"The Legislature took an important step by clearly differentiating between civil and religious marriage, and protecting religious groups from having to participate in marriage ceremonies that violate their fundamental religious beliefs.
"But the role of marriage in many faiths extends beyond the actual marriage ceremony.
"I have examined the laws of other states, including Vermont and Connecticut, which have recently passed same-sex marriage laws. Both go further in protecting religious institutions than the current New Hampshire legislation.
"This morning, I met with House and Senate leaders, and the sponsors of this legislation, and gave them language that will provide additional protections to religious institutions.
"This new language will provide the strongest and clearest protections for religious institutions and associations, and for the individuals working with such institutions.
It will make clear that they cannot be forced to act in ways that violate their deeply held religious principles.
"If the legislature passes this language, I will sign the same-sex marriage bill into law. If the legislature doesn't pass these provisions, I will veto it."
Thursday, May 14, 2009
The Revolution continues: God Bless The Northeast
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Socialism Gaining Popularity: Gee, Who Da Thunk It? (oh yeah, Karl Marx)
Only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 20% disagree and say socialism is better. Twenty-seven percent (27%) are not sure which is better.
Adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided. Thirty-somethings are a bit more supportive of the free-enterprise approach with 49% for capitalism and 26% for socialism. Adults over 40 strongly favor capitalism, and just 13% of those older Americans believe socialism is better.
Investors by a 5-to-1 margin choose capitalism. As for those who do not invest, 40% say capitalism is better while 25% prefer socialism.
There is a partisan gap as well. Republicans - by an 11-to-1 margin - favor capitalism. Democrats are much more closely divided: Just 39% say capitalism is better while 30% prefer socialism. As for those not affiliated with either major political party, 48% say capitalism is best, and 21% opt for socialism.
The question posed by Rasmussen Reports did not define either capitalism or socialism.
Meanwhile Republicans have a new idea.
A member of the Republican National Committee told me Tuesday that when the RNC meets in an extraordinary special session next week, it will approve a resolution rebranding Democrats as the “Democrat Socialist Party.”
Seriously? I mean ...... Seriously?
Monday, May 11, 2009
Very Good News: Roxana Saberi Freed
The Associated Press: Lawyer: US reporter leaves jail in Iran: "A lawyer for a U.S. journalist jailed in Iran says she has been freed from prison after an appeals court suspended her eight-year jail sentence. Abdolsamad Khorramshahi says Roxana Saberi is 'now out of jail.'"
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Health Care:US Still Well Behind
Particularly interesting are the graphs he posted from the Commonwealth Fund Policy Survey (2008).
The US does not do well in access to care except in the case of specialists....gee what do you suppose is helping drive costs?
A NC Republican Makes Intelligent Statement: Patrick McHenry
"Representative Patrick McHenry of North Carolina, a conservative who keeps a bust of Reagan on his desk, surprised me by declaring that the Reagan era is over. 'Marginal tax rates are the lowest they've been in generations, and all we can talk about is tax cuts,' he said. 'The people's desires have changed, but we're still stuck in our old issue set.' Snowe recalls that when she proposed fiscally conservative 'triggers' to limit Bush's tax cuts in case of deficits, she was attacked by fellow Republicans. 'I don't know when willy-nilly tax cuts became the essence of who we are,' she says. 'To the average American who's struggling, we're in some other stratosphere. We're the party of Big Business and Big Oil and the rich.'"
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Torture in a Nutshell
Brian Tamanaha
1. 'Waterboarding is torture' (President Obama statement a week ago, world opinion)
2. 'We waterboarded three prisoners' (statements by CIA, Cheney, Yoo, etc.)
3. 'We did not torture prisoners.' (statements by Bush, Rice, etc.)
No one disputes number 2, so number 1 is wrong or number 3 is wrong. You decide."
Maine Makes Five... Same Sex Marriage
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Did Rice Finger Bush For Torture Authorization..... Pretty Damn Close! (you decide)
Questioner: "Is water boarding torture?"
Rice: "The President instructed us that nothing we would do would be outside of our obligations, legal obligations, under the Convention Against Torture. So that's, and by the way I didn't authorize anything, I conveyed the authorization of the administration to the agency that they had policy authorization subject to the Justice Department's clearance, that's what I did."
Questioner: "Is water boarding torture, in your opinion."
Rice: "And I just said the United States was told, we were told, nothing that violates are obligation under the Convention Against Torture, and so by definition if it was authorized by the President it did not violate our obligations under the convention against torture."
The big point here is that, so far, I believe no one else has ever put GWB "in the room" when redefining torture was discussed. Rice seems to be making it clear that GWB was indeed the Decider, she just "conveyed the authorization".
There are many smaller things of interest here, not the least of which is the almost direct parallel of Nixon in the Nixon/Frost interviews finally stating that, "if the President does it it's not illegal."
Also of interest is "outside of our obligations, legal obligations..." This implies that Condi thought then or thinks now that there may have been some obligations other than the legal ones (moral and ethical perhaps) to which her statement does not pertain. Is she, by tightening her statement, showing that moral and ethical obligations were deliberately ignored, that the only concern was of legality? (Lets just make sure our asses are covered.) This question is of particular interest in light of the torture memo time lines and the origins of the SERE techniques which make it appear that the imperative for torture was not to protect the United States but to drum up false statements that would link Iraq to Al Queda which could be used to justify the administration's desire for war.
Then there is the usage "the United States was told, we were told ..." which is also interesting. It leads to several psychological questions: Why does Condi need to retrace, does she suddenly realize that the 5 or 6 people who the President "told" do not actually make up the entire United States. And if the President told the United States, what (in Condi's mind) does that make the President? The answer to that, I think, is something supra to the United States. Was this actually how Condi thought of things when she was helping decide the fate of our nation; that GWB was essentially God and that a few select administrators were the United States? I think so!
One other oddity: "the Convention Against Torture". Why choose the U.N. Convention Against Torture when most people are more familiar with the Geneva Convention? Anyone familiar with the difference between the two documents? Is there more jeopardy for the past administration in relationship to the U.N . Convention than there is with the Geneva Convention?
Friday, May 1, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Working Thread: Moderate Republicans The Party Has Lost
The engine left the rails eight years ago and now we slowly witness all the following cars breaking apart and spiraling slowly down into the abyss.
Consider this a working thread. Please feel free to suggest additional names and I will update.
Lincoln Chaffee
Jim Jeffords
Chuck Hagel
John Warner
Arlen Specter
Paul brings up:
Colin Powell and Christie Todd Whitman
Friday, April 24, 2009
Rell Makes History! : Gay Marriage Legislation Signed
On Thursday, Gov. M. Jodi Rell became the first governor in the United States to sign gay-marriage legislation, less than 24 hours after the House and Senate aligned state statutes to last year's historic state Supreme Court decision.
Rell signed the bill without comment.
The two chief proponents of the legislation, Sen. Andrew J. McDonald and Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, said they were appreciative of the governor's swift approval of the legislation, which was voted in the House and Senate on Wednesday night.
"Four years ago this week, Gov. Rell signed our ground-breaking, civil-union law, which had broad bipartisan support," McDonald, D-Stamford, recalled. "Today she signed another landmark piece of bipartisan legislation affirming the rights and dignity of all Connecticut's citizens. Today, all three branches of Connecticut's government speak with one voice: Discrimination has no place in our state and will be eradicated wherever it appears."
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Chrysler bigs; The Hell with cheap loans if it effects our pay!
From the WaPo
"Top officials at Chrysler Financial turned away a government loan because executives didn't want to abide by new federal limits on pay, according to new findings by a federal watchdog agency.
The government had offered a $750 million loan earlier this month as part of its efforts to prop up the ailing auto industry, including Chrysler, which is racing to avoid bankruptcy. Chrysler Financial is a major lender to Chrysler dealerships and customers.
In forgoing the loan, Chrysler Financial opted to use more expensive financing from private banks, adding to the burden on the already fragile automaker and its financing company."
............ Snip ................
The Treasury Department previously lent Chrysler Financial $1.5 billion, when less stringent requirements on executive compensation were in place for recipients of federal bailout money. But since that first loan was announced on Jan. 16, the Obama administration and Congress have toughened the rules.
During March, when it seemed that the first loan would run out, the Obama administration began working on a deal to lend the company an additional $750 million.
It did not take long for most of the agreement to fall in place. But on April 7, the Treasury asked Chrysler Financial to have its top 25 executives sign waivers regarding their compensation, according to the special inspector general's report.
Those waivers would have barred the executives from suing the Treasury or Chrysler Financial over new pay restrictions. As part of the economic stimulus package, Congress approved compensation limits, and the Treasury is working on clarifying what the firms must do to comply with the rules.
In other words, the executives were asked to sign the waivers without knowing what specific limits the Treasury might set.
Within a week, Chrysler Financial responded that "it was unable to obtain waivers from all 25 executives," the report said. By last week, the report added, "the request for additional funding was denied."
Instead Chrysler is taking loans from JP Morgan and Citi, at considerably more expense to the company.
Outsourcing Local Police (but not for the white folk)
Via the WSJ
"Hiring private guards is less expensive than hiring new officers. Oakland -- facing a record $80 million budget shortfall -- spends about 65% of its budget for police and fire services, including about $250,000 annually, including benefits and salary, on each police officer.
In contrast, for about $200,000 a year the city can contract to hire four private guards to patrol the troubled East Oakland district"
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Teabagging in New Milford CT, Smell The Fear: A Brief Photo Journal
They were a mix of fairly normal looking folk; a few freeperish looking, a few older Connecticut blue-bloods, some ex-marines, a few white supremicist-looking people, a ballet teacher, some yuppies with babes in arm, even a few emo types wandered by.
Some obviously feared losing their rifles, this woman latter also spoke of the terrible things being taught and not taught in schools; specifically the Constitution is not being taught and history class consists of everything America has done wrong.
And of course there is the fear of majority rule.
This sign is a bit harder to puzzle out, I guess investing in clean energy and physical infrastructure is destroying her children's future.
One man spoke specifically about the children's future and was sorely afraid. A bit later a group of young children dressed in their Sunday best lined up in front of the speakers to demonstrate that concern.
I did find myself wondering where all these supporters of the Constitution were during the last eight years while it was being trashed.
More crowd shots; an interesting confab.
Somehow "Government Waste" doesn't quite seem to fit with the other eight issues listed here, kind of a filler I guess. He does sum up the majority of the speaker's fears though; lots of talk about immigrants, card check, cap and trade, terrorists, etc.
This gentleman seemed to be the organizer and I was under the impression that the organizing was done through the New Milford RTC, at least the email contact on this tea party website used an email address that was @nmrepublicans.com and the FaceBook link on the same page went to the New Milford Town Republicans FaceBook page which features the New Milford Republican Town Committee seal upon it.
Perhaps this uniquely worn bumper sticker encapsulates many of the fears of the more radical elements that were present.
All in all it was an interesting hour and a half. Other interesting speeches referred to Monsanto attempting to take over world agriculture which was somehow attributed to Democrats, Obama doing way too much negotiating with "pirates", Obama trying to cancel health coverage for Vets, Obama planning a census that will count every two "minorities" as three, and well you get the drift, a lot of real tinfoil-hatted kookery.
The fear though .......... its scaring me.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
DHS, Right Wing Extremists, It's TeaBag Day!
Gibbs replied, "I don't know if the President is aware of the events. I think the President will use tomorrow as a day to have an event here at the White House to signal the important steps in the economic recovery and reinvestment plan that cut taxes for 95 percent of working families in America, just as the President proposed doing; cuts in taxes and tax credits for the creation of clean energy jobs." But maybe, just maybe, DHS was really answering the question.
Well, I may try to get out and take a few snaps of the local Teabagggers tomorrow but in the meantime there is this from, of all places, Faux News.
"The Department of Homeland Security is warning law enforcement agencies that recent news is helping 'right-wing extremist groups' recruit new members and could lead to violence, and warns about the possible recruitment and radicalization of returning veterans.
The report, issued last week, is part of an ongoing review of extremists on both ends of the political spectrum.
The latest assessment by DHS' Office of Intelligence and Analysis found no specific information that domestic right-wing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but right-wing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on fears about the recession and the election of the first African American president. The office called them 'unique drivers for right-wing radicalization and recruitment.'"
Monday, April 6, 2009
Chemically Eliminating Specific Memories: This Can Not Be Good News
Suppose scientists could erase certain memories by tinkering with a single substance in the brain. Could make you forget a chronic fear, a traumatic loss, even a bad habit.
Researchers in Brooklyn have recently accomplished comparable feats, with a single dose of an experimental drug delivered to areas of the brain critical for holding specific types of memory, like emotional associations, spatial knowledge or motor skills.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Human Rights move forward in Iowa
Peterr posts Justice Cady's decision, the comments between sections are Peterr's:
As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes poignantly said, “It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that so it was laid down in the time of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since, and the rule simply persists from blind imitation of the past.” This concept is evident in our past cases.
In the first reported case of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Iowa, In re Ralph, we refused to treat a human being as property to enforce a contract for slavery and held our laws must extend equal protection to persons of all races and conditions. This decision was seventeen years before the United States Supreme Court infamously decided Dred Scott v. Sandford, which upheld the rights of a slave owner to treat a person as property. Similarly, in Clark v. Board of Directors, and Coger v. North West. Union Packet Co., we struck blows to the concept of segregation long before the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Iowa was also the first state in the nation to admit a woman to the practice of law, doing so in 1869. Her admission occurred three years before the United States Supreme Court affirmed the State of Illinois decision to deny women admission to the practice of law, see Bradwell v. Illinois, and twenty five years before the United States Supreme Court affirmed the refusal of the Commonwealth of Virginia to admit women into the practice of law, see Ex parte Lockwood. In each of those instances, our state approached a fork in the road toward fulfillment of our constitution’s ideals and reaffirmed the absolute equality of all” persons before the law as “the very foundation principle of our government.” See Coger.
So, today, this court again faces an important issue that hinges on our definition of equal protection. This issue comes to us with the same importance as our landmark cases of the past. The same-sex-marriage debate waged in this case is part of a strong national dialogue centered on a fundamental, deep-seated, traditional institution that has excluded, by state action, a particular class of Iowans. This class of people asks a simple and direct question: How can a state premised on the constitutional principle of equal protection justify exclusion of a class of Iowans from civil marriage?
Some judicial opinions are impenetrable, even to other judges. This is not one of those opinions. By the end of it, the answer to that question above is inescapable: it can't:
Iowa Code section 595.2 is unconstitutional because the County has been unable to identify a constitutionally adequate justification for excluding plaintiffs from the institution of civil marriage. A new distinction based on sexual orientation would be equally suspect and difficult to square with the fundamental principles of equal protection embodied in our constitution. This record, our independent research, and the appropriate equal protection analysis do not suggest the existence of a justification for such a legislative classification that substantially furthers any governmental objective. Consequently, the language in Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman must be stricken from the statute, and the remaining statutory language must be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage.
Point by point, Cady takes apart the justifications offered by the defense, like maintaining traditional marriage . . .
If a simple showing that discrimination is traditional satisfies equal protection, previous successful equal protection challenges of invidious racial and gender classifications would have failed.
. . . or the promotion of optimal environment for raising children . . .
Plaintiffs presented an abundance of evidence and research, confirmed by our independent research, supporting the proposition that the interests of children are served equally by same-sex parents and opposite-sex parents. On the other hand, we acknowledge the existence of reasoned opinions that dual-gender parenting is the optimal environment for children.These opinions, while thoughtful and sincere, were largely unsupported by reliable scientific studies.
. . . or promotion of procreation . . .
While heterosexual marriage does lead to procreation, the argument by the County fails to address the real issue in our required analysis of the objective: whether exclusion of gay and lesbian individuals from the institution of civil marriage will result in more procreation? If procreation is the true objective, then the proffered classification must work to achieve that objective. . . . The briefs, the record, our research, and common sense do not suggest such an outcome.
. . . or promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships . . .
While the institution of civil marriage likely encourages stability in opposite-sex relationships, we must evaluate whether excluding gay and lesbian people from civil marriage encourages stability in opposite-sex relationships. The County offers no reasons that it does, and we can find none. The stability of opposite-sex relationships is an important governmental interest, but the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage is not substantially related to that objective.
. . . or the conservation of state resources . . .
[T]he County hypothesizes that, due to our laws granting tax benefits to married couples, the State of Iowa would reap less tax revenue if individual taxpaying gay and lesbian people were allowed to obtain a civil marriage. Certainly, Iowa’s marriage statute causes numerous government benefits, including tax benefits, to be withheld from plaintiffs. Thus, the ban on same-sex marriages may conserve some state resources. Excluding any group from civil marriage—African-Americans, illegitimates, aliens, even red-haired individuals—would conserve state resources in an equally “rational” way. Yet, such classifications so obviously offend our society’s collective sense of equality that courts have not hesitated to provide added protections against such inequalities.
This case, as Cady points out at the very beginning, is about nothing less than the protection and preservation of the rights of ordinary people:
This lawsuit is a civil rights action by twelve individuals who reside in six communities across Iowa. Like most Iowans, they are responsible, caring, and productive individuals. They maintain important jobs, or are retired, and are contributing, benevolent members of their communities. They include a nurse, business manager, insurance analyst, bank agent, stay-at-home parent, church organist and piano teacher, museum director, federal employee, social worker, teacher, and two retired teachers. Like many Iowans, some have children and others hope to have children. Some are foster parents. Like all Iowans, they prize their liberties and live within the borders of this state with the expectation that their rights will be maintained and protected—a belief embraced by our state motto [“Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain.”].
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Outsourcing Broadway (and English)
Several months ago, when John F. Breglio told fellow New York producers that he was not only remaking “Dreamgirls,” the 1981 Broadway hit musical based loosely on the career of the Supremes, but that he was also going to South Korea to do it, they were puzzled, to say the least.
“Then they really laugh,” he said, when he told them “that it’s in Korean with Korean actors.”
The financial incentives for Mr. Breglio to go to South Korea were significant, coming as many Broadway producers are struggling to cover production costs. The fact that the set was made and financed here, and will be transferred to the United States for the run there, is a big savings for the American producers.
Obama, Justice Deptarment: Still Denying Geneva Conventions...More Orwellian Than Bush?
Note the following:
But in a much anticipated court filing, the Justice Department argued that the president has the authority to detain terrorism suspects there without criminal charges, much as the Bush administration had asserted. It provided a broad definition of those who can be held, which was not significantly different from the one used by the Bush administration.
AND
"But the Department of Justice filing portrayed the adjustment of the government’s position in expansive terms. In a public statement accompanying its filing, the department said the government’s position had been devised to adhere closely to the requirements of the international law of war, longstanding principles that permit enemy fighters to be held until the completion of hostilities."
The administration continues to claim the President has the right to hold people without any criminal charges (although it no longer has a pet term for those people) and it continues to deny the rights accorded under the Geneva Convention to those people.
There is however a possibly significant change here. Justice now attempts to ground this Bush/Obama policy not in the claim of Presidential power to name a person as an enemy combatant, but instead on upon language in the 2001 AUMF. This leaves challengers open to question the Constitutionality of recent Congressional language (the AUMF). Previous challenges had to be founded on the Constitutional question of the President's ability to name a person an "enemy combatant", an act that has much longer historical prescident. Its possible that this change has accidentally increased the chances for those we once called detainees to sucessfully challenge thier detention.
For a lot more on this manuever check out Marcy at Emptywheel.
Posts
