It didn't take long. On election night four students at North Carolina State University spray-painted "Shoot Obama" and "Kill the nigger" in a tunnel on campus. What happened when they were caught? Nothing. They were scolded. I guess it's okay to call for the assassination of the president elect. The right wing whackos were apoplectic when someone hung a Halloween mock-up of Palin from a tree in California(following the Obama hung in effigy in Ohio). But - Surprise! Surprise! - I haven't heard one word from the right condemning the vile call for murder at NCSU.
Yesterday I saw an incredible one-man play written by Mike Wiley, based on Tim Tyson's novel "Blood Done Call My Name". It was about the racist murder of a young black man in Oxford, NC.
In 1970.
While I was graduating from Brockton High School, people down here were murdering young black men, and getting acquitted.
In 2008, we have college students calling for the murder of a man elected president just because he happens to be 50% African American.
Things haven't changed that much. And they probalby won't. Sarah Palin stoked the fires of hatred with her bitter, name-calling condemnatory campaign. And for a core group of fanatics, that hatred will continue to smolder. Yesterday I heard Limbaugh refer to Obama's government as "The Lewinskyites".
Besides the obvious idiocy of such a characterization, the use of that term speaks of a mind so narrow and prejudiced that he can't even attempt to tolerate, let alone understand, anyone whose views are different from his own. His 'dittoheads' will certainly mimic his hatred.
This came a day after he condemned a defeated Republican Congressman for daring to say the Republican Party needed to broaden its base, reach out to Blacks and Hispanics.
"No we don't," Rush screamed. He ended by saying good riddance to this Republican, he was glad he was defeated.
Obama has created an atmosphere where millions of people now feel safe to accept each other in the hopes of moving forward, creating, as cliched as it sounds, a more loving and just society.
We have to hope that the knuckle-draggers will soon die out, or find small caves to hide in where they can rail at the shadows on the wall and think they're talking to the world.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Sunday, November 9, 2008
California marriage equality: not yet . . . again.
California is at war with itself over gay marriage. For those who may not have been following this issue, here are the basic facts:
1977: From 1850 until 1977, California marriage laws were gender neutral, a contract between two people. In 1977 the legislature defined marriage as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman."
2000: In 2000, voters passed ballot initiative Proposition 22 with 61% of the vote, which enacted a law that defined marriage in California as a union between a man and a woman.
2004: San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsome, in defiance of what he considered an unconstitutional and discriminatory law, ordered marriage licenses to be issued to same-sex couples. These nearly 4,000 marriages were later annulled by the CA Supreme Court upholding the law, as it was then written.
2005: CA legislature passed a law recognizing same-sex marriages. Governor Schwartzenegger vetoed it. Again in 2007 the legislature passed a similar bill and again the Gov. vetoed it.
2007: In the fall of 2007, a valid petition by voters put Proposition 8 on the November 2008 ballot. The operative phrase was "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," the same as in Proposition 22. But, whereas Prop22 was for a statute, which could be ruled unconstitutional, Prop8 was for a constitutional amendment which could not.
May 2008: CA Supreme Court ruled that the statue put into effect by Prop22 was unconstitutional, thus granting full marriage rights to same-sex couples, which began in June 2008. Some 18,000 couples married between June and election day.
Nov 2008: Prop8 passed by 52% to 48%, thus nullifying the May 2008 Supreme Court decision. It officially changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. There had been a massive, $60 million campaign to pass the measure, launched by Mormon and Catholic religious organizations. Their advertising included misinformation and scare tactics to inflame emotions.
To get on the ballot, a voter initiative requires simply a petition of voters equal to 8% of the number who voted in the last (2006) election of governor. This process completely bypasses the state legislature.
Legal challengers are claiming that, because this takes away a right that same-sex couples had been granted by court decision in its interpretation of the Constitution, it in fact is not "amending" the constitution but "revising" it and therefore has the higher requirements of legislative approval. Obviously this would make a great difference, since the legislature has already twice voted to make same-sex marriage legal. This is unlikely to prevail, since courts turned down a similar argument to stop Prop8 from getting on the ballot. However, that might have been simply a procedural decision, based on not preempting a voter initiative. So it's worth trying.
There it stands. My own opinion about the process is that it makes no sense for it to be this easy to amend a constitution on such important issues. Why bother to have a constitution if a small percent of voter can put it on the ballot and a simple majority can adopt it? Usually it is made difficult to amend constitutions in order to avoid this kind of highly emotional campaign fervor leading to bad decisions. In Georgia, by contrast, it requires a supermajority of 2/3 vote of each house of the state legislature, followed by voters adopting it by a simple majority.
On the other hand, in this particular case, it also makes it equally easy to undo with another ballot initiative. In contrast, in Georgia, we will have to get our Republican majority legislature, both houses, to vote by 2/3 majority, to put it back on the ballot at some future date. In the foreseable future, that is highly unlikely, if not impossible.
Granted that many people oppose marriage equality for gays, while still being fully supportive of equality of rights and benefits, withholding only the benefit of "marriage" itself. Many people want to keep this distinction either from religious beliefs or because of not wanting to change what is such a tradition, feeling that it would somehow take something away from the institution of marriage as we have known it.
However, first I would offer the evidence that, in the three years experience in Massachusetts of gay and lesbian marriages, there has been no discernable effect on heterosexual marriages or on the institution itself. Second, I offer this anecdote to ponder:
In the 2004 flurry of gay marriages in San Francisco, first-in-line to get their license were the lesbian couple Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, iconic leaders of the gay rights movement who had also been life partners for over 50 years. Their 2004 marriage was later annulled by the Court.
Just a few weeks prior to this, Britney Spears waked up one morning after a night of wild partying with an old high school boyfriend and discovered that, without quite meaning to, she had married him at a midnight ceremony in the 24 hour wedding chapel in Las Vegas. In the 52 hours that it took Britney's handlers to get it annulled, she was entitled to more than 1000 government benefits that are available to married couples but that were denied to Del and Phyllis.
Fortunately, Del and Phyllis had another opportunity to get married, which they did last August. And this time it was legal. Del died a few weeks later at the age of 87 of the cancer she had been battling. But she died legally married to her long time partner.
Britney's subsequent troubles with drugs, divorce, second marriage, drugs, second divorce, child custody battles, scuffles with police as she shuttled in and out of drug rehab, raises the question: who demeaned the institution of marriage: Britney or Del and Phyllis?
Ralph
1977: From 1850 until 1977, California marriage laws were gender neutral, a contract between two people. In 1977 the legislature defined marriage as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman."
2000: In 2000, voters passed ballot initiative Proposition 22 with 61% of the vote, which enacted a law that defined marriage in California as a union between a man and a woman.
2004: San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsome, in defiance of what he considered an unconstitutional and discriminatory law, ordered marriage licenses to be issued to same-sex couples. These nearly 4,000 marriages were later annulled by the CA Supreme Court upholding the law, as it was then written.
2005: CA legislature passed a law recognizing same-sex marriages. Governor Schwartzenegger vetoed it. Again in 2007 the legislature passed a similar bill and again the Gov. vetoed it.
2007: In the fall of 2007, a valid petition by voters put Proposition 8 on the November 2008 ballot. The operative phrase was "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," the same as in Proposition 22. But, whereas Prop22 was for a statute, which could be ruled unconstitutional, Prop8 was for a constitutional amendment which could not.
May 2008: CA Supreme Court ruled that the statue put into effect by Prop22 was unconstitutional, thus granting full marriage rights to same-sex couples, which began in June 2008. Some 18,000 couples married between June and election day.
Nov 2008: Prop8 passed by 52% to 48%, thus nullifying the May 2008 Supreme Court decision. It officially changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. There had been a massive, $60 million campaign to pass the measure, launched by Mormon and Catholic religious organizations. Their advertising included misinformation and scare tactics to inflame emotions.
To get on the ballot, a voter initiative requires simply a petition of voters equal to 8% of the number who voted in the last (2006) election of governor. This process completely bypasses the state legislature.
Legal challengers are claiming that, because this takes away a right that same-sex couples had been granted by court decision in its interpretation of the Constitution, it in fact is not "amending" the constitution but "revising" it and therefore has the higher requirements of legislative approval. Obviously this would make a great difference, since the legislature has already twice voted to make same-sex marriage legal. This is unlikely to prevail, since courts turned down a similar argument to stop Prop8 from getting on the ballot. However, that might have been simply a procedural decision, based on not preempting a voter initiative. So it's worth trying.
There it stands. My own opinion about the process is that it makes no sense for it to be this easy to amend a constitution on such important issues. Why bother to have a constitution if a small percent of voter can put it on the ballot and a simple majority can adopt it? Usually it is made difficult to amend constitutions in order to avoid this kind of highly emotional campaign fervor leading to bad decisions. In Georgia, by contrast, it requires a supermajority of 2/3 vote of each house of the state legislature, followed by voters adopting it by a simple majority.
On the other hand, in this particular case, it also makes it equally easy to undo with another ballot initiative. In contrast, in Georgia, we will have to get our Republican majority legislature, both houses, to vote by 2/3 majority, to put it back on the ballot at some future date. In the foreseable future, that is highly unlikely, if not impossible.
Granted that many people oppose marriage equality for gays, while still being fully supportive of equality of rights and benefits, withholding only the benefit of "marriage" itself. Many people want to keep this distinction either from religious beliefs or because of not wanting to change what is such a tradition, feeling that it would somehow take something away from the institution of marriage as we have known it.
However, first I would offer the evidence that, in the three years experience in Massachusetts of gay and lesbian marriages, there has been no discernable effect on heterosexual marriages or on the institution itself. Second, I offer this anecdote to ponder:
In the 2004 flurry of gay marriages in San Francisco, first-in-line to get their license were the lesbian couple Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, iconic leaders of the gay rights movement who had also been life partners for over 50 years. Their 2004 marriage was later annulled by the Court.
Just a few weeks prior to this, Britney Spears waked up one morning after a night of wild partying with an old high school boyfriend and discovered that, without quite meaning to, she had married him at a midnight ceremony in the 24 hour wedding chapel in Las Vegas. In the 52 hours that it took Britney's handlers to get it annulled, she was entitled to more than 1000 government benefits that are available to married couples but that were denied to Del and Phyllis.
Fortunately, Del and Phyllis had another opportunity to get married, which they did last August. And this time it was legal. Del died a few weeks later at the age of 87 of the cancer she had been battling. But she died legally married to her long time partner.
Britney's subsequent troubles with drugs, divorce, second marriage, drugs, second divorce, child custody battles, scuffles with police as she shuttled in and out of drug rehab, raises the question: who demeaned the institution of marriage: Britney or Del and Phyllis?
Ralph
Saturday, November 8, 2008
More on why HolyJoe should go
Colin McEnroe in the Hartford Courant (Hartford, CT, Lieberman's home state) ponits out that Lieberman has broken with his party, not only by campaigning for its presidential opponent but by engaging in "loathsome fear-mongering against the man he once begged to come and save him."
What he's referring to is that, when Lieberman was losing the Democratic primary in 2006 to Ned Lamont, he tried to get Obama to come and campaign for him. Obama did not -- but then neither did he work against him. He just didn't get involved trying to save a man whose position on the Iraq war he strongly opposed who was about to be defeated by a strong anti-war candidate.
The party owes him nothing. He turned against it when he ran as an independent against his party's nominee for senator from CT in 2006, he turned against it when he endorsed McCain, and he sealed his fate when he joined the negative smear campaign against our next president.
If Harry Reid and the Democrats don't show him the door, then they are indeed spineless and short-sighted. His vote is not worth the message of letting him do this without consequences. Let him stay in the caucus if he wants to; but take away his committee and, I would say, his seniority.
It is grimly ironic, as McEnroe points out, because of the seniority system in the Senate, this mealymouthed turncoat chairs one of the prestigious committees (Homeland Security), while Hillary Clinton does not chair a committee at all.
Ralph
What he's referring to is that, when Lieberman was losing the Democratic primary in 2006 to Ned Lamont, he tried to get Obama to come and campaign for him. Obama did not -- but then neither did he work against him. He just didn't get involved trying to save a man whose position on the Iraq war he strongly opposed who was about to be defeated by a strong anti-war candidate.
The party owes him nothing. He turned against it when he ran as an independent against his party's nominee for senator from CT in 2006, he turned against it when he endorsed McCain, and he sealed his fate when he joined the negative smear campaign against our next president.
If Harry Reid and the Democrats don't show him the door, then they are indeed spineless and short-sighted. His vote is not worth the message of letting him do this without consequences. Let him stay in the caucus if he wants to; but take away his committee and, I would say, his seniority.
It is grimly ironic, as McEnroe points out, because of the seniority system in the Senate, this mealymouthed turncoat chairs one of the prestigious committees (Homeland Security), while Hillary Clinton does not chair a committee at all.
Ralph
Friday, November 7, 2008
Election fraud in Alaska?
Something is wrong with the vote in Alaska.
First, the total vote was surprisingly low, less than in 2004, despite a 12.4% increase in their August primaries, which were before Gov. Palin was put on the ticket.
Either people stayed home rather than vote for "the most popular governor in America," or something happened to some of the ballots.
Now, add to that the fact that apparently Senator Ted Stevens has won his race for reelection, despite having been convicted of felonies connected to political corruption and despite the fact that a poll taken by respected Research 2000 showed his opponent (Begich) leading by 22% points just days before the election.
Another respected national pollster, Rasumssen, who also predicted a solid win for Begich, correctly predicted every other senate race in the country within the margin of error in its latest poll -- except this one in Alaska.
Supporting the question about fraud even further, Representative Don Young, who is under investigation by the FBI for corruption, was also predicted to lose by multiple pollsters. He also pulled off a surprise "win."
I don't care if the people of Alaska found out they didn't like their governor so much after all and decided to stay home. But it seems, if anything, that would have reduced the vote for other Republicans as well, not increased it for Stevens and Young.
Something's rotten in the state of Alaska.
Ralph
First, the total vote was surprisingly low, less than in 2004, despite a 12.4% increase in their August primaries, which were before Gov. Palin was put on the ticket.
Either people stayed home rather than vote for "the most popular governor in America," or something happened to some of the ballots.
Now, add to that the fact that apparently Senator Ted Stevens has won his race for reelection, despite having been convicted of felonies connected to political corruption and despite the fact that a poll taken by respected Research 2000 showed his opponent (Begich) leading by 22% points just days before the election.
Another respected national pollster, Rasumssen, who also predicted a solid win for Begich, correctly predicted every other senate race in the country within the margin of error in its latest poll -- except this one in Alaska.
Supporting the question about fraud even further, Representative Don Young, who is under investigation by the FBI for corruption, was also predicted to lose by multiple pollsters. He also pulled off a surprise "win."
I don't care if the people of Alaska found out they didn't like their governor so much after all and decided to stay home. But it seems, if anything, that would have reduced the vote for other Republicans as well, not increased it for Stevens and Young.
Something's rotten in the state of Alaska.
Ralph
No Way, HolyJoe
This farce, wherein HolyJoe Lieberman thinks he is in a position to negotiate whether he keeps his chairmanship of a major committee as part of the Democratic caucus, is in fact . . . a farce.
HolyJoe not only endorsed McCain, which could possibly be forgiven as a kind gesture to a good friend; but he campaigned actively for him and would have gladly accepted the VP nomination, if offered. Worse, he repeatedly said unforgiveable things about Barak Obama -- guestioning his readiness (while presumably thinking Sarah Palin was ready), questioning his solidarity with Israel, questioning his patriotism, and revving up the Bill Ayers smear.
Now he turns around and starts saying nice things about Obama's victory. No, HolyJoe, you don't get to get away with that hypocrisy.
HolyJoe told Harry Reid that he wants to remain in the Democratic caucus but that losing his committee chairmanship is "unacceptable." Well, I say lettting him keep it is unacceptable. I have signed a couple of petitions on it. If you have the chance, I urge you to do so.
Forget the Senate 'gentleman's club' atmosphere; forget letting him apologize and move on, as Evan Bayh suggests. Kick the mealymouth, sorry ass out of there !!!
Ralph
HolyJoe not only endorsed McCain, which could possibly be forgiven as a kind gesture to a good friend; but he campaigned actively for him and would have gladly accepted the VP nomination, if offered. Worse, he repeatedly said unforgiveable things about Barak Obama -- guestioning his readiness (while presumably thinking Sarah Palin was ready), questioning his solidarity with Israel, questioning his patriotism, and revving up the Bill Ayers smear.
Now he turns around and starts saying nice things about Obama's victory. No, HolyJoe, you don't get to get away with that hypocrisy.
HolyJoe told Harry Reid that he wants to remain in the Democratic caucus but that losing his committee chairmanship is "unacceptable." Well, I say lettting him keep it is unacceptable. I have signed a couple of petitions on it. If you have the chance, I urge you to do so.
Forget the Senate 'gentleman's club' atmosphere; forget letting him apologize and move on, as Evan Bayh suggests. Kick the mealymouth, sorry ass out of there !!!
Ralph
Afterthoughts #2
Drew Westen, Emory psychology professor, author of The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation, informal advisor to the Obama campaign, and friend of mine, has a concise summary of why Obama won: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/06/westen.winning/index.html
He says that McCain was saddled from the start with 3 strikes against him: an unpopular president, an economic downturn, and an unpopular war, none of which he could really distance himself from because of his 90% support for Bush's policies.
But he also credits Obama with many positive factors that led to his win. He has an extraordinary ability to organize people and motivate them to participate. Like Bill Clinton, he has "both the general intelligence to govern and the emotional and political intelligence to win. And they finally abandoned the approach to campaigning that has been their downfall for generations: peppering voters with facts, figures, and policy positions and assuming they will see what a rational choice the candidate is."
Another comment from Drew: "What Democrats learned from this election is that if their candidate thinks like a professor but inspires like a preacher, they can have their cake and eat it, too."
Ralph
He says that McCain was saddled from the start with 3 strikes against him: an unpopular president, an economic downturn, and an unpopular war, none of which he could really distance himself from because of his 90% support for Bush's policies.
But he also credits Obama with many positive factors that led to his win. He has an extraordinary ability to organize people and motivate them to participate. Like Bill Clinton, he has "both the general intelligence to govern and the emotional and political intelligence to win. And they finally abandoned the approach to campaigning that has been their downfall for generations: peppering voters with facts, figures, and policy positions and assuming they will see what a rational choice the candidate is."
Another comment from Drew: "What Democrats learned from this election is that if their candidate thinks like a professor but inspires like a preacher, they can have their cake and eat it, too."
Ralph
Afterthoughts #1
As I just wrote in my comment on Richard's post, before cutting back to weekly postings, I will post some "afterthoughts" over the weekend. Here on this 3rd post-election day, my feelings about it still haven't coalesced into a coherent whole. Rather than wait until they do, I'm going to jot down some disparate thoughts, and we'll see about some grand summary later.
1. Starting with what I just read online, Obama's agenda for today: meeting with his transition team of economic advisers, holding his first news conference as President-elect, getting his first national security briefing, returning numerous protocol congratulatory messages, all the while confering privately with potential appointees. But this busy day began with his attending parent-teacher meetings with Michelle at their children's school.
What a guy !! We've had presidents with young children before, but I don't remember any who were so obviously involved in their children's lives. The photo of JohnJohn Kennedy crawling out from under his father's desk in the Oval Office became iconic, and the Kennedy's were noted for family events. But pictures of Barak with his daughters show a degree of authentic joy with them that's rare. And he routinely answered questions about the rigors of campaigning by saying the hardest thing was not having more time to be at home with his daughters. That is only one of the many things I admire about this man, but this is definitely one of them.
2. Where are Bill and Hillary? Since the election, I saw nothing in the media about them or their reactions. Of course it must have been a bittersweet moment for them. and they did better to stay out of sight rather than have that picked over. Hillary has spoken to the press today, saying she called Obama to congratulate him and praising his choice of Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff.
3. Speaking of the Emanuel appointment, his former boss in the Clinton White House, Leon Panette, said he is "the perfect SOB for the job." I take this as a signal that Obama plans to run a tight ship and to get things done, to use tough negotiating tactics with Congress and to ride herd on the White House staff. Having someone like Rahm, for whom this comes naturally, will free Obama to attend to policy issues and be the diplomat. They'll be a great good cop/bad cop pair.
4. Good for Campbell Brown for calling the McCain staff on their hypocrisy as they go after Sarah Palin. Not that I'm any fan of Palin, but their scapegoating of her is overboard. Here's what Campbell said:
Ralph
1. Starting with what I just read online, Obama's agenda for today: meeting with his transition team of economic advisers, holding his first news conference as President-elect, getting his first national security briefing, returning numerous protocol congratulatory messages, all the while confering privately with potential appointees. But this busy day began with his attending parent-teacher meetings with Michelle at their children's school.
What a guy !! We've had presidents with young children before, but I don't remember any who were so obviously involved in their children's lives. The photo of JohnJohn Kennedy crawling out from under his father's desk in the Oval Office became iconic, and the Kennedy's were noted for family events. But pictures of Barak with his daughters show a degree of authentic joy with them that's rare. And he routinely answered questions about the rigors of campaigning by saying the hardest thing was not having more time to be at home with his daughters. That is only one of the many things I admire about this man, but this is definitely one of them.
2. Where are Bill and Hillary? Since the election, I saw nothing in the media about them or their reactions. Of course it must have been a bittersweet moment for them. and they did better to stay out of sight rather than have that picked over. Hillary has spoken to the press today, saying she called Obama to congratulate him and praising his choice of Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff.
3. Speaking of the Emanuel appointment, his former boss in the Clinton White House, Leon Panette, said he is "the perfect SOB for the job." I take this as a signal that Obama plans to run a tight ship and to get things done, to use tough negotiating tactics with Congress and to ride herd on the White House staff. Having someone like Rahm, for whom this comes naturally, will free Obama to attend to policy issues and be the diplomat. They'll be a great good cop/bad cop pair.
4. Good for Campbell Brown for calling the McCain staff on their hypocrisy as they go after Sarah Palin. Not that I'm any fan of Palin, but their scapegoating of her is overboard. Here's what Campbell said:
You are the ones who supposedly vetted her, and then told the American people she was qualified for the job. You are the ones who after meeting her a couple of times, told us she was ready to be just one heartbeat away from the Presidency. If even half of what you say NOW is true, then boy, did you try to sell the American people a bill of goods.I would only add that, as he said himself in his gracious concession speech Tuesday night, John McCain is the one ultimately responsible.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
