story all on its own. Juicy and everything. Follow the links. They're great. But wait. There's more.
Story Two: Same dude's activist group, the Family Research Council (co-founded with fellow gay-hater James Dobson), placed an ad in Politico Tuesday, asking oh so rhetorically, "What do Kagan, Levin and Pelosi have in common? Using the military to advance their radical social agenda." (It's nice they answered their own question. I was worried they'd just let it sit out there, lonely and ambiguous.)
Superfluous But Fun Background: Elena Kagan is President Obama's most recent Supreme Court nominee. Carl Levin is the chairman of the Senate's Armed Services Committee. Nancy Pelosi, you may have heard, is the Speaker of the House. Her district is in San Francisco, so she's automatically evil and is to be opposed as a matter of principle, no matter what.
Combo Story: The FRC is worried that Congress might repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the law that gives gays the distinct privilege of being dishonorably discharged from the military for being, well, you know, GAY. Which has happened to 13,000 homosexuals since the policy's implementation. Rekers may have conveniently "left" the FRC and its subsidiaries, but that doesn't stop them from continuing to try and deny equal rights to gay citizens. (Wonder how Rekers feels about their efforts now.)
Congress is in fact considering a repeal, which would take effect Dec. 1 if approved by important people such as the President, the SecDef and the Joint Chiefs. Gays would be allowed to serve openly, as they do in places like Israel, Russia, and Great Britain. I should mention, however, that those nations have been tragically invaded by non-gay armies in recent years and will soon cease to exist entirely.
My unsolicited advice to gay-rights opponents, in Congress or otherwise: Don't get in the way of this repeal. It's hateful and you're on the wrong side of history. Oh, and the wrong side of public opinion, too, but that's kind of inconsequential here, as far as the ethics of the situation go. As far as your re-election efforts go, that's up to you. Yes, I'm speaking to you, Scott Brown.
One way I've been considering the validity of DADT is by framing it through the lens of equal opportunity employment practices. Ask yourself if you agree with the statement: "Should the U.S. military be allowed to not hire gay men and women?" Then, for fun, substitute the military for Microsoft. Or Jamba Juice. Or Wal-Mart.
I realize the job description of "armed forces operative" isn't exactly equivalent to that of "superstore greeter." (There may be plenty of crossover. I've never been either of those things, so feel free to enlighten me.) Bottom line: discrimination is discrimination, no matter its professional location. And I don't think that's what I want my country to be about.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Rand Um Chance? / 5-23-10
Pun geeks get the hottest girls. Didn't you know?
But on to the meat of this post. (Although to be honest, it's more of a tofu dish. Stir-fried, with veggies. Mushrooms and peppers and those baby corn thingies. Smothered in hot chili lime sauce. With sesame seeds. Free advice to self: eat well FIRST. THEN write blog.)
Rand Paul, the son of extreme left-wing presidential candidate Ron Paul, dipped his toe into national politics this month by winning the Republican primary in the race to succeed outgoing Senator Jim Bunning, who has been seniling his way right out of office for some time now.
Rand, who I'll hopelessly hope is not named for Ayn, falls neatly within political parameters set by Tea Party activists. (I think they should officially go with the slogan, "Give me libertarianism or give me death," but they so seldom listen to me these days.)
Whatever. You get the idea. Rand is reflexively anti-tax, anti-deficit and opposes basically any federal governmental power not expressly outlined in the Constitution. And that sounds great. In theory. Until you get into actual governance, and the feds decide that maybe it's not a good idea to keep discriminating against nonwhites or the disabled. So we get legislation like the Civil Rights Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act, designed to tell people with the power to act bigoted, "No, we really mean it when we say you should treat folks with dignity and equality. Now shape up."
Only Rand opposes and/or criticizes these laws.
Can you see how this might pose a problem in a general election? Sure, Rand can excite the conservative base in a primary. He's a fresh face with a pedigree. He's brilliant in certain ways -- I mean, the man's an ophthalmologist who has a degree from the Duke School of Medicine, for Hippocrates' sake.
But statewide elections don't favor extremists. Even in Kentucky, which went for McCain by 16 points (!), Libertarians poll between 0 and 6 percent, depending on the epoch. That being said, had Rand run for U.S. Congress in a friendly district, I believe he could have waltzed into office. He is technically a Republican. I guess. (I should rephrase. This is Kentucky; he's more likely to do-si-do into a congressional seat, to a backdrop of an absolutely bitchin' bluegrass band.) Oh, and Rand's opponent, Jack Conway, is well-known as the state's Attorney General.
That being said part deux, I don't think it's outside the realm that Rand could win anyway. Midterms are all about enthusiasm, and the TPers are nothing if not energetic. Enough Kentuckians (Kentuckers?) are eager to put the brakes on the Ovalest Socialist (I just made that up and I am frakking proud of it, thank you very much) that they might just go for anyone with an R next to his (not her) name.
(Three asides in one sentence? Rrho boy.)
Additionally, Democrats outnumber Republicans in KY by 600,000, although I confess that's a bit of a misleading statistic. Still, that's a lot of moderately moderate Dempublicrats Rand would have to attract. At least he's going it about it the right way so far: his election website is splashed with Obama blue.
Oh yeah, but those unfortunate statements about how we don't really need to step in and stop injustice, it'll just stop itself, like it always has. The free market will take care of it. No, in that department, help is flooding in. Sarah Palin weighed in for Rand, that's got to be good for something. "You know, they're looking for that 'gotcha' moment, and that's what it evidently appears to be that they did with Rand Paul," Palin said over the weekend. Sarah is a helpful lady, if you're trying to win an election. Great track record. Stayed away from Scott Brown so he could win; campaigned for that stooge in New York last year who lost. Also, that 2008 thing. Mmm hmm. Dispatch her immediately.
Rand is also pro-life. This seems like a plus in Kentucky. He's so pro-life, in fact, that he even opposes abortion in cases of rape and incest. This is ideologically pure. After all, if life begins at conception, abortion is murder no matter how the conception came about. But try selling that opinion on a large scale. Not a lot of buyers.
It's not all bad, though. Rand, like his famouser dad, is smartly in favor of legalizing marijuana. That ought to shore up Kentucky's substantial evangelical vote just fine. You tell 'em, Rand!
But on to the meat of this post. (Although to be honest, it's more of a tofu dish. Stir-fried, with veggies. Mushrooms and peppers and those baby corn thingies. Smothered in hot chili lime sauce. With sesame seeds. Free advice to self: eat well FIRST. THEN write blog.)
Rand Paul, the son of extreme left-wing presidential candidate Ron Paul, dipped his toe into national politics this month by winning the Republican primary in the race to succeed outgoing Senator Jim Bunning, who has been seniling his way right out of office for some time now.
Rand, who I'll hopelessly hope is not named for Ayn, falls neatly within political parameters set by Tea Party activists. (I think they should officially go with the slogan, "Give me libertarianism or give me death," but they so seldom listen to me these days.)
Whatever. You get the idea. Rand is reflexively anti-tax, anti-deficit and opposes basically any federal governmental power not expressly outlined in the Constitution. And that sounds great. In theory. Until you get into actual governance, and the feds decide that maybe it's not a good idea to keep discriminating against nonwhites or the disabled. So we get legislation like the Civil Rights Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act, designed to tell people with the power to act bigoted, "No, we really mean it when we say you should treat folks with dignity and equality. Now shape up."
Only Rand opposes and/or criticizes these laws.
Can you see how this might pose a problem in a general election? Sure, Rand can excite the conservative base in a primary. He's a fresh face with a pedigree. He's brilliant in certain ways -- I mean, the man's an ophthalmologist who has a degree from the Duke School of Medicine, for Hippocrates' sake.
But statewide elections don't favor extremists. Even in Kentucky, which went for McCain by 16 points (!), Libertarians poll between 0 and 6 percent, depending on the epoch. That being said, had Rand run for U.S. Congress in a friendly district, I believe he could have waltzed into office. He is technically a Republican. I guess. (I should rephrase. This is Kentucky; he's more likely to do-si-do into a congressional seat, to a backdrop of an absolutely bitchin' bluegrass band.) Oh, and Rand's opponent, Jack Conway, is well-known as the state's Attorney General.
That being said part deux, I don't think it's outside the realm that Rand could win anyway. Midterms are all about enthusiasm, and the TPers are nothing if not energetic. Enough Kentuckians (Kentuckers?) are eager to put the brakes on the Ovalest Socialist (I just made that up and I am frakking proud of it, thank you very much) that they might just go for anyone with an R next to his (not her) name.
(Three asides in one sentence? Rrho boy.)
Additionally, Democrats outnumber Republicans in KY by 600,000, although I confess that's a bit of a misleading statistic. Still, that's a lot of moderately moderate Dempublicrats Rand would have to attract. At least he's going it about it the right way so far: his election website is splashed with Obama blue.
Oh yeah, but those unfortunate statements about how we don't really need to step in and stop injustice, it'll just stop itself, like it always has. The free market will take care of it. No, in that department, help is flooding in. Sarah Palin weighed in for Rand, that's got to be good for something. "You know, they're looking for that 'gotcha' moment, and that's what it evidently appears to be that they did with Rand Paul," Palin said over the weekend. Sarah is a helpful lady, if you're trying to win an election. Great track record. Stayed away from Scott Brown so he could win; campaigned for that stooge in New York last year who lost. Also, that 2008 thing. Mmm hmm. Dispatch her immediately.
Rand is also pro-life. This seems like a plus in Kentucky. He's so pro-life, in fact, that he even opposes abortion in cases of rape and incest. This is ideologically pure. After all, if life begins at conception, abortion is murder no matter how the conception came about. But try selling that opinion on a large scale. Not a lot of buyers.
It's not all bad, though. Rand, like his famouser dad, is smartly in favor of legalizing marijuana. That ought to shore up Kentucky's substantial evangelical vote just fine. You tell 'em, Rand!
12 Snarkeys / 5-23-10
Got to see this movie again. Once is not nearly enough.
Snarkey 1: Not that the Democratic leadership is smart enough to do this, but imagine a very simple TV ad this fall, one that shows this graph: The stock market tanking in a red downward arrow in the fall of 2008, followed by a switch to blue at Obama's inauguration and a set of pleasant "ping" sound effects as the Dow steadily crosses 7,000, then 8,000, then 9,000, then 10,000, then 11,000 and maybe even past it again... that would be an effective ad. "Let's not go back there again. Keep Democrats in office this fall" is all the text you'd need, in a reassuring tone.
Like I said: Not that the leadership will ever do anything of the sort. No, they'll get "clever" and "subtle" and "high-minded" and forget to ram home the very basic fact that most people's retirement funds were painful to look at 18 months ago, and now they aren't.
My party's incompetence already hurts, in advance.
Snarkey 2: This morning, Google News shows 2,219 stories related to Linsday Lohan's most recent dustup with the law; the number of stories covering how U.S. scientists made a living cell from scratch tops out at 1,438.
Yes, more coverage for a has-been movie star's semi-illegal trip to Cannes than for the fact that we created a piece of life animated by synthetic DNA. Draw your own conclusions.
Snarkey 3: Hey looky here, that guy in the Oval Office got to nominate another Supreme Court justice. Another reason to be thankful for the absence of a Republican chief exec. Imagine if Souter and Stevens had been replaced by a President McCain. Or, hell forbid, a President P... P-p-p-pa-pal... prlni#$llllllllllna^%... Pliplapnaananalin... *brain seizure
Snarkey 4: I'm back. And so is the Big Cat. Tiger Woods returned to golf last month after a 374-year hiatus and finished fourth at the Masters. Longtime commentator Jim Nantz was impressed with Woods' final round, a gutsy up-and-down sort of day sprinkled with bogeys and birdies, three under par through 18 holes. Nantz' compliment: Tiger "somehow managed a 69 out of all of this." Giggle giggle giggle snort giggle. A 69? Impressive indeed. Yes, I am immature. There is no known cure.
Snarkey 5: We passed health care reform. Deal with it already.
Snarkey 6: A multi-state poll conducted by a UW prof shows negative views of African Americans are more commonplace among Tea Party supporters. This should not come as a surprise to anyone who's followed politics for the past year.
(Disclaimer: the extreme right does not have anywhere near a monopoly on racism. We lefties are completely capable of prejudice, thank you very much. That is not the thrust of this particular snark. The real point is in the next sentence.)
Here's what I don't get: Really, who answers "I agree" to the following question: "If Blacks would just try harder they would be as well off as Whites"? 68 percent of TP sympathizers agreed. 33 of TP disapprovers answered in the same way. My mind is re-blown. (Just as much by the 33 percent as by the 68, but like I already predisclaimed, not the point.)
I mean, I understand that some folks hold racist attitudes, and that's something a society of humans will deal with until the end of time. Wait, let me amend that: after the computerized overlords eradicate the planet of the virus we like to call "humanity," the surviving Apples will probably enslave the few PC's left, renewing a grand cycle all over again. But back to reality: For one political group to admit to racism, openly, two-thirds of the time, in a survey or a poll, how does that happen? It doesn't compute.
I mean, yes, the question is poorly worded. But 68 percent? I mean, what the hell?
(I'm done meaning things.)
Snarkey 7: Mariners this season. 16-27 overall. Endured a 20-inning scoring drought in April, scored 3.3 runs per game for the first quarter of the season. Exploded for 17 runs across five innings Thursday and Friday night. Practically lead the league in ERA. Bunch of guys hitting below their career average. Can't win the close ones. So I really can't figure this team out. The M's are headed for a depressing 64-98 season, a so-so 80-82 year of transition, or a 91-71 record capped by a division title. Nothing in between.
Snarkey 8: More Obamaterial, connected to baseball, because I like to pretend I can transition seamlessly when I want to. Heard his Opening Day ceremonial first pitch described as "effeminate." Got me thinking. "Effeminate." It takes me back to the glory days of the 2008 campaign, when the Scary Black Man Who Dared to Run for President got called all kinds of things, like a secret gay Muslim socialist who pals around with terrorists. Good times, those were.
So what if Obama WERE gay? He's not. (That one time he and I made out, it was just to give him reassurance, in the wake of Massachusetts voting in a Republican to replace Teddy. And Barack was fine a few days later. Sooo fine. You're welcome, by the way.) But if he were, you know, into men besides just me, and Michelle came foward and admitted their marriage was one of convenience, how would reasonable people react? I don't have a good answer to that one. And I'm not asking what the crazies on either side would say. They'd have a field day, no, year, no, decade with it. I just wonder how people with functional brains would approach that hypo-hyper-hypo-thetical event.
It would be scandalous, I suppose. But I can't figure out why exactly. We'll probably vote in an atheist President before a gay one. Although we might just never elect either.
Snarkey 9: The Republicans will probably retake the House (not the Senate) this fall. Enthusiasm is on their side. I remember how stoked I was to vote against Bush in 2006 and in 2008... even without that farcically underwhelming President on the ballot. Conservatives feel the same way about Obama, only with a ferocity they had usually reserved for persons named Clinton. The real action will be in 2012, when the R's put up some sacrificial lamb and hope turnout doesn't swing back the other way... which it will...
Snarkey 10: Some time back (old news, but I can't let it go) a facebook group formed with the purpose of praying for Obama's death. Oh, Christians, your love never ceases to amaze me. Anyway, what to do here? Well, the one thing I never considered was that facebook should just shut the group down. It's in poor taste, it's hateful, it's in unambiguously direct opposition to Christ's teachings, it could encourage some crazy person to actually try and assassinate the president, and yet I think it ought to exist.
Free speech is a constitutional guarantee, and I want to keep it that way. Purely out of selfish motives. I'd like to advocate for the impeachment of a President in the distant future, some chief exec who does things like start wars without justification, politicizes the Justice Department, tries to dismantle Social Security, stands by while a hurricane levels a major American city, lets the deficit balloon even past his term's end, assaults the environment, lets his subordinates fire people for being gay, lets his subordinates out spies, and is clueless on how to respond when a terrorist attack kills 3,000 citizens.
I want to conserve freedom of dissent, and for that reason, you so-called Christians can gather and thank God for the sunny weather in the same breath you call for another Christian to rendezvous with death. (Although "rendezvous" is a French word, so that's probably out of bounds.)
Snarkey 11: Scott Brown, the Republican who replaced Teddy Kennedy, is an interesting fellow. Representing Massachusetts, he might be the only dude in Congress who has to be as far to the right as he can while being as far to the left as he can. He joined the D's recently in supporting a financial regulation bill, out of pure self-preservation; the road to Elena Kagan's Supreme Court nomination runs through him and others. I just want to know if he'll survive 2012, when a competent Democrat will challenge him. (I reserve the right to rule again on the matter of said Democrat's competence in 30 months.) So yeah, he's interesting. Like liver and onions interesting.
Snarkey 12: With archconservative and even libertarian candidates on key Senate ballots for the R's this fall (I'm thinking specifically of Florida, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Utah), November may well decide the fate of the Tea Party. The R's hold three of those four seats right now, and as recently as last year, had their hands on all four. If they come away with only two wins in a climate favorable to them, they will have pissed away a good chunk of power.
With proper management, the right-wingers ought to be able to win all four. Three victories, that they can probably live with. Two is bad. One (it's possible, I'll explain) is very very bad. Zero? Catastrophe. (From one perspective.)
But John, you'll say, that's two deep-red states (KY and UT), one swing state (FL) and another one usually decorated with a pretty shade of sky blue (PA) but with a history of electing Republican senators. They're going to go mostly, if not all, blood-red. In a midterm election, no less.
Not so fast. In KY, an actual libertarian is on the ballot. When was the last time one of those won a statewide race, uh, anywhere? In UT, the sitting senator was deemed not conservative enough and got himself primaried right out of it. In FL, it's a three-way race with two guys from the right and one from the left. In PA, the conservative candidate is facing an uphill battle to begin with, and it turns out he's from the very far-right Club For Growth. (Not going to provide a link to their site. Don't feel like it.)
Gut feeling: Utah stays R, Crist wins in FL, and the D's take KY and PA. Net gain for the left, even if Crist caucuses with the conservatives. Socialism wins again!
Snarkey 13: It's not been a good year for doomsayers. The market is up, recent lull notwithstanding, unemployment has flattened while hiring picks up steam, the Large Hadron Collider failed to spawn a black hole and devour the earth, health care reform passed, inflation hasn't skyrocketed, an amateur terrorist attack was thwarted, and even the Chile gigaquake misfired on its potential Hawai'i-engulfing tsunami. And when the BP oil spill dragged on for a month, the environmental disaster became "just" that: another disaster, albeit a serious one... but as unflippantly as possible, it was just one of those things that happens, not part of a trend of some sort.
So don't repent. The end is not near.
[EDIT: This post accidentally ballooned out of control, to a whopping 13 Snarkeys. The extra content is provided free, courtesy of our generous sponsors. Don't say I never did anything for you, my loyal customer.]
Snarkey 1: Not that the Democratic leadership is smart enough to do this, but imagine a very simple TV ad this fall, one that shows this graph: The stock market tanking in a red downward arrow in the fall of 2008, followed by a switch to blue at Obama's inauguration and a set of pleasant "ping" sound effects as the Dow steadily crosses 7,000, then 8,000, then 9,000, then 10,000, then 11,000 and maybe even past it again... that would be an effective ad. "Let's not go back there again. Keep Democrats in office this fall" is all the text you'd need, in a reassuring tone.
Like I said: Not that the leadership will ever do anything of the sort. No, they'll get "clever" and "subtle" and "high-minded" and forget to ram home the very basic fact that most people's retirement funds were painful to look at 18 months ago, and now they aren't.
My party's incompetence already hurts, in advance.
Snarkey 2: This morning, Google News shows 2,219 stories related to Linsday Lohan's most recent dustup with the law; the number of stories covering how U.S. scientists made a living cell from scratch tops out at 1,438.
Yes, more coverage for a has-been movie star's semi-illegal trip to Cannes than for the fact that we created a piece of life animated by synthetic DNA. Draw your own conclusions.
Snarkey 3: Hey looky here, that guy in the Oval Office got to nominate another Supreme Court justice. Another reason to be thankful for the absence of a Republican chief exec. Imagine if Souter and Stevens had been replaced by a President McCain. Or, hell forbid, a President P... P-p-p-pa-pal... prlni#$llllllllllna^%... Pliplapnaananalin... *brain seizure
Snarkey 4: I'm back. And so is the Big Cat. Tiger Woods returned to golf last month after a 374-year hiatus and finished fourth at the Masters. Longtime commentator Jim Nantz was impressed with Woods' final round, a gutsy up-and-down sort of day sprinkled with bogeys and birdies, three under par through 18 holes. Nantz' compliment: Tiger "somehow managed a 69 out of all of this." Giggle giggle giggle snort giggle. A 69? Impressive indeed. Yes, I am immature. There is no known cure.
Snarkey 5: We passed health care reform. Deal with it already.
Snarkey 6: A multi-state poll conducted by a UW prof shows negative views of African Americans are more commonplace among Tea Party supporters. This should not come as a surprise to anyone who's followed politics for the past year.
(Disclaimer: the extreme right does not have anywhere near a monopoly on racism. We lefties are completely capable of prejudice, thank you very much. That is not the thrust of this particular snark. The real point is in the next sentence.)
Here's what I don't get: Really, who answers "I agree" to the following question: "If Blacks would just try harder they would be as well off as Whites"? 68 percent of TP sympathizers agreed. 33 of TP disapprovers answered in the same way. My mind is re-blown. (Just as much by the 33 percent as by the 68, but like I already predisclaimed, not the point.)
I mean, I understand that some folks hold racist attitudes, and that's something a society of humans will deal with until the end of time. Wait, let me amend that: after the computerized overlords eradicate the planet of the virus we like to call "humanity," the surviving Apples will probably enslave the few PC's left, renewing a grand cycle all over again. But back to reality: For one political group to admit to racism, openly, two-thirds of the time, in a survey or a poll, how does that happen? It doesn't compute.
I mean, yes, the question is poorly worded. But 68 percent? I mean, what the hell?
(I'm done meaning things.)
Snarkey 7: Mariners this season. 16-27 overall. Endured a 20-inning scoring drought in April, scored 3.3 runs per game for the first quarter of the season. Exploded for 17 runs across five innings Thursday and Friday night. Practically lead the league in ERA. Bunch of guys hitting below their career average. Can't win the close ones. So I really can't figure this team out. The M's are headed for a depressing 64-98 season, a so-so 80-82 year of transition, or a 91-71 record capped by a division title. Nothing in between.
Snarkey 8: More Obamaterial, connected to baseball, because I like to pretend I can transition seamlessly when I want to. Heard his Opening Day ceremonial first pitch described as "effeminate." Got me thinking. "Effeminate." It takes me back to the glory days of the 2008 campaign, when the Scary Black Man Who Dared to Run for President got called all kinds of things, like a secret gay Muslim socialist who pals around with terrorists. Good times, those were.
So what if Obama WERE gay? He's not. (That one time he and I made out, it was just to give him reassurance, in the wake of Massachusetts voting in a Republican to replace Teddy. And Barack was fine a few days later. Sooo fine. You're welcome, by the way.) But if he were, you know, into men besides just me, and Michelle came foward and admitted their marriage was one of convenience, how would reasonable people react? I don't have a good answer to that one. And I'm not asking what the crazies on either side would say. They'd have a field day, no, year, no, decade with it. I just wonder how people with functional brains would approach that hypo-hyper-hypo-thetical event.
It would be scandalous, I suppose. But I can't figure out why exactly. We'll probably vote in an atheist President before a gay one. Although we might just never elect either.
Snarkey 9: The Republicans will probably retake the House (not the Senate) this fall. Enthusiasm is on their side. I remember how stoked I was to vote against Bush in 2006 and in 2008... even without that farcically underwhelming President on the ballot. Conservatives feel the same way about Obama, only with a ferocity they had usually reserved for persons named Clinton. The real action will be in 2012, when the R's put up some sacrificial lamb and hope turnout doesn't swing back the other way... which it will...
Snarkey 10: Some time back (old news, but I can't let it go) a facebook group formed with the purpose of praying for Obama's death. Oh, Christians, your love never ceases to amaze me. Anyway, what to do here? Well, the one thing I never considered was that facebook should just shut the group down. It's in poor taste, it's hateful, it's in unambiguously direct opposition to Christ's teachings, it could encourage some crazy person to actually try and assassinate the president, and yet I think it ought to exist.
Free speech is a constitutional guarantee, and I want to keep it that way. Purely out of selfish motives. I'd like to advocate for the impeachment of a President in the distant future, some chief exec who does things like start wars without justification, politicizes the Justice Department, tries to dismantle Social Security, stands by while a hurricane levels a major American city, lets the deficit balloon even past his term's end, assaults the environment, lets his subordinates fire people for being gay, lets his subordinates out spies, and is clueless on how to respond when a terrorist attack kills 3,000 citizens.
I want to conserve freedom of dissent, and for that reason, you so-called Christians can gather and thank God for the sunny weather in the same breath you call for another Christian to rendezvous with death. (Although "rendezvous" is a French word, so that's probably out of bounds.)
Snarkey 11: Scott Brown, the Republican who replaced Teddy Kennedy, is an interesting fellow. Representing Massachusetts, he might be the only dude in Congress who has to be as far to the right as he can while being as far to the left as he can. He joined the D's recently in supporting a financial regulation bill, out of pure self-preservation; the road to Elena Kagan's Supreme Court nomination runs through him and others. I just want to know if he'll survive 2012, when a competent Democrat will challenge him. (I reserve the right to rule again on the matter of said Democrat's competence in 30 months.) So yeah, he's interesting. Like liver and onions interesting.
Snarkey 12: With archconservative and even libertarian candidates on key Senate ballots for the R's this fall (I'm thinking specifically of Florida, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Utah), November may well decide the fate of the Tea Party. The R's hold three of those four seats right now, and as recently as last year, had their hands on all four. If they come away with only two wins in a climate favorable to them, they will have pissed away a good chunk of power.
With proper management, the right-wingers ought to be able to win all four. Three victories, that they can probably live with. Two is bad. One (it's possible, I'll explain) is very very bad. Zero? Catastrophe. (From one perspective.)
But John, you'll say, that's two deep-red states (KY and UT), one swing state (FL) and another one usually decorated with a pretty shade of sky blue (PA) but with a history of electing Republican senators. They're going to go mostly, if not all, blood-red. In a midterm election, no less.
Not so fast. In KY, an actual libertarian is on the ballot. When was the last time one of those won a statewide race, uh, anywhere? In UT, the sitting senator was deemed not conservative enough and got himself primaried right out of it. In FL, it's a three-way race with two guys from the right and one from the left. In PA, the conservative candidate is facing an uphill battle to begin with, and it turns out he's from the very far-right Club For Growth. (Not going to provide a link to their site. Don't feel like it.)
Gut feeling: Utah stays R, Crist wins in FL, and the D's take KY and PA. Net gain for the left, even if Crist caucuses with the conservatives. Socialism wins again!
Snarkey 13: It's not been a good year for doomsayers. The market is up, recent lull notwithstanding, unemployment has flattened while hiring picks up steam, the Large Hadron Collider failed to spawn a black hole and devour the earth, health care reform passed, inflation hasn't skyrocketed, an amateur terrorist attack was thwarted, and even the Chile gigaquake misfired on its potential Hawai'i-engulfing tsunami. And when the BP oil spill dragged on for a month, the environmental disaster became "just" that: another disaster, albeit a serious one... but as unflippantly as possible, it was just one of those things that happens, not part of a trend of some sort.
So don't repent. The end is not near.
[EDIT: This post accidentally ballooned out of control, to a whopping 13 Snarkeys. The extra content is provided free, courtesy of our generous sponsors. Don't say I never did anything for you, my loyal customer.]
Monday, March 22, 2010
Linkage / 3-22-10
All you get here are links. Some of my favorites from the HCR debate, in random order. Click on some. They generally are related to the title of their link. So trust me: you won't be redirected to any porn sites, offshore casinos, or mature swingin' adult dating services. (All together now: "Not That There's Anything Wrong With That.")
You might land in a place that makes you better informed, or just makes you cringe.
Table of Contents
There Will Be Blood
State is broke; so's the system
Shout! Shout! Let it all out!
Attention: Deficit Disorder
Ick
Play-by-Play, Sunday night
Kids don't need insurance! They have Medicaid!
Who you callin' unconstitutitutitutional?
Polling Place
Man Date
Recap
You might land in a place that makes you better informed, or just makes you cringe.
Table of Contents
There Will Be Blood
State is broke; so's the system
Shout! Shout! Let it all out!
Attention: Deficit Disorder
Ick
Play-by-Play, Sunday night
Kids don't need insurance! They have Medicaid!
Who you callin' unconstitutitutitutional?
Polling Place
Man Date
Recap
Feeeelings / 3-22-10
No facts here. Go to the other post for actual content. This is just a list of emotions I've gone through in the past 36 hours.
Relief: Upon figuring out Sunday afternoon that Pelosi had the votes to pass the bill, I let out a deep sigh and waited for the moment.
Excitement: Knowing that history was in the making, I got a little tingly following the news, checking my phone every 15 minutes to see if the vote had been tallied yet.
Energy: As befits the moment after a political victory. Hasn't been a stellar winter for my side of the aisle.
Dread: What if the bill has some really really sucky yucky stuff inside of it? What if this great legislative victory is bad for the country? Bad for me? Bad for my kids?
Impatience: With those who interjected abortion into the debate. (Newsflash: Ending a pregnancy is a medical procedure. A legal one. Its elective nature may vary. It may be highly objectionable in certain cases. Call it what you want, it still falls under the umbrella of health care.)
Shame: For letting myself be duped into believing the bill was virulently anti-business. It's not. Go to the other post for details. For letting myself believe the individual mandate would be an unfair hardship. It's not set up that way. For listening to people tell me this bill wasn't liberal enough. Hey. The perfect is the enemy of the good. Somebody said that once.
Impatience Renewed: With how easily people accept the lies of the right-wing propaganda machine. At least when we Dems are lied to by our politicians, we know it and roll with it, or we rebel and turn on them mercilessly.
Shame, Part Deux: For not having blogged in two months. (There are extenuating circumstances, but to all my countless fans - 11 - all over the world, I'm truly sorry. And not Tiger Woods sorry. Sorry sorry.)
Relief, Part Deux: That my kids, both of whom have a better than even chance of inheriting my very serious heart condition, will be able to obtain coverage if they need it, and can stay on the family plan until age 26.
Relief, Part C: That should my wife, for some glopfaloobaloogurglespurk reason, lose her job or her coverage, then my family will still be able to get us some 'surance.
Pride: In my country, which could now start to pull itself, one piece of legislation at a time, from the clutches of crippling health care costs. Much work remains to be done, but the end result, whatever it is, would have been impossible without this step.
Thankfulness: Without a D President and a D Congress, this doesn't happen. Thanks voters.
Sheepishness: That I don't know everything that's in the bill, that I can only recite about half of it off the top of my head, and that I'm pretending to be some sort of expert on it.
Hope: Self-explanatory.
Relief: Upon figuring out Sunday afternoon that Pelosi had the votes to pass the bill, I let out a deep sigh and waited for the moment.
Excitement: Knowing that history was in the making, I got a little tingly following the news, checking my phone every 15 minutes to see if the vote had been tallied yet.
Energy: As befits the moment after a political victory. Hasn't been a stellar winter for my side of the aisle.
Dread: What if the bill has some really really sucky yucky stuff inside of it? What if this great legislative victory is bad for the country? Bad for me? Bad for my kids?
Impatience: With those who interjected abortion into the debate. (Newsflash: Ending a pregnancy is a medical procedure. A legal one. Its elective nature may vary. It may be highly objectionable in certain cases. Call it what you want, it still falls under the umbrella of health care.)
Shame: For letting myself be duped into believing the bill was virulently anti-business. It's not. Go to the other post for details. For letting myself believe the individual mandate would be an unfair hardship. It's not set up that way. For listening to people tell me this bill wasn't liberal enough. Hey. The perfect is the enemy of the good. Somebody said that once.
Impatience Renewed: With how easily people accept the lies of the right-wing propaganda machine. At least when we Dems are lied to by our politicians, we know it and roll with it, or we rebel and turn on them mercilessly.
Shame, Part Deux: For not having blogged in two months. (There are extenuating circumstances, but to all my countless fans - 11 - all over the world, I'm truly sorry. And not Tiger Woods sorry. Sorry sorry.)
Relief, Part Deux: That my kids, both of whom have a better than even chance of inheriting my very serious heart condition, will be able to obtain coverage if they need it, and can stay on the family plan until age 26.
Relief, Part C: That should my wife, for some glopfaloobaloogurglespurk reason, lose her job or her coverage, then my family will still be able to get us some 'surance.
Pride: In my country, which could now start to pull itself, one piece of legislation at a time, from the clutches of crippling health care costs. Much work remains to be done, but the end result, whatever it is, would have been impossible without this step.
Thankfulness: Without a D President and a D Congress, this doesn't happen. Thanks voters.
Sheepishness: That I don't know everything that's in the bill, that I can only recite about half of it off the top of my head, and that I'm pretending to be some sort of expert on it.
Hope: Self-explanatory.
To Our Health / 3-22-10
We have a health care reform bill. After 14 months of partisan yelling, obfuscation, delay, dishonesty, and malodorous behavior all around.
And that was just from the "journalists."
Seriously, has there ever been a topic as misreported as this one? Willfully or not, the debate raging since Obama's inauguration has seemingly consisted of "I don't want no Urpeein' socialized med'cine, you stupid America-hating Marxist idjits!" vs. "Why do you ignorant loud-mouthed racists despise our children?"
I may not be as old as the Republic, or even as the Watergate scandal, but I know a piss-poor job of collective journalism when I see one.
If I want panicked shrieking about how a mandate to buy insurance will void the Constitution and bankrupt our children, I can get that at any number of panicked shrieking-filled websites. or "news" programs. (Shrieking at phood4thot is subject to federal guidelines of no more than 10 percent panic, 80 percent outrage and 10 percent just-for-the-hell-of-it.)
If I want to hear two spinmeisters distort the intent and wording of a bill, as if it didn't really matter who was right, there are innumerable forums for that. If I want to read a poll about how Americans feel about an issue, pollster.com, gallup.com and fivethirtyeight.com are great destinations.
But now, as I said, we have an actual bill. And there are provisions inside of it. Where has that been, and maybe can we talk about that, no?
(Spoiler alert: the HCR bill contains no death panels, forced assisted-suicide, mandatory abortions, expansion of medical marijuana limits, or random mass sterilizations. As of yet.)
Snarky section complete. Informative section begins. The stuff that sits below, I compiled it from a few sources across the web, from newspapers scattered across the country, from editors who bothered to print a synopsis of the actual contents of the actual bill. There is no commentary attached for the following 13 paragraphs. (Pontification and soapboxery ensue shortly thereafter.)
The Mandate: Kicks in in 2014, when all citizens will be required to have health insurance, or pay additional tax of $95 at first, rising to $695 or 2.5 percent of income, by 2016. Some poor persons exempt.
The Subsidies: Starting in 2014 as well, for individual buyers. Households earning up to $88,200 for a family of four can qualify; the lower the income, the higher the subsidy.
The Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurers are immediately barred from declining coverage to minors based on pre-existing illnesses. The same provision applies to adults beginning in 2014.
The Taxes: Beginning in 2012, households earning more than $250,000 a year (the cutoff is $200,000 for single taxpayers) will pay 0.9 percent higher Medicare payroll tax and a 3.8 percent tax on investment income (dividends plus interest). Then in 2018, the fanciest insurance policies get hit with a 40 percent tax. Indoor tanning salons face a 10 percent tax. The insurance companies pay a joint $8 billion annual fee, starting in 2014.
The Small Business Owner: Receives tax breaks starting this year for offering health insurance. Again in 2014, employers with more than 50 workers may be, in certain cirumstances, penalized up to $2,000 per full-time worker if they fail to offer affordable health insurance and the worker receives government subsidies. No employer mandate. There are more details here, but very small businesses will not be penalized in any way, they only gain incentives and subsisdies should they choose to offer health insurance.
Medicare cuts: Some providers' payments will be cut; Medicare Advantage will receive less funding. (Obama is not fond of that Bush-era program, which he says is too advantageous to the pharmaceutical corporations.) On the other hand, prescription drug coverage will be expanded by closing the "doughnut hole," a gap in benefits that prevents discounts on certain drugs.
More Medicaid: As of 2014, Medicaid will be open to everyone earning up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level, or $29,300 for a family of four. Primary-care physicians treating Medicaid patients will see higher reimbursement rates, starting in 2013.
The exchange: People without employer coverage will be allowed to shop for insurance from a wider selection. Begins in 2014.
High-risk pool: Gets going in 2010. The government will set up a high-risk insurance pool for those who have a pre-existing health condition and have been uninsured for at least six months. The buy-in cost would be limited to $5,950 per individual.
Older kids: As soon as this year, but possibly next, dependent children up to age 26 must be allowed to continue coverage on Mom and/or Dad's policy.
Lifetime limits: Kicks off later this year. Insurers will no longer be permitted to limit the amount of coverage granted you in your lifetime.
Revenue: Also this year, insurance plans must pay at least 80 percent of their revenue in benefits or choose to give rebates to customers starting next year.
Other: Boosts experimental medical programs, require standardization of insurance forms, calls for higher payments for preventive care. A brand-new commission is created to review the administration of Medicare. Long-term care savings program is established. Some medical devices begin to be taxed in 2013.
There's work involved in understanding this bill. Nancy Pelosi got herself into some hot water earlier this month when she was quoted as saying "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." No, she really said that. But how about some context. Here is what she had just finished stating:
"You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."
How dare she! To imply that opponents have drowned the issue in half-truths! To imply it's hard to get people to understand the bill because the coverage of it has been, to quote myself, piss-poor... the gall, I mean THE GALL of that uppity broad! (Yes, yes, the sarcasm's out of control again, I don't apologize.)
To sharpen my point: Of course people are opposed in principle to more government messing with their health care. We're Americans, after all. Of course the mandate is controversial. Nobody likes being forced to buy something. Of course the taxes will infuriate some rich people with connections and megaphones. We don't deal well with the idea of more taxes and more bureaucracy. Of course there's a risk of running up the deficit, despite the CBO's claims that the legislation is deficit neutral.
But ALL that good stuff in the bill. The subsidies for desperate families. The deliverance from insurance companies' repeated denials of coverage. The protections for kids and mom-and-pop businesses. Once all that info gets out there, conservatives had better hope independents forget how vehemently the right wing fought this incremental victory for common sense.
And that was just from the "journalists."
Seriously, has there ever been a topic as misreported as this one? Willfully or not, the debate raging since Obama's inauguration has seemingly consisted of "I don't want no Urpeein' socialized med'cine, you stupid America-hating Marxist idjits!" vs. "Why do you ignorant loud-mouthed racists despise our children?"
I may not be as old as the Republic, or even as the Watergate scandal, but I know a piss-poor job of collective journalism when I see one.
If I want panicked shrieking about how a mandate to buy insurance will void the Constitution and bankrupt our children, I can get that at any number of panicked shrieking-filled websites. or "news" programs. (Shrieking at phood4thot is subject to federal guidelines of no more than 10 percent panic, 80 percent outrage and 10 percent just-for-the-hell-of-it.)
If I want to hear two spinmeisters distort the intent and wording of a bill, as if it didn't really matter who was right, there are innumerable forums for that. If I want to read a poll about how Americans feel about an issue, pollster.com, gallup.com and fivethirtyeight.com are great destinations.
But now, as I said, we have an actual bill. And there are provisions inside of it. Where has that been, and maybe can we talk about that, no?
(Spoiler alert: the HCR bill contains no death panels, forced assisted-suicide, mandatory abortions, expansion of medical marijuana limits, or random mass sterilizations. As of yet.)
Snarky section complete. Informative section begins. The stuff that sits below, I compiled it from a few sources across the web, from newspapers scattered across the country, from editors who bothered to print a synopsis of the actual contents of the actual bill. There is no commentary attached for the following 13 paragraphs. (Pontification and soapboxery ensue shortly thereafter.)
The Mandate: Kicks in in 2014, when all citizens will be required to have health insurance, or pay additional tax of $95 at first, rising to $695 or 2.5 percent of income, by 2016. Some poor persons exempt.
The Subsidies: Starting in 2014 as well, for individual buyers. Households earning up to $88,200 for a family of four can qualify; the lower the income, the higher the subsidy.
The Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurers are immediately barred from declining coverage to minors based on pre-existing illnesses. The same provision applies to adults beginning in 2014.
The Taxes: Beginning in 2012, households earning more than $250,000 a year (the cutoff is $200,000 for single taxpayers) will pay 0.9 percent higher Medicare payroll tax and a 3.8 percent tax on investment income (dividends plus interest). Then in 2018, the fanciest insurance policies get hit with a 40 percent tax. Indoor tanning salons face a 10 percent tax. The insurance companies pay a joint $8 billion annual fee, starting in 2014.
The Small Business Owner: Receives tax breaks starting this year for offering health insurance. Again in 2014, employers with more than 50 workers may be, in certain cirumstances, penalized up to $2,000 per full-time worker if they fail to offer affordable health insurance and the worker receives government subsidies. No employer mandate. There are more details here, but very small businesses will not be penalized in any way, they only gain incentives and subsisdies should they choose to offer health insurance.
Medicare cuts: Some providers' payments will be cut; Medicare Advantage will receive less funding. (Obama is not fond of that Bush-era program, which he says is too advantageous to the pharmaceutical corporations.) On the other hand, prescription drug coverage will be expanded by closing the "doughnut hole," a gap in benefits that prevents discounts on certain drugs.
More Medicaid: As of 2014, Medicaid will be open to everyone earning up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level, or $29,300 for a family of four. Primary-care physicians treating Medicaid patients will see higher reimbursement rates, starting in 2013.
The exchange: People without employer coverage will be allowed to shop for insurance from a wider selection. Begins in 2014.
High-risk pool: Gets going in 2010. The government will set up a high-risk insurance pool for those who have a pre-existing health condition and have been uninsured for at least six months. The buy-in cost would be limited to $5,950 per individual.
Older kids: As soon as this year, but possibly next, dependent children up to age 26 must be allowed to continue coverage on Mom and/or Dad's policy.
Lifetime limits: Kicks off later this year. Insurers will no longer be permitted to limit the amount of coverage granted you in your lifetime.
Revenue: Also this year, insurance plans must pay at least 80 percent of their revenue in benefits or choose to give rebates to customers starting next year.
Other: Boosts experimental medical programs, require standardization of insurance forms, calls for higher payments for preventive care. A brand-new commission is created to review the administration of Medicare. Long-term care savings program is established. Some medical devices begin to be taxed in 2013.
(Soapbox in 3, 2, 1...)
I did not remove any significant items from that list. I didn't add anything. What you see is what you get.
No wonder the opposition won the messaging battle on this one. "No Gov't Takeover!" or "NObamacare" is catchy and easily reported, espeically when contrasted with "2.5 of taxable income, but technically, not until 2016" or "Only a $695 fine!" or even "Medicaid to 133 percent of poverty level just in four years!"There's work involved in understanding this bill. Nancy Pelosi got herself into some hot water earlier this month when she was quoted as saying "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." No, she really said that. But how about some context. Here is what she had just finished stating:
"You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."
How dare she! To imply that opponents have drowned the issue in half-truths! To imply it's hard to get people to understand the bill because the coverage of it has been, to quote myself, piss-poor... the gall, I mean THE GALL of that uppity broad! (Yes, yes, the sarcasm's out of control again, I don't apologize.)
To sharpen my point: Of course people are opposed in principle to more government messing with their health care. We're Americans, after all. Of course the mandate is controversial. Nobody likes being forced to buy something. Of course the taxes will infuriate some rich people with connections and megaphones. We don't deal well with the idea of more taxes and more bureaucracy. Of course there's a risk of running up the deficit, despite the CBO's claims that the legislation is deficit neutral.
But ALL that good stuff in the bill. The subsidies for desperate families. The deliverance from insurance companies' repeated denials of coverage. The protections for kids and mom-and-pop businesses. Once all that info gets out there, conservatives had better hope independents forget how vehemently the right wing fought this incremental victory for common sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)