Marriage Equality 16 | ***Dave Does the Blog

Joining up with the GrassFire Brigade

Grassfire.org is trying set itself up as a grass roots “resistance” movement to All Things Obama and Liberal and Socialist and Gay and Democrat. To which end they are trying…

Grassfire.org is trying set itself up as a grass roots “resistance” movement to All Things Obama and Liberal and Socialist and Gay and Democrat. To which end they are trying to sign up a million supporters by Inauguration Day. They have a bit short of a quarter of that right now.

When you sign the petition joining them, the following items are all conveniently checked:

Socialistic wealth redistribution including any and all tax increases and big-government welfare programs.

[Fascinating how “tax increases” is now equated with “socialistic wealth redistribution”]

Silencing conservatives

[This has been a huge bugbear for the conservatives after their take-over of talk radio the past several years. Never mind that Obama has said he has no intent of reinstating the “Fairness Doctrine,” and never mind that even that doctrine did not actually “silence conservatives” — what’s important is threats of martyrdom.]

Open border anarchy

[Next up, worries about making deals with the UN and mysterious black helicopters.]

Government-run health care

[Better yet, let’s have corporation-run health care that weakens our system and imposes more health burdens on citizens.]

Weakening of our military

[So … what do we have a military for, then? I mean, do we actually need a military as large and expensive as what we have, and to what ends?]

Social liberalism

[(a) I’ve yet to meet anyone who is “pro-abortion. (b) The end of marriage! Eek! (c) Coming soon, the Protocols of the Elders of Gaydom!]

Liberal court activism

[See, they only want government control when it’s supporting the faith, family, and liberties of the right kind of people.]

Post-American globalism

[See! Black helicopters! Just like when Clinton was in office!]

Environmental extremism,

[It would be interesting to hear if there is any “environmentalism” that they would not consider “extreme.”]

Weakening the 2nd Amendment through

[If I noted that if it’s constitutional it’s because of the 2nd Amendment, so you can’t weaken the Amendment through unconstitutional laws, by definition? Or would that be splitting hairs.]

It’s every right-wing cause, bundled in one big bag of infra-Red goodness.

But wait, there’s more! You get to identify the issues that you want to receive periodic e-mail updates about. Some are the same, some are oddly different.

Secure borders, stop illegal immigration [pick your own veggies! wash your own dishes!]
Expose liberal media bias
Stop NAFTA, North Am. Union [Fascinating that both of these have been Bush babies, too. The whole North American Union thing is one of these cool crackpot conspiracy theories you can hear all about on late-night radio.]
Defend rights of the unborn
Oppose government waste, earmarks [Except, of course, the ones that benefit me.]
Reform taxes/eliminating the IRS [Why to people always think that if we “reform” taxes that anyone but the very richest will actually pay less?]
2nd Amendment right to bear arms [Wait, what happened to our verb?]
War on terror and national security
Keep the Pledge of Allegiance
Defend traditional marriage [Teen brides, multiple wives and dowries for all!]
Uphold broadcast decency standards [But not the Fairness Doctrine. Got it.]
Pardon Agents Ramos/Compean [I had to look this one up. Apparently it’s a huge deal in the Right Wing press. Ironically, the bulk of the sentences are driven by mandatory sentence add-ons for use of firearms. FWIW, I give even odds that Bush will commute these guys on his way out.]
Expose and defeat the ACLU [Expose them? They’re already all over the media.]
Defund Planned Parenthood [Another WorldNetDaily / ACLJ holy cause.]
Stop liberal judicial activism [Only conservative judicial activism should be allowed.]
Oppose radical global warming activism [Can we engage in moderate global warming activism? Wait, is that being active in favor of global warming? Or are they talking about being activists against radical warming of the globe? Did anyone proofread this thing?]

The odd thing to me is that any of the above items lends itself to some serious, quiet discussion of pros and cons, risks and rewards, definitions and nuance and trying to find compromises amongst differing principles. “Men of good will can disagree.” But by bundling them together into a single “platform,” it comes across as … well, wingnuttery.

I’ll be curious to see what they say their numbers are come January 20th.

(via Pam)

Will of the People

The California Supreme Court has agreed to take up three lawsuits against the just-passed Proposition 8, which overturned a Supreme Court ruling finding that equal protection under the law required…

All three cases claim the measure abridges the civil rights of a vulnerable minority group. They argue that voters alone did not have the authority to enact such a significant constitutional change.
As is its custom when it takes up cases, the court elaborated little. However, the justices did say they want to address what effect, if any, a ruling upholding the amendment would have on the estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages that were sanctioned in California before election day.
Gay rights groups and local governments petitioning to overturn the ban were joined by the measure’s sponsors and Attorney General Jerry Brown in urging the Supreme Court to consider whether Proposition 8 passes legal muster.

The Court declined to stay Prop 8 (and so allow gays to wed) while it was consiering the case. That’s probably appropriate — no use muddying the waters further if they uphold Prop 8, and if heard with deliberate speed, the impact if they strike down Prop 8 will be minimal. Unless, of course, you had a November wedding planned.

Of course, “speed” in this case means oral arguments in March.

The lawsuits argue that voters improperly abrogated the judiciary’s authority by stripping same-sex couples of the right to wed after the high court earlier ruled it was discriminatory to prohibit gay men and lesbians from marrying.

Well, per se, it’s not wrong for a ballot measure to overturn a court ruling. The argument here is that the change made is so substantial that it falls under a “revision” to the state Constitution, not an “amendment,” which California treats differently.

“If given effect, Proposition 8 would work a dramatic, substantive change to our Constitution‘s ‘underlying principles’ of individual on a scale and scope never previously condoned by this court,” lawyers for the same-sex couples stated in their petition.
The measure represents such a sweeping change that it constitutes a constitutional revision as opposed to an amendment, the documents say. The distinction would have required the ban’s backers to obtain approval from two-thirds of both houses of the California Legislature before submitting it to voters.

Nor is this some unprecedented review.

Over the past century, the California Supreme Court has heard nine cases challenging legislative acts or ballot initiatives as improper revisions. The court eventually invalidated three of the measures, according to the gay rights group Lambda Legal.

So precedent would indicate that this is a very real possibility for being overturned — but not something that the state Supreme Court handles trivially (charges of “activist judges” notwithstanding).

We’ll check back in March, though I suspect the more rabid pro-8 folks will be vocally railing about this whole development for the next three and a half months, and no doubt making noises about recalls of justices, etc. (which, if you think about it, if the justices were, in fact, whimsically self-indulgent in their haphazard legal rulings, would be precisely the wrong PR tack to take right now).

The fact is, these are significant and profound constitutional questions, and the California Supreme Court is not only justified but obliged to fulfill their role as reviewers of constitutional claims. That’s a big part of the judiciary’s role, and it keeps legislators and the populace from passing laws that [insert something partisan you really don’t want to see them pass laws about, whether it’s about abortion or gun ownership or gay marriage]. That’s their job, and regardless of political denomination, we should be glad they’re there to do it.

Turnabout is fair play on marriage votes

From NakedJen: I mean, that says it all. If we’re going to let the majority vote on who gets a valid marriage and who doesn’t, which group is next? I…

From NakedJen:

Can we vote on *your* marriage next?

I mean, that says it all. If we’re going to let the majority vote on who gets a valid marriage and who doesn’t, which group is next? I mean, really, why not an interracial marriage ban (pesky US SCOTUS rulings aside)? How about interreligious marriages, or marriages between citizens and furriners? How about marriages between people who cannot have kids? How about doing away with civil marriages and require a church services? And none of those flaky Mormon or idolatrous Catholic services — we want something good and American and Christian like the Baptists do.

Heck, why disallow marriages by class? We see plenty of bad marriages around us. Why not put all local marriages — each and every individual one, prior to the wedding — up to a vote of the city or county, or maybe just the block, or the families? Why not let those folks decide whether a given marriage is “promising” or “socially productive” or “in keeping with God’s plan”?

Heck, let’s be thorough about this — no “grandparenting” existing marriages in. Prop. 8 supporters would certainly love to see all those gay marriages of the past several months declared null and void. So let’s have a recall/referendum on every marriage in the state to see whether it lives up to the goals and description of Traditional Marriage. After all, we can trust the People to decide this, right? And since nothing is more important to our civilization than that Marriage Be Preserved, surely the People won’t mind the inconvenience.

Of course, some “feelings” might be hurt, some (undeserving) “couples” torn asunder … but we have to remember that the important thing is that we preserve some magical ideal of What God Means Religion To Be (2008 James Dobson Edition). Anything that doesn’t line up, regardless of the reason, needs to be separated, wheat from chaff, rams from goats. Clearly the best method is through seeking approval of 51% of the voters for each and every case. It’s the only way to be sure.

Who wants to go first?

Chapter the Next, in which Massachusetts does not fall into the sea

It was five years ago today when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that, y’know, that pesky separate but equal clause in the Constitution means that, barring a compelling reason (i.e., not counting “tradition” or “religion”), you really can’t treat people unequally under the law, hence gay marriage.

And what has happened?

Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes …
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together … mass hysteria!
— Aykroyd & Ramis, Ghostbusters (1984)

Meh. Not so much. Eleven thousand gay marriages later …

Massachusetts has yet to become, as former governor Mitt Romney predicted, the “Las Vegas of same-sex marriage.” Gay marriage rates leveled off at about 1,500 a year – about 4 percent of all state marriages – in 2006 and 2007. The divorce rate in Massachusetts has remained the same – and the lowest in the country.

Of course, for some folks opposed to gays, the consequences have been even more dire than Biblical Wrath of God-style Destruction: normalcy.

What’s really changed is more subtle than cosmic, more about the everyday lives of gay couples in Massachusetts than about a national transformation. Gay and lesbian couples here said they are attracting fewer startled looks when they rent cars, less consternation when they hold hands, fewer awkward questions when they visit spouses in hospital rooms.
“When we’re out together as a couple, it really doesn’t come up; we’re never challenged anymore,” said David Wilson, one of the plaintiffs in the 2003 SJC case and the current chairman of MassEquality, a gay-rights advocacy group. “It’s now considered normal.”
Maureen Brodoff and Ellen Wade, who were among the first gay and lesbian couples to wed here, have noticed the decrease in embarrassed double takes when they introduce themselves as wife and wife.
“The sky didn’t fall,” Brodoff said Wednesday, as she and Wade sat with their English setters Diana and Joey in the living room of their tidy Colonial in Newton Centre. “The newness of it has eased. It’s just another marriage.

And worse than normalcy … acceptance.

In February 2004, a survey of 400 voters found that 42 percent were in favor of same-sex marriage and 44 percent opposed it. In a similar survey completed this August, approval sprang to 59 percent and opposition sank to 37 percent, said David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center, which conducted the polls.
State Representative Brian P. Wallace, a Democrat from South Boston, has felt that mood in his district. Wallace, who in January 2007 voted in favor of a ban on same-sex marriage, was one of several lawmakers who changed their minds in June 2007, when the Legislature defeated a measure to put the question of marriage on the ballot.
“My constituency is changing,” he explained. Although “there’s still people who haven’t spoken to me after the vote,” most of his constituents, he said, no longer worry about same-sex marriage.
“Nobody is hurt by it,” Wallace said. “There are other issues.”

Nobody is hurt by it. There are other issues.

Wow. How … rational. And compassionate. And just.

(via Pam and DOF)

Fighting Proposition 8

The battle against Prop. 8, which amended the California Constitution to ban gay marriage, is not over. From Gloria Allred (emphasis mine): On May 15, 2008, after we waged a…

The battle against Prop. 8, which amended the California Constitution to ban gay marriage, is not over. From Gloria Allred (emphasis mine):

On May 15, 2008, after we waged a four year long legal battle we finally won a landmark victory in the California Supreme Court for same gender couples who wished to marry in California.
Last night, opponents sought to reverse that decision with Proposition 8 in which they once again sought to restrict legal marriage to a man and a woman. That Proposition appears to have passed by a narrow margin.
As a result, today we will file a writ with the California Supreme Court on behalf of Robin Tyler and her spouse, Diane Olson, challenging its constitutionality on several grounds. In our case in May, the California Supreme Court ruled that the Equal protection clause in our California Constitution protects the rights of lesbians and gays to marry the person of their choice and the court, for the first time, recognized homosexuality as a “suspect classification” under the equal protection clause of our state constitution, thereby requiring a strict scrutiny test which test was not and cannot be met (the court so held) in marriages limited to a man and a woman. Prop 8, if it passes, conflicts with the equal protection clause. If marriage is now limited to straight couples and excludes gay couples then it is inconsistent and in conflict with the equal protection clause. We will argue to the court that Prop 8 is a disguised revision to the constitution which cannot be imposed by the ordinary amendment process, which only requires a simple majority. We believe that then the court must hold that California may not issue marriage licenses to non-gay couples because if it does it would be violating the equal protection clause as straight couples would have more rights by being allowed to marry than gay couples.
If Prop 8 had said that the California constitution was amended to limit marriage to people of the same race only, would that be constitutional under our state constitution? Of course not as it would violate the equal protection clause and the seminal case of Perez v. Sharp which the Supreme court decided sixty years ago.
We will also argue that Prop 8 improperly revises the Supreme Court’s recent opinion defining the constitutional fundamental right of marriage The state constitution provides that revisions to the constitution requires a 2/3 vote of the legislature or the convening of a state constitutional convention, and a proposition requiring only 50% is not available to the electorate to accomplish the revision to our equal protection clause.
Lastly, the constitutional requirement of separation of powers, we will argue, does not permit the use of the Proposition format to remove and /or circumvent the judiciary in determining the interpretation of what is or is not a fundamental liberty right and who is and who is not protected by the equal protection clause.
The apparent passage of Prop 8 in California has been a heartbreaking experience for our clients, Robin Tyler and Diane Olson, and millions of other same gender couples who have married or wish to marry in California and throughout the nation. All they have asked for is equal rights under the law and equal respect and dignity for their families and their committed relationships.
Our law firm is honored to continue this great civil rights battle for them. We will never give in and we will never give up. We will continue to be the change we wish to see in the world and we will never have another season of silence until same gender couples enjoy the same rights as non-gay couples on this green earth.

An interesting argument. I’m not a constitutional scholar (esp. regarding the California state constitution), but it certainly sounds like a plausible argument.

(via Les and AMERICAblog)

A “personal request” on Proposition 8

A letter from a gay acquaintance of mine in California on Proposition 8. (I’m leaving it anonymous because it wasn’t sent directly to me, but forwarded along): Dear friends, family…

A letter from a gay acquaintance of mine in California on Proposition 8. (I’m leaving it anonymous because it wasn’t sent directly to me, but forwarded along):

Dear friends, family and colleagues:
I am making a rare personal request. I know there are strong feelings on many issues this election, and I normally would not ask my broad group of friends to share my view specifically on any one issue — I believe reasonable people can disagree about most of our politics. However, one California proposition in particular will affect me personally and therefore, I need to ask for your help.
There is an unfair ballot proposition that, if passed, will take away my fundamental rights. It is unfair, it is discriminatory, and it is wrong. This is really important to me. Will you please help me to defeat Prop. 8 on Tuesday?
I hope you are already planning to vote NO. But just in case you’re unsure, I want you to know the real deal. Prop. 8 would eliminate the right to marry for same-sex couples. I trust you agree that eliminating fundamental rights – from anyone – is just wrong. History is filled with examples of such misguided policies. From our own wrong internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII to laws of segregation. Personally, I am very concerned about going down a path of having any group sponsor an amendment of our state constitution to discriminate against any other group based on a majority vote. Where will this thinking lead us? We may not all agree on how to live, but fundamental rights of anyone, regardless of gender, religion, race, heritage or other status should not be subject to a popular contest. It takes two-thirds vote to increase our property taxes in California, but with Prop 8, a simple majority can write discrimination into the constitution against an entire class of California citizens. That is unfair and wrong regardless of how you feel about gay marriage.
Proposition 8 is also harmful. The sponsors of proposition 8 would have you believe there is no impact to their dangerous proposal. Nothing could be further from the truth — real rights are at stake. Rights of inheritance, rights of privacy, rights of supporting our spouses. There are over 1200 rights and responsibilities that are covered by marriage. While California has strong domestic partnership laws, only a fraction of these are covered. Further, our lives go beyond the California border. US Federal rights ranging from retirement and property survivorship, to access to spousal health care are affected. I have yet to hear one argument on what proposition 8 does to support stronger heterosexual marriages. Absolutely no rights of my family, friends or other families have been lost by this year’s historic California Supreme Court’s decision. I am proud that California led the way in repealing the prohibition of different races being able to marry in 1948. In the 1950’s over half of our county”s states still had laws banning such intermarriage. It took until 1967 for the US Supreme Court to find that all these laws fundamentally violated the US Constitution.
You might be interested to note that the very same arguments were used to support prohibiting inter-racial marriage as are being promoted to discriminate against gay marriage today.
As a board member of my Synagogue for the past 5 years, I fundamentally support the separation of church and state. This will continue to hold true on this subject. No church will be required to marry those they do not support. Just as today many clergy won’t marry those of different faiths. The decision to marry or not will continue to be a decision by each community and denomination. I am proud that Reform Judiasm has supported same-sex marriages for well over a decade. It has made our community stronger and more inclusive. I fundamentally believe that no person or group should tell anyone else’s religion how to run their affairs. However, I also believe that no religious group should impose their beliefs on the entire state of California and her citizens. The majority of NO on 8 money has come from religious organizations based outside California.
Virtually every major paper in California has recommended against Prop 8. The L.A. Times says it is “a drastic step to strip people of rights.” La Opinión called Prop 8 “an unnecessary initiative”. The San Diego Union Tribune wrote that Prop 8 “offends many Californians’ sense of fairness.” California leaders from both sides of the aisle have also recommended against Proposition 8, including Governor Schwarzennegger and Senator Dianne Feinstein. For more information, please visit www.noonprop8.com.
If my short appeal above and the judgement of others doesn’t convince you, I hope you’ll email me and give me the opportunity to share with you further why I feel so strongly about this. Thank you for reading and listening to my appeal.
Please join me in voting NO on California Prop. 8 on Tuesday.

Proposition 8 isn’t just about a group’s “agenda” or some big, abstract, philosophical or linguistic debate. It’s about individuals, like the person above — real, living, breathing, loving, caring, and, honestly, frightened people.

It’s about what freedoms they have, or what freedoms the people of California are going to take away.

It’s about people. Remember that at the polling place.

The human face of deciding about gay marraige

Jerry Sanders, Republican Mayor of San Diego backed off from a pledge to veto the city council’s support for gay marriage. He did so in an announcement that’s fascinating, poignant, and moving…

Jerry Sanders, Republican Mayor of San Diego backed off from a pledge to veto the city council’s support for gay marriage. He did so in an announcement that’s fascinating, poignant, and moving — and well worth watching.

(Note: Though this is just making the rounds (again) now, it’s actually about a year old, September 2007. It’s still worth watching.)

“I have close family members and friends who are a member of the gay and lesbian community. Those folks include my daughter Lisa, as well as members of my personal staff.
“I want for them the same thing that we all want for our loved ones—for each of them to find a mate whom they love deeply and who loves them back; someone with whom they can grow old together and share life’s experiences.
“And I want their relationships to be protected equally under the law. In the end, I couldn’t look any of them in the face and tell them that their relationship—their very lives—were any less meaningful than the marriage I share with my wife Rana.

I do believe the greatest fear that proponents of California’s Proposition 8 — and opponents of gay marriage — is that the normalization of gay marriage will make it clear that the vast majority of gays who wish to marry are not the debauched extremists of some of the more outré Gay Pride parades out there (any more than most straights model their behavior off of Mardi Gras in New Orleans). Instead, they are “normal” people, people we know and love and respect. That weakens (whether it should or not) the moral argument that homosexuality is sinful and against (as they see it) God’s will. They are correct in their concern that if Amendment 8 doesn’t pass, gay marriage will be entrenched in Californian, and (joined with other states) American, culture as part of the mainstream. Their arguments from the Bible being inadequate to sway the populace, they can only militate for Prop 8, then, based on fear-mongering and catastrophism.

Kudos to Mr. Sanders (even a little late).

(via Ginny and Kos)

“Mawwiage …”

BD passes along this meme: Copy this sentence into your Livejournal/Blog if you’re in a heterosexual marriage, and you don’t want it “protected” by the bigots who think that gay…

Peter Cook as the Impressive Clergyman in The Princess Bride

BD passes along this meme:

Copy this sentence into your Livejournal/Blog if you’re in a heterosexual marriage, and you don’t want it “protected” by the bigots who think that gay marriage hurts it somehow.
Any two or more people who choose to enter into the bonds of a loving, committed relationship in an open, public manner will only make us smile and strengthen our own bond.
*raises a glass to everyone who’s married, whether legally or in their hearts and the eyes of their god(s), everyone who’s getting married, everyone who’d like to get married in a legally recognized fashion, but can’t because of silly laws–and, for that matter, everyone who’s self-aware enough to look at themselves and realize that such commitments aren’t right for them at this time or who doesn’t feel the need to be so public about it–just because it works for us doesn’t mean it’s going to work for everyone*

Okay: Any two or more people who choose to enter into the bonds of a loving, committed relationship in an open, public manner will only make us smile and strengthen our own bond.

Now, not being willing to leave well enough alone, I’ll note some caveats and observations:

“Loving, committed relationship” obviously excludes age-inappropriate marriages (not to mention a number of other bugaboos of the Right when it comes to same-sex marriage questions). What’s appropriate or inappropriate has, of course, varied wildly over the centuries, despite the cry of “eternal standards of traditional marriage” from the social conservatives. There’s times I’m tempted to suggest the age of consent for marriage should be raised to thirty … but that’s a topic for another day.
“Two or more people” obviously includes polygamy, which is usually one of those slippery slope sorts of arguments again advanced by the Right. Again, a topic for another day, but practical considerations and difficulties for long-term stability aside, it’s no skin off my nose; such relations have every likelihood of being as true or truer to the spirit of marriage as some binary man-woman relationships we can point to on a daily basis. That said, current gay marriage struggles are not about polygamy; address that issue when it actually comes up.

The point of this, of course, is that what two other people choose to call their marriage doesn’t necessarily affect mine. And happy couples tend to spread happiness. So leave ’em the heck alone, all you Prop. 8 agitators out in California. Concentrate your energies on keeping your own marriages happy and healthy, and you’ll probably do more good for yourselves and society than you do trying to keep other folks from having happy marriages.

Mawwiage. Mawwiage is what bwings us togethaw today. Mawwiage, that bwessed awwangement, that dweam within a dweam…

Bringing what sits under rocks into the light

Interesting story on All Things Considered tonight about how the Obama candidacy and its impending success are dragging the real racists out of the rural backwaters and gangland obscurity….

Interesting story on All Things Considered tonight about how the Obama candidacy and its impending success are dragging the real racists out of the rural backwaters and gangland obscurity. Police are seeing an upswing in hate crimes, both trivial (defacing Obama posters) and not.

Part of the problem is that Obama is playing into the neo-Nazi and white supremacist narrative, said Brian Levin, who studies hate and extremism at California State University, San Bernardino. What the groups were saying — “Jews and blacks coming out of the urban areas are going to take over this white nation of ours” — has occurred, he said.
You only have to look to the Internet to see how white supremacist leaders such as David Duke are using Obama to rally their troops. Duke has called Obama a “visual aid for hate groups.” He says an Obama presidency would provide indisputable proof that whites have lost control of America. “This is a cultural and racial battlefront,” said Levin. “Barack Obama is symbol No. 1 of the worst the future has to offer.”

Ironically, the white supremacists are actually divided on Obama’s candidacy. Some, for obvious reasons, refuse to vote for him. Others think that a vote for Obama is a positive step toward the impending “race war” due to wrack the country (cf. folks who support Israel as a step toward the End Times).

Me? I think the churning and rising of this sort of overt racism is a positive thing. An Obama presidency forces America to face what remains of racism in our psyche, not just in the reprehensible form of the David Dukes of this world, but in more subtle ways. That can only be a good thing, and if the roaches and other slimy critter pour out from under the rocks in the face of Obama in the White House, that will help us deny that they still live among us, or how their hatred has subtle echoes in our own cultural hearts.

The other thing it will do, directly opposite of riling up the racists, is demonstrate to the vast majority who might be a bit leery, a scosh apprehensive, even if they don’t even recognize where that anxiety is coming from, that a black man as President, once you’ve seen it, isn’t all that scary. The best way to combat racism, overt and subtle, is, essentially, to integrate, to let the Other become part of your everyday world. Once you see that a black man on TV every night isn’t something to be scared of, all the rants of the David Dukes become all that much more ridiculous.

(In parallel, I expect that as gays become more openly integrated into society — see California, of course, but also other states where civil unions and even gay marriage have been made legal, and, yet, the societal sky hasn’t fallen and civilization hasn’t turned into some great homosexual debauch — the fear of the unknown will, because it becomes known, diminish, and the doom-saying predictions of the Dobsons of the world that things like California’s Amendment 8 are the Last Straight Hope to protect our Great Christian Nation will be seen as goofy as people worrying about the dire and apocalyptic effects of giving women the right to vote.)

So even though the NPR story tends to get a bit scarifying at times, nearly blaming Obama for riling up all those racists, I think it’s a good thing that the white-first KKK a and neo-Nazi types are creeping out of the woodwork again. Sometimes you just have to turn over some rocks to see what comes scurrying out. Wearing heavy-soled boots, and not being afraid to use them in the circumstance, is highly advised.

Yes on 8 threatens to “out” No on 8 donors

Not necessarily “out” them as homosexual (since there are plenty of straight supporters of the No on 8 campaign in California), but “out” them to customers, who would then presumably…

Not necessarily “out” them as homosexual (since there are plenty of straight supporters of the No on 8 campaign in California), but “out” them to customers, who would then presumably shun the Godless Commie Marriage-Hating Faggot-Loving businesses who dared speak up for marriage equality.

The letters being received start off nicely enough:

Equality California is advertising on its website that it has received a contribution of at least $10,000 from you. […] We are sure that you would want to review the way that they are using Abbott & Associates’ name, since many more of your clients support traditional marriage than support same sex marriage. A copy of an advertising page from Equality California’s website is enclosed for your information.

That’s rather nice of them — offering the opportunity for someone to weasel away from what they’ve done on the pretense that it’s Equality California that’s either lying or betraying the Deep Dark Secret that the contributor gave them money. Note the implicit implication that obviously nobody would openly give to Equality California, or wouldn’t be appalled that their donation had been made public by EC

They offer then to help the contributor make up for “this error.”

We respectfully request that Abbott & Associates withdraw its support of Equality California. Make a donation of a like amount to ProtectMarriage.com which will help us correct this error and restore Traditioal Marriage. A donation form is enclosed. We will be most grateful and will advertise on our website Abbott & Associates’ generous contribution.

Isn’t that nice of them? “Back off of your earlier commitment, fork over some dough, and we’ll tell everyone that you’re holy and righteous.”

Then the kid gloves come off. (Emphasis below mine.)

Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. You would leave us no other reasonable assumption. The names of any companies and organizations that choose not to donate in like manner to ProtectMarriage.com but have given to Equality California will be published. It is only fair for Proposition 8 supporters to know which companies and organizations oppose traditional marriage.

Jeez, where does one start? Well, for starters, there’s the false dichotomy. I love and support traditional marriage. I think the dedicated commitment of love before society (and, for those who wish that sort of thing, God) is a truly wonderful thing. So wonderful and powerful and transformative and life-giving that I think it should be open to gay couples, too. I really don’t see the conflict. Are they being disingenuous or simply uncomprehending about that standpoint?

Secondly, unless EC has been telling people that their donations will be Ultra-Top Secret, isn’t ProtectMarriage.com missing the point that these folks have already made their support visible to the public?

No, they’re not missing the point. I’m sure any donor knew they were taking the potential risk of their name being published on some boycott black-list by pro-8 folks. The ProtectMarriage folks could have just gone ahead and done that — but given that there was a chance, just a chance, of getting someone to pony up some money (plus demonstrate some corporate “conversion therap”), it was worth engaging in this extortion-with-sadness routine.

We will contact you shortly to discuss your contribution sincerely hoping to receive your positive response.

“Nice reputation ya got here. Be a shame if somet’in’ were t’happen to it.

The Executive Committee of ProtectMarriage.com and the millions of Californians supporting Proposition 8 thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this request.

“Yeah, you better be thinking about those millions of Californians before we blacklist you.”

Disgusting. And these are the purported upholders of all that is good and holy and right?

If you want to help get yourself on a blacklist (and what good freedom-loving sort wouldn’t?), visit www.noonprop8.com.

Potpourri on a Rainy (!) Monday Evening

I DON’T LIKE THIS Running Out The Clock: Ah, unitary executive power — is there any law you cannot simply ignore. See, also, We Have One Week to Save the…

I DON’T LIKE THIS

Running Out The Clock: Ah, unitary executive power — is there any law you cannot simply ignore. See, also, We Have One Week to Save the Grand Canyon. Freaking idjits. Expect more last-second-orgy-of-executive-self-indulgence over the next few months. You thought Clinton’s flurry of pardons was bad?
Bush administration okays religious discrimination…: See above. “Law, shmaw … who’s gonna prosecute us?”
Financial Crisis: Who is going to bail out the euro?: A very dark schadenfreude courses through me.
AFA Declares Victory Over McDonald’s: Great, another reason not to eat at McDonald’s.
Homosexuals should carry warning tattoos, says London…: Not My Anglican Church.
Best Buy’s New Tag: How … uninspiring.
David Sirota: Treasury Blacks Out Key Parts of Private…: Transparency through obscurity?
WalMart now says they’ll keep the DRM servers on forever: Or at least until there are fewer people to bitch about it.
Nonviolent Activists Are Now Terrorists: Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
TSA Agent Ripped Off Electronics, Sold Them On eBay: Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Now, where have I heard that before?
Artist Detained: Absolute power corrupts … hey …
NSA enjoys eavesdropping on US soldiers’ phone sex…: Absolute … oh, never mind.
EA boss on DRM protesters: Half are pirates and the…: Come watch the game industry self-destruct!
American Culture Derails Girl Math Whizzes, Study Finds: Actually it finds we don’t do well with Math Whizzes of either gender, but particularly with girls. Rrg.
Stupid QA tricks: Colossal testing oversights: Okay, no matter how smug I get, I always have to remember my own testing oversights.
The New Pepsi Challenge: Guess the Smile: Pepsi’s changing its logo and all its branding and labeling stuff so as to combat a loss of market share. As opposed to, um, improving their product?
GPS ‘Spoofing’ Could Threaten National Security : Yet another miracle technology ruined by black hats.
Firefox extension blocks dangerous Web attack: It also block all sorts of other useful things, like the Note in Reader linklette for Google Reader.
Airport security theater: I feel more secure, yes indeedy!
Grenades in your luggage? TSA says that’s A-OK!: Absolutely more secure than ever! You betcha!
Airport shoe-scanner device could prevent stupid shoe-removal…: Except we shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.
Won’t Somebody Please Think of the Children!: People terrified by the “bride and bride” license in California. Yumpin’ Yimminy, give me a break.
Christian Morality and Hell: I confess that I am a Universalist in this instance — which would label me, ironically, as heading straight to the Fiery Furnace in some folks’ account.
How’s that novel coming along?: *SIGH*

I DON’T CARE ABOUT THIS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, BUT IT IS KIND OF INTERESTING

Fringe cancelled downunder after only 5 episodes: I’ve taken Fringe off my DVR rotation. I just wasn’t looking forward to the next episode.
ABC Develops New V: I was only a bit into the original. I suppose there’s room for improvement, though I suspect it will simply be grimmer and grittier.
Newly released British UFO files debunk some sightings,…: Of course, the real Torchwood kind of stuff wouldn’t be in files they’d release, would they?
Goodbye Little Penguin: Berke Breathed Retires Opus: Honestly, I haven’t cared much about Breathed or Opus since, oh, about two years into Bloom County.
‘Fingerprinting’ Method Tracks Mercury Emissions From…: … particular coal mines. Interesting.
Turbine to launch a LotRO-focused social networking…: I can see cases where this would be of value to some, though I am post-MMO-social-networking.
*HP classic calculator fans* might like the following…: Not that I’m an HP calculator fan, but I recognize a fellow geek tribe.

I DO LIKE THIS

RTD Sets New Ridership Record: That’s me! That’s me!
Full Terminator Season Ordered: Cool.
Watchmen Footage Sneaked: Sounds very cool, though Will America Watch Watchmen? makes one dubious about its success.
Associate Email Links With Gmail in Firefox (Natively): Excellent.
Gettyland: I so need to plan a trip to the “old” Getty Museum while out in SoCal over the holidays.
The Seven Habits of Highly Ineffective Terrorists: Look! Sane analysis of the terrorist threat! No wonder nobody’s listening to it.
The official name for Windows 7 will be: “Windows 7″…: Excellent. It’s about time.
Pirates, the Best Target Audience: Some very nice stuff here. I have at least one of these shirts on my wish list.
Star Wars A to Z: Way too cool.
Tim Burton could direct Johnny Depp in Pirates 4: Which might be the only thing that would make me go out of my way to see it.
Survival of the fittest Playboy Playmate: No, really, I read it for the scientific implications!
London tube map video: Haven’t watched the video yet, but I’ve read enough about the London Tube Map to know it’s a fascinating tale of design, informatics, and politics.
What are the Japanese up to right now?: It would be extremely cool to have something like this for the US.
Google Says Their Results Will Be RSS-Enabled: Everything is better in RSS.
Death by kisses, an unusual tombstone: And let that be a lesson to you!
Connecticut Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage: Huzzah!

***Dave Does the Election

It’s the Friday night “this’ll be old news by the time you read it Monday, which is okay because I’ve already been accumulating some of these for the past…

It’s the Friday night “this’ll be old news by the time you read it Monday, which is okay because I’ve already been accumulating some of these for the past three or four days” edition …

I suppose it makes sense to, per tradition, begin with Gov. Palin. Not much new to contribute as to how “well” she did in the debate last night — though some increasingly amusing commentary about her content free presentation (see flow chart), especially if you were watching the debate on C-SPAN and could see what Palin was doing (studying furiously) while Biden was speaking.

Despite ~~flow chart~~ note cards, fact-checking of Palin keeps digging up more problems. She was wrong about troop levels, for example, and wrong about Biden’s support of McCain’s war policy until recently. Heck, it appears she was wrong about McCain’s policy on bankruptcy court protections for homeowners (at least that’s what the McCain camp says). It’s a toss-up whether she (or, rather, her script-writers) were either ignorant, or trying to really make a statement about health care programs, when her wrap-up Reagan quote turns out to be from a 1960s recording he made on behalf of the AMA … against Medicare.

Of course, outside the debate, fact-checking continues to ring up problems, like her (false) claim that she met with the British Ambassador. Funny thing for “Joe Six-pack” to be lying about.

Naturally, it’s okay for a liberal like myself to criticize Palin, since I’m speaking into the echo chamber. Woe betide any conservative commentators who aren’t enthusiastic Palin supporters — they get the equivalent of a fatwa from the “base.” Unlike other folk Palin knows who get Muslim fatwas for hanging out with such a flirtaceous girl. No Christian fatwas — yet — for her being so un-Biblical as to run for political office.

Back home, Palin’s having problems, too. A lawsuit to get the official Troopergate investigation (as opposed to the hand-picked Palin-appointee-run investigation) declared illegal has failed, and the state attorney general may actually have to turn around and compel people to obey those bothersome subpoenas. Including the “First Dude.”

On the other hand, she’s finally gotten a Fox-sponsored “do-over” on some of her more embarrassing Couric interview gaffes (like the whole Supreme Court decisions? What Supreme Court decisions? embarrassment. In the retake, Palin recites a brilliantly memorized answer — clearly she was well-briefed in case it came up during the debate. She also reveals that (I am not making this up) the reason she couldn’t name McCain reforms, or newspapers she reads, or SCOTUS decisions was that (I really am not making this up) she was annoyed (really) at being asked such questions. (You betcha!)

The only thing I will say in Palin’s defense is that while, yes, she utters that horrific mispronunciation of nuclear, “nucular,” no less a clever guy (and former nuclear sub engineer!) as Jimmy Carter had the same problem. So for that, even if it makes my teeth grind, she gets a pass.

Less passable is her populist appeal to mediocrity in the “base” — though, interestingly, some have suggested that Palin herself can be used as a “wedge issue” between the traditional conservatives (the Georgetown cocktail set that McCain despises so openly) and the social conservatives. It’s certainly an amusing idea.

But not as amusing as this.

Meanwhile … oh, yeah, there’s someone else on that ticket. Hmmm. Not much talk about Sen. McCain the past few days during all the Palin focus. The biggest news is that he’s pulling his campaign (as in “conceding”) pulling his campaign from (as in “conceding”) Michigan. That he did so before the VP debate indicates they didn’t think Palin’s performance would change anything — which may be why she didn’t know about it until today.

Of course, Palin was also out of the loop — as in, “agreeing with something that Obama said but that McCain criticized” — on interventionism in Pakistan. Though, of course, McCain used to say the same thing, before he didn’t.

A few other smatterings of McCain criticism out there, including a rather damning condemnation of his widely-touted support for veterans, as well as an observation that Candidate and Senator McCain is willing to vote for an earmark-laden bill that he’s promised President McCain would veto — which is perhaps why, after voting for it, he spoke out against it. Oh, and he

Which may be why his support among his “natural demographic” — seniors — is waning.

About Sen. Obama … well not much, except for the shocking news that he made Keith Olbermann’s “Worst Person” List — and I’m sure even Margie would agree on that.

I won’t talk much about Sen. Biden, except that everything I would write about Biden and Obama’s views on gay rights and marriage (as described by Biden last night at the debate) was already written by Doyce first.

In more general election news, we have (i.e., I don’t want to come up with a paragraph to explain each one):

The Great Schlep – getting older Jews in Florida to vote for Obama like their kids are (humorous, NSFW).
Dead Candidate Options – what happens if (God forbid) a presidential candidate dies before the election … or after it.
Truth or Consequences – the plot thickens in the GOP “dirty tricks” scandal over using foreclosure rolls to challenge voters at the polls, as the official accused of saying that was the plan is suing for libel.

And so it goes.

VP Debate – The Morning After

Beyond my own too-verbose effort, a few other live-blogging efforts, as well as some general debate thoughts and observations — and, for the record, the transcript. I’m still miffed that Ifill shied away from…

Beyond my own too-verbose effort, a few other live-blogging efforts, as well as some general debate thoughts and observations — and, for the record, the transcript.

I’m still miffed that Ifill shied away from some important questions that have come up about Palin the past few weeks. Granted, she did ask some generally tough questions, taking care to zero in on both the candidates. But she didn’t explore any of the gaffes that Palin had made — not remembering any Supreme Court rulings aside from Roe v. Wade, not being able to name any newspapers she says she reads, not being able to cite McCain’s reform record, or questions about her Young Earth Creationism, or even her position on things like Supreme Court appointments, rape kits, and abortion rights. All of these had analogs that could have been directed at Biden, too.

It was also disappointing that neither Biden nor Ifill noted her non-responsiveness to question, her shifting of topics away to talking points, etc. Nor was there much in the way of follow-ups, which is where she’s gotten slammed in the past. Both were treating her with kid gloves, which let her squeaking through the debate have that much more impact. While Biden did counter her on some policy answers, he let some personal attacks sneak by (the taxes and patriotism one, for example) — though, to be sure, that gave him time to land some zingers on McCain (the litany of why he’s no maverick in particular). She also didn’t get called on some of her straight factual bloopers, perhaps with a thought that they’d be fact-checked the next day fact-checked the next day. After all, Biden was cautioned by a lot of people not only to not go overboard against Palin to avoid being seen as a “bully,” but because it would impact his own limited time to get out his positions.

It still irks me, but it might have been the right approach.

Some particular items from Palin’s performance that bothered me:

She danced around the gay marriage/gay rights issue. Biden was very straightforward that he wanted civil rights parity, but preferred that the “m” word be addressed solely within churches. Palin, after dithering around tolerance and how nobody in her administration would ever block visitation rights, and boy she had a diverse family (though it was unclear whether it was diverse in orientation or diverse in opinions about gays) finally simply said that she was against gay marriage. Good to get that admission from her (and disappointing from Biden), but her unwillingness either to speak her mind more broadly on gay rights issues (for fear of offending the Right, or offending Everyone Else) spoke volumes. Especially, no doubt, to gays in Alaska.
She was blinking like crazy. Bangs too long, eyelash problems, or a tell as to how she was feeling or what she was saying, I don’t know.
She didn’t seem to understand or grapple with the powers and nature of the the Vice Presidency, except to say that she sure looked for forward, you betcha, to expanding its rights in the Constitution. The whole neither-executive-nor-legislative-thus-unaccountable argument asserted by Cheney either excites her or hasn’t hit her radar; either is unconscionable.
Aside from the folksy you betcha humor, pretty much everything she said was a scripted point (some seemingly recycled from past presidential campaigns). It was clear. She had points A-Z to get through, and if that meant circling back to an earlier question to finish the list, that’s right where she went. If she didn’t say anything egregiously stupid, it’s because she didn’t say anything other than what she’d rehearsed, and wasn’t asked for follow-ups that would make her think on her toes.

I was impressed that the families all got together up on stage in a show of civility that stood in stark contrast to McCain’s performance (make him come to you to shake hands, avoid contact, disengage, grab the wife, work the crowd) at the first presidential debate. One question that I’ve seen (quite legitimately) raised is what’s a baby that small doing being awakened and lugged around under the lights at that hour (besides, y’know, showing that Palin’s a great mom, you betcha)?

Though the spin from the GOP was that Palin was da bomb, that was largely because she didn’t horribly suck or further tank the ticket. The debate itself wasn’t, stripping away the Palin Watch, all that exciting, with a few exceptional moments. I was surprised to find out that quick polling after the debate gave the outcome handily to Biden. I thought there would be more people genially accepting Palin’s Joe Sixpack demeanor. Perhaps there’s more scrutiny of her now than there has been in the past.

On the other hand, Lloyd Benson beat the stuffing out of Dan Quayle, and we know how that election turned out.

We’ll see how the polls are tracking after the weekend to see if there was any actual impact.

VP Debate

First, the semi-liveblogging Event/Moderator Biden Palin Gwen Ifill intro. Strong and well-spoken. 5 minute segments, 90 seconds initial, then follow-ups. Questions by her. Smiling pol. …

First, the semi-liveblogging

*Event/Moderator*	Biden	Palin
Gwen Ifill intro. Strong and well-spoken. 5 minute segments, 90 seconds initial, then follow-ups. Questions by her.	Smiling pol.	Smiles. Blow kiss. “Can I call you Joe?” “Thank you.” mic carries.
Bail-out bill and Congressional mess. Worst or best of Washington .	1. Thanks. Pleasure to meet you, Governor. Ties back to this Administration, lack of Administration. Lots of looking at notes. Palin is looking down at her notes while Biden speaks. Gives Obama’s stance – what he called for. Voice sound hoarse. He was coughing after he came on. Middle Class!	2. Thanks. privilege. Looking at the camera! Go to a kid’s soccer game – how are you feeling about the economy. Fear, I’ll betcha! Fear about losing investments. Biden is watching her. Government hasn’t been giving firm oversight. Looks nervous. John McCain has been all about warning bells and reform of financial markets for years. His bipartisan efforts to bring folks together this past week, even suspending his campaign!
Being VP? How reducing polarization?	1. Been doing that whole career – VAWA, more cops on street, genocide inBosnia . Have been able to reach across the aisle. Then returns to previous question. McCain “fundamentals are strong” and “made great economic progress” – then backed down within hours. Doesn’t make him bad, just out of touch.	2. John in referring to fundamentals talking to/for the American work force. They’re spiffy! As a mayor and governor, record of reform, team of mavericks, putting partisan politics aside. Obama has only voted along party lines – 96% of votes. Tired of the old politics, with all due respect, respect your years, but people are craving something new and different. Maverick of the senate.
Subprime lending meltdown/ Who’s at fault?	2. 2 years ago Obama warned about subprime problem. McCain said at the same time he was surprised by it. McCain was saying that he was always for cutting regulations. McCain thought lettingWall St running wild was right – deregulate. Republican response. And wants to deregulate the health care industry like he did the financial industry. High prices of gas – anecdote about someone. 4. Charge not true. McCain voted the same way as Obama, didn’t raise it. Standard by governor, McCain voted 477 times to raise taxes. But she didn’t answer questions of deregulation and John McCain supporting it.	1. Starting. Predator lenders deceiving, greedily. Corrupt Wall Street. We have that commitment to stop that. Still looking at camera. Blink. Blink. Blink. Joe Sixpack, Hockey Moms, resolving we’ll never be exploited again. And we need to be responsible about not getting into debt, too. 3. Darn right we need tax relief. Obama and Biden are in favor of largest tax increases inUS history, siding on the people’s side, 94 times voting to increase or not support decreases. Government has to live with less. Increasing taxes for families making $42K. 5. I’m gonna talk straight to the American people. Reduced taxes every year as mayor, and reduced taxes as governor. McCain is known for pushing for stronger regulations. Biden smiling.
Taxes. Dems raising taxes on those over $250K. Class warfare? GOP taxing health benefits, taking it out on the poor?	1. It’s about fairness. The middle class is struggling under McCain’s tax proposals. Households get no break in taxes. Nobody under $250K will see taxes increase. And most under $150K will get a tax break. middle class is the economic engine. Now he looks at the camera. McCain wants to cut taxes for the wealthy and corporations, but nothing for middle class. He looks a bit pale. People will pay no more than. 3. Where to start. It’s not redistribution of wealth to not give Exxon a $4bn tax credit, that’s fairness. 95% of small business make < $250K – no increase in taxes. Giving, but also taking. McCain pays for his $5K by taxing as income the health care benefits. $5K plan will go straight to the insurance company, replacing a $12K plan for the 20mn who will be dropped from health care. Ultimate bridge tto nowhere.	2. Redistribution of wealth principle. Obama’s plan to tax increase – forgetting the millions of small businesses that will be hit by those taxes. You said that paying higher taxes is patriotic – middle class disagrees, government is the problem, Joe Sixpack says. Increased tax formula and trillion dollars of spending. And McCain’s health care plan is detailed, and here are some talking poins. $5K tax credit, while Obama will mandate universal government run program. Evil Feds! Evil! Laugh. McCain suggestion is budget-neutral. Artificial lines between states, competing between states.
What promises – given the bailout plan – will yo not be able to keep.	1. May have to slow down commitment to double foreign assistance. And will nto go forward with McCain tax proposals and the existing ones ($130bn this year alone), and all the other bns of tax cuts. Will not hold up on incentives by new jobs with an energy policy, education, nor affordable health care. Stumbling in speech to cover all his points. Oh, yeah, $100bn tax dodge to move post office boxes offshore to avoid taxes, and that’s unpatriotic. 3. Obama voted for an energy bill that had support for alternative energy. He voted to eliminate tax breaks, while McCain did not. Why is McCain adding into his budget more tax cuts for ExxonMobils? Yeah, Palin supported a windfall profits tax. We want to do the same thing. McCain does not. he wants to give tax cuts on top of their profits. Hope she can convince McCain to do it.	2. McCain doesn’t tell one thing to one group and another thing to another group. Back to the energy plan. Obama voted in 05, that’s what gave those energy companies those tax breaks. And I had to take on those oil companies, no greed in my state! Corporate CEOs are not my favorite fans! The people come first! Value to the people ofAlaska ! No tax breaks to multinationals when it affects the people who live there. I had to undo what Obama did in my area of expertise, energy. No, there’s nothing that I’ve promised I’d have to give back – because I haven’t had time to do more than to promise to be a paragon of virtue and a hard fighter. And McCain will keep all his promises, too. Yay!
Congress passed bankruptcy reform. McCain supported …	2. [Moderator: Biden voted for it, Obama against it.] Only 10% of people affected from Chapter 7 to 13 … we disagreed on it. But Obama pointed out 2 years ago that there was a subprime mortgage crisis, and warned treasury. McCain just last year said he was surprised by the crisis. What should we be doing about bankruptcy? The bankruptcy courts should be able to adjust the rates and principal owed. They don’t support that, nor does Bush, even though it would help people.	1. Yes, I would have supported it. But there have been such changes and revelations of corruption onWall St . McCain was calling for reform even back then! We have him to tank for warning people, and bringing in a bipartisan effort, putting the campaign aside, to fix the problem, the crisis, the toxic mess onMain St affectingWall St . 3. No, that’s not true. But … energy! I want to talk about energy policy plan! We have to consider how we let this nation become energy-independent. We have domestic supplies of energy, and east coast politicians keep patriotic Alaskans from tapping into those resources, helping those foreign countries that don’t like us to mock us! Evil! Energy independence! Energy plans are not just about tax breaks.
Energy issues. Climate change. What’s true and false?	2. Clearly manmade. Biggest difference between all of us. If you don’t understand the cause, you can’t come up with a solution. It’s man-made. That’s the cause. We have 3% of the reserves, we consume 25% of the oil. McCain has voted against alternative, clean energy sources. By investing in clean coal and safe nuclear we can build wind and solar and export that stuff – but we could export that technology toChina to help that pollution, and it would create jobs. McCain has voted 20 times against alternative energy sources. Drill we must, yeah, but 10 years for any of that oil to flow. 3. Clean coal. My record is supporting it for 20 years. I was talking about exporting that technology toChina . If the only answer is oil, how does that cap carbon emissions?	1. As the natoin’s only arctic state,Alaska sees the impact moreso than any other state, we know it’s real. I won’t attribute the changes all to man, but part is cyclical climate changes, but there are real changes. Don’t want ot argue the causes. How do we “positively affect the impacts”? First governor to have a climate change impacts. McCain agrees with this. We have to be energy independent. We rely on other countries that pollute more than we do! Tap into alternatives, conserving petroleum products and hydrocarbons so we can babble babble babble. 2. Caps on carbon emissions, McCain supports. Chant is drill baby drill. People are hungry for those domestic sources. Even inAlaska we have millions of barrels of oil. Clean, green natural gas. (!) Pipeline. Obama/Biden — offshore drilling is raping the continental shelf?! It’s safe to drill! McCain also voted for alternatives. Nucular! Clean coal – you said no! Yes, I support capping carbon emissions.
Support same-sex benefits to couples as in Alaska ?	1. Absolutely, positively. No distinction form a constitution and legal standpoint between same-sex and hetero couples. constitutional issue. It’s only fair. We do support that committed couples and same-sex marriage have same constitutional benefits for insurance, visitation, etc 2. We do not support gay marriage. That’s a decision for faiths. Take the governor at her word that there should be no civil rights distinction. If that’s the case, we have no disagreement.	2. Not if it goes closer and closer to “marriage.” I would certainly be tolerant of people choosing their partners and relationships. I have diverse family and friends, and some dear friends don’t agree with me. but nobody would ever propose in our administration to prohibit visitations in hospitals. But I don’t support defining marriage etc etc etc. Being straight-up (ha!) with Americans. 4. Yes, I don’t support gay marriage.
Foreign policy. Sons in or on the way to Iraq . Clear plan to exit strategy.	2. I didn’t hear a plan. Obama has offered on. It’s what the PM ofIraq and Bush are negotiation. The only one left out is McCain. And Obama not funding? McCain voted the same way, when it had a time table in it, and he voted against funding for it. Barack and I agree that you need a time line to draw down troops, shift responsibility, spending tons of money. We will end this war. For McCain there is no end in sight. 4. John McCain voted against funding the troops – he voted against a bill I had put together that had NRAPs for protecting troops because it had a time line. McCain / Cheney, when I was saying that this war would be a mess, were saying that everything would be happy there, we’d have oil to pay for it, he’s been dead wrong, I love him, but he’s been dead wrong, and Obama has been right.	1. Glad we have a good plan. Surge! Yay! Petreus! Yay! Mccain! Surge opposed surge! Opposed funding troops! Respected Biden when he called him out on it. Obama said he would not, and he turned around and voted against it. We have a plan for withdrawal. Not early! No, we have to win! But the surge thathas worked, we are at pre-syurge numbers, and we can put more troops inAfghanistan , and we have to grow our military, and fight Shia extremists, and we cant’s quit! 3. Um … your plan is a white flag of surrender. Our troops don’t need ot hear that! You opposed the surge, and won’t admit it worked. We’ll know when we’re finished whenIraq can do it themselves, and our commanders will tell us when. And Biden said you’d be willing to run on McCain’s ticket! You also said Obama was not ready to be C-in-C. Respect for your family having a son in the national guard. Any one who can cut off funding for troops, evil!
Iran andPakistan – nuclearIran or unstable Pakistan ?	1. Both dangerous. I;ve focused for a lon g time onPakistan because they have nuclear weapons. Iran would be dangerous, but not close to getting it. Both would be dangerous. John keeps saying the central front on terror is inIraq – but if another attack happens, it will come from alQuaeda inAfghanistan andPakistan . We need to support those governments. We should be building them schools, not madrassas. And we’ll get Osama.	2. Petreus said that the central front inIraq . Believe him. So does alQaeda. Nucular-armedIran is toooooo dangerous. Cannot allow. Israel in danger! Iran is mean! Can pronounce Akmandinijad. But not nucular. Obama will meet with preconditions. That’s not naïve, that’s dangerous! Those bad guys should not be met with without preconditions.
Baker, Kissinger, Powell, etc., have all advocated engagement with enemies. Are they wrong?	2. This is just not true. obama didn’t say he would. McCain is goofy saying Akmandinijad controls the security apparatus. It’s nifty that they want to bring our friend sna allies along, but they’ve been saying we should sit down and talk, and Mccain will go along with an agreement but won’t sit down and talk down and talk with our enemies. Even Bush is doing that! And Mccain said he wouldn’t even sit down with the government ofSpain !	1. I had a great conversation with Kissinger recently. His passion for diplomacy. We’d do that. But with these dictators who hateAmerica and freedom and women’s rights and stuff. They cannot be met with as Obama said he would be willing to do, etc. etc. etc. But diplomacy is hard work, sanctions lined up, friends backing up.
Israel ? What has this administration done right or wrong?	2. Nobody has been a better friend ofIsrael than Joe Biden (3^rd person). Obama is the same. This administration has been an abject failure; Rice is trying to turn around a bad series of policy decisions by the Administration. Iran is on the march, including inLebanon andGaza . We will backIsrael in negotiating. 4. Past is prolog. How different will McCain policy will be different than Bush onIran , orIsrael , orAfghanistan , orPakistan . (Great lines!) And we know where that has taken us. We will make significant change so that we are the most respected nation in world.	1. Two state solution ins the solution. Secty Rice is trying to forge that peace. That needs to be done. And that will be a top of the agenda item. We need to assureIsrael there will never be a second holocaust, despiteIran . We want a two state solution, and building an embassy inJerusalem . That commitment is there. 3. No, this Admin hasn’t been an abject failure. But glad Biden loves Israel. Lookning backward and blame game, people will get tired of that. Yeah, blunders in the past, but change means looking forward, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Government on the side o the people, no partisanship, McCain rah! Maverick! Biden loves him! Change is coming!
Interventionism. Nuclear weapons. When?	2. Afghanistan . Facts matter. Our commanding general there said today that the surge Will Not Work There. That’s not Biden. That’s the commander there. We need more troops, spending. We spend more money on combat iniraq in 3 weeks than the last 7 years inAfghanistan . Repeat. Arms control and weapons – nuclear weapons require an arms control regime. McCain voted against the test ban treaty. He’s opposed inspections in the treaty. Obama, first thing he did, raced across the aisle to Dick Luger about preventing nukes to terrorists, they put together legislation, and McCain oppoed. 4. Yes, he did say that. And while we’ve been calling for more money fand troops forAfghanistan , McCain says we’ve succeeded there.	1. That would be be-all, end-all of too many blather blather incoherency. We have a deterrent, safe, those country likeNorth Korea , we need to put economic sanctions, friends, allies, to make sure they don’t acuiqre, proliferate, use nukes. Afghanistan . The surge principles ofIraq need to be implemented inAfghanistan . Reckless comments from Obama – we’re doing keen things and helping children and puppy dogs and we’ll win. 3. McClellan did not say the surge principles wouldn’t apply. The conditions are different. But the counterinsurgency principles could work. [Yes, he did.] [Could not hear what she was saying because Margie was yelling at Palin.]
Biden – interventionist in Serbia, Iraq, nowDarfur . Will American public back?	1. America will support success.Bosnia saved 10Ks of lives. McCain opposed it. People didn’t believe it would work, but it has. InIraq , I voted for the power to let Bush have the power to continue sanctions, etc., but argued against the war, but McCain said it would all be okay. Darfur – we can impose a no-fly zone, we can lead NATO, I’ve been there, horrible suffering, we should rally the world to act, and demonstrate it by helping.	2. I’m aWashington outside, obviously – you voted for it, but now you’re against it. Americans want straight talk. You supported McCain’s war strategies before this candidacy. And Obama cut funding for troops! I agree onDarfur . What I’ve done is we’ve taken a fund and divested funding fromSudan … or will, once the legislation has passed..
When do we decide to go in?	1. When we have the capacity to act. When a country does these evil things, that country forfeits right to not be intervened on. But I never supported McCain’s strategy on the war, which were the same with Cheney. I said that war would be a real mess. I said all these things. McCain wa sin lockstep with Cheney. Not just whether to go, but support for the conduct of the war.	2. Disagree. Did you support Obama or McCain … we listened to the debates and we’ll have some fact checking in the morning. McCain knows how to win a war, he’s had the experience, etc. he will now how t implement strategies, listening to commanders, taking the politics out of war issues.
Heartbeat away. You disagree on some things with your principles. How would your admin be different.	1. God forbid. A national tragedy. I would carry out Obama’s policies. Supporting middle class, even break, health insurance, etc. etc etc. Energy policy, jobs, foreign policy to ends war and gets bin Laden and engages our allies, rejecting the Bush Doctrine (and what it is, nice!). This is a critical election, most important since 1932. I believe in every major initiative he is suggesting. 2. Go downUnion Street , folksy stuff. Ask about economic and foreign policy has helped them, and if McCain really differs from them, and they don’t think so. People in my neighborhood get it. Walk with me in my neighborhood,Scranton , steel town. Middle class has gotten short end, wealthy etc.	2. Heaven forbid, for either party. Team of mavericks will not agree on everything. I will keep pushing on ANWR. He wants healthy debate. I would continue the good work he is commited to, government on the side of people, ending greed and corruption,Wasilla Main Street . Every-day working class Americans, get out of the way, don’t take my money and tell me what to do. Support a ticket that creates jobs and end war. Vs. a party that increases taxes. 4. Looking backwards! Not Bush Administration! Look ahead. Education, yeah, important, love your wife, yeah we need to focus more, ramp up funding in schools, pay teachers more. My family was school teachers. We need to increase standards, we need flexibility in No Child Left Behind. Public school. Need to ramp it up.
Palin – what does VP do? Biden – would not be VP. So, what is it worth now.	2. Education. John isn’t supporting any funding for anything. Role of VP – had a long talk like the governor did. I have a history of getting things done in the Senate. I’m the point person for legislative initiatives. Want help with governance to give best advice. He’s president, not me. Wants someone with independent judgment and freedom to disagree, and that’s my reputation. 4. VP Cheney is most dangerous VP in Americna history. Article I defines the role of the VP, he’s in the executive branch. The number one role is to support the president, and to preside over the senate to break ties. That’s the only authority for legislature, the whole idea is bizarre to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive.e	1. It was a lame joke, so was yours, too. Preside over Senate (thankful). And John and I have had good conversations about how to lead in his agenda, government reform, energy independence, special needs families. That’s where John wants me to lead. 3. [Is the VP not executive?] The founders gave the Constitution a lot of flexibility to the VP. We will do what’s best for the etc etc etc – lots of flexibility, will do what we have to do, my executive experience as a governor and mayor and regulator and business owner.
Conventional wisdom. Lack experience (Palin) or discipline (Biden)	2. I’m not going to change. People can judge who I am. I will place my and Barack’s record of change against anyone. Crime bill, VAWA (McCain voted against), intervention inBosnia . Single parent. I know about a family . I am well off, I have a nice house, but (choking up) I understand. People are looking for help, not more of the same. 4. Love McCain, but he’s been no maverick on meaningful thigns. 4 of 5 times for Bush budgets. Voted against SCHIP. Not supporting college funding. War. No maverick in anything that really affects what people talk about around the table. He voted against heating oil support! yeesh!	1. my experience as an executive willb e put to good use, a governor of a great energy producing state, energy independence, etc. Connection to heartland, a mom, son in the war, paying for tuition, etc. etc. etc. we know what other Americans are going through. That world view with John McCain –America is a nature of exceptionalism, shining city on hill as Reagan said, and unapologetic as a perfect ideal of democracy and tolerance and freedom and equal rights, force for good, rah rah rah! Team! Making a difference! Track record! 3. People are looking for change. Consumate maverick! Me, too! Bipartisan state governor. Look at McCain’s supporters – Lieberman, Giuliani, Romney, etc. These are tumultuous times. Etc. Repeat. Etc. Cannot allow partisanship inWashington , regardless of who’s in charge.
Single issue you changed to accommodate changed cirucmstnaces	1. On judiciary committee. Only thing that mattered was wheathr a presidential nominee was simply not a criminal. But realized that ideology makes a difference. Led charge against Bork. First chair of the judiciary that it’s important to know judicial philosophy.	2. As mayor and governor passed judgement and didn’t veto, but realized had to work with legislature and needed to move along. Wanted to cut taxes, budget. But no major changes in principle, compromise, bipartisan, but working together, no matter who gets credit.
Bipartisanship? How do you change the tone?	1. I have been able to work across the aisle and work to change my party’s mind and the Republicans. Anecdote. Never question motives, just judgment, and so have been able to work so well with others. Fundamental change that Obama and I will bring.	2. You appoint people regardless of party affiliation. My family is diverse politically. As long as we all work together. But the policies nad proposals have to speak for themselves. And now here’s a political generalization and attack on the other ticket.
Closing statements	2. This is the most important election in our lives. Eight years, deep hole in economy and foreign credibility. Fundamental change. Progress isn’t based on how well CEOs are doing or how well we cut regulations, but based on whether people can pay for their mortgage or send kid to college, etc. etc. etc. My neighborhood – dignity and respect, belief in self, work hard, you can accomplish anything. That’s why we’re running to make that possible. It’s time forAmerica to get back up, and we are ready, and etc. God bless American and, selfishly for both of us, our troops.	1. Thanks! Such an honor, and chance to meet you, Joe. Like being able to answer these questions without the MSM filter, just want to talk to the people. [So why haven’t you?] We will fight for American family, we are a great country, etc., proud to be American, need to fight for freedoms. Reagan! Freedom! Need to fight for that freedom every generation. Future without freedom! There is only one man in this rece who has realy fought for you! McCain!
After		Thanks! Thanks! Nervous chuckles.

Post-debate … it was interesting that both families got up there, chatted, shook hands. Very different from McCain’s terse handshake with Obama and immediate shifting to hugging his wife and gladhanding the crowd …

Overall assessment:

The questions were okay. They hit most of the major points — but didn’t hit much on any controversial points (at least viz Palin). I mean, yeah, we got the gay marriage and the global warming questions … but no actual challenges to legitimacy, to experience, to creationism, to abortion …

Palin did okay, presence, glib. Not very strong on policy, more talking points … she didn’t blither too much at too many points. Lots of McCain rah-rah-rah. Some odd points (expanding the power of the VP, putting the US embassy in Jerusalem, facile answers, more than a few fact-checkable items). Shifted subjects at will, rather than reliably answering the questions (which she freely admitted). Didn’t talk much substance, much more rhetorical. And, of course, lacking (or dodging) direct challenges, she was able to let her coaching carry her along.

Good presence — none of that deer-in-the-headlights fumbling from the past interviews. Folksy (sometimes so much I could spew), and that will play well with some. What was funny is that she was willing to criticize Bush when she was being all “mavericky” (thank God that word wasn’t in the drinking game, or else I’d be on my way to the hospital), but whenever Biden did so, she chided him for dwelling on the past (in a Rovean fashion that was immensely irritating).

She talked to the camera, thus the audience.

Never really talked about about the specific differences between McCain and Bush — just that McCain’s a maverick, except for all the things on the war that McCain has always supported and is right about because Petraeus! Surge! Yay!

Nobody challenged her directly for not answering the questions more often than not.

(And for all the discussion of the Maverick Reformer, and despite her promise to Couric, I don’t think we heard any actual, specific, reforms that she was attributing to McCain.)

So if Palin wants to “avoid the MSM filter” and “just talk to the American people,” how is she going to do that? I mean, it’s not like either Gibson or Couric were shouting questions at her rat-a-tat. If that means she just wants to dialog without people following up with further questions — well, yeah, that I can believe.

Biden did a sober, calm, workmanlike job, growing stronger at the end. Policy-wonky, and a traditional debater. Sometimes stumbling over himself to hit all the points he wanted to get. I suspect there will be some fact-checking (less than Palin). He did focus most of his attacks on McCain, as advertised — but I almost wonder in retrospect if that was an error (the attacks on McCain were to be expected, and though reasonable will not change any minds); with Palin doing better than expected, he left that part of the field to her.

He spent too much time looking at the moderator, not the camera.

So, who won? Hrm.

For the Democratic faithful, Palin will not impress any further. Biden was reliably solid, not saying anything particularly goofy.

For the Republican faithful, Palin’s lack of self-destruction will probably be a huge sigh of relief. Some folks will probably be a bit fired up, others will simply be glad she didn’t embarrass the GOP ticket any further.

For the undecided, though … I don’t think this will shift many votes in one direction or another. Those who were worried about Palin will be marginally reassured, but I don’t see this adding any bump to the McCain ticket; at best (and this is non-trivial), she prevented any further losses based on her.

If nothing else, short of future melt-downs, she may have just saved her future political career. But any assessment of this as a “win” is only because it was less of a “loss” than practically every other interaction she’s been shown in since her ghost-written speech at the convention.

***Dave Does the Election – Multi-Day Edition

I’ve been tied up in meetings this week, and so haven’t gotten one of these out for a few. Where to start, where to start … Well, heck, why…

I’ve been tied up in meetings this week, and so haven’t gotten one of these out for a few. Where to start, where to start …

Well, heck, why not with VP-debate-bait, Gov. Palin.

The gaffes just keep on coming from the Defined Mrs. Sarah. Key are the Couric interviews, which has turned into a sore that never heals for the GOP. Whether it’s Palin suggesting that whether global warming is human-created “kinda doesn’t matter,” or her apparent inability to remember any Supreme Court decision besides Roe v. Wade (and why that ignorance is significant), or her similar inability to actually name any magazines or newspapers she reads (“all of them!”), or her suggestion (with no irony) that Joe Biden is old, the hits just keep coming. As do attempts to parse what the heck she’s actually saying.

Meanwhile, follow-ups from earlier Palinisms and similar shenanigans show that she used to be for tough, independent investigations before she was against them, she never actually has seen Russia from Alaska, her beloved aerial hunting of wolves isn’t scoring her many points with the public, she explicitly denies that she had her city and police chief charge vicims for rape kits (without explaining the evidence to the contrary), and, oh yeah, she actually had (or has) yet another private email account for conducting government business with close aides in an attempt to avoid any sort of oversight or public records regulations.

Through it all, we’re heartened to learn that McCain is routinely turning to her for foreign policy advice, and that conservatives turn on her at their own peril. I guess it’s just as well that people have been focusing so much on her since she hit the scene.

And, of course on her running mate, Sen. McCain, and his erratic campaign. Whether it’s suggesting that Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez is an Arab, making casual comments about Pakistan that don’t bear scrutiny, urging his fellow congresscritters to use the term “rescue” rather than “bailout,” promising to veto earmarks while declining to vote against them, promising “transparency” and “accountability” while while making up attacks against Obama, or giving an interview to a gay newspaper where he sees no contradiction between having and admiring numerous gay friends and colleagues yet being against anything governental or legal that protects or supports gay rights, it becomes understandable that the GOP wants McCain to stop trying to use facts and just attack Obama.

And, by the way, as I’ve said before, McCain should fully open up his medical records. As should, I note, Obama (though I am much less concerned about him).

Meanwhile in the Obama camp, though the polls have been steadily going in his favor, such that his campaign is actually hitting hard in states thought to be solidly GOP, they don’t seem to be getting complacent, concerned about it still being a month out and the electorate still being volatile, and Obama supporters continue to suggest that now’s the time to set aside divisions within the party and do whatever’s necessary to get him into office, if only to demonstrate that “elite” isn’t as bad a word as “mediocre.”

Nevertheless, looking at the polls, the question of whether people think they are better off today than they were eight years ago seems to be having an effect.

As for Biden … well, most of the press seems to be as to whether he’ll unleash one of his infamous gaffes at the debate tomorrow night. While nobody expects him to lose the debate on points, there is concern that Palin might find effective ways to make it look like he’s ganging up on her, reengaging some of the sympathy and support she’s squandered since the RNC. In some ways, his ability to avoid falling into that obvious trap will be a significant test for his ability to lead effectively.

There is, of course, more going on in politics than the election. We have “pro-family” groups seriously arguing that we need to get rid of the Violence Against Women Act, since all it does is let women not be subservient to their therefore righteously violent husbands (whom they should not be able to get a divorce from, by the bye). We have folks opposed to gays in the military desperately trying to get their calls returned, and folks opposed to gay marriage in California desperately trying to avoid people knowing who they are. And, of course, we have moribund conservative organizations suddenly reviving with mysteriously deep pockets and veiled attacks against Obama.

Then there’s all the brouhaha over the bail-out, which is bringing out the best in conservative commentators. The GOP can’t get their story straight as to whether they tanked the bill because of Pelosi’s speech or because of anything but Pelosi’s speech. What’s interesting about the debate is the prospect that this may signal a sea change in public opinion about Twhere government intervention and control in the markets is necessary and desirable.

And between the election and the bail-out, nobody’s noticing that Congress has named a Special Prosecutor to investigate the firings of federal prosecutors for political reasons. Well done.

And so it goes.

Weekend politics

I’ve been sort of intentionally staying away from a bunch of this stuff this weekend — both feeling a bit fatigued (one can only note Palin/McCain lying so many times…

I’ve been sort of intentionally staying away from a bunch of this stuff this weekend — both feeling a bit fatigued (one can only note Palin/McCain lying so many times before the fingers get tired, though some seem indefatigable) and a bit overwhelmed by the whole deepening financial institution implosion.

Still, a few tidbits from the weekend …

As always, we start with Gov. Palin. Folks are noting the parallels between the GOP stonewalling of the Troopergate investigation and the post-2000 election recount in Floridy: law suits, shifting of venues to favorable locations / judges / evaluators. I have to wonder whether their actions in doing so this time are going to backfire. In 2000, it was the only way they could win. Since everything we’ve heard to date on this matter indicates it’s a relatively petty (telling, but petty) abuse of power case, the more the GOP stalls, delays, and makes headlines over the case, the bigger it grows in the popular imagination. If the whole thing had blown over by now, Palin would have been slightly tarnished but the campaign would have moved on. Instad, they have a running sore in their northwest flank, and one that keeps drawing them into further lies.

The GOP may be learning (as they’ve had to learn multiple times before) that it’s not the crime that gets you, but the cover-up.

Regardless, if the Palin choice has “energized the base” (at least for a while), it has hurt GOP chances in the center. It’s a classic choice that they made, and it may hurt them. Meantime, the Palin candidacy has been vacillating between grabbing the headlines from McCain to having her appearances abruptly cancelled. Is she in for reprogramming? Regardless, the campaign has decided she can’t go toe-to-toe with Biden, so they’ve arranged to make the VP debates softer and less confrontational. But remember: she’s absolutely ready to go toe-to-toe with Putin, Chavez, Ahmadinejad, and, of course, Zapatero … just not Joe Biden.

Meanwhile, the party faithful keep bleating that, after months of the conservatives questioning whether Obama is Christian enough (or at all), questioning Palin’s faith is, of course, utterly off-limits. Unless you’re interested, of course, in how it will inform her governance and policy on trivial matters like education, science, church-state separation, climate change, the imminence of the Second Coming and what has to be done to bring it about, etc.

Doubtless the Russians (you know, the ones she can see from up there) are chortling over the the latest Palin Scandal.

Palin’s running mate, John McCain, continues to call himself a maverick, though I think some folks are beginning to see that as meaning “a smooth-talker willing to take daring and dubious gambles with others’ money.” Certainly some of the local newspaper folks back in his home state of Arizona are less than enchanted with him. Recall how Molly Ivins’ reviews of Bush were ignored …

Most of the McCain news over the weekend was related to the big financial implosion going on, and the plans and schemes to get it fixed. The information on this tended to be lengthy, complicated, and rambling — and, in a lot of cases, covers McCain’s role in the whole sorry affair (directly as a party-line deregulator, indirectly through his cohorts like Phil “60-to-1” Gramm, and directly again in terms of how he’s long been in favor of partial privatizing of Social Security (i.e., private SSI accounts invested in the stock market), following the same deregulation path for national health insurance … and, oh, by the way, noting the chutzpah of laying the blame for all of this mess on Obama and his supporters.

Oh, and even without the economic crisis, there’s all those other McCain ads …

Over on the Obama side of things, the polls and electoral count continue to look up, though there are concerns over what role racism — conscious or unconscious — may play in the final vote. I wonder if early voting around the country will mitigate that some — folks being less driven by fears if they’re filling out a ballot at their kitchen table than if they’re in that booth on Election Day.

Regardless, if there are fears to be drummed up, you can count on Fox News to offer them, with an eerie resemblance to their Election 2004 coverage.

A few other bits of election news:

Is Marilyn Musgrave going to down to defeat? As a Coloardoan, that would be just too faboo for words.
Why is the Mormon Church throwing so much money to get California’s Prop 8 passed (taking away gay marriage rights)? They’re not alone in the effort, but they sure seem to be some of the deepest pockets behind it.
Hey, I recognize some of the names of these Young Adult authors for Obama. Coolness.

Potpourri for a TGIF Evening

DARK, MYSTERIOUS, THREATENING He Was Into S&M and Bible Studies, Not Everyone’s… – So what if judiciaries of democratic governments the world over are no longer paying attention to the…

DARK, MYSTERIOUS, THREATENING

He Was Into S&M and Bible Studies, Not Everyone’s… – So what if judiciaries of democratic governments the world over are no longer paying attention to the legal conclusions of the US Supreme Court. It’s not like we’re interested in being world leaders or anything like that, right?
CJR: Army Alters Photographs, Issues Them To AP and Army releases doctored photos of dead soldiers. – This is … bizarre beyond words. Pasting the (picture of the) head of one dead soldier onto the body of another one? Huh? I really want to hear a good explanation for this one (and I hope the media stays on it).
Easily Startled? It Could Reflect Your Politics – Evidently people who are easily startled tend to be pro-war, pro-capital punishment, etc. Huh. I thought it was the anti-war weenies who were supposed to be Nervous Nellies and easily frightened. Go figure …
Female VP? Okay. Female Pastors on Magazine? Not Okay – Conservative Christians swoon over a female VP candidate, but recoil at the idea (let alone pictures!) of female pastors. But … isn’t the idea that Palin will take over when McCain is struck down by the Lord and institute a high and holy government priesthood for all true Christians? No matter how the campaign spins it, I don’t think she’s “qualified” to do that.
New bill would tighten rules for DHS border laptop… – What? The DHS can’t just do whatever they want with your laptop, PDA, and/or cell phone when you cross the border? They have to follow rules and procedures? Obviously the Terrorists have won.
Schneier on Security: The NSA Teams Up with the Chinese… – Right. Way to demonstrate the US government’s commitment to freedom and democracy, by having the government’s top communications spy agency team up with the Chinese to figure out how to foil anonymizing efforts on the Internet. But remember — the Chinese are the police state, the NSA just wants to find and stop terrorists. Right, got it — I feel so much more secure!

LIGHT, OPEN, SMILE-INDUCING

New Mozart piece found in French library – Music-… – You know how sometimes you scribble some notes down, and then later you can’t find the piece of paper, but years later you discover it tucked into a book? Same thing, only with Mozart.
frowst – Wiktionary – What a wonderful word.
Satellite Sex – Ah, the joys of a GPS with a female voice. “Oh, Sheila — I love it when my wife holds you in her lap and touches you.”
Wank your way to nasal clarity – Male orgasms reduce allergy symptoms. It’s a lot more enjoyable than squirting Flo-nase up your nose!
Gay marriage ban losing steam in Calif. – Excellent.

It’s God’s purpose, so it’s my purpose, so it should be your purpose, too!

Mike Huckabee seems like a pretty pleasant guy, and I’d invite him over for dinner at the drop of a hat. That said, he should stop screwing around in…

Mike Huckabee seems like a pretty pleasant guy, and I’d invite him over for dinner at the drop of a hat. That said, he should stop screwing around in the affairs, so to speak, of other states.

God created marriage, Huckabee says : Local News : Ventura County Star

Changing the definition of marriage would be like making Mona Lisa blond or touching up her smile, former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said Sunday morning in Newbury Park.
The former Arkansas governor and Southern Baptist preacher spoke from the pulpit of Calvary Chapel Thousand Oaks in two services focused on Proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. He told about 1,000 people that marriage was created and defined by God, just as the Mona Lisa was created by Leonardo da Vinci. “God doesn’t want me to take my brush and paint over his masterpiece,” he said.

God created mountains. Is Gov. Huckabee against strip mining? Wait, that’s a different discussion.

Huckabee, 53, spoke and played his bass guitar at Calvary Chapel in March not long after conceding the Republican nomination to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. He said he returned to address Proposition 8 because its ramifications reach way beyond California.
[…] Dressed in a dark suit coat and a pink shirt, he said he didn’t come to confront or oppose gay people, rather to urge people to do a better job of explaining what marriage represents.
“The purpose of marriage is not for you to be happy,” Huckabee said. “The purpose of marriage is so God can teach us how to love, like he loves us.”

And, of course, gay couples can’t be taught to love each other. Not really. Not the way ~~Mike Huckabee~~ God intends them to, which obviously involves sex stuff … but, wait, that’s not how God loves us (that’s more Zeus than Yahweh, it seems to me) … so obviously I’m confused.

But does that mean that people should only be allowed to be married if they’re in it to learn how to love? Not for happiness, not for money, not for anything short of love? Should we have them take an oath to that effect before we issue a marriage certificate? Ought we to review past and present marriages to see whether they are about love, and, if not, pass a constitutional amendment invalidating them?

Do tell us more, Gov. Huckabee.

Card Controversy

It’s the end of the world as we know it! Amidst cards for such sacred occasions as Halloween and Grandparents Day and Secretary’s Day and Armed Forces Day and Mail…

It’s the end of the world as we know it! Amidst cards for such sacred occasions as Halloween and Grandparents Day and Secretary’s Day and Armed Forces Day and Mail Carrier Day and so forth, Hallmark now has the audacity and impropriety to offer cards up to … homosexuals.

Yes, Hallmark now evidently is willing to sell stores (at their request) cards that actually suggest that gays might have loving relationships that they might want to celebrate.

Which, of course, has the American Family Association all a-twitter over the promotion of the “homosexual lifestyle” by Hallmark.

Ask them to stop promoting a lifestyle that is not only unhealthy, but is also illegal in 48 states.

What? Homosexuality isn’t illegal anywhere in the US any more.

Hallmark Greeting Cards has announced it will begin selling same-sex wedding cards, even though same-sex marriage is legal in only two states.

Ah! How cleverly disingenuous — because gay arriage isn’t legal except in two states, Hallmark is promoting something that is “illegal in 48 states.” Or, more properly (but less provocatively) something that is not recognized in 48 states. It’s not illegal (in a criminal sense) for gays to get married in, say, Colorado — it’s just that the state doesn’t recognize it as a marriage.

But that doesn’t make it sound as eeeeeevil as “illegal.”

Note, of course, that there are also states that recognize civil unions between gay couples, and even in other states there are (not-legally-binding) union ceremonies and blessings that take place. One would presume these cards would be useful there, too. If it weren’t eeeeeevil.

(In fact, the article linked to by the AFA specifically notes “The language inside the cards is neutral, with no mention of wedding or marriage, making them also suitable for a commitment ceremony.” But let’s not let facts get in the way.)

The purpose, they say, is to satisfy consumer demand. It appears that their purpose is also to push same-sex marriage. Last year Hallmark began offering “coming out” cards – as in “coming out of the closet” — a euphemism for announcing homosexuality.

Not that Hallmark and other card companies aren’t above promoting nonsense holidays to boost their own sales, but I really don’t see them as part of the Master Homosexual Agenda Cabal. Rather, it sounds like there was a consumer demand that they chose to fulfill. I understand they sell cards for Jewish holidays, too — those folks at Hallmark are real progressive thinkers.

The AFA offers a web page to send a protest letter to Hallmark. If you think that Hallmark’s actions are actually a positive thing, I suppose there’s nothing stopping you from using the AFA’s site to send Hallmark a message to that effect, too …

(via Terry)

Googly bits

I’m trying an experiment with the “Unblogged Bits” Google Reader Shared yadda-yadda that I’ve been displaying in the sidebar. I really like the convenience (esp. at the office) of…

I’m trying an experiment with the “Unblogged Bits” Google Reader Shared yadda-yadda that I’ve been displaying in the sidebar. I really like the convenience (esp. at the office) of being able to just click on something in Google Reader and have it show up in the sidebar. But despite having set up an RSS feed for these items, I suspect that most of my readers never see them — either because they fade into the sidebar, or else don’t show up in the main feed from my site — or get a chance to comment on them. Which is a shame.
So I’m experimenting with ways to easily get from the “Unblogged Bits” into real posts that folks can comment on, etc. Today’s attempt: cut and paste from the sidebar.
First off: was a religious student in a philosophy class harrassed and threatened with a failing grade because she wouldn’t renounce her faith? Or was she not doing well because she wouldn’t expose her beliefs to critical thinking?:
Religious Student vs. Philosophy Professor: Both Sides
from Friendly Atheist
Next up — well at least the Democrats tax before they spend:
John McCain, credit-card debt victim
from Boing Boing
I used to get seriously harassed by my fellow desktop gamers for my sound-alike elvish names, even though I used actual meaningful Tolkienesque morphemes:
Blogging into Mordor: Finding the perfect name for…
from Massively
Finally — all sorts of brouhaha over a gay marriage in the Church of England. Except it wasn’t a marriage, it wasn’t something that hasn’t happened before, and the folks who are kvetching loudest about it seem to have something else on their agenda.
UK Blessing Causing Quite the Buzz
from Father Jake Stops the World
Anger at Anglican gay ‘wedding’
from BBC News | News Front Page | World Edition