Monthly Archives: June 2009

More Manufactured Outrage

Posted on by

I don’t know what’s more amazing: that the powers that be on the Right would even think up a stunt like this, or that so many righties are such sheep — nasty blood-sucking sheep, but sheep nonetheless — that they unthinkingly go along with it.

Here’s the basic story — Wednesday next week ABC News will devote much of its program to the Obama Administration’s proposed health care policy. On that day, “Good Morning America” will originate from the South Lawn of the White House and will include an interview by Diane Sawyer with President Obama. That evening, President Obama will take part in a moderated discussion in front of a live audience on ABC. The moderators will be Charles Gibson and Diane Sawyer, and questions will come from the audience, according to ABC News.

One might say, Good for ABC! Unless, of course, you are a Republican.

The GOP officially complained that “opposing voices” will be left out, namely that they won’t be able to plant one of its usual trained goons next to the President to interrupt incessantly with absurd talking points so that no one can have a sensible discussion. ABC promises that people with diverse opinions will ask questions from the audience. One also hopes that Sawyer and Gibson will ask substantive and challenging questions.

Righties are screaming about an “ethical firestorm” because news will be “anchored” from inside the White House. A sampler of reactions:

This is the stuff of apparatchiks and Politburos, not a healthy, ethical free press. ABC will become the Obama network to sell his health care plan for an entire day. … [link]

Dr. Goebbels would be so proud… [link]

As far as I am aware this has never happened before in any administration – Democrat or Republican.

A free and independent press is one of the legs on which all representative governments rest. If we have lost it, The American Experiment’s remaining time is short indeed. [link]

One must ask, in what universe would news reporting from inside the White House, or a President taking questions from a live audience whose members he did not personally choose, be considered subversive of democracy? Beside Bizarro World, of course?

And the answer is, a world of people who think of the place from within the White House as enemy territory that must not be allowed legitimacy.

Update: See Bob Cesca at Crooks and Liars.

No Need to Be Civil

Posted on by

In an op ed in today’s Los Angeles Times, Douglas W. Kmiec argues that the simple way to resolve the Proposition 8 controversy is to cross out “marriage” and substitute “civil union” in California statutes. I held a similar view years ago, but I’ve changed my mind. And I have two reasons for arguing that same-sex marriage should be marriage, period, not “civil” anything.

Unless there is agreement at all federal levels that “civil union” and “marriage” mean exactly the same thing under the law, California by itself cannot resolve some of the more intractable issues of same-sex marriage. These include whether “civilly unioned” couples are entitled to the same federal benefits, tax filing status, etc., as their married co-citizens. It also doesn’t tell us whether other states may recognize civil unions in any way.

But my larger objection is this: The word “civil” in this context means “Of or relating to citizens and their interrelations with one another or with the state.” It also means “Of ordinary citizens or ordinary community life as distinguished from the military or the ecclesiastical.”

In other words, by creating a dichotomy between marriage and civil unions, we are saying that marriage is something recognized and authorized by more than just the state. Marriage has the weight of ecclesiastical authority on its side, whereas civil unions are merely a legal contrivance. I argue that this dichotomy does not reflect reality.

First, marriages are not always blessed by clergy — judges and ship’s captains can do the job as well. Further, not all religious institutions are opposed to same-sex marriage. Some — a minority, I admit, but some — are just fine with it. And I argue that not recognizing same-sex marriages performed in those traditions as marriage is a form of religious discrimination.

The usual argument from religious institutions is that recognizing same-sex marriage would force them to perform such marriages, in violation of their beliefs. I would support language in the law that permits any religious institution to refuse to marry a couple for any reason. I believe they have that right now. I’ve often heard of priests and ministers refusing to perform wedding ceremonies because the engaged couple were not both of the same faith, or because the engaged couple were already living together. But if it makes everyone feel better, then fine; let the law clearly state that a religious institution can refuse to perform or honor same-sex marriages without penalty of law.

However, my understanding is that a few religious institutions have been performing same-sex wedding ceremonies for a while, and same-sex couples are recognized within that organization as being “married” in every sense of the word. These institutions include Unitarian Universalist fellowships and at least some Buddhist sanghas. I know American Zen priests who have been performing same-sex marriages for many years. Episcopalians may be heading in that direction also, and it wouldn’t surprise me if some Episcopal priests have presided at same-sex wedding ceremonies, even if they aren’t yet officially sanctioned by the church.

Yet the law does not recognize these couples as being married. On the other hand, some religious institutions are demanding the law reflect their sectarian beliefs opposing same-sex marriage, which to me clearly runs afoul of the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

I say the only way for the law to avoid religious entanglement and be free of religious discrimination is to recognize same-sex marriages but make it clear that a religious institution can refuse to perform them. We don’t need to be “civil” about it.

Update: I confess to being very tired right now, and I discussed the Los Angeles Times article without reading it through to the end. So I missed this paragraph:

The federal action was brought on behalf of two gay couples who were denied marriage licenses after the ruling that upheld Proposition 8. If such an action were instead brought in state court, California would have an opportunity to bring equity to both sides. The attorney general, in defending the state’s interest, could ask for a court order enjoining the state from using the terminology of marriage altogether. Instead, the state would give everyone — gay or straight — a civil union license and allow churches, synagogues, temples and mosques to say who can and cannot “marry” within their individual traditions. Religious freedom, a bedrock constitutional value of like importance to equality, would also be a winner.

That has some internal logic to it, although I don’t think it would fly. It still doesn’t solve the issue of federal privileges and protections. And what does this say to atheists? Surely there are atheists who would like to call themselves “married” but who, as a matter of principle, would not take part in a religious ceremony.

It occurs to me also that there are many circumstances in which a couple might be married under the law but not in a church. I understand that Catholics who have not had a first marriage properly annulled by the Church cannot be married in the Church, for example.

Iran: At Least They Care

Posted on by

Reuters reports that tens of thousands of Iranians are demonstrating in the streets of Tehran in protest of the recent election results, which look fraudulent to just about everybody (more on the exception below). People are demonstrating in spite of an Interior Ministry ban on rallying, which I assume means people protest at some personal risk.

I admire the protesting Iranians. At least they give a damn. Here, politicians steal critical elections and we shrug our shoulders and pretend it didn’t happen.

Of course, we have our own version of the Iranian security police, which are the wingnut bullies in media and elsewhere who abusively shout down anyone who dares point out, you know, facts. We also have some pretense at a mediating process, meaning cases are sent to courts. But we know how that turns out.

It’s been, what, seven months since the November elections? And has Al Franken been seated in the Senate yet? The endless dispute has nothing whatsoever to do with determining the will of the people, of course. It’s about using the courts and anything else to block the will of the people and advance a minority, extremist agenda.

This shows our political system is about as corrupt as Iran’s. The only difference is that we’re a little more subtle about it.

The wingnuts are screaming because CBS republished a New Republic article that compared Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to George W. Bush. But if you read the article, I’d say the New Republic makes a good case for the comparison. In fact, I bet many of you can think of similarities between Ahmadinejad and Bush (rememeber when we used to call him “Bunnypants”?) without reading the article. And the similarities are getting more obvious all the time.

The Washington Post is running an article that suggests maybe the Iranian elections weren’t stolen, but I don’t think anyone is buying it. Juan Cole certainly isn’t.

DOMA Fury

Posted on by

[UPDATE BELOW.]

I have to echo PZ Myers: Obama screws up, very, very badly.

The basic facts, as I understand them: The Justice Department moved to dismiss the first gay marriage case filed in federal court. The case was brought by a couple married in California, Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer. Smelt and Hammer brought a constitutional challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, which says that the federal government and states without same-sex marriage don’t have to recognize the marital status of same-sex couples lawfully married in a state that provides for same-sex marriage. Smelt and Hammer argue that DOMA is in violation of the Constitution on several grounds, such as the Full Faith and Credit part.

The Justice Department argued (as I understand it; I admit this doesn’t make sense to me) that Smelt and Hammer had no legal standing to sue because the status of their marriage in California is not in question and punted the constitutional question. If anyone can explain this, please feel free to do so. I’m baffled.

Most of the Left Blogosphere is outraged, and the GLBT community feels betrayed. I’ll let Pam Spalding explain this POV.

There are a few defending the Obama Administration on the grounds that, while we may wish the law to be otherwise, the law is the law; see Sully. However, even Sully admits there is language in the DoJ’s brief that is outrageous and homophobic and inexcusable.

My understanding is that the DoJ is still largely infested with Bush appointees. While this is not an excuse, it might be an explanation. President Obama’s Attorney General should answer for this.

Update: Andy Sullivan writes that the DOMA brief was written by a Bush Administration holdover, which confirms my suspicion. “The harsh rhetoric, the gratuitous attacks on our relationships … they were written by someone who was given an award by Alberto Gonzales for his defense of the Partial Birth Abortion Act.” As I thought, but that doesn’t excuse the Justice Department for signing off on it.

Steve McMahon Is So Wrong

Posted on by

I caught the segment in the video below on Hardball yesterday. If you don’t want to watch, it’s a discussion among Tweety, Democratic strategist Steve McMahon and Republican strategist Todd Harris. McMahon thinks the Democratic Party should cut the public insurance option from the health care reform package and pass a “compromise” bill without it.

McMahon thinks the health care package won’t pass with the public insurance option but could pass without it. He thinks it’s better for Congress to pass something it can call “health care reform” now rather than have the whole effort defeated because of the public insurance option. We have a window of opportunity to pass a health care reform bill, he says, and if we miss this window and pass nothing there may not be another chance for years.

My thinking is just the opposite. If Congress passes a bill without the public insurance option, it will confirm the darkest beliefs of Americans about government being irrelevant to their lives. I sincerely believe that the rest of the legislation might make some marginal improvements in the system. It might make a tangible difference for a few people. But it would do nothing that will make a big, tangible difference in the lives of most American citizens.

So if they pass this bill without the public insurance option, there will be a big whoop-dee-doo in media about how now everybody’s got health care reform. And the days and weeks and months will go by, and most people won’t notice that anything has changed.

This is, I think, the absolute worst thing that Congress could do. It would be better to let the whole thing be defeated, then go to the American people and say, look, we tried to get you this meaningful reform, but Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats blocked it. And, yeah, that’s a lame excuse. But I think rank and file Dems, and many Independents, are sick to death of these pathetic tweaks that Washington mistakes for accomplishments but which don’t make any real difference in the lives of Americans.

In the long run, whether a bill was passed with bipartisan support or not will mean absolutely nothing. If a bill passes that really does relieve many of our fears of losing our insurance and being dumped out of the health care system altogether, that bill will be very popular. Before long, politicians who didn’t support it will pretend that they did. There’s your bipartisan support.

On the other hand, a “compromise” bill passed with everyone in Congress holding hands and singing “Koom By Ya,” but which does not make a tangible difference in peoples’ lives, won’t mean a bucket of warm spit by the time the next elections roll around.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Why the AMA Is Selling Us Out

Posted on by

We shouldn’t be surprised that the American Medical Association has come out against government-sponsored insurance plan. The AMA these days has many concerns other than medicine. It is a main proponent of “tort reform,” a vast right-wing conspiracy to enhance corporate profits by denying citizens’ 7th Amendment rights to sue for damages in court.

Although it still pretends to be the voice of American physicians, in fact it has been losing membership steadily for the past several years. The most recent information I could find says that about a third of American physicians are members. It has struggled financially with dwindling membership dues.

The AMA and the American Council of Engineering Companies are co-founders of the American Tort Reform Association (ATRA), which has turned into an umbrella group of special interests and astroturf organizations pushing for tort reform legislation. The ties of “tort reform” to the Right, via Karl Rove, are legendary.

Take, for example, the organization Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse (CALA), which has chapters in several states actively pushing “tort reform” to state legislatures. According to SourceWatch, CALA is an astroturf organization commissioned by the Philip Morris tobacco company in 1995, and Philip Morris continues to fund and direct CALA through ATRA. SourceWatch says,

A “privileged and confidential” Philip Morris (PM) tort reform budget from 1995shows that PM spent over $16 million to instigate tort reform during that year alone, and that PM paid an international public relations firm called APCO & Associates (now known as APCO Worldwide) almost $1 million in 1995 to implement tort reform efforts behind the scenes.

ATRA promotes CALA on its website (scroll to bottom) as

… citizen activists fed up with the high cost and injustice in our legal system. They work actively within their communities to urge individual responsibility, safety, and to chronicle abuses of the legal system and to fight for civil justice reform.

Yeah, right.

It is ironic that the AMA, which 20 years ago stood up to the tobacco industry by calling for a ban on tobacco ads, is now in bed with it. They’re shacked up in a shabby off-the interstate motel hoping no one finds them, but they’re in bed just the same.

Another Shooting

Posted on by

This time it’s at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC. The first news reports say no one was killed, but three people (including the suspected shooter) are being treated for gunshot wounds. The suspect is an 88-year-old man named James von Brunn who has a record of white supremacist writing.

Update: I’m hearing from MSNBC that a police officer was killed. Terribly sad.

Update: OK, this is weird. You might remember that the DHS report said right-wing groups would likely try to recruit military veterans because of their military experience. The report also said “those with military backgrounds constitute a small percentage of white supremacist extremists.” However, the small number of military veterans who do get mixed up in extremist organizations tend to be among the more dangerous members, which makes it advisable to keep an eye on the small number of military veterans who do get mixed up in extremist organizations. Right-wing pot-stirrers willfully misread the report to mean that all returning veterans constitute a threat to national security and had to be watched, which is not at all what it said. Dave Neiwert explains.

According to this right-wing blogger, Fox News is going on and on about how the shooting vindicates the DHS because the accused shooter is a veteran. He’s a World War II veteran, for bleep’s sake. This is, like, wrong twice. Yeah it vindicates the DHS report, but not because of the shooter’s veteran status.

Update: Debbie Schlussel is blaming Muslims and 9/11 truthers for today’s shooting. I’m serious. Pardon me if I don’t give her a link.

Update: Malkin is saying the shooter was neither right nor left, just loony. See Dave Neiwert for rebuttal.