"St. Valentine's Day Massacre" - The Cocktail Slippers
- So Christine Gregoire has signed the marriage equality bill in Washington State. Kudos to her and all who made it possible.
- And the New Jersey Senate also passed a marriage equality bill by a pretty decent margin, albeit not one sufficient to override a promised veto by Governor Chris Christie. Christie has insisted that this matter be put to a referendum, rather than enacted in the traditional fashion by the legislature. At the moment, it appears that such a referendum would come down squarely on the side of equality.
- One of the few upsides to the Republican landslide in 2010 was that it convinced the party's true believers of the popularity of their platform. As a result all kinds of overreaching has occurred -- things that in the short run are deeply disturbing and dangerous, such as the anti-union activity we have seen in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, and Arizona, among others, and the broad assaults on reproductive freedom in more states than I can list. Add to that the Republican presidential campaign and its congressional leadership, who still think things like contraception are controversial with voters (it's not) and still seem to think the American people long for bigger and better wars (they don't), and a very clear picture is painted of a party that is extraordinarily extreme. Now this is not a revelation to those of us who are actively engaged in politics on a daily basis, but I do think it is for the apolitical or the casually political. And for the teacher in Waukesha or the firefighter in Akron or the mother in suburban Philadelphia, I think this is the kind of thing that makes them understand that this is not the Republican Party that their parents may have supported and it is one that is now directly attacking things of which they approve and may even hold dear. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, but right now I think if the economy continues to show modest growth and employment continues to improve, it is going to be a very tough election for the Republicans.
- Now that Pat Buchanan has given up electoral politics, Rick Santorum strikes me as the mainstream politician who would have been most comfortable serving in the Franco government.
- Thomas Edsall is far too kind to Charles Murray.
- And my old college history professor has an article in the New York Times about the long history of voter suppression in the United States.
What's going on with you? I think I am going to pop in to the Westminster Dog Show if I get a break today.
great song.
nice line about santorum.
Posted by: big bad wolf | February 14, 2012 at 10:03 AM
A giggle or two in honor of the day - Romance Tips from Al Sharpton
Posted by: jeanne marie | February 14, 2012 at 10:19 AM
The Onion's up to its usual genius:
New Breeding Program Aimed At Keeping Moderate Republicans From Going Extinct
Hat tip, Sully.
Posted by: oddjob | February 14, 2012 at 11:35 AM
Sir C:
If there is one thing that defines the difference in approach we have it is how we'd put that idea. I'd put it this way:
(I will be describing, finally, in detail, precisely how I suggest we -- meaning the blogosphere, with some outside help if needed -- can do just that in my continuation of the Friday Open I pretty much 'took over.')
Let me demonstrate my point by looking at the "Disaster of 2010 -- New Hampshire Version."
NH is a strongly 'pro-choice' state -- one poll listed it as the 5th strongest in the Nation. The Republicans nominated the state Attorney General for Senator. One of her main 'claims to fame' was that she had taken an anti-abortion bill that NH had passed all the way to the Supreme Court. The Democratic candidate must have smiled, because he knew -- and it had been in the papers and on tv -- that she'd lost the case, and had cost the frugal, undertaxed State at least $400,000. (And somehow he had either not asked himself how such a strong pro-choice state had passed such a law, or given himself the wrong answer.)
So he followed the Democratoc playbook that the Republicans have convinced us is the right way to approach a 'controversial' issue. We aren't supposed to mention our stand -- even when we know a majority -- even a large majority -- agree with us, for fear of alienating the 'anti-choice' opposition, who are fearful monsters that will tear innocent 'heroes' apart if they trespass on their territory.
No, we should be confident that the electorate is pro-choice as a whole, trust that those who are pro-choice will choose this as the 'deciding issue' and that they are aware of at least the basics of the Supreme Court case.
Which freed his opponent to run on the case and even claim she won it, and not to mention the cost. (Some bloggers did mention it, I am not sure her opponent ever did during the campaign.)
Result?
Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R) NH
Further result, both Democratic-held seats are now held by far right Republicans.
And Ayotte is not a 'more-fervent anti-abortion Judd Gregg in a dress.' Ayotte follows almost every step of the Republican path, promising to try and repeal ACA, supporting SB1070, opposing COLAs for the minimum wage -- and denying it should be 'a living wage' -- and even opposes mandatory sick-leave proposals, doubting 'man-made global warming,' opposing SSM and gay adoption, and opposed the assault weapons ban.
Had her hamstrung opponent actually used the pro-choice argument and others he tiptoed around, would he have won? Probably, and he might have carried the two House seats along with him. (Certainly he and the state wouldn't have finished up worse.)
More importantly, his use of the issue might have become a story that could have reminded pro-choice supporters in other states of the simple, overlooked fact taht we support choice -- and that The Republican Party as a whole opposes it.
(Ideally it would have been combined with a reminder of Republican filibustering -- and how it has increased even over Obama's term -- and a reminder that it will take 60 Senators to even bring up the next Obama nominee for SCOTUS. Hopefully we could have overcome the 'here they go again' response from people who have been hearing the cry of "Wolf" everytime NARAL or other organizations needed money.)
Again, we cannot assume we can take 'supporters of the liberal position' for granted, even if they are in the majority on an issue. We have to make them focus on the issue, and give them the facts that we cannot assume they already have -- just because they've been covered in the news.
One last quick comment. Our issues have supporters in every Congressional District in the country, not just in 'ghettoized liberal districts.' Louis Gohmert has some gay constituents, there are Muslims in both Pete King and the (now-retiring) Sue Myrick's district, and everybody uses contraception. The ACA could and should have been made more popular, but we have the individual components to run on.
And the people who oppose us on any one of these issues probably are not going to vote for a weasel-worded semi-concession by one of our candidates.
Would any -- or even all -- of these issues win a one-sided district? Probably not, but they might -- as campaigns -- shift more than a few close races. And even 'throwing a scare' into an eventual winner -- and forcing him to defend his own positions -- has its benefits.
(Again, for details, see the Friday Open Thread later today -- and sorry for intruding that discussion into this new thread that heavily.)
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 14, 2012 at 12:19 PM
Why, oh why, doesn't the Democratic Party push a right-to-vote amendment to the Constitution? Something like "every United States citizen of 18 years of age or older has an inalienable right to vote in Federal elections."
Maybe it would pass, maybe it wouldn't. If we win, we bring an end to legalized voter suppression. If we lose, we at least force the enemies of the right to vote to show their faces.
And re Edsall and Murray, anything short of dumping a bucket of shit on Murray's head is being too kind to him.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | February 14, 2012 at 12:47 PM
this is a spoof, but really funny about newt.
Posted by: kathy a. | February 14, 2012 at 12:49 PM
From TPM:
Bolding mine - oddly enough, TPM kinda skipped past that part in their commentary on this offer.
To me, that's the most insidious part of the proposed deal: states that go along with the deal are required to send a certain number of people to prison, whether or not people are committing sufficient numbers of prison-worthy crimes.
It's an especially abhorrent proposition in an era of truly remarkable declines in crime rates, which should lead over time to an equally precipitous decline in the need to lock people up.
Maybe that's what the private-prison industry is afraid of. If we only needed to lock up 1.5 million people instead of 2 million, their stock would be next to worthless.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | February 14, 2012 at 01:02 PM
l-tc: it's a state issue -- sometimes. It should be national -- and would be the easiest of all. Print and there's one page, showing the requirements for a prison guard, and the tests he needs to pass and the evaluations he needs to undergo before being hired by the state. Then a similar list for someone to be hired as a prison guard by a private company, and the competing salaries. (Who would you rather have guarding inmates, someone who makes minimum wage and has no reason to 'risk his all' to stop trouble, or someone with more financial reason -- who has to meet higher standards to get hired?)
Or video, a perfectly honest -- not like O'Keefe -- 'sting' by having someone who either is, or pretends to be an uneducated, not very bright or athletic, (sorry, Sir C, the image is insulting but evocative, forgive me) 'working class slob' attempt to get hired by a private prison contractor.
You could even get a ten-second radio spot out of it and make the point.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 14, 2012 at 01:41 PM
Jim - I think the prison guards are irrelevant here. The states, if they have a clue, should realize that they have a chance to be paying for the operation of half as many prisons in 20 years as they do now if they don't take a deal like this - even if they keep fighting a futile 'war on drugs.'
That means half as many prison guards, half as many wardens, half as many parole boards, half as much food, half as much electricity, and so forth.
The problem, of course, is that the states are hamstrung by the need to balance the budget every year, so if revenues suck like they do now, they'll sacrifice the future in order to make it through today.
In a more sensible world, the Federal government would give the states enough money to get them through today, so the states didn't face that dilemma. Unfortunately, the GOP bitterly opposes any such relief: they want to break the state governments, so they are forced to sell any assets they might have - prisons, highways, school systems, you name it - to private, for-profit companies. And, of course, fire all those lazy, incompetent state and local government employees, like cops and teachers. And prison guards.
The GOP really IS evil. It's time for the Dems to run on that. Lord knows it's an easy case to make.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | February 14, 2012 at 03:41 PM
the private prison industry only happened because states keep enacting these lock-em-up-forever laws, but they don't want to pay for the infrastructure, care, or staff to do the job correctly. 3 strikes, war on drugs, and many other laws have vastly increased the prison populations nationwide over the past 2-3 decades. and then there were all the "cut tax" measures during the same time period, starting with prop. 13 in california and ramping up nationally through W's tenure.
when corrections budgets are cut, the kinds of programs that help people rehabilitate and prepare for life on the outside are first to go. one reason for so much recidivism (parole offenders are a good piece of the prison populations) is that people need skills and tools before parole, and support during parole to stay on a good track -- but that is hard to come by in bad budget times. so is support for people sentenced to probation -- they have suspended jail sentences, but have to comply with conditions.
Posted by: kathy a. | February 14, 2012 at 04:35 PM
There's an item, from the Economist I think, today about the hideousness of the US prison system, which among other things suggests that we have exported our crime problem to the prison system, rather than having a true reduction in crime. Ugly thought, but worth a read. (I got this via Zite, which is a really cool app.)
As for me, I'm writing this in the Kona airport on my Kindle Fire, waiting for my plane back to Seatac and my real life. If any of you have any interest in Hawaiian culture you should definitely check out Aloha Music Camp (google for website); it was an extraordinary experience.
Posted by: beckya57 | February 14, 2012 at 05:45 PM
The GOP really IS evil. It's time for the Dems to run on that. Lord knows it's an easy case to make.
That.
And it's also time to tackle this problem on our side -- our unwillingness to be vocal and persistent in calling out its terrible cynicism:
And:
Rest of the piece, titled "Conservatism Thrives on Low Intelligence and Poor Information," is here. h/t alternet
Pointing to the depravity of what they're up to is our job. The GOP has them wandering through not just poor information, but false information. Orrin Hatch is still throwing around his very own PP *factoid* that ninety-some percent of what they do is abortion-related, eg. [Actually the number of vasectomies performed at PP is far higher -- not even close -- according to our local director]. And, yes, I realize the 'job' has become a full-time one. Alas.
Posted by: nancy | February 14, 2012 at 06:10 PM
there is stuff happening in virginia -- like this hideous bill requiring vaginal ultrasound before legal abortions. vaginal penetration with an object without consent (coercion is not voluntary consent) is usually called rape. even in virginia.
then there is the personhood bill -- the fabulous lege declined to even consider a clause protecting contraception.
Posted by: kathy a. | February 14, 2012 at 08:59 PM
Also -- I hate the unfortunate headline of that alternet/guardian piece which distorts its larger point.
Posted by: nancy | February 14, 2012 at 09:11 PM
Wait a minute, where's the medical community in all of this? Why aren't they speaking up? Remember all the blather leading up to the vote on ACA about the government telling doctors what they could and could not do? What's the medical imperative for a pre-abortion ultrasound?VA physicians should be screaming their heads off.
Posted by: paula b | February 14, 2012 at 09:33 PM
kathy -- i saw the VA personhood bill earlier today and the jaw drops. this hand has been so overplayed. even my VA conservative catholic, nutritionist/homeopathic-practicing sister-in-law, who teaches h.s. biology in northern VA, won't touch this stuff. and ultrasound -- medical necessity being??
incidentally -- do the math. all 'persons' eligible for SS benefits would now become 9 months older. good luck with that extrapolation gov.
Posted by: nancy | February 14, 2012 at 09:50 PM
Nancy---parents could also claim children as deductions nine months earlier, reducing taxes collected.. Will hospitals, restaurants, airlines,concert halls,taxis and motels be able to charge for the extra person? Will persons in utero be eligible for disability benefits if something goes wrong with the pregnancy, or will all responsibility fall on the mother? The possibilities are endless.
Kathy----where's the outrage among physicians?
Posted by: paula b | February 14, 2012 at 10:15 PM
i'll try to find more, but i think VA physicians have been handling a lot lately. wasn't very long ago that abortion providers were ordered to comply with hospital-style regulations [width of doors and so on] that aren't necessary. i believe there have been physicians speaking up about this, but to deaf ears. naral pro-choice virginia probably has more.
meanwhile, here is a kos story on these issues, ultrasound and personhood. and here is one with a graphic about the ultrasound, which would be required for early pregnancies.
medical necessity has nothing to do with it. they have decided that women are not capable of "informed consent" to an abortion without an ultrasound; and they do not care to permit women to refuse consent for the ultrasound.
Posted by: kathy a. | February 14, 2012 at 10:41 PM
[I actually started this in early evening, then forgetting to set my alarm turned a 30-minute breather into a 2-hour nap. I have seen no later comments since paula @ 9:33. And I promised KN in the other thread that I would begin laying out my detailed plans today. This, in fact, is one, though less detailed than the others. Others will be up on the old thread -- or the new if I'm invited to contonue thread-drowning here -- tomorrow, at least four complete 'campaigns.']
nancy: @6:10
First, great piece from you and from Alternet, but what you have said here is just what I've been saying in all these long posts since the beginning of the year. I've been stressing that these are winning issues, that they will enable us to 'reclaim the discourse,' that they are the one way to break through this conservative mindset.
And it is important to keep this in focus, to keep saying it as well. Because, once we start making the breakthroughs, we want the pros to see the wisdom in joining us. But if we just start -- and stop -- with articles like this, they'll just put them in the 'romantic idealist' file with all the other 'what we should do' articles.
Because we can't count on the pros to take the first steps toward changing the discourse. They have their strategy all worked out -- and they never admitted how badly it went awry in 2010. And remember they are on the blimp, and the only people who come close to admiring their fellow riders who write as much as they do themselves. And the pundits are the ones who keep telling them to keep on the same path.
(This is why so much of politics has become a kabuki dance, with each side responding to the same script, the same playbook, each side knowing the arguments the other will make and having their rebuttals written far in advance. Only they have Rush, and Savage and FOX that can reach the average ignorant and less bright voter. We have lots of brilliant voices -- who have, for the most part given up on those average voters and rest on the comfortable praise they get from us -- who already agree with them and knew before they say the words the stories they would tell.)
We are the ones -- and sadly, we seem to be the only ones -- who can begin to change things. We in the blogosphere can be the wild cards, the true Progressive force that can begin to turn the Democratic Party back to where it was, give it the courage to fight with other weapons than pity-parties.
But we can't do it as long as we keep treating the blogosphere as "Sports Talk Radio" as a hobby where we swap stories about something we are fans of, get our satisfaction from the praise of our peers and the hosts, and are -- and know we are -- totally unimportant to the thing we are discussing. (If every Sports Talk station or show disappeared tomorrow, the managers and general managers and players would be doing what they were doing anyway. If ten sentences a day on all the STR shows have any meaning to the games themselves, I'd be surprised -- at best they show a prepondernce of opinions among te fans -- but they are less important than the columns that appear every day from the 'sports pundits.')
We aren't going to convince them by lecturing to them or appealing to their consciences, their shame, their moral or ethical or Progressive selves. They get enough of that from everyone from Brooks and Friedman to Drum and Yglesias to GG and the Hamster.
That's why I have been so insistent that my ideas are winning political strategies -- that also happen to be the morally, ethically, and compassionately right thing to do. Because we aren't going to convince the people we need to 'find out where their people are marching so they can run and get in front of them' with mere words.
We have to show results.
And we aren't going to do that by endless columns and discussions -- and we aren't going to do that without respecting and understanding these voters we are trying to reach -- even if they are, as the piece said, less intelligent -- I'd argue simply less equipped to do critical thinking about what they are told by their 'authority figures.'
I hate to use l-tc as a 'horrible example' but he handed me one with his discussion of prison privatisation above. It is, in fact, brilliant, a new slant. It took me a second reading to 'get' it but once I did, applause for a brilliant argument -- but one which would not have less political effect were it written in Slovak or Tagalog.
Don't you understand that even understanding your argument requires a level of knowledge and thought and understanding most people -- even intelligent and thoughtful people don't have. The people who have this knowledge have probably already made up their minds -- and it is a credit to you that your argument might make some of them reconsider their positions.
But it is meaningless to someone who doesn't know the crime rate is going down, is incapable of considering the economic impact on the state, or the likelihood that prison privatizers will abandon the attempt once it becomes unprofitable.
These people -- who have frequently replaced the necesity for thought with simplistic slogans -- and we have some on our side as well -- are the ones we need to reach. And there is nothing wrong -- as we seem to pretend there is sometimes -- in making an honest appeal to their emotions. (In fact, the idea I am presenting is very similar to one that -- for different reasons -- a local prison guard union is runing on NYC radio and tv.)
"Forget the guards"!!! No way, they are the key to reaching the group we need to reach. These people are afraid of crime, not unjustifiably. They like -- too much -- to have criminals locked up, safely away from them. They've heard all the cliches in favor of privatization.
To break through that wall of misinformation and slogans, we need to get them to ask one question. "If prisons are 'for profit' where does that profit come from?" (And, along with the points I'm about to make, we can answer the response 'through effective administration' by comparing the salaries the administration receives in a FPPrison with what they receive in a state run prison.)
We have to make them understand that the profit comes from 'cutting corners' and doing things 'on the cheap.' Now these people aren't going to complain at the savings on prisoners' food and 'comfort' -- until a judge makes them. But they will react if they realzie that prisons 'cut corners' by paying guards less -- and by slacking off on security. (There have been many break-ins from For Profit prisons -- one last year resulted in two homicides before the prisoners were rearrested -- and exposed absurdly lax security.)
We need to use the security, but the guards are an instantaneous sensation. These people don't want -- hell, I don't want -- prisoners guarded by guards earning the minimum wage or barely above it. They aren't going to want to confront a gang or a riot for that low a salary -- and the potential for corruption is equally understandable. (TV again -- the guard forced into corruption by family medical needs is a cliche on a lot of shows.)
In fact, the ad writes itelf.
And wouldn't it be wonderful if this could become a nationwide campaign, picked up and sponsored by the unions if necessary, or completely separate if we think this would make it more credible.
And 'nationwide' is the key. We could run separate campaigns in states which are trying to privatize. We'd win some, lose some, but our goal is not just to change individual policies but to get people thinking differently about Republicans. We want them to discover that 'the GOP is really evil' -- and just HOW evil.
The way to do that is to focus all our campaigns on the Republican Party and to get the supporters to start asking themselves the right questions -- or to back away in horror when those questions are answered with the Republican bigotry.
So, our campaign on prison privatization can't be 'Your legislature is contemplating privatization -- or already has begun it. Here's why you should stop them.' That's good, but what we want and need to say is
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 15, 2012 at 03:29 AM
Michael Novak doubles down on his defense of Joe Paterno as a moral beacon.
I used to have a great deal of respect for Novak as a moral thinker and lay theologian. If that hadn't already gone down the tubes, it would have now.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | February 15, 2012 at 11:27 AM
I think that private prisons are constitutionally dubious -- as well as evil.
I can't believe the overreach of the Virginia legislature here. This will not go over well in the state, which is more liberal than the legislature on these types of issues. It will be particularly poorly received in the northern Virginia suburbs, which are the growth engine of the state and hold an increasing proportion of the state's population.
I think it will be helpful to Obama and Time Kaine in the fall.
Posted by: Sir Charles | February 15, 2012 at 11:35 AM
...“This is an extreme attack on every one of us,” Warren said. “It opens the door to outright discrimination. It would let insurance companies and corporations cut off pregnant women, overweight guys, older Americans, or anyone — because some executive claims it’s part of his moral code. Maybe that wouldn’t happen, but I don’t want to take the chance.”...
Elizabeth Warren's take on the Blunt amendment (that Scott Brown has mystifyingly endorsed).
Posted by: oddjob | February 15, 2012 at 01:04 PM
Here's Garry Wills in a restoration of sanity to all matters 'contraceptive.' : "Contraception's Con Men".
I'd about given up hope that we'd hear such clarity anytime soon. Thank you Mr. Wills and NYRB.
(E.J. Dionne, decent sort that he seems to be, responded to my husband's e-mail earlier in the week. He's flummoxed, which he would be, having accepted the bishops' outrage at face value.)
Posted by: nancy | February 15, 2012 at 03:01 PM
damn, i love elizabeth warren.
my vote for most misused word of the election cycle is "elitist." you know what is fucking elitist? a bunch of rich and/or "saintly" dudes claiming their moral ideas trump everybody else's life and health.
Posted by: kathy a. | February 15, 2012 at 03:01 PM
Elizabeth Warren will be in our area to meet and greet this Friday. If I'm up and about, I'll try to get downtown to at least shake her hand, maybe even give her a link to this blog(?). What do you think, SC?
I was diagnosed today with MRSA. Wish me luck. If I'm not better by Friday, I won't shake her hand. Promise.
Posted by: Paula B | February 15, 2012 at 03:15 PM
barbara bush, jr. says that health care is a right.
thanks to nancy, who linked to the alternet piece (and led me to this link), ">http://www.alternet.org/story/154142/do_conservatives_understand_how_the_female_body_works_the_myth_fueling_the_rightwing_freakout_over_birth_control"> contraception saves insurance money, and is an excellent example of cost-saving preventive medicine.
Posted by: kathy a. | February 15, 2012 at 03:18 PM
oh, paula. i hope you are on the hi-test antibiotics. that shit is nasty. my stepmother picked it up, a very ugly case; it was misdiagnosed for a while. she ended up in the hospital needing surgery. she was my dad's caretaker when he had cancer, and he picked it up, too; they shared a hospital room for a while.
Posted by: kathy a. | February 15, 2012 at 03:23 PM
Allowing the marriage equlity bill in New Jersy to become a referendum is only a tactic Gov. Christie wants to use to bring out the right's mindless "values" voters. Settle it in the legislature.
Posted by: americangypsy | February 15, 2012 at 04:10 PM
paula, take care and get rid of that. good luck and good health.
Posted by: big bad wolf | February 15, 2012 at 09:38 PM
Paula, we need you too much, and the perspective you give to allow you to be sick. If your disease sticks around, threaten itl. Either Sir C and BB and kathy will sue it away, or I'll talk it to death.
Inudderwoids, GET WELL, that is an order!
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 15, 2012 at 09:45 PM
Paula,
Good luck.
I would welcome Elizabeth Warren with open arms. My folks just went to an event for her in Salem, MA. Evidently quite a successful affair.
I think she is going to win.
Posted by: Sir Charles | February 15, 2012 at 09:46 PM
Paula -- all best. fwiw, our family mrsa event cleared quickly with immediate attention. take care.
Sir C -- what did you think of the pekinese westminster win? larger dog household here.
Posted by: nancy | February 15, 2012 at 10:45 PM
Paula, get well soon!
My head is reeling with all the crap in our state legislature (Virginia). It's a nightmare. Unfortunately I live in a tiny blue dot (City of Roanoke) in a big sea of red (County of Roanoke and all the surrounding counties as far as the eye can see). My vote doesn't count for much in most elections. It's frustrating.
Posted by: jeanne marie | February 15, 2012 at 10:49 PM
jeanne marie: who is your Representative. And, completely separately, is there much evidence of the Magnificent Madman whose plantation gives its name to the town, John Randolph? (One of the truly magnificent eccentrics, and maybe the first prominent gay man in our history.)
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 15, 2012 at 11:34 PM
1) Delegate Onzlee Ware. Senator John Edwards. Both are pretty good guys.
2) No. (Nor are we the "Lost Colony", another misconception). "John Randolph of Roanoke" refers to Roanoke Plantation in Charlotte County, Virginia (about two hours from here), not to the city of the same name.
Posted by: jeanne marie | February 16, 2012 at 08:02 AM
Allowing the marriage equlity bill in New Jersy to become a referendum is only a tactic Gov. Christie wants to use to bring out the right's mindless "values" voters.
I think it's much more likely that he's doing it to preserve his potential national political future as a Republican. I feel certain he knows that his state is in favor of this, but he also knows that if he himself endorses it he'll have no future in national politics.
Posted by: oddjob | February 16, 2012 at 09:15 AM
Paula - good luck in dealing with that nasty bug. Our thoughts are with you!
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | February 16, 2012 at 09:42 AM
Aw shucks, you guys. Thanks, I feel the love. If I'm off for a while, you'll understand. Prup, I expect you to keep everything moving at a nice clip. (Orders noted.)
Meanwhile, here are a coupla things:
Philadelphia at risk of becoming a big city with no daily newspaper. A sobering thought. See Romenesko: http://bit.ly/zOd3ZT
Three recent Twitter gems from pourmecoffee:
Have to wonder about Romney. As financial executive, he had unlimited power and no accountability. President a step down.
Remember to celebrate Galileo's birthday today by being wary of church interference in secular matters.
Working Group scheduled for tonight at Westminster Dog Show. They are very lucky to be working in this economy.
Posted by: Paula B | February 16, 2012 at 09:56 AM
nancy,
I was not thrilled by the Pekinese -- they are such strange little dogs. We spent the bulk of our time watching the terrier group, which was in a separate smaller arena. My personal favorites were the Glen of Imaal Terriers, which were the breed that look most like Stanley.
When I was getting ready to leave, Lou Reed walked by me. I said hello -- he kind of winced.
Posted by: Sir Charles | February 16, 2012 at 03:23 PM
My own slight experience with Pekinese is that they are the dogs to get if you find chihuahuas too calm. Animated floor mops, pfui!
On Christie, I iwsh I knew more about him, because I could imagine -- if that 'honest slob' persona is real or extremely calculated -- that he might get the bill, explain he'd been against it, still thinks that a referendum should be held but...
"All of a sudden, when the bill gets signed, I find out that a few of my friends -- I never expected, mind you from these guys -- were gay themselves, and even a relative or two - don't waste your time figuring out who -- came out to me. Amd they explained what the bill meant to them, and the qhole question better than I'd heard it from anybody talking in public, so I'm signing it."
Political suicide? Only if the Republican Party doesn't wake up from the TP 'drunk' it's on. (Nothing new, and America seems to go crazy a little more often. The Second Klan was the reason for the famous deadlocked convention -- then a couple of scandls and it disappeared. Even our own experience with 'revolutionary youth and the New Left" ended up with almost everyone involved avoiding politics for years -- one of the key overlooked events in the 70s. And the financial bubbles are the same thing in other areas.)
Christie might -- and I'd say could -- think that signing the bill would immediately launch him to the front of the 'non-crazies' for 2016. (And even Rick Perry showed in his dumbness how much the Republicans know they've lost the Presidency this time out. His hat is in the ring for 2016? Not unless Obama is re-elected.)
The funny thing is that, were it not for the principle that 'you don't vote on rights' I'd want the referendum held, because SSM would pass easily. This isn't California -- and even the most dense Democrat should have learned a few things from that. There are pockets of wingnuts there, sure -- mostly in the Western tips of both the North and South sections. They aren't trivial in number, but, like Ron Paul fans everywhere, they are far more vocal than their numbers.
NJ has always been eager to accept the spillovers from NYC, the ones who weren't rich enough for Long Island but wanted homes, lawns, and (comparatively) cheaper housing, and those spillovers have included waves of minorities that have fitted in well. Gays are just another group -- and while one anecdote is not data, my lesbian mothers were, for the most part, accepted in Skyline Lakes (upper working class and lower middle -- the middle middle and up went to neighboring Cupsaw and Erskine Lakes) fifty-five years ago.
It might be nice to show one state where the voting went our way -- if it weren't for the importance of the principle.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 16, 2012 at 04:43 PM
Totally OT -- but 'The Kid" died today. Gary Carter, the heart -- as Keith and Davey were the brains -- of the 86 Mets. Not unexpected, his prognosis was getting much worse recently, but still one less spark of dancing light in the world -- as even those of you on 'the other side' in 86 can, I'm sure, admit.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 16, 2012 at 05:13 PM
I was not thrilled by the Pekinese
ARGH!!!! I watched her do that and wanted to throw something! I hate it when those silly judges pick lap ornaments (they sure as hell aren't dogs!) to win Best of Show!
BLECH!!
(The only other choice that drives me to such distractions is any sort of poodle. God, why do the owners have to make them look like they belong in freak shows with all that utterly ridiculous, nasty, frufru sh*t they do to the poor poodles' coats????)
Posted by: oddjob | February 16, 2012 at 05:28 PM
It might be nice to show one state where the voting went our way -- if it weren't for the importance of the principle.
Agreed! I'm crossing my fingers that it's going to be at least one of Maine, Minnesota, or Washington (three states where the issue's almost certainly going to be up for a vote this November in some way or another).
Posted by: oddjob | February 16, 2012 at 05:34 PM
About the honored champion of the noble canines I was going to link to Bramwell's cartoon in todays NY NEWS, but before I found it, I found this:
Add to that Westminster's decision (h/t Colbert) to refuse adds from Pedigree because they featured and urged adopting 'shelter dogs.' Lou Reed? From the tone, I'm surprised you didn't run into Mittens himself -- except that his dogs probably hate him as much as everyone else who spends time with him.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 16, 2012 at 07:10 PM
A GOP Nightmare Scenario
Interesting primary/nomination scenario! :)
Posted by: oddjob | February 16, 2012 at 07:53 PM
Oddjob -- Years ago the spouse used to raise huskies and later ran a sled dog team. Once, one of the huskies made her escape (they are very adept at this in a charming way) and along the way on her 'call of the wild' adventure, spotted a neighbor's tiny yappy toy-poodly something, which she accidentally dispatched. Spouse had to show up in court to fight a 'harboring a vicious animal' charge, bringing the perfectly-behaved and silent dog and several character witnesses along with him. Trial ensued. Dog found 'innocent'.
Frosty clearly hadn't regarded Itsy-bitsy as a fellow canine. Creature had died of fright at one Siberian 'woof'.
Posted by: nancy | February 16, 2012 at 07:55 PM
oddjob, jim, and nancy,
I was surprised that the Doberman didn't win. It was an impressive animal. The German Shepard also had kind of a jaunty personality as well.
My personal favorite of the finalists was the Kerry Blue Terrier.
Posted by: Sir Charles | February 16, 2012 at 09:21 PM
Paula, I'm really sorry about the MRSA. Really-broad spectrum antibiotics like vanco usually work.
I'm with Jim on the horrible abuse of poodles by dog shows. They're one of the smartest breeds around, and turning them into baubles is a travesty. I'm convinced the 2 Sheltie-poodle mixes we had when I was growing up were smarter than me. Mine (the female) was a very successful escape artist.
I have the flu, complete with chills, fever etc. I'll take it over MRSA any day, but not pleasant. Since I got my flu shot, I'm thinking I might have H1N1 again. Argh. And I had a great weekend planned. I am very grateful it waited until after my Hawaii trip though. On the scale of miseries, this one's pretty low-rate.
Posted by: Beckya57a | February 16, 2012 at 11:58 PM
Hey, Paula B, that MRSA thing is really nasty and dangerous, get thee to a specialist in treatment of antibiotic resisant infections post haste.
Posted by: KN | February 17, 2012 at 01:02 AM
I was surprised that the Doberman didn't win. It was an impressive animal. The German Shepard also had kind of a jaunty personality as well.
I would have been content with either choice, or the Kerry Blue, or the Dalmatian. The only thing that was odd about the Dalmatian was how mellow it seemed. My impression of Dalmatians is that on the whole they don't make the best family pets because they often have a spazzy side to their personalities. (Obviously a spazzy Dalmatian isn't likely to win dog shows so a Dalmatian in the running for Best of Show at Westminster probably is going to be mellow.)
I did think it was very cool last year when the Scottish Deerhound won (& likewise some years ago when the Beagle took it all).
Posted by: oddjob | February 17, 2012 at 09:05 AM
Frosty clearly hadn't regarded Itsy-bitsy as a fellow canine. Creature had died of fright at one Siberian 'woof'.
:)
Posted by: oddjob | February 17, 2012 at 09:10 AM
Not the best of news for Elizabeth Warren.
Posted by: oddjob | February 17, 2012 at 09:13 AM
Good news: Two weeks into this thing (but not diagnosed correctly until this week)and I've finally turned the corner on MRSA. Thanks for all the good wishes! I'm happy to say the ranks of s. Aureus are thinning, although not ceding much ground on a rather large chunk of real estate. At least I won't be going into the hospital today, after all, but will stay on the hi-test stuff and visit the doctor every day or every other day for however long it takes.
It also means I might have a chance to see or talk to Warren this afternoon, if I can drag myself into town.
oddjob, I haven't followed your link yet, but assume it's about the recent poll showing a substantial number of Democrats leaning toward Scott Brown. I'd be interested to learn where these people live. Maybe that's in the story you flagged.
Elizabeth Warren is making the rounds out here in the boons today and tomorrow. For you on the left coast, Western Mass is a rural, agricultural, small-town, college-town, touristy region that, 40 years ago, was home to a sprinkling of communes and meditation centers. It still is very crunchy granola and about as blue as you're going to find anywhere. Yet, Brown comes out here in his plaid flannel shirt driving a pickup (a Ford, no less), and they rush to this guy like black flies in June. Whatever the attraction, it must involve the same convoluted, reverse reasoning that lures people in Massachusetts to elect Republicans as governor, but send the deepest blues to Congress. Somehow, the equation has reversed. (I blame global warming. It must be frying brains.)
I believe Warren is in Amherst or Northampton this morning (where she's sure to be a big hit), will move up to Greenfield this afternoon, then go on to North Adams for a big bash at the Elks tonight. Chip away, Elizabeth, one town at a time! I just hope she's driving a Prius or beat-up, mudded-over Subaru
Posted by: Paula B | February 17, 2012 at 11:02 AM
I'd be interested to learn where these people live.
I assume they're largely in Southie and Stephen Lynch's district on the South Shore. That's where you usually find big labor conservative Democrats in Massachusetts, no?
Posted by: oddjob | February 17, 2012 at 11:25 AM
(And congratulations on the sudden, welcome reversal in the progress of your MRSA infection!)
Posted by: oddjob | February 17, 2012 at 11:27 AM
paula -- good news! down with MRSA!
Posted by: kathy a. | February 17, 2012 at 11:50 AM
Thanks again, guys.
FYI--In case you were considering a move:
Alabama will close most mental hospitals over the next year.
http://nyti.ms/A4hqvM
Posted by: Paula B | February 17, 2012 at 12:13 PM
I guess their doctors have all told the legislators that those patients will do just fine, what with all the fresh air they'll get living homeless on the streets.
Posted by: oddjob | February 17, 2012 at 12:48 PM
just watch -- they will then proceed to not properly fund the group homes and community resources.
it is appalling they will only retain hospitals for criminal defendants and geriatric patients. this is exactly how mentally ill people get shuttled into the criminal justice system -- where they also will not receive appropriate treatment. and that's the plan. let 'em go until they violate the law.
some people are so very mentally ill that they need hospitalization -- for their own good, and that of others. i don't say that lightly -- but if someone cannot function due to mental illness, bad things will happen inevitably.
L.A. county jail is reputed to be the nation's largest inpatient psychiatric center (being a huge system of jails, and having a lot of inmates viewed even by corrections people as having psychiatric problems.) let's just say, that is not a good setting for treatment; and they will not arrive there until something bad has happened, something that almost invariably will mean someone else suffered.
Posted by: kathy a. | February 17, 2012 at 01:04 PM
kathy: hope this was not a violation of bolog ethics or annoying in any way, but I felt your comment deserved to be heard by people who could actually do something about the situation -- at least potentially. So I copied it, giving credit (and removing the LA reference and adding capital letters stating I had done so) and posted it as a comment on the original story at the Birmingham NEWS.
In the future, some of you should consider doing the same. It's great for us to read them too, but we already agree with you. We aren't the people who most need to read something like this.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 17, 2012 at 01:56 PM
It is fascinating that the TIMES chose the closing as the headline to the story and seems to have rewritten the story to leave out the fact the local paper considered most important. The Birmingham NEWS headed it as:
Sometimes going to the original is a good idea.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 17, 2012 at 02:56 PM
Ah yes, western Massachusetts.
I want tell you about the town of Stockbridge, Massachusetts, where this happened here, they got three stop signs, two police officers, and one police car, but when we got to the Scene of the Crime there was five police officers and three police cars, being the biggest crime of the last fifty years...
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | February 17, 2012 at 04:26 PM
Obama's Justice Dept. has stepped forward on behalf of gay American vets:
The Obama Justice Department has concluded that legislation banning same-sex couples from receiving military and veterans benefits violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment and will no longer defend the statute in court, Attorney General Eric Holder wrote in a letter to Congressional leaders on Friday....
Posted by: oddjob | February 17, 2012 at 05:10 PM
Good for Obama.
I work in mental health, as most of you know, and the whole shut down the hospitals and put them into the community thing has been very poorly handled. Most of the research I've heard indicates that these policies are the biggest single contributor to the explosive rise in homelessness that we've seen over the past 30 years or so. The CMHCs have NEVER been adequately funded, and a lot of chronically mentally ill people simply can't manage on their own. Alabama will definitely see an increase in homelessness with this measure.
Paula, glad to hear you're getting the best of the MRSA.
Posted by: beckya57 | February 17, 2012 at 05:43 PM
l-t c, ah yes, a reincarnated version of Alice's still sits at the end of the alley one door up from the Red Lion Inn. Alas, Obie died about 15 years ago. Arlo remains revered in the area, but his and grandkids are even better known. In spite of their genetic propensities, his offspring manage to stay out of trouble, as far as I can tell.
Posted by: Paula B | February 18, 2012 at 09:31 AM