PeterDavid.net

I agree 100% that it's a cynical ploy and, judging from the almost universally negative reactions from the blogosphere, most pundits right and left see right through it. Voters don't seem to be jumping all over it either (Has anyone ever proved that the whole Gay Marriage issue was as much of a deciding factor in 2004 as some think? Keep in mind that Kerry was ALSO against gay marriage.)

Where you go wrong, of course, is the assumption that if voters hold their nose and vote Republican despite their seeing throuh this ploy they are demonstrting stupidity. That would be like claiming that if Rhode Island voters re-elect Patrick "I hope I'm treated like a black man and not like a rich white guy from a family taht seems to have a congenital forgetfullness syndrome in regards to auto accidents" Kennedy they MUST be so stupid as to fall for his breathtaking hubris.

You only have the choices you have.

I will say this though--if the Democrats avoid jumping whole hog into the Dailykos mudpit they should CLEAN UP in 2006--big, big gains. Very possibly take over the Senate AND House. If they nominate idiots--like the one who just lost in California in a special election for a district that lost its Republican Rep when he went to jail--they will only have themselves to blame.

1. Are people just that stupid to fall for that diversionary tactic? Probably. People are still driving around with "Bush '04" and "W '04" stickers on their cars. Incredible! On a different note, concerning one of your book trilogies, some of the Babylon 5 "Legions of Fire" books have become very hard, if not impossible to find. There's a guy on rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated right now whose looking for Book III - "Out of the Darkness" Isbn: 0-345-42720-3, Copyright: November 2000, Publisher: DelRey. See "Legions of Fire Book 3 for sale?." Do you have any copies of the books that you'd be willing to sell to the fans? The reason I ask is that Jeanne Cavelos said Del Rey gave her a box of each of her books, and she's offered to sell copies to the fans who can't find the books. Your "Out of the Darkness" and Jeanne's "Summoning Light" are almost impossible to find.

People will definitely fall for this bulldookey.

I know a married couple who, by any objective sign, should never vote for Bush. They are African-American, have an income somewhere between poverty and upper-lower class, have a disabled child that requires government assistance, are not veterans, think the occupation of Iraq is unneeded, and above all else, have gay friends and family members, are democrats and have always voted for democrats. Yet, they back Bush on the "protect marriage" platform, because they attend a hard-line Baptist church where the pastor rails regularly against the sins of homosexuality.

The couple wanted to vote for Bush in the previous election, but couldn't actually go through with it, so they didn't vote at all in order to not give Gore a vote. If enough people did that, especially in Florida, who's to say that didn't have an effect on the election? Who's to say that similar voting trends won't similarly affect the next election?

People can be very stupid. So stupid it sometimes diminishes my faith in humanity.

"Has anyone ever proved that the whole Gay Marriage issue was as much of a deciding factor in 2004 as some think?"

The issue was intended to alienate Kerry from his liberal base,and it was intended to provide additional incentives for the conservative base to go to the polls in order to vote on the state-based gay-hate initiatives (because, let's face it, that's what they were. It was the country's very first state-wide hate crimes.) How much impact that may have had on the bottom line, I couldn't say.

"Where you go wrong, of course, is the assumption that if voters hold their nose and vote Republican despite their seeing throuh this ploy they are demonstrting stupidity."

Why is it that people think inserting the words "of course" into a specious argument somehow lends it weight? Are you THAT desperate to disagree with me that you have to fabricate something that completely? I never said that. I never said anything CLOSE to that. I said that conservatives...hell, why should I repeat it just because you chose to ignore it and insert your own version because apparently you couldn't argue with what I said, so you had to argue with what I didn't say.

PAD

Whatever one thinks of gay amrriage, the bottom line is that it never did exist in this country, so anything restricting it is not taking away a freedom, but strongly codifying 200 years plus of law.

I would have more respect for your opinion if you didn't constantly harp on one side and not the other every single time. When your political opinion is that predictable, it starts to become obvious that a person is a biased partisan person, rather than an independent thinker on issues.

As for gay marriage, I am in favor of it. But i am also not in favor of the methods used to secure it so far. Using the courts to read things clearly not there in order to get this declared a right that never has existed is wrong. Before we get to the "but what about Brown, but what about laws against interracial marrying" there were 3 amendments past to the U.S. Consitution that secured rights that were not being enforced, by courts, state and federal governments. Hardly the same thing. In this case, seeing something seem closer, and believing, wrongly, that enough people had changed their mind, people overreached. When you have mayors giving out marriage licenses clearly in violation of state law, the whole process is a joke. Gay marriage will come when enough people have no problem with it, and think of it as a top agenda item. That will be (at least in many states) eventually, but it will take even more time.

For what it is worth, despite your blinders for anything regarding Bush, it is pretty clear (unlike Cheney) that he does believe this is a threat to marriage and truly does not want it. He reminds me of many, probably most, people who never even considered it as a possibility. They can;t articulate a reason to be against it per se, they just can't even believe the concept exists.

Personally, I have no "buyer's remorse" because I have not voted Republican since I was a naive 18 year old fresh out of high school in 1980 faced with the choice of Carter versus Reagan, a decision I have long since regretted.

Meanwhile Peter, etal; when do you think the GOP "jumped the shark"?

and not to nitpick, but considering 2,500 allied troops died and 10,000 total casualties on D-Day 62 years ago yesterday, it is somewhat overblown to say soldiers in Iraq are dying at a "stunning" rate. The rate is one of the lowest we've had for any war. For thos who think the war not worth it, 1 death is too much. But it is ridiculous to say a "stunning" rate.

Gas prices are high. They are not "through the roof" and adjusted for inflation, have been higher. The President has minimum impact on that anyway.

The "historic" power grabs? Not so historic compared to the other presidents engaged in war, and the troika of JFK, LBJ, and RN. More like "typical for presidents at war, especially when a domestic menace may exist." It may still be wrong, but hardly unprecedented,except to the extent that technology makes it easier.

Spying? Well to the extent the phone companies voluntarily turned over data that they own to the government, and some of that data is routinely turned over to marketing companies with little outcry, I am not sure that itself is spying. They own data, and they voluntarily turned it over. The fact that people assumed it was private does not make it so. However, the extent of the program, and the legalities are still to come out in the wash, so I'll give that one a push.

Since most of the conservatives supported the war, if not all of the tactics, it is unlikely that they will consider the "assault" they are under needless. As apparently, most of the soldiers do not think, jdging by polls (albeit slighlty out of date. But they overwhelmingly appeared to have voted for Bush in Nov. 2004). Other s may be having buyers remorse for many different reasons, but conservatives had buyers remorse for a different reason-not conservative enough. To much of a "compassionate consrrvatice" on immigration, Harriet Myers, not pushing gay marriage ban, spending, etc. Too liberal in effect. That's why they have been upset, though his poll numbers are slightly up lately.

When your political opinion is that predictable, it starts to become obvious that a person is a biased partisan person, rather than an independent thinker on issues.

Hmmmm...sound like a description of any "Dubya" we might know of?

Well, since his job is in politics, and he has to lay it out there, it is a little different (if i am reading you right). Though I don't think "Dubya" is particularly predictable, ala a Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh (or the opposite). His education, spending, prescription drugs, immigration plans are not doctrinaire conservative. On the other hand, his tax cuts, environmental policies, and social positions are more so.

As a conservative, I think the marriage amendment is bunk. Shouldn't be an issue. We've got a lot of things liberals (I like to think of liberals in the classical sense, JFK & RFK liberals) and conservatives can agree on. Why not work on that? Things like getting spending under control. Conservatives and liberals all focus on the tax side of things lets focus on the spending things first. Freeze taxes the way they are and lets start looking at how we spend money. There are a lot of places to save a lot of money and pay for some things like health insurance.

It could not possibly be a more obvious gambit to try and appeal to the many voters who have had buyers' remorse ever since they voted for Bush and the GOP in 2004 and slowly came to the realization they'd been hosed.

Actually, I'd say the buyer's remorse goes all the way back to the 2000 election.

Admittedly, that may have been more of a bait-and-switch. :)

If Bush had been President during the Vietnam War we would have heard about these attacks on the American Way of Life in order to distract the American people from his mistakes.

"Black men sleeping with our white women, this is the #1 issue that is a danger to our country"

"Your parents could be commies, this is a #1 danger to our country"

"Hippies and their long hair and smelly bodies are the #1 danger to our country."

My mother a life long Republican said it best" I stopped listening to Bush when his issues started sounding more like Jerry Springer topics".

That doesn't even make any sense. Besides gay marriage, the other issues have been Supreme Court nominations, immigration, social security, Iraq, War on Terror. None of the other issues he has raised since then have even touched on "Jerry Springer" like topics. and it is really chicken and the egg anyway. It isn't just Republicans who decided to use gay marriage to get conservative voters out, but leaders in that community going to them and saying "You haven;t been doing anything about gay marriage, I am angry, and will be telling my people not to vote at all in protest if you dont do something about it."

and while many democrats don't favor an amendment, few big names have come out in support of gay marriage, or even "gasp" the alternative-an amendment securing gay marriage, the only way to guarantee in all 50 states marriage for gay americans, as opposed to piecemeal decisions in states or parts of states, or supreme court verdicts which will be fought over for 100 years. Why? They don't care that much, they don't believe in it themselved or they know they no way have support for it.

and it isn;t just conservative Americans-most black Americans are fairly liberal, but are the most conservative on gay marriage, as conservative as Evangelical Christians (admittedly some overlap)

and of course it was Howard Dean who said, falsely, on a national tv show that the Democratic Platform said marriage is between a man and a woman. Some could call that pandering or just a brain freeze or just didn't know the platform. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt-people make mistakes on national tv when they talk a lot.

"For what it is worth, despite your blinders for anything regarding Bush, it is pretty clear (unlike Cheney) that he does believe this is a threat to marriage and truly does not want it. "

Newsweek just quoted one of hi close freinds who said "Bush doesn't give a shit about Gay marriage."

Is their a name? Because given shoddy reporting that seems typical these days, unidentified sources do not impress me. Especially from supposedly "close friends" which I always wonder just how close when they give these inside dirt scoops.

That said, I don't think Bush hates anyone, and I don't think gay marriage is his top agenda. But I do think he sincerely doesn't believe in it, but given his druthers it wouldn't even be an issue during his presidency. Karl Rove? Sure, he loves that it is an issue. But then, they weren't the ones who made it an issue at this time period either.

What's sadder is that after the anti-gay marriage amendment fails -- and no one is expecting it to pass -- the Republicans are pushing for a bill banning flag burning. I guess if you don't talk about the quagmire of Iraq or the illegality of spying on U.S. citizens without a court order, you can tell yourself they're not so bad.

I am in favor of gay marriage -- I support gay rights up to marriage and no job discrimination based on sexual orientation; after that, they're on the same playing field as the rest of us. Alas, Bill Maher had it pegged when he wrote that while Republicans oppose same-sex marriage because of their religious beliefs, Democrats oppose it because it polls poorly. Heck, in an interview Hillary Clinton (the current frontrunner for the 2008 election) said she supports same-sex unions but doesn't want gay marriages.

Incidentally, I've yet to hear from any straight married couples that would get divorced because gay people can marry. How about it, people? Whose marriages are ending because you have to share the institution?

In 2004 gay marraige was an issue, thanks to a California mayor and a few court decisions. Now, those very well may have been politically motivated as well but at least the discussion during the campaigns could be justified. After the campaigns the issue fell off the radar completely.

There are two questions to ask. The first is why is this becoming an issue again NOW? If it was really a big deal why has it not been discussed for two years, and why is it being brought up again now when there have really been no big issues recently? The second is why are the Republicans wasting their time with something that most people agree will not pass? The answer to both questions is to try and pull in votes come November.

While I would like to think that the American people are smarter than this, I'm a cynic and think this ploy will help the Republicans... but that's partially because the Democrats are having problems finding a unifying message and sticking to it other than "we aren't Bush", which isn't enough.

I think the only way gay marriage would threaten heterosexual marriage would be if one partner was not heterosexual and wanted the gay mnarriage option for the various reasons legal wedlock covers them and their "partner".JMHO

"Hillary Clinton (the current frontrunner for the 2008 election) said she supports same-sex unions but doesn't want gay marriages."

So why don't she propose a new type of union? Something that is basically marriage but it is not called that? Something where people tax their incomes together and have erreditary rights and other responsabilities and benefits. A kind of "marriage light" or "diet marriege" that either gay or straight people can be a part off.

Heck, why stop there. Maybe more that two people can participate in this union.

Do this this sound too farfetch?
Just thinking out loud.

"For what it is worth, despite your blinders for anything regarding Bush, it is pretty clear (unlike Cheney) that he does believe this is a threat to marriage and truly does not want it. He reminds me of many, probably most, people who never even considered it as a possibility. They can;t articulate a reason to be against it per se, they just can't even believe the concept exists. "

Yes, and during the Crusdades and the Inquisition christians believed they were right too, but they were still dead wrong then too.

There is a Washington court case that when decided could be devastaing to the anti-gay marriage movement because Washington, unlike Massaschussettes, has no residency statute for marriage

Plus 3 courts have overturned the "will of the people" by striking down referendums specifically banning gay marriage. So the issue has not been off the radar completely since 2004

I believe Hillary Clinton has said she supports the flag burning amendment

Part of the reason they bring this up now is issues, go away, and come back again. There are theoretically 7 more senators in support of the marriage ban now than before. one amendment took 200 years to pass. This will fail and in a year or two or months it will come up again, hoping to gain traction. so even when something fails, it can be good to discuss because later you may gain support

also, if it fails, which it will, you can say "See, Senator X voted for/against it. Vote him out and replace him with Candidate Y and we'll do better next time." and sometimes it is just ebcause you believe in it

I believe several groups 6 weeks ago said "You've done very little on this. Better move on it if you want our vote or we'll stay home."

Most democrats and Americans. support same sex unions but not marriage. That's not limited to Hillary.

Which amendments made interracial marriages legal?

Yes, and during the Crusdades and the Inquisition christians believed they were right too, but they were still dead wrong then too.
****
You always know you have a great argument when you have to go back centuries for examples. Good job. Next time, bring up the renaissance as an argument for or against separation of church and state.

Anyway, back to this century, or at least the 20th/21st century, or heck, even this country at least, I do believe gay marriage is inevitable more and more, but will take time. and if done the wrong way, will be a divisive issue like abortion forever.

Which amendments made interracial marriages legal?
*****

How about the 13th (ends slavery but court says also applies to "badges" of slavery")in theory, 14th (equal protection clause).

Now in theory, equal protection could apply in this situation, but the courts have given no special consideration to sexual orientation. They have interpreted the amendment to apply, as intended, most specifically to race, holding there would be almost no need to ever discriminate on racial grounds. Sex grounds, sometimes. doesn't apply very heavily at all to age or other discrimination. All laws treat people unequally in some way, so it depends on what the clasiffication used and the basis for doing so.

This is what the Supreme Court actually said "The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. "

Like I said, they look much more carefully at racial distinctions than anything else. Its conceivable they could do the same with sexual orientation, but it so, it won't be for awhile, and it will wind up being Roe v. Wade-i.e. inflaming rather than solving anything.

Or are you arguing the supreme court was wrong, and that states should have had the right to have anti-miscegenation statutes, however distasteful and used an amendment beyond what it was meant to be used for, caught up in the movement of the times and simply because it was the right thing to do???

Just joshing with ya. Yeah, that is basically the reasons-the 14th amendment.

It failed, 49-48. Though supposedly that represents an increase in support. Either way, it would almost certainly never get the 2.3 of the senate, house, and states needed. Unless there was a tremendous backlash.

What gets me is the religions get into this like its going to change their world if same sex marriage is legalized by the state.

The only thing this even affects is legalities performed by a Justice of the Peace.

This doesn't change what a particular church or faith recognizes.

This is like Divorce. The Catholic Church has never recognized a legal divorce. If you are married in the church you have to have a church sanctioned annulment to have your marriage ended in the faith even if you have been legally divorced.
Same thing with same sex marriage. Just because the state allows it the Catholic Church (or any other faith) doesn't have to sanction it among their believers.

Same as abortion. Just because its allowed doesn't mean you have to do it.

I never thought about it that way... making it hard to impossible to get divorced. It's reminiscent of the old Chris Rock joke where he said "don't take guns off the streets, make bullets rediculously expensive."

I'm paraphrasing, of course.

Same as abortion. Just because its allowed doesn't mean you have to do it.
****
Just like slavery. Just because it is allowed, doesn't mean you have to have a slave (to bring up an old example like my friend above).

I am a conservative, but I am not insulted. I just roll my eyes because it is obvious that this is a move to gain support. I generally don't get insulted when politicians treat their voters like sheep, I just accept it as doing everything they can to get into office.

"I would have more respect for your opinion if you didn't constantly harp on one side and not the other every single time. When your political opinion is that predictable, it starts to become obvious that a person is a biased partisan person, rather than an independent thinker on issues."

Equally predictable is the response of posters who are oblivious to the many times I've expressed disgust with the Democratic party, including stating six months before the 2004 election that Kerry's approach was so inept that he was definitely going to lose.

Currently I'm busy spitting tacks over the fact that Hillary is SUPPORTING a flag-burning amendment, for the luvva God.

PAD

Yes, people are that stupid. Anyone who still thought the Iraq war was a good idea in 2004 is going to fall for this load of hooey.

That said, this reminds me of the old chestnut about advice given to law students:

If the facts are on your side, argue the facts.
If the law's on your side, argue the law.
If neither the facts nor the law are on your side ... argue like hell.

In modern Republican terms, it means drown the other side out by dragging up wedge issues and through use of loud-mouthed banshees like Ann Coulter and the =bullshit factory called Fox News.

Marriage = A Religious Institution

America = Separation of Church & State

Therefore, the Government should not meddle in Religous affairs.

Homosexual Marriage should be accepted/rejected by the head of your religious institution.

including stating six months before the 2004 election that Kerry's approach was so inept that he was definitely going to lose.

***
Frustrating that your candidate is performing ineptly, or even fishing for votes is not quite the same thing I don't think, as routinely seeing the worst in the actions, thoughts, motives, policies of the other side.

Trust me, Pete. The conservatives are insulted and are VERY restless--and have been for a while (even the guys and gals at National Review aren't entirely pleased.) Instead of addressing real problems they have no real solutions for, the current republicans in office keep retreating back to simple "problems" they think they can fix--just to look like they're getting anything done. (Even though both parties can be guilty of this at times, I have NEVER seen it so blatant before.) I may be conservative, but by God, next election I'm giving the blue side a fair shot at this mess.

America = Separation of Church & State
***
Find it in the Constitution and I'll agree with you.

That said, marriage is a legal, religious (often( and cultural institution. Therefore, what forms of marriage will be allowed is legitimate for public officals to debate, since marriage comes with it a host of legal (and social) benefits.

"start talking about adding the first amendment since prohibition (which, y'know, worked out so well) "

Except that it's not the first amendment since Prohibition. G'won... look it up

Why is it that people think inserting the words "of course" into a specious argument somehow lends it weight? Are you THAT desperate to disagree with me that you have to fabricate something that completely? I never said that. I never said anything CLOSE to that. I said that conservatives...hell, why should I repeat it just because you chose to ignore it and insert your own version because apparently you couldn't argue with what I said, so you had to argue with what I didn't say.

I apologize for misreading what you said but I think you grossly underestimate how easily that assumption was to make.

But they're clinging to the notion that conservatives are Just That Stupid that they'll fall for this crap a second time.

The question is, will they?

See now, I read that as saying that IF conservatives "fall" for it--by which I thought you meant voting for Republicans--then yes, they really ARE that stupid.

How else would you propose we measure whether or not the ploy is successful?

The thing is, many may dislike the FMA and all the other anti-gay initiatives--which, by the way, puts us in the minority, it's regrettably safe to say--and still vote for people who are less than supportive or even actively hostile to gay marriage. It isn't even as though there is really much choice--most of the big shots in the Democratic party like Hillary and Dean have hardly been progressive on this issue.

It could not possibly be a more obvious gambit to try and appeal to the many voters who have had buyers' remorse ever since they voted for Bush and the GOP in 2004 and slowly came to the realization they'd been hosed.

Interestingly, one recent poll had Bush losing in a hypothetical matchup with virtually every Democrat thrown against him...except for...wait for it...Kerry.

Egon, you raise an interesting point, but right now there is NOTHING to stop gays from getting married. It's just that such marriages are not legally recognized so none of the legal benefits apply.

So one solution would be to get the government completely out of the marriage business--no tax breaks, etc. Private companies could choose to define couples (or triples or whatever) as they wish for purposes of insurance policies and such.

There's a good argument to be made there but I can also see a good one being made that it would open a muy grande can-o-worms and end up being one of those "greater equality by making all miserable" things that good intentions often create.

The issue was intended to alienate Kerry from his liberal base, and it was intended to provide additional incentives for the conservative base to go to the polls in order to vote on the state-based gay-hate initiatives (because, let's face it, that's what they were. It was the country's very first state-wide hate crimes.)

Hmm, it just occurred to me--would Clinton's Defense of Marriage Act have been the first National Hate crime? (the answer to both is almost certainly no, given the many many hate filled laws that ruled before the civil rights era. But the greater point stands; we should be better than this.)

These discussions, I think, are ignoring the main thrust of Republican politics. They aren't trying to convince people to vote for them. They're trying to convince as many people NOT to vote.

Leaving aside the Diebold stolen votes for the moment, by making political issues and talk so revolting, they are making many Americans simply disgusted with politics. The fewer total people that vote, the easier it is to swing the election one way or another.

I know many people who refuse to vote at all, saying "it only encourates them." This, of course, is stupid - "they" will be there whether you vote or not, and by not voting you insure "they" will be in charge. But by making politics stupid and disgusting - and by the Democrats not really attempting to win elections by raising issues or their voices - the Republicans are maintaining a lock on their power.

spiderrob8: Whatever one thinks of gay amrriage, the bottom line is that it never did exist in this country, so anything restricting it is not taking away a freedom, but strongly codifying 200 years plus of law.
Luigi Novi: It does take away a freedom. The freedom to live your own life as you please, which includes marrying the person you fell in love with, without undue interference by Big Daddy government.

spiderrob8: I would have more respect for your opinion if you didn't constantly harp on one side and not the other every single time. When your political opinion is that predictable, it starts to become obvious that a person is a biased partisan person, rather than an independent thinker on issues.

Peter David: Equally predictable is the response of posters who are oblivious to the many times I've expressed disgust with the Democratic party, including stating six months before the 2004 election that Kerry's approach was so inept that he was definitely going to lose.

spiderrob8: Frustrating that your candidate is performing ineptly, or even fishing for votes is not quite the same thing I don't think, as routinely seeing the worst in the actions, thoughts, motives, policies of the other side.
Luigi Novi: Perhaps the fact that some routinely see this on one side is precisely why such people have decided that that’s not the side they want to be on. Your statement implies that Peter makes these statements on an a priori basis, but like most people who do so, you haven’t bothered to illustrate this with any pattern, because of course, that would take a lot of work, and we can’t have that now, can we? The fact of the matter that Peter does give kudos to Republicans and criticizes Democrats when he feels it is warranted. One example I remember is at: http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/003704.html.

Egon: America = Separation of Church & State

spiderrob8: Find it in the Constitution and I'll agree with you.
Luigi Novi: Not every American principle has to be in the Constitution in order to be a fundamentally correct one. Separation of Church and State is indeed a valid and vital American principle that the Founding Fathers correctly felt we needed.

There are a lot of people who have no problem with gays having the rights and privileges of marriage but are a bit squeamish about calling it 'marriage'. Where do they stand in this?

Jon Stewart took on Bill Bennett on this issue last night, and sideswiped him by Going Serious over the whole kit'n'kaboodle. (The interview continues tonight.) By far the best, calmest rationale that I've seen put up:

Bennett Look, it's a debate about whether you think marriage is between a man and a women.

Stewart:I disagree, I think it's a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish.

*shrug*
Don't trip over my hero worship. ;)

These discussions, I think, are ignoring the main thrust of Republican politics. They aren't trying to convince people to vote for them. They're trying to convince as many people NOT to vote.

Leaving aside the Diebold stolen votes for the moment, by making political issues and talk so revolting, they are making many Americans simply disgusted with politics. The fewer total people that vote, the easier it is to swing the election one way or another.

I know many people who refuse to vote at all, saying "it only encourates them." This, of course, is stupid - "they" will be there whether you vote or not, and by not voting you insure "they" will be in charge. But by making politics stupid and disgusting - and by the Democrats not really attempting to win elections by raising issues or their voices - the Republicans are maintaining a lock on their power.

I question if this tactic (if it is a tactic is succeeding). My SO works as a counselor at the local community college and recently, she has been inundated with questions of registering to vote.

Religions are legalinstitutions too with regard to taxes.

Doesn't the first amendment deal with seperation of Church and State?

"Now in theory, equal protection could apply in this situation, but the courts have given no special consideration to sexual orientation. They have interpreted the amendment to apply, as intended, most specifically to race, holding there would be almost no need to ever discriminate on racial grounds."

That's because race discrimination was a major issue in the US at the time.

"Like I said, they look much more carefully at racial distinctions than anything else. Its conceivable they could do the same with sexual orientation, but it so, it won't be for awhile."

Segregation laws were eliminated because people were willing to challenge them. People did not sit around and wait.
Ironically, in this case it is the conservatives who are using the federal government to prevent liberal states from allowing gays the freedom to marry.

"it will wind up being Roe v. Wade-i.e. inflaming rather than solving anything."

I think the women who use abortion legally will disagree with you on that. In may inflame but it also solves the problem of other people. It is not nothing.

Ignore what I just posted above - Sasha

These discussions, I think, are ignoring the main thrust of Republican politics. They aren't trying to convince people to vote for them. They're trying to convince as many people NOT to vote.

Leaving aside the Diebold stolen votes for the moment, by making political issues and talk so revolting, they are making many Americans simply disgusted with politics. The fewer total people that vote, the easier it is to swing the election one way or another.

I know many people who refuse to vote at all, saying "it only encourates them." This, of course, is stupid - "they" will be there whether you vote or not, and by not voting you insure "they" will be in charge. But by making politics stupid and disgusting - and by the Democrats not really attempting to win elections by raising issues or their voices - the Republicans are maintaining a lock on their power.

I question if this tactic (if it is a tactic) is succeeding. My SO works as a counselor at the local community college and recently, she has been inundated with questions of registering to vote.

"That said, marriage is a legal, religious (often( and cultural institution. Therefore, what forms of marriage will be allowed is legitimate for public officals to debate, since marriage comes with it a host of legal (and social) benefits."

Religions are legal cultural institutions too in the US.

Gay marriage has been legal in my country for some time now. Of course, consevatives claimed the world was going to end. Guess what... not only it didn't, but gay conservatives started getting married as well.

And life went on.

I honestly don't get it. People desperately want to make their relationships official and yet there are people who have no problem trying to stop that -- even though it doesn't concern them at all -- and somehow they sleep well with this knowledge. It's just crummy. Even if you think homosexuality is icky, where's the justification for opposing this? Who's getting hurt? It's ludicrous to state that this will damage your own marriage. How? I'm a reasonable guy. Give me a reason. Gay couples are already living together and raising children.

I have two problems with this
either
1- It will work
or
2- Democrats are going to go out of their way to show how anti-gay they can be since, as Bart Simpson says, "The only way to be cooler than him is to do exactly what he does".

You got me, man. And despite what sopme may think, it isn't just conservatives who are against it. I've been amazed that some folks who otherwise are usually way to the left of me are so threatened by this.

But anti-gay feelings seems to be a cultural as much as political thing. Many of my African American students, whose opinions of Bush make PAD look like Condi Rice, are INCREDIBLY homophobic, and I don't use that term as loosely as most. If this is a common feeling among many African Americans it may explain why the Democrats are so mealy mouthed on the issue.

On the other hand, all 3 of my kids are very tolerant on the issue, as are some of their friends, so maybe th enext generation will see a shift...I don't know. Anybody have a good poll that indicates how young people feel on the issue?

Posted by Bea O'Problem:

"start talking about adding the first amendment since prohibition (which, y'know, worked out so well) "

Except that it's not the first amendment since Prohibition. G'won... look it up

An important nitpick, here:

PAD's full statement was "..start talking about adding the first amendment since prohibition (which, y'know, worked out so well) that would restrict freedoms rather than expand them."

No intelligent person could claim that there have been no Consitutional Amendments since Prohibition. Plenty of intelligent persons point out that no Constitutional Amendment since prohibition has involved minimizing citizen's freedoms; if anything, plenty of Amendments (before and after Prohibition) have involved preserving or expanding the rights of the citizen's.

It's a contentious enough issue wihtout misrepresenting folks' statements. We now return you to your regularly scheduled argument...

IMHO marriage/family values in America are not threatened by homosexuals, they are threatened by heterosexuals. I heard in a propaganda film that the number one household in America is unmarried couples with no children (which may or may not be true). There is a trend with heterosexuals to throw the marriage system away completely (which makes it interesting that so many homosexuals are fighting for it). I don't think passing a ban on same sex marriages will cause any change in the steady decline of marriage values in our culture, and I also don't think politicians can do a thing about it.

That being said, yes it's stupid that Bush is playing election year politics.

Posted by Alf! at June 7, 2006 01:42 PM

Gay marriage has been legal in my country for some time now. Of course, consevatives claimed the world was going to end. Guess what... not only it didn't, but gay conservatives started getting married as well.

And life went on.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

What country are you in?

"Frustrating that your candidate is performing ineptly, or even fishing for votes is not quite the same thing I don't think, as routinely seeing the worst in the actions, thoughts, motives, policies of the other side."

Thank you for defining for me the way I should see the world and what constitutes being an independent thinker. Tragically, I had no concept of that for myself.

PAD

"See now, I read that as saying that IF conservatives "fall" for it--by which I thought you meant voting for Republicans--then yes, they really ARE that stupid. How else would you propose we measure whether or not the ploy is successful?"

If we see a repeat of states hurrying to slap a no-gay-marriage vote onto their ballots. Other than that, I'm not sure how it would be "measurable." Then again, I wasn't talking about it being measurable. Merely wondering if conservatives would be so stupid as to be blind to the fact that their leaders are trying to manipulate them.

PAD

(because, let's face it, that's what they were. It was the country's very first state-wide hate crimes.)

I disagree. Only because it wasn't the first. You neglect slavery and the slaughter of the Native Americans among other things.

Luigi Novi: Not every American principle has to be in the Constitution in order to be a fundamentally correct one. Separation of Church and State is indeed a valid and vital American principle that the Founding Fathers correctly felt we needed.
****

That's what you feel. But that doesn't make it so. the founding fathers were dozens of men. Some, notably Jefferson believed in Separation of Church and State. Others did not. Either way, they did not enshrine it in the Constitution. The Supreme Court first mentioned it in the 1920s (or thereabouts), and they have recently backed away from it.

It really isn't correct to say it is required by the Constitution. the Constitution requires no establishment of religion. It requires no religious test for office. and it allows the free exercise of religion. But that isn't a separation. (and a true separation would actually mean no fire, police, water, etc, services at any rate). Not a separation at all.

Maybe we should have a separation. But we don't, especially one required by the Constitution. Want to change it? Propose an amendment. "Church and state shall forever be separated in the United States, except for basic fire, police, and utility services henceforth."

"I disagree. Only because it wasn't the first. You neglect slavery and the slaughter of the Native Americans among other things."

Well, I was talking about since the term "hate crimes" was coined and given legal weight, but okay.

PAD

1Luigi Novi: It does take away a freedom. The freedom to live your own life as you please, which includes marrying the person you fell in love with, without undue interference by Big Daddy government.
****
As usual, you missed my point. The amendment does not take away freedom, because the freedom ahs never existed. No law except now by judicial fiat in Massachussetts allowed it to happen.

Of course gays not being allowed to marry is a lesser state of freedom. But it is a freedom they never had. Thus, the amendment takes away no freedom from them (other than the ability to change the law without an amendment). they never had the freedom to begin with.

So every post that says "it takes away freedom" is false. Every post that says "its a hate crime" is false-the "hate" is already there, i.e., the lack of the ability to marry one of the same gender.

Separation of church and state in this country is a joke. We have "In God We Trust" on the money. We have a government that shuts down on Christmas Day. The President is sworn in (as are witnesses in courts of law) with one hand on a bible.

PAD

Merely wondering if conservatives would be so stupid as to be blind to the fact that their leaders are trying to manipulate them.
****
Wow, you really have no idea that you are offensive, do you?

Maybe the leaders really agree
or maybe the conservatives really have this at the top of the agenda even if it fails and is "tilting at windmills"
or maybe all the reasons you listed initially have nothing to do with why conservatives as a group are disappointed or angry at Bush
or maybe there are people besides conservatives (like say, most black Americans) who this issue is important to.

But of course not. They (and its only conservatives) are being manipulated and would be stupid to fall for that manipulation. Very black and white, and because it is, wrong.

Separation of church and state in this country is a joke. We have "In God We Trust" on the money. We have a government that shuts down on Christmas Day. The President is sworn in (as are witnesses in courts of law) with one hand on a bible.
****

That's because it doesn't exist.

In my opinion, if we truly were enforcing the establishment clause, "In God we Trust" would be gone-its an establishment of religion-particularly, momotheism. But if it is a separation, then it is simply de minimus. There's no entanglement there, need to monitor, freeing up of money for other uses.

Swearing the President in? Hmmm. I think he could choose to be, and it would be a free exercise thing, neither violating establishment or a separation.

Christmas? Effectively a free exercise thing. Most people by far celebrate Christmas either religiously as intended, or secularly as has developed.

The courts in New York also have "IN GOD WE TRUST" above the Judge. That to me would be an impermissible violation of establishment. But de minimus if the standard is separation.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

If homosexuals are religious than they can claim that marriage is a free exercise of their religion.

Spiderrob please don't play games. When there is an attempt to change a document of the power and magnitude of the US Consititution in order to prevent chganging or challenging local laws in order to be allowed to marry, this is no small thing. It is an act reducing their freedom, and it is motivated by a certain attitude toward homosexuality which even if not hate is certainly not positive.

The equivalent would have been an attempt prior to 1920, trying to pass an amendment not allowing women to vote.

I wouldn't begrudge Americans there Christmas or the "I God We Trust."

I live in a country that has its own religious symbolism here and there. It is natural that national symbols will reflect the beliefs of the majority. The danger is when religions try to use the organs of the state to enforce their beliefs on others. This seems to be the case with an amendment against gay marriage.

This isn't an appeal to the general conservative base, this is an appeal to the likes of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Ann Coultier or as I call them Bible Snorters. These are people with one track minds , who vote based only on one subject group abortion, gay marriage and religion in the schools. Religous fundalmentalists from which a taliban or bin ladden could easily arrise.

Someone asked if anyone had quantatively proved their voting impact and the answer is yes. The Wallstreet Journal shortly after 2004 elections did a massive write up on this group and how they put Bush over the top. Recent articles elsewhere have detailed their support for Bush stems from the fact they want to accelerate the end of days and believe Bush will do so for them. They have no interest in future impacts because for them there is no future, there is only the rapture, after which they don't have to worry about anything. They are riding the titanic to the bottom and enjoying it. Scary!

And Bush is cowtowing to them. They put him over the top in electoral votes in 2000 where he lost the popular votes and they were enough to give him the slight margin he won by in 2004.

I have said for a long time that his rating would not fall below 30% because there will always be 20% who vote Republican no matter what and they are the other 10% to give him his 30%. However he hasn't been appeasing them lately and this is his appeasement.

These are the same type of people who in 1890 considered the KKK a social club. This is just the latest target of their religious bigotry.

Brian

"Merely wondering if conservatives would be so stupid as to be blind to the fact that their leaders are trying to manipulate them.
****
Wow, you really have no idea that you are offensive, do you?"

Soooo that would be "yes" then?

PAD

I just found this in another article:------------
The Vatican also added muscle to the argument Tuesday, naming gay marriage as one of the factors threatening the traditional family as never before.
-----------------------------------------------

I've never really been able to figure it out, but what exactly does the vatican or any of their priests, bishops, archbishops or even pope know about marriage? These people never marry, are supposedly celibate and I use supposedly very strongly and a large chunk of them, in the states, have been proven to be pedophiles. Really what does the Pope know about anything marriage? I'm single and never married and I know I sure as heck can't advise my married friends about much of anything in marriage. Zeesh.

Brian

From an article detailing the amendment's defeat:

"Democrats said the debate was a divisive political ploy.

"The Republican leadership is asking us to spend time writing bigotry into the Constitution," said Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, which legalized gay marriage in 2003. "A vote for it is a vote against civil unions, against domestic partnership, against all other efforts for states to treat gays and lesbians fairly under the law."

In response, Hatch fumed: "Does he really want to suggest that over half of the United States Senate is a crew of bigots?"

Anyone who remembers the "West Wing" episode "Celestial Navigation" would know that the response to this is, "If the shoe fits..."

PAD

I've yet to read the other 68 posts so far on this thread, but I wanted to get this comment out there first:

PAD -
It's genuinely insulting to conservative voters' intelligence, that their leaders think they're THAT easily manipulated.

And yet, apparently conservatives ARE that easily manipulated, unfortunately.

The equivalent would have been an attempt prior to 1920, trying to pass an amendment not allowing women to vote.
***
I believe a few legislatures had already allowed women to vote though by then. Otherwise it is pretty close.

I pretty much agree with what you say, except that the argument would be that "we have no choice. Despite the "will of the people" expressed in referendums, despite the will of the people expressed through the legislature, courts are determined to find a right that doesn't exist no matter what the majority, in some cases the far majority says. We aren't happy to do it, but the abuse of what the courts are doing necessitates it."

Anyone who remembers the "West Wing" episode "Celestial Navigation" would know that the response to this is, "If the shoe fits..."
***
It might fit, but it wouldn't be just the United States senate, it would be the majoprity of the country.

In fact the majority of democrats. They may not support an amendment banning it, but many have definitively stated that they donm't support gay marriage. I believe that includes Dean, clinton (both), Kerry etc.

Then even those who nominally support, how much have they really done to get it? most very little.

These people never marry, are supposedly celibate and I use supposedly very strongly and a large chunk of them, in the states, have been proven to be pedophiles.
****
That's an exaggeraton. A small eprcentage have been shown to have sex with underage people. However, compared to the normal population, depending on the studfy, it does not seem that it is much more than any other group in the country (heck, now the new thing is teachers). Of the people who had sex with underage, there is a distinction between pedophilia, sex with non-developed children, and sex with developed, physically mature but legally underaged minors. The latter is not necessarily the result of a disorder, and in fact varies from state to state. Still wrong, but not the same kind of wrong

Which would have nothing really to do with the principles of the institution, even as it reflects on its members

-_-I'm worried about this New Generation..I am also concerned about your generation Mr.David,and the generation before your's.
You can almost smell it in the air that something Sad is about to befall us
,..all I think about are my Children when I think of this matter ((Bush)),I catch myself looking at them ..staring ..like if I need to remember all of this.. and appreciate the time we have together.
But I see in the near future alot of ppl waking up to reality..no T.V's no music ..nothing to Distract you from what's going on.I look at the generation before you Peter , these old Men of Yesterday , running things now.
I look at them..all the ppl around me. .literally living in the Matrix... There Are a Select few that take the red pill from what i see...the sad truth in all this is ..this won't stop w/ Bush..regardless of who's in Seat.. they are all cut from the same cloth, Peter. I myself am preparing mentally for what's to Come. Freedom is slowly Disappearing ..and I believe we waited to long to do something about it.
Understand what it is that's happening here ppl,
.Emperor Bush had to let 9-11 happen in order to get the Patriot act,
W/ that he can do anything he wants under the Guise of Terrorism...
why are we in Iraq you Ask?
We got paid to do a Job which was to take out Suddam el Seed,
Who paid and how much ?
Kuwait's//200 billion dollors worth of gold.
9-11 was nothing more then the BiGGEST HEIST IN U.S History.
there was 4 billion Dollors worth of gold in the world trade when the planes hit.
((There was only 200 million worth of gold recovered))....the kuwait's wanted Saddum the Seed Out and If you haven't noticed yet , U.S dollor is turning to Crud , it's really not what used to be.
The twin Towers was a money loser to the owners and The city of N.y anyway.
Trust me ,you couldn't demolition it due to the Asbestos Risk in the city and it's Ppl
...lol don't even get me started on Iran ..that one is a no brainer
..whats the quickest way from one point to another? ,
Yup, ..A Straight line.
...Basically the United states is on world Domination Mode , we are the new Nazi's of the 21st century,
United states has been Hijacked and that is the truth if I ever said it myself.
I honestly think thing's have to go this way thou.
History wouldn't seem right if it didn't.

So my question to you David is ..what do you see coming,(-_-....

Before our sex drive kicks in when we're young, and after it wanes when we're old, aren't we all at least a little bit faggy?

1"Merely wondering if conservatives would be so stupid as to be blind to the fact that their leaders are trying to manipulate them.
****
Wow, you really have no idea that you are offensive, do you?"

Soooo that would be "yes" then?

PAD

*****
More like you done what is typical of the partisan-defined everything on your terms, and then said "Oh look the other side failed."

As I've said, there are many reasons why it is not manipulation but you'd rather say that so that if the Republicans win or do better than expected, you can satisfy yourself by saying "I was right, but these other people are just stupid, easily manipulated sheep" rather than "Wow reasonable, rational people had a choice to make, and they made a reasonable rationale choice based on their own needs, desires, and values which differs from mine, but which I can still respect." No matter who has Congress next year, they will have gotten the majority of people in their state or district on their side for a whole host of reasons. It isn't because they are stupid, or fooled, no matter who wins. Your view of politics, or history, is not definitive or anything.

Maybe they just interpret things different than you. Maybe they prioritize other things than you. Maybe they assign blame to other factors or people than you do, and credit to others as well. Your views are not so self-evident that anyone who disagrees must be getting fooled by a side issue. Perhaps Bush did get helped by gay marriage the last campaign. If so, he got helped by a host of other factors, including support by millions upon millions of people who were not voting based on gay marriage.

Egon -
Marriage = A Religious Institution

Last I checked, I was not married in a church, nor did any religious institution have a say in my marriage certificate.

I guess it was just a sham, huh?

I'm sorry, but if you think marriage is nothing more than a religious institution, you've got another thing coming - perferrably in the form of a history lesson.

PAD -
Separation of church and state in this country is a joke.

I guess it depends on how you look at things.

I'd like to believe that the stories about the Founding Fathers being Deists, and not Christians, is true. For one, it makes phrases such as "In God we trust" a little easier to swallow, because they're not focusing upon the Christian god.

Which ends up being the problem I have with this entire mess: for the Christians (note: generalization here), it's about getting THEIR god in government, not anybody elses. And that's where the problem starts.

The Bill of Rights says, among other things the Bush Administration has forgotten, that we have "freedom of religious worship".

I take it to mean that we not only have freedom of religion, we have freedom FROM religion.

Here's the exact words of the 1st Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It's interesting how religion is mentioned before speech, considering most see the 1st Amendment as purely about free speech.

So, I guess to summarize: Yeah, "In God we Trust" is there, but I don't really see it being jammed down my throat; I'd prefer it not be there, but I can live with it.

What I can't live with is certain groups telling people they cannot marry because their religion says otherwise, and so forth.

we are the new Nazi's of the 21st century
*****
Oh man, the whackjobs are coming out now.

"The equivalent would have been an attempt prior to 1920, trying to pass an amendment not allowing women to vote.
***
I believe a few legislatures had already allowed women to vote though by then. Otherwise it is pretty close."

Which makes the comparison even more appropriate. The point of said amendments is to prevent liberal states from allowing gay marriages.

"I pretty much agree with what you say, except that the argument would be that "we have no choice. Despite the "will of the people" expressed in referendums, despite the will of the people expressed through the legislature, courts are determined to find a right that doesn't exist no matter what the majority, in some cases the far majority says. We aren't happy to do it, but the abuse of what the courts are doing necessitates it.""

You are refering to what is known as judicial activism. We have this debate inmy country too. Somewhere I have an article about it, maybe I'll find it.

Of course the classic example of judicial activism is Brown vs. The Topica Kansas board of education.

Depriving gays from equal rights is wrong even if the majority agrees to it. It should think that defending individual rights against the tyranny of the majority is what the courts and the constitution are for?

Then again, I wasn't talking about it being measurable. Merely wondering if conservatives would be so stupid as to be blind to the fact that their leaders are trying to manipulate them.

Glenn reynolds-- "THE ANTI-GAY MARRIAGE AMENDMENT HAS DIED, and this AP lede shows why it was not only wrong, but stupid:

Captain's Quarters- "If Andrew Sullivan wants to marry his significant other, it has no affect on my relationship with the First Mate; if I was that insecure, I never would have gotten married in the first place."

Allahpundit- The president’s going to try to toss some red meat to the base today by, uh, coming out in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment. Which doesn’t have a prayer of passing. (He also believes that the the Equal Protection Clause should/does protect their right to marry.)

La Shawn Barber- Politicians are so transparent. The midterm elections are quickly approaching (can you believe 2006 is half over?), and Bush is trying to appease angry conservatives and Christians by pushing this amendment. It’s an empty and meaningless gesture because the thing will never be ratified.

Patterico- "As I have said before, I don’t see the huge threat that gay marriage allegedly poses to the fabric of our society. And I oppose Bush’s support of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage."

Political Pit Bull- "President Bush is preparing to throw his "political capital" behind the Federal Marriage Amendment--quite possibly the most blatant act of political pandering I have ever seen."

Confederate Yankee- "A rouge nation with budding nuclear weapons capabilities is being run by a cult obsessed with End Times eschatology, and threatens ten of millions of lives in southwest Asia. Sectarian violence continues in Iraq. We’re importing poverty in record amounts through a southern border that leaks like a sieve, and Patrick Kennedy is out of rehab and back on the road."

"Mr. President, if you really think I care about gay marriage right now, you’re out of your ever-lovin’ mind."

Professor Bainbridge-- "I see no reason why the MPA ought to energize the GOP base. If anything, it ought to make the base even more skeptical of the bona fides of the GOP Washington elite, whose sole remaining principle appears to be the will to cling to power."

Neal Boortz- "I think that it is perfectly fitting for us to use the United States Constitution, a document that is dedicated to the preservation of our inalienable rights, to tell a certain specific group of people what they cannot do, rather than tell the government what it cannot do.
We don't need tax reform. We don't need an end to earmark pork spending in Congress. We don't need smaller government and school choice. We don't need real reform that would put medical care back into the competitive marketplace. We need none of those things. All is fine! What we need is a Constitutional Amendment that will keep two people who love each other, but who we don't consider to be normal - not by our standards anyway - to marry.
I know I'll sleep better tonight."

Kathryn Jean Lopez(NRO)--"The Senate moves on (to their next bad move?)."

I don't know about the voters but the conservative bloggers seem pretty underwhelmed.

"we are the new Nazi's of the 21st century
*****
Oh man, the whackjobs are coming out now."

That post is weird. What's Saddam el Seed?

In case it isn't clear, BTW, Neal Boortz is being sarcastic.

1Of course the classic example of judicial activism is Brown vs. The Topica Kansas board of education.
****
I don't think so. In that case, you had constitutional amendments that were being flouted, the 13th (arguably) the 14th and 15th (for later decision after Brown. So the Judges were applying the law. I'd also argue things like the Privileges and Immunities clause were being flouted as well, but no one gives much thrift to that one. The Federal government also intervened on normal state functions using the interstate commerce clause, and some provisions of the 14th and 15th amendments allowing them to do so.

Generally, Judges in the United States are not supposed to make law, that's what legilstures are for, especially if there is no gap in the law, or it is not part of the common law tradition. Courts are not there to prohibit tyranny of the majority-unless it is already protected in the constitution or a statute based on same.

It would prevent liberal states, but so far, even liberal states have not allowed it. Primarily, its to prevent liberal judges.

The 22nd amendment, passed well after prohibition, restricted my freedoms. In particular, my pre-existing freedom to run for a third term as president. Admittedly, the chances of my exercising that particular right were vanishingly small either way, but one could say the same of the issue under discussion...

I don't know about the voters but the conservative bloggers seem pretty underwhelmed.

Well, your first mistake, Bill, was confusing conservative bloggers with conservative voters in general. :)

That's it...I'm done with this blog.

I come here for comic book related discussions, not political. For that I can go to any newspaper website.

Comics are escapist literature, why can't this blog be?

C'ya!

(and yes, I DO support the Marriage Amendment. Yes, I am a conservative. And, yes, I voted for G. W. Bush both times.)

Part of the problem is, the way I see it, is the conservative people out there are realizing that being "conservative" isn't as homogenous as it once was. You've got your conservatives, your neocons, your lip-service conservatives, and a heck of a lot of conservative people that I know personally(granted, it may just be a Philly thing) who are arguing amongst themselves about just what it IS to be a conservative. You know, kind of like what They have always accused the liberals of being. Not united! Not standing for a single goal! Not anchored behind a View! With or without Meredith Viera! (Sorry, had to) It just looks to me like the conservatives out there think they can appeal to their base, be they TV personality, politician, author, what have you, just by voicing Traditional Values! The Way Things Have Always Been! I find it kind of hopeful that maybe, just MAYBE, mind you, that the country has had it with all these extremes and may be going back toward moderation.

I just really hope the sunglasses of mine ain't rose-colored. But seriously, it's not a crime to be either liberal or conservative. Maybe the country is finally waking up and realizing that being so polarized about, well, everything, doesn't help anyone.

Comics are escapist literature, why can't this blog be?

C'ya!
--------------------------------------------------

Another blog suicide. Should we start the bets as to when the republican will be back?

And Republican, read the title of this blog, it says Peter David.net Writer of stuff. I don't see where it says, writer of only comics and comic diatribs. A comment about the ability of conservatives to comprehend, comes to mind, but then many liberals can't comprehend either...

Although I have to admit that I'm surprised that I haven't seen any of the comedians or more strident liberal outlets talk about pruning the White House once and for all.

Come on, you get it. His name's BUSH, for gosh sakes.

Or is that just one of those things that's funny just in MY head?

Sean Scullion: Part of the problem is, the way I see it, is the conservative people out there are realizing that being "conservative" isn't as homogenous as it once was. You've got your conservatives, your neocons, your lip-service conservatives, and a heck of a lot of conservative people ... who are arguing amongst themselves about just what it IS to be a conservative.

So why bother with the label?

Lemme see... I believe taxes should be higher on the rich, and that taxes overall should be lower. I believe the death penalty is wrong, and that some acts are so bad the perpetrator should be killed. I believe less money should be spent on prisons, more on schools, and that schools should perform or the parents get vouchers. (Hmm, that one kinda suprised me.) I support a "woman's right to choose", and that life begins well before "birth".

So what am I? And why do I have to care? I'll vote for the person I most agree with and believe can do the best job. Could be from either party, often from neither.

Will conservatives be stoopid enough to fall for this most recent bull from Bush? Why not just ask "Will people be stoopid enough.. " and leave the us vs. them stereotyping out of it?

Sorry for the three posts, but I start one before I finish reading all the posts, but then I get other thoughts as I go down the list and I get new ones.
Anyhoo, spiderrob--Peter is a writer. A damn good writer, in my opinion, but a writer none the less. To my knowledge, he has no political position or appointment, so if the opinions he expresses occasionally go along with a particular party, well, that's his right. It's not partisan, it's opinion. The only time I see "partisan" being a problem is when it is in fact expressed by those elected officials who look more to their party than their constituents. Woefully, that's happening more and more, but maybe it'll start to change. I don't know.

But one thing to remember. Opinions are very personal. They need to at least, the very least, be respected. Not told that they're wrong, especially in terms of politics. There are very few "facts" in politics.

"Comics are escapist literature, why can't this blog be?"

This site isn't a comic and doesn't claim to be one. I believe PAD owns this site and can say and do on it pretty much whatever he wants.

1But one thing to remember. Opinions are very personal. They need to at least, the very least, be respected. Not told that they're wrong, especially in terms of politics.
****

My opinion is you are wrong. He can have any opinion, he wants, but so can I. It works both ways. Please respect it. :)

Part of the problem is, the way I see it, is the conservative people out there are realizing that being "conservative" isn't as homogenous as it once was.

Er, I think it's always been that way...you may not be old enough to remember the fights between the Goldwater Republicans and the Rockerfeller Republicans.

Indeed, part of the appeal to me of conservatism is that it allows for more freedom of differences of opinion than liberalism has shown (in my experiences. You mileage may vary.) Peruse the National review's blog The Corner and compare it to, say, the Huffington Post. Lots more variety at the Corner, IMHO.

Comics are escapist literature, why can't this blog be?

Not a comic, not your blog. Crybaby.

I believe less money should be spent on prisons

Not to pick on you, but this leapt out at me. How? Decriminalize drugs (ok by me)? Make the prisons little more than Cool Hand Luke hellholes? Reduce sentences overall?

I like prisons. I like that there are many criminals in them. I'm always amazed when people are amazed that crime has gone down while the prison population has gone up. Um...isn't that sort of what one should expect?

"That's it...I'm done with this blog."

So?

"I come here for comic book related discussions, not political. For that I can go to any newspaper website."

And for comic book related discussions you can go to any comic book related site (Newsarama, comicon.com, comicbookresources, etc.) So your point remains elusive. But really, it's pretty odd to act as this blog has done you a disservice simply because it isn't what you expect it to be. Such behavior would require a monumentally intolerant attitude that insists upon foisting your beliefs upon others and make them live by your standards.

"Comics are escapist literature, why can't this blog be?"

Beeeecause it's not a comic...?

"C'ya!"

Wouldn't wanna be ya.

"(and yes, I DO support the Marriage Amendment. Yes, I am a conservative. And, yes, I voted for G. W. Bush both times.)"

Ah. Well, that explains the monumentally intolerant attidue...

PAD

Brian Peter asked (snipped): "I've never really been able to figure it out, but what exactly does the vatican or any of their priests, bishops, archbishops or even pope know about marriage? These people never marry, are supposedly celibate... Really what does the Pope know about anything marriage?"

While clergy in the Catholic church are required to be celibate once they take their vows, that does not necessarily mean they always have been. A widower, for example, could enter the priesthood after his wife died, if he'd felt he'd been called. So, too could a man whose marriage had been annuled (the Catholic church doesn't recognize divorce; but an annulment essentially rewinds everything back to before the marriage took place.)

Likewise, a married clergyman from another faith could convert to Catholicism, go through the various requirements to become a Catholic priest, and then be a priest. I've met once such person. And yes, someone in that situation is exempted from the celibacy rule.

So, to reiterate, a priest, bishop, even the Pope could, in theory, have been in a relationship before deciding to go into religious life.

Rick

P.S., with regard to the issue of the amendment Bush would tack onto the Constitution, it is narrow-minded, bigoted, and will ultimately be harmful to this country. We don't need it. And I could care less whether John and Sue get married, or Bob and Marry, or John and Bob, or Sue and Mary.

Get a life, Mr. President. Worry about something that matters. Like the mess in Iraq. Like finding Osama Bin Laden. Remember him?

If I had to choose between a third term with George W. and bringing Nixon back from the dead and putting him in the White House again, I'd take Nixon.

C'ya!

Don't let the disconnect door hit your ass on the way out!

(I always loved that line.)

If I had to choose between a third term with George W. and bringing Nixon back from the dead and putting him in the White House again, I'd take Nixon.

Zombies in the White House. Cool. (it's also the plot of the next Reanimator movie. I am so there.)

Sorry about the length, but i began taking notes at the top:

Posted by spiderrob8

and not to nitpick, but considering 2,500 allied troops died and 10,000 total casualties on D-Day 62 years ago yesterday, it is somewhat overblown to say soldiers in Iraq are dying at a "stunning" rate. The rate is one of the lowest we've had for any war. For thos who think the war not worth it, 1 death is too much. But it is ridiculous to say a "stunning" rate.

Ummm -- and how many personnel were engaged in the fighting on D-Day? What percentage of them were killed? Direct frontal amphibious assaults into fixed and hardened positions carry disporprotionately high butcher's bills. Besides - how many WW2 casualties were due to conflict between uniformed regular troops, compare to how many were due to irregulars? (Most of the type of casualties similar to those we're seeing in Iraq happened to the Germans...)

The majority of US casualties in WW2 were due to fighting a recogniseable enemy who, more or less, fought by the rules.

In Iraq, one is as likely to be killed by a thirteen-year-old wearing a C4 undershirt as by any sort of organised enmey action.

Might i ask if you have ever served in the military?

That doesn't even make any sense. Besides gay marriage, the other issues have been Supreme Court nominations, immigration, social security, Iraq, War on Terror. None of the other issues he has raised since then have even touched on "Jerry Springer" like topics. and it is really chicken and the egg anyway.

Lessee -- handing over US ports to Arab-owned companies at the same time he's busily ensuring that the entire Arab world at least distrusts the US. Advocating illegal-immigration policies that nobody likes. Declaring a War on Terror -- you might as well declare a war on flanking maneuvers or on the right cross. Gutting FEMA and appointing incompetents to run what's left. Attempting to appoint a totally unqualified political crony to the Supreme Court. Invading Iraq based on lies (his own, among others) and taking the advice of total incompetents (whome he has yet to remove) whose incompetence resulted in unnecessarily heavy casualties, and whose methods of prosecution of the war turned Iraq from a country with a near-First World economy and an oil exporter to a net oil importer where the electricity may be on a few hours every day, and Uncle Dick's cronies at Halliburton and other companies get no-bid contracts which seem mainly designed to allow them to steal the most money for the least useful work...

Posted by CCR

I never thought about it that way... making it hard to impossible to get divorced. It's reminiscent of the old Chris Rock joke where he said "don't take guns off the streets, make bullets rediculously expensive."

The last time gay marriage was looking like an issue, Neal Boortz, conservative talk jock, was saying he didn't see anything wrong with it; certainly it took nothing away from married straights (except for possibly putting a little more burden on health insurance plans and so on), and his producer, Royal Marshall (pretty much a black yuppie) said "Bad idea. Three words -- 'gay divorce court'."

Posted by Egon

Marriage = A Religious Institution

America = Separation of Church & State

Therefore, the Government should not meddle in Religous affairs.

Wrong. Marriage is very much a secular institution, controlled and regul;ated by the State, not by the Church -- otherwise atheists could never marry.

Posted by spiderrob8

America = Separation of Church & State
***
Find it in the Constitution and I'll agree with you.

Hmm... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ... "

Posted by Bea O'Problem

"start talking about adding the first amendment since prohibition (which, y'know, worked out so well) "

Except that it's not the first amendment since Prohibition. G'won... look it up

In your haste to make someone look dumb and score points, you apparently overlooked (or ignored) the words "that would restrict freedoms rather than expand them" -- PAD didn't that it's the Very First amendment since Prohibition, that it's the first since then that attempts to limit the rights of the people.

Posted by Thomas E. Reed

I know many people who refuse to vote at all, saying "it only encourates them." This, of course, is stupid - "they" will be there whether you vote or not, and by not voting you insure "they" will be in charge.

As the Bonzo Dog (doo dah) Band said, "No matter who you voite for, the Government always get in."

Posted by Aladdin

Native Americans

Grrr. I hate to digress, but the American Indian is no more a "Native American" than i am; no less either.

My ancestors came on ships, theirs walked -- but neither evolved here.

The Canadian term "First American" is a lot more accurate and simply sounds better.

Posted by Spiderrob8

Wow, you really have no idea that you are offensive, do you?

Wow, you really have no idea that you are offensive, and obtuse and pretty much politically ignorant,do you?

They (and its only conservatives) are being manipulated and would be stupid to fall for that manipulation. Very black and white, and because it is, wrong.

No, it's anyone who's stupid to vote the way Bush wants based on his scare tactics, lies and manipulation.

(The more i see od Dubya, the more i miss RMN and LBJ -- they were cynical manipulative and probably crooked lying bastards, too, but they were good at it, and LBJ, particularly, often actually left you feeling good about it after he lubed you up and did you...)

Posted by Bill Mulligan

In case it isn't clear, BTW, Neal Boortz is being sarcastic.

See my account of Neal's exchange with Royal, above.

Posted by A Republican

That's it...I'm done with this blog.

I come here for comic book related discussions, not political. For that I can go to any newspaper website.

Comics are escapist literature, why can't this blog be?

C'ya!

(and yes, I DO support the Marriage Amendment. Yes, I am a conservative. And, yes, I voted for G. W. Bush both times.)

Cool, Republican. Nothing to worry about, we're all just stirring up trouble here, George W. Bush Is Your Friend, We are Winning the War on Terror, Everybody in the World Loves Us...

Now go back to sleep till Election Day.

"ev'rything's safe, ev'rything's cool..." (Frank Zappa)

It's okay if you practise saying "Baaahh!"

Posted by Brian Peter

"Comics are escapist literature, why can't this blog be?

C'ya!"

Another blog suicide. Should we start the bets as to when the republican will be back?

Tomorrow. Under his real name.

Posted by Sean Scullion

Although I have to admit that I'm surprised that I haven't seen any of the comedians or more strident liberal outlets talk about pruning the White House once and for all.

Come on, you get it. His name's BUSH, for gosh sakes.

Or is that just one of those things that's funny just in MY head?

Nah -- but we wore it out back about 2001. I still prefer "Bush Minor".

Egon: America = Separation of Church & State

spiderrob8: Find it in the Constitution and I'll agree with you.

First Amendment to the Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The line about a Wall is in a letter from Thomas Jefferson, but to say the Constitution doesn't talk about separating the government from religion ignores the words in the First Amendment.

Gas prices are high. They are not "through the roof" and adjusted for inflation, have been higher. The President has minimum impact on that anyway.

Only because they are in the pockets of the oil concerns and wont set up a Project Manhattan-style all-out research effort to develop a viable alternative to oil as an energy source.

Gas prices are high. They are not "through the roof" and adjusted for inflation, have been higher. The President has minimum impact on that anyway.

Only because they are in the pockets of the oil concerns and wont set up a Project Manhattan-style all-out research effort to develop a viable alternative to oil as an energy source.

Gas prices are high. They are not "through the roof" and adjusted for inflation, have been higher. The President has minimum impact on that anyway.

Only because they are in the pockets of the oil concerns and wont set up a Project Manhattan-style all-out research effort to develop a viable alternative to oil as an energy source.

Posted by Kevin T. Brown at June 7, 2006 02:55 PM

What country are you in?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Spain. I´m afraid the Church has seen better times in terms of influence over society around here.

"The Canadian term "First American" is a lot more accurate and simply sounds better."

Except that it's speciest. There were plenty of American buffallo, American deer, American Mastodons, etc., before Man showed up. "First Americans"! Indeed.

Historically speaking, marriage is a religious ritual. Up until the last 200 years it could only have been done by religious officials, and the records were kept by religious institutions. In the last 200 years two changes have occured:
Secularism and the strengthening of governments, which meant that there was a demand for non religious marriages, and that the government took over aspects of our lives that used to be handled by religious institutions, as well as havin more interest in monitoring marriages. Nevertheless, even for atheists, marriage is an act of personal, social, and ritualistic meaning.
The people promoting this amendment are trying to restrict a ritualistic aspect of the lives of gays, and are doing it in order to promote a certain moral or religious view about homosexuality. It is being used as an educational tool. In that sense it is like prohibition. (The constitution does have educational messages, but to the best of my knowledge the focus so far was about equality).

"It would prevent liberal states, but so far, even liberal states have not allowed it. Primarily, its to prevent liberal judges."

Were there any cases where homosexuals went to courts demanding the right to marry based on equal rights? The only incidents I'm aware of involved local government. It would be an interesting case if it did go to court. It seems as much or even less of a leep to say that gays have an equal right to get married than that blacks have the right to go to unsegregated schools. After all gays are not trying to force institutions that don't like gays like the catholic church to marry them, only that governments recognize the bureaucratic aspects of such a marriage.

Well, I hate to use these two words, but, 'of course' now with the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the republicans probably won't need the marriage amendment for a long while now :-/
(Don't get me wrong, I think its good the guy is gone, but now comes the Spin Doctors who will use it to raise the Prez's falling poll numbers; in my opinion anyway).

Let's just be happy that he's made his last video. I've thought that Zarqawi was the major target for some time now, though Bin Laden has more emotional value.

The real good news is not just his death but the fact that it was locals who had such an instrumental role in his death. Zarqawi thought he would be a heroic figure of liberation against the American aggressor but in the end he was just an embittered butcher who was killed by the people he imagined would flock to his cause.

Expect Al Qaeda to immediately launch a few random killings of civilians just so the media can report that Zarqawi's death had no effect.

1The majority of US casualties in WW2 were due to fighting a recogniseable enemy who, more or less, fought by the rules.

****
Right which is why I always thought the War in Iraq, and the War on Terror would be monumentally hard, harder than WWII. The fact remains casualties in this war while terribly tragic, are still fairly low compared to virtually every other war we have been in. No comfort if you don't believe it should ever have taken place, but some comfort to those who believe it was needed (both wars).

The far majority of the military as of Nov 2004 supprted the war. Whether they do now, not sure, but I believe so from what i've seen and heard.

Hmm... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...
***

Right they can't establish an offical church of the united states, or take steps along that line. That was not interpreted to mean separation of church and state until 1920s (or 40s I forget) and has since been backed off by the Supreme Court, the majority anyway.

In fact, originally did not even apply to the states, and there were official state churches I believe until the 1820s.

Either way, that phrase does not mean separation. It does mean no offical religion. There's a huge difference. and the Supreme Court has struggled mightily with the differnece. (If there is a separation, you can't give any money say to religious schools even for books because you are helping them, and thus freeing them up to use the money for other religious things. On the other hand, if there is just no offical religion, you can give money to the religious schools for math textbooks on the same basis you give to any other school because your not creating an official anything). Its extremely complicated, but slogans that are mistatken don't help.

Posted by: mike weber Wow, you really have no idea that you are offensive, and obtuse and pretty much politically ignorant,do you?
******

Very good. I disagree with you politically, and therefore, I must be dumb and uninformed because I can't possibly be as informed, or more, than you, a good person, smart, and just came to different conclusions then you.

But name calling is fun. I know that you believe you are such a super genius that anyone who disagrees must be either dumb, or ill informed, or evil.

Good way to live life in a democracy, so that compromise, which is essential for democracy, cannot happen.

I am informed, I am smart, I am tuse (ha ha) and guess what, I disagree. and that is ok.

The line about a Wall is in a letter from Thomas Jefferson, but to say the Constitution doesn't talk about separating the government from religion ignores the words in the First Amendment.
***
No it doesn't, as I explained above and the Supreme COurt has long struggled with. If it was so easy, it would, be easy. Instead, the jurisprudence in this aresa is a mess beause it isn't easy.

The wall originally came from a preacher in the 1600s who thought government corrupted religion. Jefferson wrote about it in a private letter in the 1800s to a Baptist group. However, jefferson, while a genius, did not help write the Constitution,he was in France. The Supreme did not use it until the 1920s, and has backed away from it. Establishing religion and separation are two different things. It owuld be easier if there was a separation-cases would be easy-but there isn't which is why it is so difficult.

Isn't it interesting that it's only self-proclaimed conservatives that ever object to Peter making his blog too political? I wonder if there's a conservative writer out there who has liberal fans who announce that they're going to stop buying his books because his blog is too political.

As for the gay marriage ban:
I think everyone is now seeing this maneuver as the political pander than it is. Even social conservatives, who haven't forgotten that, after Bush campaigned heavily on the issue in 2004, his administration announced in January of 2005 that social security "reform" was a higher priority. It's an election year and everyone is in full pander-mode. Blah.

Al-Zarqawi:
Glad we got him, but I suspect his death will turn out to be more symbolic than substantive, much like bin Laden's capture would be, that is if we were still looking for him. I predict the insurgents will have a new leader stepping forward momentarily. And of course, the radical Islamic leaders will be declaring him a martyr and rallying their followers in his memory.

Separation of church and state:
While that phrase doesn't appear appear in the Constitution, it has become a shorthand way to (perhaps somewhat sloppily) explain the underlining principle of the establishment clause. The purpose of that clause was to prevent the government from not only establishing an official government religion, but to prevent government from granting favoritism to any particular religion. Of course, the raging debate ever since has been where do you draw the line between cultural expressions and favoritisim? Personally, I think posting a 5 ton lump of granite in a courthouse with the ten commendments carved on it does cross the line, while others feel that "Merry Christmas" should be the mandatory greeting in the month of December.

Finally, I should point out, that, despite what Clarence Thomas may think, the intent of the 14th amendment was to make the Bill of Rights apply to the states as well, so states can no longer establish an official religion either.

the radical Islamic leaders will be declaring him a martyr

The AP article through Yahoo that was up a little while ago (it's been updated to something else since) said that Al Qaeda had already declared him a martyr. So, I'm sure others won't be far behind.

It was also apparently Al Qaeda who first confirmed his death, which sort of surprises me.

In all of this, I think it's important to remember that nobody would know who the hell this guy was if it wasn't for our f*cked up invasion of Iraq.

1The purpose of that clause was to prevent the government from not only establishing an official government religion, but to prevent government from granting favoritism to any particular religion.
****
Right, so not a separation. A separation would mean when you give out money for textbooks, no religious schools. What you described would allow it, since all religious and nonreligious schools are being treated equally. So they continue to be and mean to different things.

In all of this, I think it's important to remember that nobody would know who the hell this guy was if it wasn't for our f*cked up invasion of Iraq.

****

Sure. No doubt he'd be a peaceful man, a monk if you will.

Oh wait, he's a "psycho" murderer fanatic who no doubt would have continued to be. Most did not know wjo Bin Laden was either for the many years he was laying the foundation for what came.

Isn't it interesting that it's only self-proclaimed conservatives that ever object to Peter making his blog too political?

****

Well it is who he insults and belittles, so, no not too interesting at that.

"Ah. Well, that explains the monumentally intolerant attidue...

PAD"

Luigi Novi: Not every American principle has to be in the Constitution in order to be a fundamentally correct one. Separation of Church and State is indeed a valid and vital American principle that the Founding Fathers correctly felt we needed.

spiderrob8: That's what you feel. But that doesn't make it so. the founding fathers were dozens of men. Some, notably Jefferson believed in Separation of Church and State. Others did not.
Luigi Novi: I’d say the fact that the Founding Father who popularized it was Jefferson is pretty significant, as is the fact that another proponent of it was Madison. Given that the author of the Declaration of Independence and the primary author of the Constitution were for such a separation, it goes a long way to discerning the intent behind those documents. The Tripoli Treaty of 1796 also makes it clear that the U.S. government is secular. The bottom line is that SOCAS remains a fundamental American principle that we recognize today.

But out of curiosity, do you have any figures as to how many of the Founding Fathers were for it or against it?

spiderrob8: Either way, they did not enshrine it in the Constitution. The Supreme Court first mentioned it in the 1920s (or thereabouts), and they have recently backed away from it.
Luigi Novi: They haven’t “backed away” from anything. The Supreme Court and federal courts in general regularly recognizes SOCAS in its rulings, as in the Dover, PA ruling on creationism last year, to name one example.

spiderrob8: It really isn't correct to say it is required by the Constitution. the Constitution requires no establishment of religion. It requires no religious test for office. and it allows the free exercise of religion. But that isn't a separation. (and a true separation would actually mean no fire, police, water, etc, services at any rate). Not a separation at all.
Luigi Novi: The Supreme Court has interpreted the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to mean that no government — federal, state or local — can perform any action or make any policy which blatantly favors one faith or church over the others, or which favors belief in God or the Supreme being over non-belief since the latter half of the nineteenth century. The first such mention of this was in Reynolds v. United States in 1878.

Not the 1920s.

Not the 1940s.

spiderrob8: As usual, you missed my point. The amendment does not take away freedom, because the freedom ahs never existed…Of course gays not being allowed to marry is a lesser state of freedom. But it is a freedom they never had. Thus, the amendment takes away no freedom from them (other than the ability to change the law without an amendment). they never had the freedom to begin with.
Luigi Novi: Semantics. The freedom to marry the consenting adult that you are in love with is a right that is inferred by the pursuit of happiness and basic civil freedoms. Because this right is recognized for heterosexuals, it follows that homosexuals feel it is their right too. By not recognizing this right, it is being taken away from them.

This argument of yours only works if you start with the assumption that each and every single thing that you have the legal right to do is explicitly enumerated by the Constitution, including the right of heterosexuals to marry, and that by extension, anything not on this “list” is not a right. Since this is obviously not the case, (because laws are made to make explicit what you can’t do, not every single thing that you can), this argument of yours is false.

Peter David: Separation of church and state in this country is a joke.

spiderrob8: That's because it doesn't exist.
Luigi Novi: No, it’s because it’s not being consistently enforced. Slight difference.

A Republican: That's it...I'm done with this blog. I come here for comic book related discussions, not political. For that I can go to any newspaper website.
Luigi Novi: And yet somehow, you clicked on the link for a blog entry that was clearly political, and scrolled all the way down through dozens of posts in order to post on it. You just couldn’t help yourself, could you?

A Republican: Comics are escapist literature, why can't this blog be?
Luigi Novi: Um, because the guy who owns it, and whose name is on it, doesn’t want it to be, because it’s his blog, and he wants to be able to write about what he feels like? Why can’t you simply read the blog entries that you prefer, or go elsewhere? Did someone put a gun to your head and force you to read this blog entry?

spiderrob8: Either way, that phrase does not mean separation. It does mean no offical religion.
Luigi Novi: That's what you feel. But that doesn't make it so. :-)

The courts’ interpretation of the Clause have correctly noted that government and religion should be separate.

The courts’ interpretation of the Clause have correctly noted that government and religion should be separate.
****
The last couple of decades have seen other theories of interpretation gain hold over separation. It continues to be an area the court struggles with, and redefines.

But out of curiosity, do you have any figures as to how many of the Founding Fathers were for it or against it?
****

No. The "famous" founding fathers were mostly, not totally, deists or eventualy became deists-the big names. The less famous ones (of which there are dozens)were more likely to be Christians. However, I don't know what that means for separation of church and state and who supported it. It would not just be the intent of the author, but the intent of all the people who approved it-which would not just be the constitutional convention but even the states when they approved it. So I am not sure there was one intent anyway.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to mean that no government — federal, state or local — can perform any action or make any policy which blatantly favors one faith or church over the others, or which favors belief in God or the Supreme being over non-belief since the latter half of the nineteenth century.
****

Right. No establishment. That has nothing to do with separation. That first came in vogue in the early 1900s
19476-Everson v. Board of Ed was when the Supreme Court first adopted Jefferson's letter calling for separation (worth noting that Jefferson opposed presidential proclamations of thanksgving, prayer, fasting, but Washington and Adams favored and used them).

Anyway, recent decisions allowing the government to give money to churches or religious institutions in certain situations have weakened the idea of separation of church and state strongly. They have begun to see strict separation as something a bit hostile to religion and not required. That has been happening for a good 20 years. As always, depends on whose on the Supreme Court

By not recognizing this right, it is being taken away from them.
*****
I'll phrase it a different way-anyone can be in a union with anyone. But states have never recognized these unions for homosexuals, and thus nothing new is now being taken away by laws or referendums making clear the law and custom for the past couple fo hundred years. The ones who want the change are the people in favor of gay marriage. To phrase it as if they had that recognition before and it is being taken away now is false. But it is a silly debate at this point regarding this point. The overall issue of gay marriage remains.

I wonder if there's a conservative writer out there who has liberal fans who announce that they're going to stop buying his books because his blog is too political.

I think Orson Scott Card has gotten some similar responses. But I'd take such claims with a grain of salt--there's no evidence that PAD's political leanings are hurting sales of his comics. Just as many new readers may have been created by this board as lost, if not more.

Right, so not a separation.

I think you're getting hung up on the semantics here. The first amendment mandates government neutrality towards all religions. Separation doesn't mean active hostility towards religion, just that it can't play favorites.

A separation would mean when you give out money for textbooks, no religious schools. What you described would allow it, since all religious and nonreligious schools are being treated equally. So they continue to be and mean to different things.

Actually, several states have clauses in their constitutions that specifically ban giving any tax dollars to religious schools.

But there's a difference between giving money to a religious organization to perform a nonreligious purpose and giving to a church to advance their own religion. The latter is legal and has been done for years. Catholic schools, for example, have been receiving federal subsidies for school lunches for many years now.* The former, however, is a clear violation of the first amendment's establishment clause.

*This has also meant, much to the annoyance of the Philadelphia Archdiese, that their cafeterias have to be inspected by the City Health Department.

I think Orson Scott Card has gotten some similar responses. But I'd take such claims with a grain of salt--there's no evidence that PAD's political leanings are hurting sales of his comics. Just as many new readers may have been created by this board as lost, if not more.

I know of many instances where people have boycotted Card's writings because of his political views on subjests like homosexuality, but I don't know that anyone has ever taken the time to "announce" that they're boycotting his work on his own website.

Of course, Orson's official website, http://www.hatrack.com/, doesn't have a freeform blog like Peter's. He uses a moderated message board where, as far as I could tell, he doesn't really initiated political discussions.

What got me thinking along these lines, though, was an editorial I read in Analog a few months ago where the editor wrote that whenever someone writes to complain that the magazine has become "too political", it's always a self-described conservative who says it's gotten too liberal or a self-described liberal who says it's gotten to conservatives. Conservatives never seem to have a problem when the mag runs stories that seem to lean rightward nor do liberals seem to have a problem with stories that appear to tilt to the left. They only want politics kept out of science fiction when it contradicts their views. Maybe they just don't recognize bias when it swings their way.

1Catholic schools, for example, have been receiving federal subsidies for school lunches for many years now
****

Right. Because we are not practicing separation of church and state (or strict separation). This upsets some, because it frees up these schools, who would be providing this anyway, to use the funds that would have been used for that for other purposes. It is very heatly debated. in my law school class on "Religion and the Constitution" my professor, who wanted a strict separation, was furious about things like this. For her, there is a separation, and that means no money whatsoever to the churches or other religious groups no dealings whatsoever. She even, philosophically, questioned whether they should get fire, police, and other protections. Neutrality-such as given the funds to religious charities the same way to nonreligious, and to all religious charities, or giving free textbooks, is not a "strict" separation. It really isn't a separation at all.

Actually, several states have clauses in their constitutions that specifically ban giving any tax dollars to religious schools.
*****

I was talking federally. State by state, some may require separation of church and state. I haven't studied all 50 state constitutions, which usually aren't interpreted the same way as the federal constitutuion anyway

Looking at spiderrob's comments above, it looks as though he's saying gays shouldn't have the right to marry because it's not in the Constitution.(I know I realy condensed everything, but hey, it's all up there.) The Constitution is not set in stone; it can be modified as the times dictate. In fact, it NEEDS to be modified to keep from becoming an anachronism. It also can't be the Be-All and End-All of American life. IT's a place to start, not the destination.

Well, Spiderrob8, it sounds like your professor was an extremist on the separation issue. But just because some people hold to such an extreme view, doesn't mean that there is no basis at all in the Constitution for separation of church and state.

Separation, as practiced most of the time, simply means neutrality, not active hostility. Obviously, some can make the case that putting "In God We Trust" on money is a violation of neutrality, but as others have noted, the principle hasn't always been evenly applied. On the other hand, there are those who believe that the US was founded as a Christian nation, despite the fact that the founding fathers specifically rejected language that would have enshrined that in the Constitution.

We were then and still are now, a country where the majority of the populace identify themselves as Christians, but we have a secular government. And that's the main point the principle of separation.

The devil, as they say, is in the details of where you draw that line of separation.

I was talking federally. State by state, some may require separation of church and state. I haven't studied all 50 state constitutions, which usually aren't interpreted the same way as the federal constitutuion anyway

I believe all have some version of an anti-establishment clause, some are more restrictive than the Bill of Rights, some are not.

Looking at spiderrob's comments above, it looks as though he's saying gays shouldn't have the right to marry because it's not in the Constitution.(I know I realy condensed everything, but hey, it's all up there.) The Constitution is not set in stone; it can be modified as the times dictate. In fact, it NEEDS to be modified to keep from becoming an anachronism. It also can't be the Be-All and End-All of American life. IT's a place to start, not the destination.

The Constitution doesn't say one thing or another about gays. It doesn't even define marriage because that was an issue that the founding fathers felt should be left up to the states as stated in the 9th and 10th amendments.

And that's why social conservatives want it amended. They want the federal government to take away the right of individual states to define marriage as they see fit.

I saw a quote yetsterday from Jeff Scarborough that social conservatives want it both ways: they want to overturn Roe v. Wade so that the right to ban abortion is returned to individual states, but they want the Constitution amended to take away states' right to define marriage. He said that they have to be either for states' rights or against them.

Sure. No doubt he'd be a peaceful man, a monk if you will.

Thank you for completely missing the point. Please, continue to do so in the future, as it certainly isn't helping your cause in the least.

It's very, very sipmle:: if not for the war in Iraq, nobody would know who Al-Zarqawi is. Bush made him into the martyr he is by providing him the opportunity to make a name for himself.

They only want politics kept out of science fiction when it contradicts their views. Maybe they just don't recognize bias when it swings their way.
*****
That's probably human nature I guess. I generally prefer politics kept out of my superhero comics, myself. I tend to, at least what I pick up get them mostly from the far left perspective. Probably cause entertainers lean that way anyway. Though even in my personal life, my best friends are far lefties. I seem to attract them, like flies ;). I try to be more of a moderat who leans conservative. But I'd rather not be labelled at all, frankly. I'd prefer to come at the major issues from my own perspective. It's best, I think, when you can make the arguments both for and against something equally strong, and then see where you come out on it. On gay marriage, I tried to do that, and probably assumed I would be against it in the end. However, I couldn't make fair and reasonable arguments against it-it all comes down to mostly that it makes people feel weird, or "icky" or they never even considered it before, or made them uncomfortable to think about. And the arguments on the other side had real meat to them, on equality, and basic fairness principles. In some ways, I do think the definition of marriage is one man, one woman, and gay marriage would have another name. But then, if it is going to be exactly the same thing anyway, you might as well change the definition of marriage to include it, because heck, people will say they are married anyway, not civil unionized. There will be some costs associated with it in terms of dollars and cents, but in the end it is the right thing to do.

if not for the war in Iraq, nobody would know who Al-Zarqawi is. Bush made him into the martyr he is by providing him the opportunity to make a name for himself.
****
I can;t name all 19 hijackers on 9/11. But so what? Ok, he is a "martyr" big deal, any islamic fascist terrorist who is killed is. Either way, he'd be working for bad things-heck he came from a different area, and would be doing something that would cause trouble for us. Anytime you take someone on, their name will become more famous and known then before. But that isn't a reason not to do it. There may be reasons not to, but that one, not so much, when lives are at stake. (Yeah, if he wrote a book or something you didn't want anyone to read, it is better to ignore it then publicize why you don't anyone to read it, perhaps, but this is different). Or to put it another way, he was a bad guy before Iraq, he would be a bad guy without Iraq. Anyone who considers him a martyr is themselves either ignorant, or a bad guy themselves, so i am not too concerned. I kinda wish someone had dropped a grenade down that spider-hole Saddam was in, and I'd like Bin Laden's head on a pike too. Martyrs or not.

I'd rather people , even those who oppose the war, say "Wow, I am glad we finally got that psycho killer" rather than "Its good, but man it will help Bush" or "It is good, but heck now he is a martyr." How bout just "It's good!" Not to say I make the rules, but it just makes sense to me.

originally posted by Micha: "Of course the classic example of judicial activism is Brown vs. The Topica Kansas board of education."

originally posted by CCR: "I don't think so. In that case, you had constitutional amendments that were being flouted... So the Judges were applying the law."

Micha is correct: Brown v Kansas BOE is a classic example of judicial activism -- by which I mean a case which, at the time it occurred, conservatives were almost unanimous in denouncing as judicial activism. As late as the 1960s, Bill Buckley and National Review were still denouncing it.

It was the Brown decision which so angered conservatives of the 1950s that some began calling for the impeachment of chief justice Earl Warren. To which Buckley famously responded that he didn't know if impeachment was the proper response in order, but perhaps lynching was. (He later apologized for the poor taste of his remark, but not for the underlying sentiment.)

I was alive during those years and paying attention to the news. I somehow suspect you weren't. I invite you to go back through the pages of National Review (available in microfilm and bound volumes at many university libraries) to see for yourself. You will find many items in NR denouncing the Brown decision; I was browsing through microfilm copies of their 1950s issues a couple years ago and couldn't find any praising it.

In contrast, a classic case of failed judicial activism is the Dred Scott decision. That was an attempt by liberal activists to get the Supreme Court to strike down slavery. The court of the day, unfortunately, chose strict constructionism.

Looking at spiderrob's comments above, it looks as though he's saying gays shouldn't have the right to marry because it's not in the Constitution.(
****

No, I am saying " I want gay Americans to have the right to get married and have the government recognize that marriage. I wish state legislatures would vote for it and Governor's would sign it. I think the case that the Constitution requires states to recognize it is weaker than say interracial marriage, but there is some argument to be made under equal protecion. However, states can choose to do so. I think if courts force the issue, it will become even more divisive than before, with people trying to change constitutions and pack courts with people who would hold differently. Times are changing, but right now the majority of the people are not in favor of it, and people who favor gay marriage will have to deal with that fact. Better to take smaller, incremental steps like Civil Unions, and change people over time. The young are already different on the issue. That may be unfair, but the sham weddings by the mayor of New Paltz, for heavens sake, and San Fran, hurt the movement. The good thbing is the debate has already shifted where I believe even the President favors Civil Unions. So civil Unions are coming and that is something real. Better for gay marriage to take time, but be permanent when it gets here"

Brown v Kansas BOE is a classic example of judicial activism -- by which I mean a case which, at the time it occurred, conservatives were almost unanimous in denouncing as judicial activism.
***
The conservatives were wrong-Brown is based on real constitutional principles. Not a handful of Judges imposing their personal views despite what is in Constitution or statutes (or lack thereof). Both in theory, and certainly in practice, segregation was simply incompatible with the 14th Amendment (and I'd argue the 13th too). That's very different than "I'll say the Constitution (or law) requires this, even though it doesn't, simply because I believe the Constitution (or law) should require it" which is what I beleive true Judicial Activism is.

I don't think technically the issue in Dred was the continuance of slavery (allowed unfortunately in the Constitution at the time but changed by the 13th Amendment) per se, but about whether blacks could be United States citizens and sue in Federal court, and whether the fact Scott lived in free terroritory for a long time meant he was not a slave.

The Constitution doesn't say one thing or another about gays. It doesn't even define marriage because that was an issue that the founding fathers felt should be left up to the states as stated in the 9th and 10th amendments.
****
Right. The issue really is what does that mean left to the states? and some were horrified, even when supporting gay marriage, that some mayor would defy state law and perform meaningless marriages, and some courts were inventing things that were never in state law.

Overturning Roe V. Wade would be because they believe the constitution doesn't recognize that right.

Putting a gay marriage amendment in there would be the constitution actually saying something on the topic.

I don't consider them incompatible. It would be incompatible if they said the Constitution prohibits gay marriage implicitly, but doesn't provide a right to an abortion because it isn't explicitly stated

It was the Brown decision which so angered conservatives of the 1950s that some began calling for the impeachment of chief justice Earl Warren.
****

There were many reasons people wanted to impeach Earl Warren. Much of it in the area of criminal law.

originally posted by Sean Scullion: "Part of the problem is, the way I see it, is the conservative people out there are realizing that being "conservative" isn't as homogenous as it once was."

originally posted by Bill Mulligan: "Er, I think it's always been that way...you may not be old enough to remember the fights between the Goldwater Republicans and the Rockerfeller Republicans."

What you may not remember is that Rockefeller Republicans were also known as liberal Republicans and were roundly denounced by Bill Buckley and Phyllis Schlafly (to name a pair of recognized conservative leaders). So the existence of both Goldwater Republicans and Rockefeller Republicans speaks to the (former) diversity of the Republican party, not to the diversity of the conservative movement.

I do agree with your larger point, that the conservative movement is more diverse than some people realize. There is an unfortunate tendency to confuse conservative with right-wing.

But the liberal side of the fence is also much more diverse than some people realize. When I hear Bill and Hillary Clinton offered as examples of ultra-liberals -- which I do, all too often -- I'm never sure whether to laugh or cry.

Indeed, part of the appeal to me of conservatism is that it allows for more freedom of differences of opinion than liberalism has shown..."

Then I think you are guilty of the same misperception of liberalism which others are making about conservatism.

I suspect that, because you are more sympathetic to conservatism, you are more aware of differences of opinion being expressed among conservatives. The same problem, in reverse, affects people who are more sympathetic to liberalism. We tend to hear the good in our own side (while minimizing some of the problems) and to hear the bad in the other side (while minimizing the good things). If you come up with a neutral protocol for measuring the freedom for people to express their differences, I think you will find liberals are at least as free to do so as conservatives.

I think there has been a movement among many far leftliberals in postition of power to eliminate some diversity of opinion. They are for all sorts of diversity, but say on a college campus (even the media), have diversity of opinion, and you're a nazi, fascist, racist, etc. and that's just the professors who say that, forget the students.

Many a times I had to change papers to get better grades to match the professor's ideology. It helped my GPA tremendously to make my papers as far left as possible. I did get to attend one class with and ask a question of George HW Bush, though, so it wasn't all bad those four years. But God forbid the student newspaper print something conservative, whoops, all the copies get stolen.

The far left though has had less political success then the far right lately. and has forgotten with great power comes great responsibility. It has made the right more arrogant, and less in touch than they were before, and made the far right whackos get more attention than they would have.

They only want politics kept out of science fiction when it contradicts their views. Maybe they just don't recognize bias when it swings their way.

Not surprising--lots of people don't think a bias is a bias if it agrees with them. If Kaitie Couric opened up her first broadcast with "This just in--experts contacted bu CBS News agree that President Bush has the IQ of a turnip." there will be those who will loudly defend her against any charge of bias because they agree with her. Eric Alterman will accuse her of right wing bias for overstating Bush's IQ. Human nature.

(Of course this also brings to mind a fallacy I hear a lot from the media--the old "Since both the right and left think we are biased we must actually be fair and blanaced. No, maybe you just suck. It only bothers people when you suck in a way that disagrees with them.)

It's very, very sipmle:: if not for the war in Iraq, nobody would know who Al-Zarqawi is. Bush made him into the martyr he is by providing him the opportunity to make a name for himself.

Hmmm, I'm not sure that's accurate. He was a known terrorist even before 9/11--the Jordanians certainly knew about him when they sent him to prison and later sentenced him to death in adstencia. He had "made a anme for himself" by, among other things,the 2002 assassination of US diplomat Lawrence Foley in Amman. Before the Iraq war he was mentioned by Colin Powell as being in Iraq and evidence of a Saddam /Al Queda link.

If you want to "blame" Bush for making him a martyr I suspect it's something the White House will welcome. I rather hope they can do a similar favor for Bin Laden (one can only imagine the sadness that would be felt by hopeless partisans for the spike in approval ratings THAT happy day would engender.)

oiginally posted by spiderrob8: "The conservatives were wrong-Brown is based on real constitutional principles..."

And yet, for at least a dozen years conservatives were unable to see this, and I don't recall ever reading an article by Bill Buckley (or the other prominent conservatives who denounced Brown as judicial activism) admitting their error and explaining how and where their analysis was wrong. So at a minimum this indicates that conservatives may not be very well qualified to identify judicial activism when they see it.

They were profoundly wrong then. Why should we trust that their judgment is better today?

"I don't think technically the issue in Dred was the continuance of slavery (allowed unfortunately in the Constitution at the time but changed by the 13th Amendment) per se, but about whether blacks could be United States citizens and sue in Federal court, and whether the fact Scott lived in free terroritory for a long time meant he was not a slave."

Precisely my point! Liberals were attempting to use the case to overturn slavery. If the court had done the kind of ruling in Dred as to the basic rights of blacks (based on the spirit of the constitution) which the Warren court did in Brown, it would have been as fatal a blow to slavery as Brown was to segregation. But the Taney court chose to rule simply on narrow legal issues -- to take a strict constructionist approach.

The Dred Scott case, like the Scopes trial, was a deliberate effort by liberals to use the courts to challenge laws they disliked and attempt to use the courts, rather than the legislature, to achieve what they viewed as socially-desirable results.

Those who denounce judicial activism were quite vocal in the 1950s in opposing Brown. And yet, they were wrong. They were wrong in the 1950s, and they were wrong in the 1850s. There are times when it is good to consider the spirit as well as the letter of the law.

Jesus pointed that out a couple thousand years ago, so it is surprising to me that it is often the people who claim to be the most ardent followers of Jesus who are the most adamant about ignoring the spirit.

The spirit of the US constitution favors equality (regardless of race, sex, or sexual orientation). The letter has sometimes taken a while to catch up with the spirit.

Indeed, part of the appeal to me of conservatism is that it allows for more freedom of differences of opinion than liberalism has shown..."
Then I think you are guilty of the same misperception of liberalism which others are making about conservatism.

I suspect that, because you are more sympathetic to conservatism, you are more aware of differences of opinion being expressed among conservatives. The same problem, in reverse, affects people who are more sympathetic to liberalism. We tend to hear the good in our own side (while minimizing some of the problems) and to hear the bad in the other side (while minimizing the good things). If you come up with a neutral protocol for measuring the freedom for people to express their differences, I think you will find liberals are at least as free to do so as conservatives.

Well, I DID add, in the part you left out (in my experiences. You mileage may vary.)

We are all products of our experiences. For me, going to college the year Reagan was elected was a pretty formative event. I had much more opportunity to see liberals acting badly than I would otherwise have had (and it wasn't just the professors--my mom's an economics professor so they had big shoes to fill and most came up short. No, what horrified me were my firends--good, decent people who nonetheless saw no problem in celebrating Reagan's near-assassination. Whoa. If I'd gone to Liberty College I probably would have ended up as a bomb throwing anarchist. It just so happens thatthe only tyranny I've ever experienced is the petty tyranny of the academic left.)

Many a times I had to change papers to get better grades to match the professor's ideology. It helped my GPA tremendously to make my papers as far left as possible.

Oh yeah, me too. I think most students learn to give the bad professors whatever it is they want. It can actually be fun--you can make your paper absolutely ridiculous, turn the volume up to 11, then show it to your right minded friends and all have a good laugh at the Ratskeller. It works on fanatics of all stripes--I wanted a bunch of those insane Jack Chick comics so I wrote to and acted like the biggest anti-catholic nutcase you could imagine--he sent me a box with over 100 different comics!

The best college class for waist deep BS has to be film studies. Wow, if you could see some of the essays I handed in...Every time I thought "ok, this time ZI went too far, he's gonna know I'm totally making this up." but it never happened. My teacher's big ficxation was phallic symbolism--make of that what you will--and castration. Boy, did loving 42 Street grindhouse shlock come in handy.

Sigh. I miss college. And kids today can get away with a lot more than we could, if a professor tries to indoctrinate his class he might end up with a video of it popping up on myspace.

Sean Martin: I believe less money should be spent on prisons
Bill Mulligan:
Not to pick on you, but this leapt out at me. How? Decriminalize drugs (ok by me)? Make the prisons little more than Cool Hand Luke hellholes? Reduce sentences overall?

No problem. I'm not feeling picked on. I tossed that in -- along with several other views -- after only quick reflection to make a point about my (and many others) not falling easily into the "conservative" and "liberal" pigeon holes that folks like to use. If I were to think about it more deeply...

IIRC it costs around of $30k a year to keep someone in jail. Just this morning a report was released stating that 60 billion a year is spent on prisons and they have a 60% recidivism rate. It's been well documented that money spent earlier in a persons life (on education, on Head Start type programs, etc) does far more to prevent anti-social behavior later than life. Something on the order on $1 spent on a 5 year old saves a couple thousand spent on an adult.

So I'd spend less on prisons and more on schools (which is what I'd originally said(. I'd spend less on solitary confinement (which doesn't work per this morning's report) and more on counseling (20% of all inmates have significant mental problems, ibid) and medical care (1 doctor per 2000 prisoners, ibid).

I'd spend the money to
- to avoid having people become criminals in the first place
- to stop having/wanting to continue to be criminals
- on the cause and cure, not on the syptoms

Zarkawi was a roving jihadist going back to Afganistan. Iraq was only the best of several possible Islamic struggles he could have joined.

The comment about Brown is not my own, I've read it somewhere, in a liberal article claiming the liberals should rely less on change through the courts. I'll post it if I find it. In any case the two salient facts are that the NAACP used the court because they couldn't or wouldn't wait until public opinion caught up with their views; and that the court made a new interpretation of the constitution in claiming that having seperate schools denies blacks equality. A few years ago I've read essays by Martin Luther King, and he addresses the issues of whether using the courts is justified, and whether a gradual approach wouldn't be better. Whether or not the situations are similar, I leace to you to decide. In any case, here it is Bush who is trying to add something to the constitution. Have gay advocates tried to take the issue to the courts?

Roe vs. Waid deals with two questions.
1) Whether the constitution guarentees privacy? (in this case to what a woman does with her body).
2) If the issue of abortion is protected by privacy (i.e. it concerns a woman's decision about herself), or if it involves a third party with its own rights (i.e. the fetus).
Only one of these issues involves the interpretation of the constitution.

Fables by Vertigo is written by someone with clear conservative opinions. I've found the way these views filtered into the story quite entertaining most of the time. But it did cause harm to a storyline involving Arab Fables because the writer couldn't get beyond his prejudices.

Oh, I understand what you're saying--it's just that what will happen when you spend less on the prisons? And how do you do that? Fire guards? Serve worse food? Or just release more prisoners?

One could make the argument--I'm not saying it's a certainty--that one major cause of becoming a criminal is growing up in a crime ridden neighborhood. If true, then spending more on prisons to get more criminals off the streets will improve the quality of life for the poor (crimes biggest victims) and lead to less criminals being formed. We already know that it will lead to a reduction in crime.

One good argument for legalizing drugs--and I say this as someone who has absolutely no intention of taking any, regardless of legal status--is that we could free up some prison space better reserved for thieves and killers.

You know what I find wonderfully ironic about this whole situation? Bush and Co go ahead with a specious vote on a gay marriage amendment to shore up the conservative base and shift the focus away from the war. A day after the Senate votes down discussion on the amendment, Al-Zarquawi gets himself killed, putting the attention back on the war, effectively making the whole gay marriage thing a waste of time. As if we didn't know it already.

Aruging about the definition of marriage is gay.

Lots of things to comment on here:

Spiderrob8:
Right. The issue really is what does that mean left to the states? and some were horrified, even when supporting gay marriage, that some mayor would defy state law and perform meaningless marriages, and some courts were inventing things that were never in state law.

I think the mayors that performed those marriages were going about it the wrong way and did their cause more harm than good.

As for the courts inventing things, the court case that has declared that gays have a right to get married is the Mass. supreme court. There, the state constitution has a definite anti-discrimination clause. The only thing that was stretched a bit was ruling that prohibiting gay marriage was discrimination. They didn't make up anything, they just interpreted it in a way that makes some people uncomfortable.

And that's the definition most people, whether they admit it or not, of "judicial activism" - any ruling that they don't like. They can claim that the judges are "legislating from the bench", but what they really mean is that they don't like the way that the court interpretted the law.

A prime example is the Kelo case, which many cite as an example of "judicial activism", but if you actually read the case, it's the exact opposite of "legislating from the bench" - the court ruled that because there was no state or federal limits defining what was the "public good" in terms of eminant domain, the courts had no authority to impose one by judicial fiat. In which case, the solution isn't to curse the courts, but to get your state legislator on the phone to write limits into state law.

Overturning Roe V. Wade would be because they believe the constitution doesn't recognize that right.

Let's be honest, the average pro-lifer doesn't give a rat's ass what the Constitution does and does not say. They want it overturned because they believe abortion is murder, pure and simple.

Putting a gay marriage amendment in there would be the constitution actually saying something on the topic.

True, but you can't be for that and say you're in favor of state's rights at the same time.

I don't consider them incompatible. It would be incompatible if they said the Constitution prohibits gay marriage implicitly, but doesn't provide a right to an abortion because it isn't explicitly stated

What's incompatitible is the idea that you can claim to be for state's rights on one issue yet expect the federal government to intervene on the other.

Nova Land:
When I hear Bill and Hillary Clinton offered as examples of ultra-liberals -- which I do, all too often -- I'm never sure whether to laugh or cry.

Which is very true, especially given Hillary's hawkishness on the war in Iraq and her railing against violence in video games.

Bill Mulligan:
We are all products of our experiences. For me, going to college the year Reagan was elected was a pretty formative event. I had much more opportunity to see liberals acting badly than I would otherwise have had (and it wasn't just the professors--my mom's an economics professor so they had big shoes to fill and most came up short.

I went to college during the Bush I years and, to be honest, saw plenty of examples of people on both the left and the right behaving badly. I've been on and off the campus scene as both a student and an instructor and haven't seen any difference. Most recently, the Republican students club at my alma matter -PSU- got some flak over their planned "Catch an Immigrant" day where a group of students would pretend to be illegal immigrant and participants would get prizes for "catching them."

No, what horrified me were my firends--good, decent people who nonetheless saw no problem in celebrating Reagan's near-assassination. Whoa. If I'd gone to Liberty College I probably would have ended up as a bomb throwing anarchist. It just so happens thatthe only tyranny I've ever experienced is the petty tyranny of the academic left.)

I would exactly call that tyranny. Extremely poor taste, but not tyranny.

Oh yeah, me too. I think most students learn to give the bad professors whatever it is they want. It can actually be fun--you can make your paper absolutely ridiculous, turn the volume up to 11, then show it to your right minded friends and all have a good laugh at the Ratskeller.

I never really had an experience where I had to regurgitate a professors' political views just to get a good grade. Maybe I was lucky, maybe not. Or maybe it was because I focused on physical science and comparative literature (I know, weird combo) instead of political science and economics.

Interestly enough, David Horowitz, author of "The Professors", found a sympathetic state representative in Pennsylvania and convinced him to hold a series of hearings across the state on academic bias. But don't expect Horowitz to be crowing over his huge success in uncovering bias in Pennsylvania's colleges. Instead of the expected hordes of poor, oppressed conservative students they expected, the results were somewhat disappointing for Horowitz. Some students did report encountering politically biased professors, but the majority of them didn't find it a big deal and didn't feel that they were treated with hostility for holding an opposed view. At least one hearing had no one show up to testify! The consensus of the committee was that the whole talk about widespread academic tyranny was much ado about nothing.

It works on fanatics of all stripes--I wanted a bunch of those insane Jack Chick comics so I wrote to and acted like the biggest anti-catholic nutcase you could imagine--he sent me a box with over 100 different comics!

Jack Chick actually got a conservative group at PSU in trouble with their national organization while I was at PSU. The Penn State Chapter of the American Family Association was distributing the Chick comic "Are Catholics Really Christians?". Someone complained to the national AFA headquarters and their local charter was pulled.

Sigh. I miss college.

Me too. I plan on going back for my PhD in a couple of years.

And kids today can get away with a lot more than we could, if a professor tries to indoctrinate his class he might end up with a video of it popping up on myspace.

Students got away with plenty in my time, left and right. In the interest of balance:I remember a feminist group bringing whistles to class and blowing them really loud whenever a professor would say something that they perceive as sexist.

Micha:
Roe vs. Waid deals with two questions.
1) Whether the constitution guarentees privacy? (in this case to what a woman does with her body).

IMHO, yes it does, according to the 5th and 14th amendments.

2) If the issue of abortion is protected by privacy (i.e. it concerns a woman's decision about herself), or if it involves a third party with its own rights (i.e. the fetus).
Only one of these issues involves the interpretation of the constitution.

This is the part that I do think is a judicial stretch, but I agree with the underlying principle. Contrary to popular belief, the court didn't just wake up one day and decide to expand the right of privacy to anything and everything. It was a series of steps, with each ruling building on the one before it. First it was saying that it was a violation of a married couple's right to privacy to make it illegal to sell contraceptives. Then it was a violation of an unmarried couple's right to privacy. From there, it's just a short hop to say any restriction on a woman's reproductive destiny is a violation of her right to privacy.

Bill again:
Oh, I understand what you're saying--it's just that what will happen when you spend less on the prisons? And how do you do that? Fire guards? Serve worse food? Or just release more prisoners?

And that's the rub. For those who are already hard core prisoners, that isn't much you can do except toss them in prison. Maybe if we start rebuilding families and communities, the next generation will have less incentives to become criminals. I know, attacking poverty, divorce, and absentee fathers is not as much fun as saying gay marriage is the biggest threat to families, but what's a little reality between friends?

One good argument for legalizing drugs--and I say this as someone who has absolutely no intention of taking any, regardless of legal status--is that we could free up some prison space better reserved for thieves and killers.

How about a compromise: Let's treat drug addiction as a public health problem and lock up the big time dealers and smugglers.

A day after the Senate votes down discussion on the amendment, Al-Zarquawi gets himself killed, putting the attention back on the war, effectively making the whole gay marriage thing a waste of time. As if we didn't know it already.

Not to worry, because the GOP already has the next distraction issue all line up, one that directly affects even fewer Americans than gay marriage:

The estate tax!

Multi-millionaires rejoice!

Aruging about the definition of marriage is gay.

LMAO!

After all these rambling posts, TallestFan said it best and was the most succint.

TallestFanEver-
You owe me a new monitor as I have spit ice tea all over mine. *grin* That was just the right thing at the right time.
Kath

I rather hope they can do a similar favor for Bin Laden (one can only imagine the sadness that would be felt by hopeless partisans for the spike in approval ratings THAT happy day would engender.)

Well, those hopeless partisans can take solace in the fact that Bush doesn't care about Bin Laden anymore.

He was a known terrorist even before 9/11

Maybe "household name" would be a better way of phrasing it?

Sure, we see martyrs every day. But the great majority of them don't get mentioned by name, and even if they do, they're forgotten as quickly as they were mentioned.

Iraq made Al-Zarqawi a household name, and I don't think you can simply play the speculation game that he would've become known regardless if we hadn't invaded Iraq. This guy could've just as easily stayed in Afghanistan causing trouble, but didn't.

No other Al Qaeda member has done so in Afghanistan either, and they've had plenty of chances once we made the mistake of focusing on Iraq.

"Roe vs. Waid deals with two questions.
1) Whether the constitution guarentees privacy? (in this case to what a woman does with her body).

IMHO, yes it does, according to the 5th and 14th amendments.

2) If the issue of abortion is protected by privacy (i.e. it concerns a woman's decision about herself), or if it involves a third party with its own rights (i.e. the fetus).
Only one of these issues involves the interpretation of the constitution.

This is the part that I do think is a judicial stretch, but I agree with the underlying principle. Contrary to popular belief, the court didn't just wake up one day and decide to expand the right of privacy to anything and everything. It was a series of steps, with each ruling building on the one before it. First it was saying that it was a violation of a married couple's right to privacy to make it illegal to sell contraceptives. Then it was a violation of an unmarried couple's right to privacy. From there, it's just a short hop to say any restriction on a woman's reproductive destiny is a violation of her right to privacy."

Correction, there are 3 questions:
1) Whether the constitution guarentees privacy?
It is common to interpret the some parts of the constitution as implying privacy, but the right of privacy is not there explicitly.
2) Whether the right to privacy is relevant in the issue of reproduction.
Den is correct that the court gradualy decided that the right of privacy applies with regard to the use of contraceptives, and then moved on to abortion. The first seems rather obvious to me, but it seems that until a certain point American legislators felt it was possible for them to make the use of contraception illegal, as well as sexual practices like homosexuality, which today are considered private. However with abortion there is a third question:
2) If the issue of abortion is protected by privacy (i.e. it concerns a woman's decision about herself), or if it involves a third party with its own rights (i.e. the fetus).
The answer to this question lies in the realm of science and philosophy, not interpretation of law. However, if the supreme court accepts 1 and 2, and if they have no compelling philosphical or scientific reason to start viewing 1st trimester fetuses as legal entities in their own right, then they can have no reason from the point of view of jurisprudence to overrule the previous court decision.
There is a third theological reason against abortion (in Catholicism), but the court should not address that.
------------------------
About prisons. Wouldn't it make more sense not to send to jail non violent criminals or ones that are not in risk of fleeing community service or something like that if not held at a gun-point. Community service, big fines, or some digital bracelet seem to be better in these cases.

About drugs. I wonder if using drugs is not like using contraceptives?

1the average pro-lifer doesn't give a rat's ass what the Constitution does and does not say. They want it overturned because they believe abortion is murder, pure and simple.
*****

Average is probably right. But legally, I believe that it really is up to the states, based on how our constitution is written. And that is the legal argument really. If "Roe" were overturned, it would leave it up to the states, and in some cases nothing would change (like NY) and some cases, it owuld be outlawed. (Unless you considered the 14th amendment to give the fetus the right to life, a not unreasonable argument). because though the public debate was cut off, we now have the firestorm that we have now over it, which we don't have generally when the issue is left more to the legislatures-at least over time, because people feel that they can make changes if they can just convince enough people to do so. Ruth Bader Ginsberg, no conservative, criticized Roe because she believed at the time that a growing pro-choice movement was gaining support and would have had more permanency.

Our constitution deals with physical searches by the government. That was what was contemplated. There is nothing in the consitution regarding anything at issue in Roe. All that stuff was the domain of, and province of the states. Sex, marriage, pregnancy, regulating doctors, definition of murder. The states gave up only a portion of their power to form the Union, for better or worse.

Mostly, Roe v. Wade is scene as a poorly written and poorly based decision in legal circles. It's been changed by Casey. Roe was based on now outdated science that was inevitably going to change, not law really. It basically said in the first trimester the state could not regulate abortions, in the second it had an interest in protecting the unborn which must be balanced with the mother's rights, and in the 3rd trimester, it could totally proscribe abortion except for life of the mother situations.

Casey changed the whole trimester thing into viability. Basically, when a fetus is viable, the state can set all sorts of regulations on the right to an abortion if it choose to, because it has an interest in protecting that developing life that is viable. Before viability, it has a very low interest in regulating that life. The tension in Casey is between the state's interest in protecting the fetus and the woman's right to control her body. Once the fetus is viable the woman's interest diminishes greatly under Casey, except for the "life and health of the mother." there's the rub, because anything can affect the health of the mother-any pregnancy it could be argued. It also replaced Roe's "heightened scrutiny" of any abortion restriction with a relaced "can't be an undue burden on the woman's right" 24 hr. waiting periods are ok, informed consent parental notificaions. not spousal notification though.

I honestly believe the makority in Casey was afraid to overturn roe entirely, and basically said "it may have been the wrong move, but we have to have consistency, even when wrong. If it is wrong long enough, it is law"

The question remains whether we really want 5 unelected individuals totally removed from everyday life to make these kinds of decisions when there really is no authorization given to them to do so. The courts have become a way to get what you want in circumvention of democracy when you can't convince the majority of people to give you what you want.

The discussion of the 14th Amendment, and particularly this quote, from spiderrob8 -

"This is what the Supreme Court actually said 'The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations.'"

led me to an idea which I don't think I've seen proposed before.

It also led me to read the specific text of the 14th Amendment, which on the face of it would already seem to me to protect gay marriage rights. It says "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privledges or immunities of the citizens of the United States... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" - and as has been pointed out, marriage is a legal institution, and one of the main concerns of those fighting for recognition of the right to marriage has been ensuring that insurance privleges, inheritance, and other legal rights which come from the joining of one's life together with another's apply whatever the genders of the respective partners. (I suppose this could be why its proponents think that an anti-gay marriage amendment is necessary, because gay marriage may already be protected by the Constitution as it stands.)

But, if the current interpretation of the amendment isn't enough to guarantee to homosexuals the right to marry, then maybe the way to a solution lies in the studies which indicate that homosexual brains do have different responses to sexual stimuli from heterosexual. If the Supreme Court has been most ready to apply the 14th to cases of "racial" discrimination, then perhaps, in this particular battle, homosexuals would be better off pursuing such research and then trying to be classified as a different race. It wouldn't be any more feeble than any other bullshit distinction which has been used to create "races"....

(Not to discount the very real social differences which have been created by the stupidity of "racial" classifications. But these social realities were created by the moronic fictional creation of different "races" based on minor differences in physical characteristics. ...Which of course calls into question whether declaring homosexuality a racial difference would in fact be a cure worse than the disease. But then, there already is an established bigotry against homosexuals; would a "racial" declaration worsen that significantly?)

All laws treat people differently. For example, tax laws. Married people get a deduction, single people don't. The Supreme Court generall asks is there any kind of rational basis for the law-and it can be overbroad. So encouraging people to marry for the benefit of society because married people are more stable and eventually usually have children, have bigger stakes in their communties, have more expenses etc. would be rational and in the legislature's province-even if the Supreme Court disagreed. and the fact that it doesn't cover everything (you can be unmarried and contribute to society and have lots of expenses) and covers too much (not every marriage is a postiive thing and not every married couple has a lot of expenses). I'm simplifying and picked a lousy example. But the Supreme court would generally never say you can't classify differenbtly based on marital status. (I am sure there is an example somewhere where I am wrong).

But certain things-such as race or national origin-get strict scrutiny. THe court looks at real real close. and it has to be narrowly tailored to meet its purpose-not overbroad. and there can't be a less restrictive alternative. Almost no classificaiotn based on race or national origin would be allowed. Such as bans on interracial marriage. They did uphold the Japanese internment I think-but that was wartime, where the court has long allowed freedoms to be lessened, and probably would not be allowed today anyway. But generally, there isn't a reason to treat people differently because of race. (Affirmative action is tricky and limited, in theory to remedy a past wrong). The idea is race/national origin almost never has a legitmate basis for a classification differently, and the 14th Amendment was passed specifically with blacks and ex-slaves in mind (some legal theorists would even limit it to that, but few). It specifically was passed to allow the North to pass laws after the Civil War to help black southerners and to eliminate southern laws against black people. Obviously support for such only lasted so long. It was passed in something of a trick, because the winners were allowed to exclude the southerner states that seceded from having a vote on it.

The there is the question-is what is not allowed purposeful unequal treatment "No black children will get textbooks" or results that are unequal "They didn;t mean for the test to be easier for whites than blacks, but twice as many blacks fail it as whites." Generally, except for employment, only discriminatory intent. No guarantee of equal outcomes, only equal opportunities

Some things get intermediate scrutiny-sex for example. Rationally related to an important state interest. Yeah, usually there is no reason to classify differently on male or female, but there are differences and there may be reasons.

Wealth, age and most other things have been held to get no extra scrutiny. Sexual orientation at this point as well. None of those groups are special classes given an extra look by the court than the normal look given. If the court were to give strict scrutiny or even intermediate scrutiny, laws prohibniting gay marriage probably would fail. If just the normal rational basis test, there's a good chance that they would be ok by the US Constitution, although there could be an argument it is totally irrational. Some would go to the intent of the people who passed the amendment, basically saying "Whatever it means, they did not mean for it to apply to the prohibition of homosexual unions ."

Peter -

Normally, I don't agree with your political views. I enjoy reading them - as I enjoy reading all of your stuff - but I don't agree with them, until this. My family and I have been, for a couple of generations, "old fashioned conservatives" - that is, basically hoping and encouraging the government to stay the heck out of normal people's lives. And so, up until George W. Bush, my family has voted uniformly Republican.

But, I'm embarrassed to be a Republican right now. This isn't the party that I grew up with. This party is all about big government, more government restrictions, and less individual freedom. I only hope and pray that some of these mistakes - like the "Broadcast Deceny Act" can be fixed soon.

The question remains whether we really want 5 unelected individuals totally removed from everyday life to make these kinds of decisions when there really is no authorization given to them to do.

Of course we do. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF THE COURT SYSTEM.

Married people get a deduction, single people don't.

Er... have you ever filed taxes?

Standard deduction for single people this tax year was $5,000.

Married? $10,000.

So, that's a wash.

When I hear Bill and Hillary Clinton offered as examples of ultra-liberals -- which I do, all too often -- I'm never sure whether to laugh or cry.

Which is very true, especially given Hillary's hawkishness on the war in Iraq and her railing against violence in video games.

But censorship is a common theme among both ultra-conservatives and ultra-liberals. They just usually want to censor different things.

I went to college during the Bush I years and, to be honest, saw plenty of examples of people on both the left and the right behaving badly. I've been on and off the campus scene as both a student and an instructor and haven't seen any difference. Most recently, the Republican students club at my alma matter -PSU- got some flak over their planned "Catch an Immigrant" day where a group of students would pretend to be illegal immigrant and participants would get prizes for "catching them."

Well, at my college there weren't very many oportunities for the right to behave badly. I have no doubt that they are fully capable of it but knowing that they will not be at all protected by an unsympathetic college administration probably keeps many on the straight and narrow.

I plan on going back for my PhD in a couple of years.

Great! Go for it! The older you get the easier college becomes--when you are the same age as the professor it's a whole lot easier top figure out what's important and what isn't.

How about a compromise: Let's treat drug addiction as a public health problem and lock up the big time dealers and smugglers.

Sounds good to me and I doubt there would be very many dealers and smugglers left at that point. Bootlegging hasn't been much of a problem since prohibition got canned.

If the Supreme Court has been most ready to apply the 14th to cases of "racial" discrimination, then perhaps, in this particular battle, homosexuals would be better off pursuing such research and then trying to be classified as a different race. It wouldn't be any more feeble than any other bullshit distinction which has been used to create "races"....

A clever thought, but it would be hard to prove that homosexuality is passed on, which is a fundamental aspect of race.

spiderrob--sorry about the misunderstanding. The way I was reading some of what you read and not picking up on the role you want the state governments to have. The only trouble with what you propose, ie having gays wait, is most, at least those I know, will say, "How much longer?"

Bill Mulligan--yeah, so, I'm a great big kid. And unfortunately, neither conversations with my parents nor my history classes told me about them. And you make a good point about Al Zarqawi. Most AMERICANS didn't know his name, but there's that Western Hemisphere-centricity at work again. Just because someone doesn't come from somewhere in North America (Hi, Canadians! How's it goin', eh?) doesn't mean he's not an important figure.

Bill & Den--miss college? Get a job in TV. We make Animal House look like Grandma's Tea Party.

Back to Spiderrob--it's funny (in an ironic way) that you had to leftify some of you college papers to make your professors happy, I had to rightify a few. Granted, they were all for one professor who looked like he'd dressed with Eugene Levy's cast off costumes only not as current, but still, I didn't like having to do it.

Sorry, only posted once. Not sure how it wound up in triplicate ... although this being a government town might have something to do with it. ;-)

Posted by Micha

the court made a new interpretation of the constitution in claiming that having seperate schools denies blacks equality.

Well, no -- the Court, in fact, declared that by a fairly strict interpretation of the Constitution the Topeka Board was in violation -- that the facilities were not "separate but equal", and thus violated the existing interpretation of the Amendment in question, the Fourteenth, providing that "no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". (There was in there a certain amount of assumption that there would be inherent inequality, but based on my own childhood memories of a couple year later (i was six in '54, and we moved to South Carolina in '55), i'd say that was a pretty safe bet.

Posted by Craig J. Ries

Er... have you ever filed taxes?

Standard deduction for single people this tax year was $5,000.

Married? $10,000.

So, that's a wash.

But if there's any significant difference in the couple's individual incomes, one of them gets shafted on the tax rate. This is the "marriage penalty".

And i'd like to apologise to spiderrob to some extent -- i shouldn't have posted that snarky comment, no matter how much i felt like it at the time.

As some explanation, on a USENET group, i've been involved with a self-identified "libertarian" who, among other things called me a liar because i said that i knew what most libertarians thought, and who continues to assert that his opinion must be right and my evidence must be wrong; Spiderrob, who at least attempts to back up his opinions, caught the backflash from that.

Which is not to say that i don't believe that he is a bit obtuse and talking about things he doesn't fully understand, but i shouldn't have been snarky about it.

Sean Scullion:
"The Constitution is not set in stone; it can be modified as the times dictate. In fact, it NEEDS to be modified to keep from becoming an anachronism. It also can't be the Be-All and End-All of American life. IT's a place to start, not the destination."

I agree and disagree. The constitution is the destination, but it needs to be modified at times. And making it difficult to ammend the constitution gives the time needed to discuss and yes, even fight over the proposed changes. And often, during the discussions things occur anyway. Look back when the Equal Rights Ammendment was going on. It failed mainly because it wasn't equal rights, but it would grant superior rights to one group over another (women over men). Yeah, men had the upper hand for a long time without a law saying so, but it's bad law to punish one group over another "just to make it fair". And while all the discussion was going on, real laws were enacted to actually give equal treatment under the law.

I feel the same thing will happen with gay marriages. There WILL eventually be a means to give same sex life partners equal rights as married couples, but by having the starting place be the Mass. Supreme Court and the city of San Francisco, I think it pushed the cause back, while forcing the issue to the spotlight.

Jeff, I don't know that the ERA would really have granted superior rights to women. It simply syayed that equality could not be denied on the basis of sex.

You could argue that courts might have interpreted it so broadly that bad things would have happened but I think one could easily argue that men would have been the chief benefactors of the ERA.

Luigi Novi: The Supreme Court has interpreted the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to mean that no government — federal, state or local — can perform any action or make any policy which blatantly favors one faith or church over the others, or which favors belief in God or the Supreme being over non-belief since the latter half of the nineteenth century.

spiderrob: Right. No establishment. That has nothing to do with separation.
Luigi Novi: Funny, I don’t see the phrase “no establishment” in the quote that I provided. What I do see is a description of the clause that clearly describes separation. What part of “may not blatantly favor one faith over others or belief over non-belief” do you contend does not constitute separation? If this does not mean separation, then what do you think separation means?

spiderrob: Anyway, recent decisions allowing the government to give money to churches or religious institutions in certain situations have weakened the idea of separation of church and state strongly.
Luigi Novi: No, it simply means that the law is not being properly followed. It doesn’t mean that the idea itself is somehow weakened. That is a non sequitur.

spiderrob: I'll phrase it a different way-anyone can be in a union with anyone. But states have never recognized these unions for homosexuals, and thus nothing new is now being taken away by laws or referendums making clear the law and custom for the past couple fo hundred years. The ones who want the change are the people in favor of gay marriage. To phrase it as if they had that recognition before and it is being taken away now is false.
Luigi Novi: And if you can point to where anyone said anything about it being “new” or having been recognized “before”, by all means do so. As it is, I do not recall reading any such implication, and so this still appears to be semantics on your part.

Den: Interestly enough, David Horowitz, author of "The Professors", found a sympathetic state representative in Pennsylvania and convinced him to hold a series of hearings across the state on academic bias. But don't expect Horowitz to be crowing over his huge success in uncovering bias in Pennsylvania's colleges. Instead of the expected hordes of poor, oppressed conservative students they expected, the results were somewhat disappointing for Horowitz. Some students did report encountering politically biased professors, but the majority of them didn't find it a big deal and didn't feel that they were treated with hostility for holding an opposed view. At least one hearing had no one show up to testify! The consensus of the committee was that the whole talk about widespread academic tyranny was much ado about nothing.
Luigi Novi: His experiences recounted in Uncivil Wars would seem to indicate otherwise, as would some of the censorship we’ve seen in John Stossel’s special, You Can’t Say That!, which looks at censorship in America, including on college campuses. (And in case you think I’m only talking about liberals, I’m not. I myself had a bizarre experience with a radical extremist feminist professor in college who exhibited a disappointing level of intolerance for views other than her own. I didn’t keep the class on my schedule after the first session.)

spiderrob: The question remains whether we really want 5 unelected individuals totally removed from everyday life to make these kinds of decisions when there really is no authorization given to them to do so.
Luigi Novi: No authorization for them to do so? Really? How do you figure this? The fact that they’re Supreme Court Justices IS the authorization. Hello? And what does this “removed from everyday life” comment mean? Are you under the impression that the justices live under a rock when the Court is not in session? In any case, what does this have to do with anything? Isn’t the main area of expertise the ability to interpret of the Constitution?

1The question remains whether we really want 5 unelected individuals totally removed from everyday life to make these kinds of decisions when there really is no authorization given to them to do.

Of course we do. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF THE COURT SYSTEM.

******

No it isn't. The point of the court system is to interpret and apply law. Not make law on areas that are best left to legislatures. The SUpreme Court was never supposed to be the body to effectively amend the constitution. We were supposed to either pass amendments, or hold a new constitutional convention. The Supreme Court and other courts has usurped that role. In that sense, our constitution has failed in that sense. We don't pass amendments anymore, the Supreme Coirt amends it based on what 5 individuals think at any given time, until the next group of 5 thinks something else. Its a shame, and it makes the nominating process a political joke. Of course the Supreme court is the last step, so what they say goes. There is no check on that, except changing the court. But it is a failure of our system

As for married/single-sorry made an error. My general points stand and substitute a different example.

Not favoring a religion is not a separation (or religion over nonreligion). Favoring a religion is a step toward establishing it. If I give equal monies to religious groups and nonreligious groups for a purpose, I have not favored anybody. I have not established a particular religion, or religion in general over non religion. I have not violated the establishment clause at all. BUT, I am not separate from religion. It is not separation of church and state, because the state is given money to the "church." That is the fundamental difference between establishment, and separation. Separation means nothing-no role, no money, no funds, no endorsement of anything, nothing. Establishment means not to favor one over the other-one religion over the other reliugion, or all religion over nonreligion. It does not mean no connection to religion, just equal connections between the religions and non religion. There's is a big difference, which is why this debate comes up a lot in areas where religious institutions are providing services or functions that are not inherently religious (schools, charities). If you are separate, the religious schools/charities get nothing from the government-no books, no money for lunch programs, no money for ESL programs, no money for special ed, no money to perform charitable functions. Nothing nothing Nothing-comepltely separate-all that aid frees up the ability of those institutions to preach their beliefs. If it is is the government establishing religion-favoring one over the other or religion over nonreligion-then as long as the government provides an equal pot for both nonreligious institutions and religious instititutions for nonreligious functions, there is no porblem. Textbooks are ok, school lunches are ok, ESl money, fine, special ed money, fine, money for drug and alcohol program, counseling, etc. ok. Let groups meet in your school? Gotta treat religious groups equally and let them use it too. Separation? No. No religious groups on school grounds.Which is basically where the court has been heading. What would not be ok in establishment terms would be school prayer, ten commandment postings, IN GOD WE TRUST (though the court would almost certainly say that is de minimus). With separation, government has nothing to do with religion. With establishment, it doesn't favor religioon over nonreligion, one ghroup over another, or nonreligion over religion. There all treated the same.

Since I feel like I wrote a term paper here, and I am not being paid for my legal advice, that's all I can say! I've think I've exhausted the topic

Which is basically where the court has been heading.
***
I meant toward my establishment analysis and away from the strict separation analysis.

Luigi Novi: His experiences recounted in Uncivil Wars would seem to indicate otherwise, as would some of the censorship we’ve seen in John Stossel’s special, You Can’t Say That!, which looks at censorship in America, including on college campuses.

I'm not familiar with Uncivil Wars, but I did go through The Professors, which is basically a littany of 101 college professors whose views Horowitz doesn't like and ends with, a chapter that essentially says, "they're all like this."

Horowitz clearly has an agenda and that's to get more conservative views dominant on college campuses. There's no doubt that there are bad professors and professors who abuse their positions to promote their political ideology. There's also no doubt that there is a strong leftward bias among liberal arts professors in America (My own experience is that professors in physcial science and engineering actually tend to be more conservative). However, Horowitz's central thesis that there is a systemative and pervasive movement to oppress conservative students on college campus appears to have been debunked, at least in Pennsylvania. The state General Assembly looked for it and couldn't find it.

And just for the record, our GA is currently controlled by the Republican party.

Peter David: You chose to ignore it and insert your own version because apparently you couldn't argue with what I said, so you had to argue with what I didn't say.

It worked for Bush is 2004.

"Marriage = A Religious Institution

America = Separation of Church & State

Therefore, the Government should not meddle in Religous affairs.

Homosexual Marriage should be accepted/rejected by the head of your religious institution."

Marriage is NOT a Religious Institution it is a
CIVIL Institution.
If me and a girl want to get married we can get married by a judge and not by a
preist/preacher/minister.
The marriage linence, certificate, blood test, and record keeping is done by the goverment not by any Religious Institution.
The religious asspects of marriage is window dressing.

mike weber -
This is the "marriage penalty".

Well, he was referring to the marriage/singles deduction, not tax rates themselves.

The question remains whether we really want 5 unelected individuals totally removed from everyday life to make these kinds of decisions when there really is no authorization given to them to do.

Of course we do. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF THE COURT SYSTEM.

******

No it isn't. The point of the court system is to interpret and apply law. Not make law on areas that are best left to legislatures.

Again, I disagree.

The whole purpose of the courts is to apply the law APART FROM THE PRESSURES OF EVERYDAY LIFE. I can point to the the japanese American concentration camps as a prime example of where the courts failed their job. They are not to be subject to the passing whims of public opinion...they are to apply the law and an abstract approach is helpful in that.

This whole canard of "judicial activism" is just another way to say "My ox got gored and I;m not happy about it." I will quote from Judge John Jones about how the judiciary SHOULD be independent:

A fundamental cornerstone of our justice system, and in fact of our federal and state government, is an independent judiciary. The concept requires judges to decide cases in front of them in a manner faithful to the law without fear or favor and free from political and external pressures. It is vital, in my opinion, that we promote judicial independence at every level of the judiciary. Do not misunderstand what I mean by that. Many people, when they hear the term "judicial independence," think of an unfettered judiciary which is responsible to no person or entity - one which features judges deciding cases by doing what they please, free of any accountability. This is not what we, as judges, seek. This is not what we should seek. We are accountable. We should be criticized. Our decisions should be scrutinized and where inappropriate or wrong, they must be appealed and reversed.

However, we must not, I believe, "dumb down" the public by implying that judges should decide cases based on an agenda, or that they have a responsibility to act in concert with prevailing public opinion or the will of the majority. Worse than that, the press and the public have a responsibility, in my view, that is being shirked. That is to really foster a better understanding of the role of precedent in what judges do.

To be blunt, I think that many people need a civics lesson about the judicial system, because we are beginning to cross the line between fair comment and criticism of judges' work into something which is much darker and debilitating. At its worst, the failure by some segments of the media and the public to understand the proper function of an independent judiciary leads to results which are not only frightening, but are at times tragic. All of you remember the murders of my colleague Judge Joan Lefkow's husband and mother last February, shot by a disgruntled litigant whose case had been dismissed by the judge. The killer was lying in wait for Judge Lefkow and when he discovered her loved ones first, he killed them instead.

We cannot know if, in fact, the killer of Judge Lefkow's family members, who later took his own life, was influenced by the creeping disrespect for the judiciary that exists today. However, I would respectfully suggest that it is entirely likely that it was. As a result, as a direct result of the Lefkow murders, Congress has appropriated funds for security systems for the homes of United States judges. That is a very sad statement about our times.

And I will share something else with you that I have in common with Judge Whitamore, who presided in the Terri Schiavo case. That is, after our respective decisions, mine in the Dover case and Judge Whitamore's in the Schiavo case in 2005, both of us were under round-the-clock marshal protection for a period of time due to threats that we received, in my case, from various parts of the country. I'm sure you'll agree that that's a sad state of affairs and an alarming state of affairs.

By doing this, and by allowing this to happen, we are discouraging good people from seeking careers on the bench. In some cases, we're losing judges who simply don't want to undertake that responsibility in the face of these threats.

Now, as I conclude, let me return to the role of the Rule of Law, which is I think so fundamental and so embedded in our system of justice. We must never forget that the Rule of Law is not a conservative or a liberal value. It is assuredly not a Republican or Democratic value. Rather, it is an American value. Confidence in the Rule of Law rests entirely at any given point in time on the character and the integrity of the individual American judge and on that judge's absolute commitment to fairness and impartiality.

I worked for a federal judge. I understand their role.

The role is not to take the legislature's function away, and be a super-legislature, or an end run around the amendment process to the constiution. They are not to rewrite the constitution. and they;ve done it. It was a coup detat and most of us never noticed.

I mean, they had to amend the constitution to prohibit alcohol sales, and to have a federal income tax. There is no doubt in my mind today the court would read those powers into the constitution implicitly. Just because some people have used the term judicial activism wrongly, does not mean there is not sometimes cases of judicial activism-and by that I mean the court infringing on the separation of powers of the other branches and making policy. There are many things I think and wish were in the Constitution but my wishing it doesn't make it so. But if Justice Ginsberg or Justice Scalia decided it should be there, they would only have to say "yeah its implied, its in the corner there real small" and they are 20% there. That's wrong. That isn't there responsibility. Take the law and apply it to the facts. If the facts don't quite fit with the law because it is new, say because of technology, see if the law covers it anyway -say like the internet. But don't completely make things up. Don't say make up powers for the federal government that aren't there, or "fundamental rights" that also aren't there. So fundamental they forgot to write them? Come on.

and frankly, Judge Jones has to grow up. Sorry you are being criticized Judge, but one thing that is in the Constitution is freedom of speech. and sorry some judges are threatened-welcome to the modern world. It's wrong, but it happens to athletes, movie stars, presidents (4 of whom have been assinated, and one nearly), and even, yes, regular people.

The whole point he misses is that people don't think judges have integrity, or using the rule of law. It is the rule of "this is what I want, so it shall be." That's a dicator, an oligarchy, not a Judge. A judge is supposed to make decisions on the law, even if he disagrees with the law and thinks it should be changed or appealed, or amended.

Judge Jones' above response was not just about being criticized. He started speaking out because several conservative activities, such as Phyllis Schafly, were point blank saying that he "owed" conservatives because he was a republican appointee and therefore had an obligation to rule the way they wanted, regardless of what the law said.

Judges are bound by precedent. That's how common law works. Once it was clear that ID was just creationism in a Trojan Horse (as was made clear by several statements by the former members of the Dover School Board), he had to follow the SCOTUS rulings.

So, in Judge Jones' case, it isn't that he just decided the case on a whim because that's what he wanted to do, he followed precedent as he had sworn to do. His critics are the ones who wanted him to rule one way based on personal feelings rather than the law.

And you can find the same kind of attitude in those who attacked the judge in the Terri Schiavo. In both, you had judges who did follow the relevant laws and were attacked because others did not like it.

I don't doubt that have been cases where judges have engaged in "legislating from the bench." In fact, as I said, I think the Roe is a stretch of the 14th amendment. But as I pointed out in the Kelo case and now in the Dover and Schiavo cases, the majority of things that many people decry as "judicial activism" are in fact, simply rulings that didn't go the way they wanted. But rather that going to where their real beef is (ie, the law), they'd rather just attack judges.

Think local municipalities have too much leeway in eminant domain? Call you state rep to change the law to prevent takings for private development (we did in Pennsylvania).

Don't want a woman in a PVS to be let go? Then campaign in your state to make it illegal to remove a feeding tube without an explicit living will. Probably make a lot of lawyers happy.

Want creationism taught in science class? Then start a movement for a Constitutional amendment to make it allowed. While you're at it, amend the Constitution to say that the Earth is flat, too.

But no, better to just attack judges.

"Marriage" is really a relgious institution. Just about everybody who is married is also participating in a Civil Union, which is the institution that grants rights to inheritance, child custody, and all the rest. No law can force a Church to recognize marriage between two people if it doesn't want to. So marriage is not threatened by Gay Civil Unions. The problem is that most people don't know the distinction, or don't make it.

"Marriage" is really a relgious institution.

No, it isn't.

My wife and I were issued a MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE when were married, with no priest or other religious figure in site.

Not a Civil Union Certificate.

You guys can keeping telling yourselves this, but it doesn't make it any more true today than it was yesterday.

There is, for many people, both a religious and a legal component to marriage. The religious component is the ceremony in which the priest/minister/rabbi/imam gives the union the religious. The legal component is that piece of paper you file with the county courthouse that allows you to file joint taxes and share health benefits.

The two components are completely separate from one another. You don't need the religious component to have the legal component be recognized. Likewise, many religions are not obligated to recognize marriages are legal. For example, the Catholic Church doesn't recognize any marriages that aren't performed by a priest. Both, however, are called "marriage". As far as I know, the term "civil union" only has legal meaning in one state, Vermont.

The gay marriage issue only affects the legal definition of marriage. But because it's considered icky by many people, they get their panties in a twist over it for religious reasons.

Posted by Egon at June 7, 2006 12:09 PM

Marriage = A Religious Institution

America = Separation of Church & State

Therefore, the Government should not meddle in Religous affairs.

Homosexual Marriage should be accepted/rejected by the head of your religious institution.

If that's the case, then why do I have to go to the County Clerk's office to apply for a Marriage License? If Marriage is only a religious issue, then only Churches should be issuing Marriage Licenses.

How about this: The government shouldn't tell religions what marriages they should recognize and religions shouldn't tell the government what marriages they should recognize.

Does that work?

Does that work?

It should, but applying it reality is a different matter altogether. :)

Hey, all, I've been attending business meetings in California and didn't get a chance to join in on the fun. I haven't had a chance to read every post yet, so I'll try to limit myself to responding to a few points I believe I can address intelligently:

Posted by: spiderrob8 at June 9, 2006 02:29 PM

Just because some people have used the term judicial activism wrongly, does not mean there is not sometimes cases of judicial activism

Well, that's true, but it certainly is worth discussing. If people are using the term wrongly, that pollutes the debate and renders it meaningless. The first step towards creating a meaningful dialog about "judicial activism" lies in defining what it is, and what it isn't.

and frankly, Judge Jones has to grow up.

I am afraid I don't see why it is Judge Jones who needs to grow up. Judge Jones has acknowledged that the judiciary should be subject to scrutiny and criticism, and held accountable if their actions fall outside of the bounds of their legitimate authority.

Judge Jones is rightly pointing out, however, that many critics of the judiciary are ignorant about that which they are criticizing. The Judge is advocating that people learn about the judiciary before criticizing it. I don't believe that meets any reasonable definition of immaturity.

Sorry you are being criticized Judge, but one thing that is in the Constitution is freedom of speech.

But Judge Jones never advocated that the government silence critics of the judiciary. He merely advocated that the media and the general public become educated about that which they wish to criticize.

The right to free speech does not guarantee that the subjects of your criticism must remain silent.

and sorry some judges are threatened-welcome to the modern world. It's wrong, but it happens to athletes, movie stars, presidents (4 of whom have been assinated, and one nearly), and even, yes, regular people.

Yes, but, as you said, it is wrong when it happens. It may be a part of the "modern world," but that doesn't make it an inevitability. Nor does that make it something we should take in stride.

By the way, the people who are threatening judges are the ones you should be telling to "grow up," not a judge who is responding intelligently to ignorant criticism.

The whole point he misses is that people don't think judges have integrity, or using the rule of law. It is the rule of "this is what I want, so it shall be." That's a dicator, an oligarchy, not a Judge. A judge is supposed to make decisions on the law, even if he disagrees with the law and thinks it should be changed or appealed, or amended.

But his point is that some of the critics don't have their facts straight. Just because people think most or all judges lack integrity doesn't make them correct. Judge Jones is asking that people learn about the judiciary before criticizing individual judges. I'm not sure why you take exception to that. Shouldn't people make it a point to be knowledgeable about something before forming an opinion about it?

Bill, welcome back.

Hmmm...Myers vanishes for a few days and Zarqawi and a Hamas leader both get offed...coinicidence?

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at June 9, 2006 07:01 PM

Bill, welcome back.

Hmmm...Myers vanishes for a few days and Zarqawi and a Hamas leader both get offed...coinicidence?

Nope. That was all me.

As I understand this whole froofraw, conservatives, both social and political, view same sex marriage as a threat to American (and Canadian) culture. They base their arguments mainly on scriptures.

The current Administration (let's call it "Delta House on the Potomac") draws most of it's grassroots support from these conservative elements. These same people oppose abortion, want "intelligent design" taught as science in school, and are opposed to stem cell research, all based on religious beliefs. (Please correct me if I have missed anything yet.)

This group of people enjoy the friendliest (to their aims) administration in years. A loud minority who want the majority to live within their moral framework.

PAD, they don't have to be stupid to fall for it, they just have to believe the lies. With ministers thundering from the pulpit that they have a duty to support politicians who will "defend" marriage, you've got a functional wedge issue, good for maintaining control of Congress.

Manny has pointed out something very wise. Most of the conservatives DO tend to thunder away at whatever audience they're speaking to. (Do you think that some of the more volume-straining of the media types shout away and everyone in the studio just kinda sits there? Maybe they have canned affirmations in their cans.) A speech teacher I had in college(an uber-conservative homosexual, if you can picture that) pointed out that in a debate people tend to get louder when they're less confident in their own positions. Throw in most people's desire to be in the In Crowd in whatever they're involved in, and you got yourselves your own little captive audience that will eat out of your hand.

What I wanna know is--do I still get my $100 bucks for the high gas prices or what?

Sean, your uber-conservative homosexual (imaginable-nauseating but imaginable) speech teacher is quite correct. As people lose confidence in their position, they tend to get louder, usually, I think, to drown out any logical counter argument.

Up here, our new Prime Minister, sort of a W-Lite fellow named Stephen Harper, is vowing to re-open the whole same-sex marriage can of worms, even though the issue was legally decided a year ago.

The long term logic truly evades me. Don't let them get married, and even if they have been living together longer than most heterosexual marriages last, DO NOT let them adopt any children, oh, and by the way, no abortions either.

I have heard some of these folks have managed or tried to get a requirement of regular church attendance as a requirement for adoption.

On a tangent, what exactly did Anne Coulter say or do that has everyone so worked up? I'm not ignorant, just uninformed. I know who she is, and that she is basically a skinny Rush Limbaugh with ovaries. Please enlighten me.

On a tangent, what exactly did Anne Coulter say or do that has everyone so worked up? I'm not ignorant, just uninformed. I know who she is, and that she is basically a skinny Rush Limbaugh with ovaries. Please enlighten me.

She basically said that some of the 9/11 widows were happy that their husbands had died in the towers because it gave them fame and a platform.

She's the Ted Rall of the right, though Teddy at least actually believes his bile.Coulter is, it's said, simply in it for the bucks (and it worked--she's at the top of the bestseller list and has managed to provoke at least one politician into calling for her book to be banned. Can't BUY that kind of publicity.)

"Peter David: You chose to ignore it and insert your own version because apparently you couldn't argue with what I said, so you had to argue with what I didn't say.

It worked for Bush is 2004."

I've gone over this thread three times, can find no previous comment from you, and honestly have no idea on God's green Earth what you're talking about.

As for marriage being a religious versus a state institution, well...as I recall, priests usually say, "By the power vested in me by the state of (whatever state they're in), I now pronounce you man and wife." The assemblage may be there in the eyes of God, but since God is all-seeing, whether you're getting married or sleeping or scuba diving, it's being done in the eyes of God. People can get married without a church, but a church can't marry them without the state, so I'd have to think that settles that.

PAD

I thought of doing a blog entry excoriating Coulter, or pointing out that her millionaire boy Bush has spent the last six years grinningly exploiting 9/11 for his personal gain, so where does she get off condemning widows, but then realized that giving her THAT much attention would do nothing but please her. So I just make fast mention of it here, buried in this thread, and I'm done with her.

PAD

spiderrob: The question remains whether we really want 5 unelected individuals totally removed from everyday life to make these kinds of decisions when there really is no authorization given to them to do.

Roger Tang: Of course we do. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF THE COURT SYSTEM.

spiderrob: No it isn't. The point of the court system is to interpret and apply law. Not make law on areas that are best left to legislatures.
Luigi Novi: Arguably true, but you didn’t say that. You said “these decisions”, with no further clarification of what you meant by that. In doing so, you left it up to us to interpret (no pun intended) what you meant, which is I and Roger thought you meant something generic like “rule on such cases.”

spiderrob: Not favoring a religion is not a separation (or religion over nonreligion). Favoring a religion is a step toward establishing it.
Luigi Novi: No.

The word “favoring” does not mean “establishing.” Any law that favors one religion over another, or favors belief over non-belief, and gives deference to one viewpoint over another, is discriminatory, and a violation of the clause. But if you can point me to a reference source that says that “favoring” means “establishing”, then please do so.

spiderrob: If I give equal monies to religious groups and nonreligious groups for a purpose, I have not favored anybody. I have not established a particular religion, or religion in general over non religion.
Luigi Novi: So in that particular example, the point does not apply. But there have been other instances in which certain things have favored one viewpoint over another, as when public schoolchildren have been made to recite the mutilated Pledge of Allegiance with the words “under God” inserted into it.

Den: I'm not familiar with Uncivil Wars, but I did go through The Professors, which is basically a littany of 101 college professors whose views Horowitz doesn't like and ends with, a chapter that essentially says, "they're all like this."
Luigi Novi: And by “essentially”, do you mean that you interpreting his words to mean what you want it to mean? I ask, because he makes no such indications in the works of his that I have read. It would be easy for him to say that there are many like this (which arguably there are), and then have you twist that into “all.”

Could you quote some passages that make this clear?

Den: Horowitz clearly has an agenda and that's to get more conservative views dominant on college campuses.
Luigi Novi: Oh, the horror! Imagine wanting students and others with conservative views to have the same freedom to state such views without fear of reprisal as those with liberal ones! The unmitigated nerve of him! Doesn’t he know that colleges are supposed to be “liberals only” places of indoctrination?

spiderrob: and frankly, Judge Jones has to grow up. Sorry you are being criticized Judge, but one thing that is in the Constitution is freedom of speech. and sorry some judges are threatened-welcome to the modern world.
Luigi Novi: Jones made it clear that what he lamented was the heightened security due to threats, not “criticism.” The latter is protected by law. The former is not, and anyone who reads that passage can clearly see what he was talking about.

So much for “That's all I can say! I've think I've exhausted the topic.”

"She's the Ted Rall of the right, though Teddy at least actually believes his bile.Coulter is, it's said, simply in it for the bucks (and it worked--she's at the top of the bestseller list and has managed to provoke at least one politician into calling for her book to be banned. Can't BUY that kind of publicity.)"

Thanks for the update, Bill. However, banning her vitriol would only work for her. Her argument, and that of her stormtroopers would be as follows:

"See, now the liberals are stomping on my freedom of speech. She's a martyr and deserves our symathy."

Never mind that a ban would only make people curious. IMHO force her to deal with her words. Any time she shows up on the usual talk shows/shout fests, phone in and force her to explain herself.

Either that, or sic Kieth Olbermann on her.

Bill Mulligan -
She's the Ted Rall of the right, though Teddy at least actually believes his bile.

*roflmao* Bile? Yeah, sure, Bill.

Rall stands up and says what's true and what's right, not what sells books, unlike that sex-changed whore Coulter.

But I suppose if you hate hearing the truth, keep going back to the O'Reillys, Limbaughs, and Coulters of the political commentators world.

Manny -
Any time she shows up on the usual talk shows/shout fests, phone in and force her to explain herself.

And on this topic, Ted Rall has a lawyer looking into the possibility of going after Coulter for libel & slander over comments she made about him (it was along the lines of saying Rall and Trudeau were lined up to join Iran's publishing of anti-Jewish cartoons after that Mohammed cartoon garbage).

Coulter needs to be put in her place.

Manny -
Either that, or sic Kieth Olbermann on her.

Keith ripped her a new one the other night over her comments. He's good at that when it comes to these righty whackjobs like Coulter and O'Reilly. :)

Oh, one other note on Rall: he's been equated for much the same thing as Coulter is now, targetting the widows of 9/11, only for him it was back in 2002.

He too accused them of profiting from the deaths of their husbands. Although, unlike Coulter, he never accused them of being joyful at those deaths.

So, in the end, I guess I agree with both Rall and Coulter on one point: some of them have seen far too much profit (see: Lisa Beamer, in particular) from 9/11. Beamer's entry on Wikipedia isn't too flattering either.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at June 10, 2006 11:54 AM

*roflmao* Bile? Yeah, sure, Bill.

Rall stands up and says what's true and what's right, not what sells books, unlike that sex-changed whore Coulter.

Coulter's supporters use the same sort of rhetoric you're using. And Coulter engages in the same kind of nasty name-calling you're engaging in. Craig, I apologize in advance for offending you, but regardless of your ideology, I see nothing in your last post to distinguish you from Ann Coulter.

But I suppose if you hate hearing the truth, keep going back to the O'Reillys, Limbaughs, and Coulters of the political commentators world.

Craig, I defy you to show me anything Bill has posted that proves that he is a devotee of Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and Ann Coulter. Because I can cite evidence that suggests the very opposite: in his last post, Bill Mulligan acknowledged doubts about Ann Coulter's sincerity and integrity.

Conservatives and liberals are not monolithic groups. There are many, many, many conservatives who reject the O'Reillys, Limbaughs, and Coulters of this world. Based on Bill Mulligan's posts, I would daresay he's one of them.

Craig, why are you looking for enemies where there are none? After all, it seems that you and Bill at the very least agree about Ann Coulter.

Craig, I believe you're fully capable of making your points without resorting to such belligerence. I'd encourage you to try.

Peter writes:

"People can get married without a church, but a church can't marry them without the state, so I'd have to think that settles that."

Please forgive me if my sidebar below repeats what some other poster wrote, as I have not read each post in detail.

I agree with your statement, Peter. The sad reality is that the support of the church is needed to legalize same-sex marriage. Otherwise, the votes won't be there as too many folks seem to vote as their religious leaders instruct. It is such a same that so many people throw away their most precious and powerful right by voting with their church, and not their conscience--an affront to God, IMO.

Fortunately, some formal organized groups, such as the Central Conference of American Rabbis--can and do perform same-sex unions. Many of these groups don't use the term "marriage" so as not to confuse people with their legal satus, but they do condone legal status for same-sex couples, and are making a positive impact on the lives of our gay and lesbian citizens.

Daniel

I see nothing in your last post to distinguish you from Ann Coulter.

Well, there's an easy way to distinguish my posts from hers: she has an Adam's apple.

Pretty simple, I thought.

Want some more distinguishment?

I've never called for Bush to be assassinated. I've never called for federal judges to be killed. I've never called for conservatives to be murdered.

Guess what? Rall hasn't done those things either.

I think the equating of Ted Rall with Ann Coulter is unfair. Rall has a sharp edge to his humor, but (a) he's often quite funny, and (b) he's often quite intelligent.

Read, for example, his book To Afghanistan And Back. One does not need to agree with his opinions to find merit both in the comics-format account of his time there and in his accompanying essay. I can think of nothing comparable that Coulter has said or written.

Here's a link to Rall's book at Amazon.com, for those interested in checking it out. (I hope I got the coding right for the link...)

Nope, apparently that's not how one posts a link. Try this instead: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1561633259/102-4315353-3557718?v=glance&n=283155

I think the equating of Ted Rall with Ann Coulter is unfair. Rall has a sharp edge to his humor, but (a) he's often quite funny, and (b) he's often quite intelligent.

I wholeheartedly agree.

There are times when I don't agree with what Rall says, and there are times when I agree with some of the stuff Coulter says.

It's just that Coulter has that way of pissing me off, especially when she has to get those "low blows" at liberals, even when such cheap shots are not in the least bit relevant to whatever it is she's writing about.

If liberals disappeared off the face of the earth tomorrow, she'd probably be at a loose end, and, let's face it, that's not sign of a good political commentator, no matter which side you're on.

But Rall is smart, funny, and, unlike Coulter as far as I know, knowledgeable of the world at large, since he has been to war zones and other countries that most journalists & the media here outright ignore (such as Kryzgstan).

Nova, your link didn't work, so I'd just recommend people go to Amazon.com and do a books search for 'Ted Rall'. You'll find his stuff easily enough then.

The thing I love about Rall is that, unlike the media and many liberals in general, he hasn't keeled over and died from the ridiculous onslaughts from the Right in recent years.

pointing out that her millionaire boy Bush has spent the last six years grinningly exploiting 9/11 for his personal gain

"The next time a Republican wraps himself in 9/11 or uses a soldier as a prop -- the next time Bush watches a 9/11 movie with 9/11 families, the next time he invites the father of a fallen soldier to join him in throwing out a first pitch, the next time he participates in a staged chat with troops in the field, the next time his party holds its national political convention within shouting distance of ground zero, the next time the mother of a fallen soldier turns up in Laura Bush's box at the State of the Union address, the next time Cheney suggests that questioning the president's Iraq policy somehow equates to undercutting the troops -- remember this: It's the Democrats, not the Republicans, who do this sort of thing. Just ask Ann Coulter."
-- Tim Grieve, Salon.com

Luigi Novi: And by “essentially”, do you mean that you interpreting his words to mean what you want it to mean? I ask, because he makes no such indications in the works of his that I have read. It would be easy for him to say that there are many like this (which arguably there are), and then have you twist that into “all.”

You would know, as you're proven to be the master of twisting what other people have said and making it say whatever you want it mean.

Don't think I've forgotten how you accused me of being two separate people and lying about it.

Den: Horowitz clearly has an agenda and that's to get more conservative views dominant on college campuses.
Luigi Novi: Oh, the horror! Imagine wanting students and others with conservative views to have the same freedom to state such views without fear of reprisal as those with liberal ones! The unmitigated nerve of him! Doesn’t he know that colleges are supposed to be “liberals only” places of indoctrination?

Case in point: I never said that college campuses should be places for "liberals only." I only said that Horowitz wants them to be dominated by conversatives instead of liberals.

Posted by Craig J. Ries at June 10, 2006 02:10 PM

Well, there's an easy way to distinguish my posts from hers: she has an Adam's apple.

Sorry Craig, but that's a pretty Coulter-like tactic.

Pretty simple, I thought.

Simple, but ineffective, as it did nothing to distinguish your rhetoric from Coulter's.

Want some more distinguishment?

That would be nice.

I've never called for Bush to be assassinated. I've never called for federal judges to be killed. I've never called for conservatives to be murdered.

OK, so you've found an area where she goes further than you do. That still doesn't change the fact that many of your rhetorical tricks are identical to Coulter's: ad hominem attacks that lack any basis in fact.

I've noticed that you still haven't answered my challenge to show any evidence that Bill Mulligan is a devotee of Coulter's, Limbaugh's, or O'Reilly's. That's because you probably can't. So rather than acknowledge that you're losing the core argument, you try to change the subject.

Guess what? Rall hasn't done those things either.

Guess what? Bill Mulligan made Coulter sound worse than Rall. So why are we even discussing this? Because you were trying to pick a fight with an honorable guy over something he never said, by accusing him of things you can't prove.

It would make more sense to just admit that you were having a knee-jerk reaction and attacked Mulligan without cause. I mean, I've admitted my own mistakes in this board and guess what? It hasn't made me weak. In fact, it's earned me some people's respect.

ad hominem attacks that lack any basis in fact.

Dude, go look at a picture of her (if you have the stomach to do so).

So rather than acknowledge that you're losing the core argument, you try to change the subject.

See the very first reply to this thread by Bill Mulligan. I think the argument is there, contrary to what you believe.

He very much comes off as a right-wing devotee and ended up doing little with his posts, particularly that first one, to change the notion that he's any different than the rest of the mindless cattle who follow O'Reilly, Rush, and Coulter.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at June 11, 2006 01:40 AM

See the very first reply to this thread by Bill Mulligan. I think the argument is there, contrary to what you believe.

There was no "argument" there. You got angry that Bill characterized Rall's opinions as "bile." You then declared that Rall is right, as though your declaration should be enough for all of us, which it isn't.

You then accused Bill of being a devotee of Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Coulter, even though Bill condemned Ann Coulter in his last post. I mean, go back and read it. He says the difference between Rall and Coulter is that Rall "believes" his "bile." The inescapable implication is that Coulter spews "bile" as well.

You're arguing with a man who agrees with you about how awful Ann Coulter is. Unfortunately, that seems to fly in the face of your limited worldview, wherein conservatives and liberals never agree because that's just how things are. So rather than acknowledge an inescapable reality, you've created a straw man with which to argue in order to maintain your false worldview.

Sad.

He very much comes off as a right-wing devotee and ended up doing little with his posts, particularly that first one, to change the notion that he's any different than the rest of the mindless cattle who follow O'Reilly, Rush, and Coulter.

In the interests of full disclosure, I have developed a friendship with Bill Mulligan and have great respect for him. I noticed during our first exchanges in this blog that even though he tends to be conservative and I tend to be liberal, he was able to treat my views with respect and maintain an open mind. So I'm probably not as dispassionate about this issue as I'd prefer to be.

Nevertheless, I believe I can objectively say that Bill Mulligan is not "mindless cattle," and I take great exception to you insulting him in that way. I am tempted to respond with what I really think about you, but then I would be sinking to your level. There was a time when I would have taken the bait, but I've realized life is too short.

Instead, I'll simply say that I've recognized the futility of trying to have a rational discourse with you, and will waste no further time with you. Good day.

You then declared that Rall is right

No, I declared that Rall doesn't spew bile.

You then accused Bill of being a devotee of Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Coulter, even though Bill condemned Ann Coulter in his last post.

And you know, one has nothing to do with the other.

How many people have said that they think Bush is a total moron, yet would vote for him yet again if they had the chance?

he was able to treat my views with respect and maintain an open mind.

Yet he said Rall belives the "bile" he says. I guess his worldview isn't as open as you believe it to be either.

I am tempted to respond with what I really think about you, but then I would be sinking to your level.

Well, you've already accused me of having a limited worldview, which is a complete crock of shit, so why stop there?

Craig, I know I shouldn't waste my time with you, but I hate it when people are dishonest. You did indeed declare that Rall is right:

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at June 10, 2006 11:54 AM

Rall stands up and says what's true and what's right, not what sells books, unlike that sex-changed whore Coulter.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at June 11, 2006 12:52 PM

And you know, one has nothing to do with the other.

How many people have said that they think Bush is a total moron, yet would vote for him yet again if they had the chance?

Craig, you excoriated Bill for calling Rall's work "bile," and declared that Rall stands up for "what's true and what's right." You then told Bill if he can't handle "the truth," he should go back to people like O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and Coulter.

If the two things are not connected, why did you connect them?

Yet he said Rall belives the "bile" he says. I guess his worldview isn't as open as you believe it to be either.

Having an open mind doesn't mean sacrificing the ability to make subjective judgments. If that were true, then by your own flawed logic, your worldview isn't open because you don't like Ann Coulter.

Well, you've already accused me of having a limited worldview, which is a complete crock of shit, so why stop there?

Calling your worldview limited is much nicer than calling other people "mindless cattle." So, yeah, there's still a way to go before I reach your level. And there's every reason to "stop there."

You know, Craig, you and I seem to have something in common: we both have tempers, we both react badly when we perceive we're under attack, and we're both too unwilling to walk away when we should. I actually know where you're coming from.

So my advice is not coming to you from a vantage point of perceived superiority. Quite the opposite: I've been where you are. And I'm telling you that it will cost you nothing to take a deep breath, look at this exchange objectively and say, "OK, I was a little unfair to Bill just because he criticized Rall, a guy I like. But there's room enough in this world for both of us. My bad. Sorry."

Obviously, you are under no obligation to take my advice. But I will tell you this: learning to take that deep breath every once in awhile hasn't made me weaker. It's made me stronger. And it's made many people more prone to consider what I have to say.

I'm telling you, Craig, that taking a deep breath right now and looking at this discourse more dispassionately won't hurt you a bit. It will, I think, help to better showcase your intelligence rather than your emotions.

You did indeed declare that Rall is right

Well, this is semantics, and if you think I'm still worth the time, I'll try explain myself further.

What I mean by "what's right" in this case is that Rall writes about things like the wiretapping, Gitmo, and other similar issues where our government wants to ignore laws & morality in favor of political expediency. The media has been rather complacent with Bush in the White House; Rall hasn't.

Coulter, however, just goes for what gets her on the front page, such as the suggestion that we should just kill bunches of people in Iraq and convert the rest of Christianity.

I don't see how anybody can defend that as "right".

This is all different, imo, than simple facts of saying 2+2=4 and then declaring you're right, and the fact that 2+2=5 is wrong.

In any case, Bill Mulligan is welcome to defend himself here, if he wants to. And if he says "No, I don't read/hear what O'Reilly/Limbaugh/Coulter say, and I disagree with them most of the time", then so be it, I'm in the wrong.

My perception of him is obviously not entirely accurate, and that's true of anybody that posts here, but I can't recall everything that's been said. Bill just tends to come across, to me, as a party-line kind of guy, and, like it or not, I think party-line people more likely tend to be cattle who will believe any garbage fed to them by the leaders of said party; this goes for both sides of the aisle.

Jeeze, I'm gone for one day and look what happens.

*roflmao* Bile? Yeah, sure, Bill.

Rall stands up and says what's true and what's right, not what sells books, unlike that sex-changed whore Coulter.

But I suppose if you hate hearing the truth, keep going back to the O'Reillys, Limbaughs, and Coulters of the political commentators world.

Well, Craig, if you think that calling someone a "sex-changed whore" passes for actual thought, then yeah, Rall must seem like a regular Edward R. Murrow.

"Go back to Coulter"? Right, because my post obviously indicated how much I respect her opinions. Quit drinking the Ted Rall koolaid, you're smarter than this.

And on this topic, Ted Rall has a lawyer looking into the possibility of going after Coulter for libel & slander over comments she made about him (it was along the lines of saying Rall and Trudeau were lined up to join Iran's publishing of anti-Jewish cartoons after that Mohammed cartoon garbage).

PLEASE tell me you didn't actually send money to him for this scam. It. Ain't. Gonna. Happen. Jeeze, of all people, Ted Rall should think twice about what would happen if everyone could sue when some political shmuck said something cruel or unfair. (for those not in the know, Teddy got upset over Coulter's lame joke "Iran is soliciting cartoons on the Holocaust. So far, only Ted Rall, Garry Trudeau, and The New York Times have made submissions". Painfully unfunny but about as likely to get a judgement as any of Jay Leno's zingers.).

Oh, one other note on Rall: he's been equated for much the same thing as Coulter is now, targetting the widows of 9/11, only for him it was back in 2002.
Uh...well, yeah, that was my point, you know. So I guess my question is, can you possibly find it in yourself to actually critisize Rall or will you have to somehow actually agree with Coulter?

So, in the end, I guess I agree with both Rall and Coulter on one point: some of them have seen far too much profit

Ok, well, that answers that. Personally, I disagree. Rall and Coulter look like petulant teens saying something oh so shocking to get attention. A pox on both.

Bill Myers--thanks, you defend me better than I do, probably because you are less likely to snarl back at attacks, real or perceived. I outta know better but we are what we are...

I see nothing in your last post to distinguish you from Ann Coulter.

Well, there's an easy way to distinguish my posts from hers: she has an Adam's apple.

Ummm....I'm not sure that really says what you think it does...

He very much comes off as a right-wing devotee and ended up doing little with his posts, particularly that first one, to change the notion that he's any different than the rest of the mindless cattle who follow O'Reilly, Rush, and Coulter.

I guess I can't argue with you on how I "come off" since that's a purely emotional reaction on your part. I can't tell you that you don't feel the way you feel. So there's no point in arguing, I guess. Your wrong, but off the top of my head I'm not sure I can come up with a solid way of proving it. Or an overwhelming reason to try.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at June 11, 2006 02:23 PM

Well, this is semantics, and if you think I'm still worth the time, I'll try explain myself further.

No, it's not semantics, it's what you said. You said Rall stands up for "what's true and what's right," and then you said you never said that.

Accuracy and intellectual honesty are not trivial issues.

What I mean by "what's right" in this case is that Rall writes about things like the wiretapping, Gitmo, and other similar issues where our government wants to ignore laws & morality in favor of political expediency. The media has been rather complacent with Bush in the White House; Rall hasn't.

But you've conveniently left out a lot of the vitriolic crap Rall has spewed. I won't cover that because Mulligan already did.

Coulter, however, just goes for what gets her on the front page, such as the suggestion that we should just kill bunches of people in Iraq and convert the rest of Christianity.

I don't see how anybody can defend that as "right".

Uhm, who in this thread defended that as "right?" On the other hand, I don't think any reasonable person can defend some of the above examples of Rall's bile as "right," either.

This is all different, imo, than simple facts of saying 2+2=4 and then declaring you're right, and the fact that 2+2=5 is wrong.

In other words, what you're struggling to say is that there's an element of subjectivity. If that's the case, then, you have no business calling others "mindless cattle" for disagreeing with you, because subjectivity implies that there's no clear right or wrong.

In any case, Bill Mulligan is welcome to defend himself here, if he wants to.

Sure he is. But he's also my friend, and unless he tells me not to do so, I will also defend him. I stand up for my friends when I believe it's right to do so. It's a matter of honor.

(Before anyone comes to the knee-jerk conclusion that I simply defend my friends no matter what, I have in this very blog confronted Mulligan when I thought he was being unfair. He's done the same to me. But when someone unfairly attacks a friend, I don't stand idly by.)

And if he says "No, I don't read/hear what O'Reilly/Limbaugh/Coulter say, and I disagree with them most of the time", then so be it, I'm in the wrong.

What, that's it? But, you know, all of the times he's expressed sympathy with certain liberal views, and distanced himself from extreme conservatives, that stuff doesn't count?

My perception of him is obviously not entirely accurate, and that's true of anybody that posts here, but I can't recall everything that's been said. Bill just tends to come across, to me, as a party-line kind of guy, and, like it or not, I think party-line people more likely tend to be cattle who will believe any garbage fed to them by the leaders of said party; this goes for both sides of the aisle.

So you're willing to call someone "mindless cattle," even if you're not certain your perception is accurate? Craig, I'm trying to take the high road and give you every benefit of every doubt, but you're certainly not portraying yourself as someone with very good character.

Oh, and Bill Mulligan, you're being a bit too hard on yourself: I've responded to perceived attacks far more ferociously than anything I've ever seen from you. I'd suggest that people go to Newsarama to see what I'm talking about, except that I'd rather they didn't. I've been a terrible troll in the past and I'm trying to clean up my act. Rather than dwelling on what I've done in the past, I'm hoping people will judge me on my current efforts to be a better person.

In any case, Bill Mulligan is welcome to defend himself here, if he wants to. And if he says "No, I don't read/hear what O'Reilly/Limbaugh/Coulter say, and I disagree with them most of the time", then so be it, I'm in the wrong.

That's cool, I guess we were both writing at the same time--I didn't have this when I posted. Probably would have been nicer.

But of course I can't really say "No, I don't read/hear what O'Reilly/Limbaugh/Coulter say, and I disagree with them most of the time" because if I don't read/hear them how the hell can I know if I disagree with them most of the time???

That said I'll just state the facts--haven't listened to Limbaugh iun a long long time but I thought he was reasonably entertaining way back in the 90s, I guess it was. I prefer Howard Stern. What little I've seen of Limbaugh since has made me think that he's more of a Republican promoter than a conservative one but I don't have the time or opportunity to listen to his show so I really can't say.

O'Reilly was entertaining for a while until he began believeing his own press--a fate that befalls many. Same for Bill Maher. I hope John Stewart breaks the mold and avoids falling into the same trap but I guess it's hard.

Coulter? I've already devoted more thought to her on this thread than I ever have before and don't feel like I've gained anything by it. As far as THIS conservative is concerened, her only nominal value is as an easy target for liberals to exhaust themselves on (you'll note that PAD is smarter than most in that regard). She's troll who periodically hijacks the political discourse of the country.

And I'll continue to say that Ted Rall is just like her, only with less success at it. But I read Rall only slightly more than I read Coulter so mayby I'm missing his good stuff. I'll grant the possibility. I just have way to much going on to devote time to finding out, given my low expectations.

and religions shouldn't tell the government what marriages they should recognize.
***

It only works if you want to take away the first amendment rights of the religious. (as individual or as collections of those individuals)

They can say whatever they want, vote for people who believe in anything they want, whether you or I agree with it. Telling the government your feelings has nothing to do with the government not having the power to dictate to you.

But if you can point me to a reference source that says that “favoring” means “establishing”, then please do so.
*****

It is in several Supreme COurt cases. I believe Justice O'Connor proposed an endorsement test as well. I'm not doing a term paper here though. It is also common sense to me if you start favoring a single religion, yuou are at the least taking a step that is establishing it.

He's good at that when it comes to these righty whackjobs like Coulter and O'Reilly.
****

O'Reilly may be many things, but he is far from a right wing true believer like Coulter and Limbaugh.

He's disagreed many times with Coulter in fact, has some positions that are not conservative, and has essentially, decided the Iraq War was a mistake. He's arrogant, self-righteous, a blowhard, somewhat entertaining, but he is more of a "populist" to coopt a term, than anything else.

As far as Coulter goes, I'm not sure which is worse, that she actually believes the nonsense she spews out or that she's just playing it up because bile leads to a seven figure income.

If it's the former, then I seriously think she's in need of intensive therapy. Nobody can harbor that much hatred for 70% of the country (she doesn't limit her attacks to liberals, having called moderate votes "idiots" as well) and be a picture of mental health.

If it's the latter, then she's a complete hypocrite. Either way, no one should take anything she says seriously.

There are people, both left and right, who do take everything she says seriously, either regarding her as a serious threat or an object of worship. I saw Sean Hannity gush over her this week. God, I think he really does want to do her.

I think the vast majority of Americans think she's just a nut, but you only need about 10% of the US population to worship you in order to be a millionaire I guess.

As for Rall, as much as I dislike Bush for the past 5 1/2 years of incompetence and cronyism, there have been times when I've read his comic and thought, "damn, that's a real cheap shot."

The truth is, he was funnier when he cast a wider net in terms of targets. Now he goes after Bush about 80% of the time. I think he's developed an obsession nearly as bad as Coulter's.

But of course I can't really say "No, I don't read/hear what O'Reilly/Limbaugh/Coulter say, and I disagree with them most of the time" because if I don't read/hear them how the hell can I know if I disagree with them most of the time???

Well, this is where perception comes back into play, whether correct or not.

We've got years of comments, quotes, articles and more on what those three have said. So, based on that alone, whether you listen to them on a daily basis or not, it can give you a pretty good idea of where they stand on issues. Or how far "out there" you think they seem to be.

The same goes for Rall, Maher, and... umm... are there any other liberals out there? Does Al Franken really count?

I just don't think Rall and Maher are off the deep end (and, no, I'm not drinking kool-aid, nor do I consider defending them a matter of honor).

I really don't think O'Reilly is either - well, at least too far - but Faux News is Faux News, and he's more than willing to be their poster child.

so mayby I'm missing his good stuff. I'll grant the possibility

There is good, there is bad. That's true of everybody. I think he happens to be very good most of the time at getting to the heart of the matters that many in this country willfully ignore.

I decided I wanted to address some of these:

Rall accusing Art Spiegelman of lacking talent;

This one I was not aware of; apparently before I started reading his stuff, which wasn't until some time in 2003, iirc.

To be honest, today is the first time I've ever looked over Rall's Wiki entry. I still haven't checked the entries for Maher, Coulter, O'Reilly, or Limbaugh.

the whole "terror Widows" comic (you can see it at http://cellar.org/iotd.php?threadid=1161. Be prepared to hold your sides in merriment!)

And yet, here were are 4 years later and Coulter basically says the exact same thing, although taking it a step further, about the 9/11 widows.

In the end, it sounds like Rall has been proven correct, to a degree - Beamer's charity hasn't exactly been a model for what you do with all those profits when you go and trademark a phrase.

his attacks on the troops ("An Army of Scum" "American troops occupying Iraq have become virtually indistinguishable from the SS");

How many incidents in the last few weeks alone have been about our troops murdering Iraqis?

Rall has mentioned this several times over the past few years, and, unfortunately because of the actions of our soldiers and government, he's being proven right.

There's some serious problems there that our government has yet to address, whether in training, responsibility, or consequences.

calling Pat Tillman an "idiot" and "sap";

Well, there's something I don't agree with.

I gave kudos to Tillman for having the balls to volunteer, but I wish there had been more focus on our military's lying through the teeth about what happened to Tillman, rather than on Tillman himself.

But then, and I'll take heat for this, I don't think Tillman deserves all the recognition for being a hero that he got. Yes, he died serving our country, but it was not a heroic death - it was an accident that our government lied to everybody about.

calling Condoleezza Rice a "house nigga;

I must've missed this one - considering the weird publishing schedule for his cartoons at times, where some end up several days late, this isn't surprisingly.

I do know there have been a couple of Condi cartons, but I honestly don't remember the content.

Based on what Wiki says, I can see where Rall was going with this, that Rice, as black woman working with Republicans, is standing against everything she should be believing in. This one is a toss up as to whether I agree with it or not.

The cartoon is also no longer available.

his use of the mentally handicapped to score an easy political point

This cartoon is also no longer available.

Although, I can't see where you're going with the "easy political point", as Rall is a political cartoonist, so the whole idea, I thought, was to make a political point. :)

that's what got him kicked off the Washington Post

Rall himself just said on his blog Thursday that it was his 9/11 widows cartoon that got him kicked from the Post. I too could've sworn that being dropped by the Post was much earlier than late-2004.

Hope he doesn't sue!

Well, there's a reason we have libel and slander laws.

If his publisher went to him tomorrow and said "We're not publishing your book because Ann Coulter said you're sending a cartoon to Iran", then, yeah, I'd think he'd have the right to sue because of Coulter's lies.

You probably would too if you were in the same situation.

Rice, as black woman working with Republicans, is standing against everything she should be believing in.

****
Who is anybody to tell a person what they should or shouldn't believe simply based on their race and gender?

This is pretty indefensible.

and if anyone truly thinks our troops are acting like the SS, then they have no idea what that means. They need to educate themselves on the SS

Perhaps they should also not paint everyone with the same brush as those who commit atrocities. It would also be good to wait until the facts come out on incidents-or is innocent until proven guilty not applicable to the military?

You've got hundreds of thousands of troops being called the worst of the worst-Nazis, being comared to SS which murdered hundreds of thousands if not millions and ran concentration camps in wjich mass exterminations took place, engaging in genocide. All being painted with the same brush. That is horrible and a terrible insult to the many who bend over backwards to avoid as many civilian casualties as possible and put themselves at extra risk while doing so. Really a disgrace.

In every conflict, there have been terrible "war crimes" committed-they were legion in WWII too, people just didn't realize it because the news media and movies didn't make a point to tell you about it. There have been terrible crimes here to, and those responsible need to be punished to the max. But you don't point everyone who put their life on the line with the same brush as those who engaged in genocide. It's ridiculous

Who is anybody to tell a person what they should or shouldn't believe simply based on their race and gender?

I think it comes down to the issue of whether you should be willing to help those who haven't done a whole helluva lot to help you.

And, in the grand scheme of things, Republicans haven't done a lot for African Americans.

This is pretty indefensible.

Maybe, but you can't help but think that there are probably a number of African American leaders out there who thought the same thing.

Perhaps they should also not paint everyone with the same brush as those who commit atrocities.

I don't think that's what is being done.

Unfortunately, it seems like with every statement made these days, you have to include a qualifier: if you say 'soldiers', people assume you mean 'all soldiers' rather than 'some soldiers', and so on.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at June 11, 2006 06:58 PM

I think it comes down to the issue of whether you should be willing to help those who haven't done a whole helluva lot to help you.

And, in the grand scheme of things, Republicans haven't done a lot for African Americans.

That's your perception. Condoleeza Rice is entitled to believe otherwise. Unlike you, I'm not on the fence about this one: it is racist in the extreme to assert that someone "should" believe something just because they're black, and it is equally racist to assume that they are a dupe if they don't believe in that something.

Maybe, but you can't help but think that there are probably a number of African American leaders out there who thought the same thing.

So what? If I, a caucasian, disagree with a number of white leaders, does that mean I'm doing something wrong? Accepting diversity means accepting diversity, even if said diversity comes in the form of an African-American Republican.

Unfortunately, it seems like with every statement made these days, you have to include a qualifier: if you say 'soldiers', people assume you mean 'all soldiers' rather than 'some soldiers', and so on.

Rall called our army "An Army of Scum." If he meant to say that a small number of soldiers is committing inexcusable acts, he should have said so. I don't think that's what he meant, though. I think he meant to do what he did: to tar all of our troops with one brush.

By the way, needing to communicate with specificity isn't some new-fangled idea. It's just good communicating. If you mean "some soldiers," you should say "some soldiers," not just "soldiers."

Diversity of thought and ideas is a good thing.

Posted by: spiderrob8 at June 11, 2006 07:33 PM

Diversity of thought and ideas is a good thing.

Well said.

Condoleeza Rice is entitled to believe otherwise.

Well, she's a politician, so, to be honest, I'm not sure what she really believes.

If she believes the bile that comes out of Bush's mouth every week, then I'll just have to shake my head at her, regardless.

it is racist in the extreme to assert that someone "should" believe something just because they're black, and it is equally racist to assume that they are a dupe if they don't believe in that something.

So, is it racist if I'm white (which I am) and I think many poor whites who vote Republican (which many do) are just as guilty of bad judgement as Condi Rice is?

That's your perception. Condoleeza Rice is entitled to believe otherwise. Unlike you, I'm not on the fence about this one: it is racist in the extreme to assert that someone "should" believe something just because they're black, and it is equally racist to assume that they are a dupe if they don't believe in that something.

I have to agree with that. The stupidest thing to come out of the liberal mindset in the past forty years is the idea that blacks and other minorities somehow "owe" them their votes today because of the civil rights movement.

The stupidest thing to come out of the liberal mindset in the past forty years is the idea that blacks and other minorities somehow "owe" them their votes today because of the civil rights movement.

And if I thought that were really true, then liberals would go off about just about everything since it's pretty much been liberals that have advanced everything from civil rights to social security, etc.

Pandering is one thing - all politicians are guilty of.

But then, I never said anything about votes being "owed" by anybody.

As a side not, I'm about ready to call for liberals and Democrats to be disassociated, and the same for conservatives and Republicans. Why? Because neither party is actually representing the political spectrum they claim as their own.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at June 11, 2006 08:54 PM

So, is it racist if I'm white (which I am) and I think many poor whites who vote Republican (which many do) are just as guilty of bad judgement as Condi Rice is?

No, because in that case you're not asserting that the poor white voters should or should not believe something based on their race. You're conflating two entirely different things.

No, because in that case you're not asserting that the poor white voters should or should not believe something based on their race. You're conflating two entirely different things.

And if we were talking about poor black kids and poor white kids?

Republicans have done as little for poor whites as poor blacks... hell, poor everybody, really. Yet, that doesn't stop poor anybody from voting Republican.

No, I apparently don't get it.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at June 11, 2006 11:00 PM

And if we were talking about poor black kids and poor white kids?

Republicans have done as little for poor whites as poor blacks... hell, poor everybody, really. Yet, that doesn't stop poor anybody from voting Republican.

No, I apparently don't get it.

Craig, we were talking about how Rall called Condoleeza Rice a "house nigga" because, in your words, she isn't standing up for what she should be. Because, y'know, she's black. And I asserted that it is racist to assert that anyone of any color is obligated to believe anything solely because of their skin color. Because that assumes that everyone who shares that superficial characteristic has a vested interest in believing in and standing up for the same things. And that's wrong. African Americans do not comprise a monolithic group.

When you talk about poor people as a group, that's different. Poor people share a characteristic that is more than skin deep: poverty.

And yes, I'm aware that non-whites are disproportionately poor. But that doesn't mean that Condoleeza Rice has to "represent," any more than I, a caucasian, should feel obligated to "represent."

How many incidents in the last few weeks alone have been about our troops murdering Iraqis?

Rall has mentioned this several times over the past few years, and, unfortunately because of the actions of our soldiers and government, he's being proven right.

No. If I made some asinine over the top comment that liberals are a bunch of hate filled loonies and I then spent the next few years collecting incidents that backed up the statement--guess what, it's still a stupid statement. If the reported actions of some soldiers "proves" him right would a few heropic actions by soldiers "prove" him wrong? because I can find plenty of those.

But then, and I'll take heat for this, I don't think Tillman deserves all the recognition for being a hero that he got. Yes, he died serving our country, but it was not a heroic death - it was an accident that our government lied to everybody about.

I thought Tillman was heroic before he was killed--that just made him a tragic hero. His heroism had nothing to do with whether he died saving orphans from a fire or because his jeep hit a camel.

Based on what Wiki says, I can see where Rall was going with this, that Rice, as black woman working with Republicans, is standing against everything she should be believing in. This one is a toss up as to whether I agree with it or not.

Obviously nothing I say would convince you otherwise but I think it's flirting dangerously close to racism to suggest that people must belong to a particular party because of the color of their skin. Or that said skin color means that anyone else has the right to tell them what they "should" believe in.

Although, I can't see where you're going with the "easy political point", as Rall is a political cartoonist, so the whole idea, I thought, was to make a political point. :)

Well yeah, but if you are going to make fun of the mentally handicapped I would hope you have a real good point to make, not just "The American voters are stupid! Just like a retarded kid!"

Well, there's a reason we have libel and slander laws.

If his publisher went to him tomorrow and said "We're not publishing your book because Ann Coulter said you're sending a cartoon to Iran", then, yeah, I'd think he'd have the right to sue because of Coulter's lies.

You probably would too if you were in the same situation.

Suppose that a soldier returning from Iraq was refused a job because the boss said "Ted Rall said American troops occupying Iraq have become virtually indistinguishable from the SS and we have a lot of Jewish customers so..." Would he have a leg to stand on? And an even better question--in what alternate reality would either event be likely?

I suppose Ted would have nothing to lose by launching a lawsuit that is paid for by people dopey enough to send him money but it's still a joke.

Manny, as far as I can tell, you're kinda better off not being informed about Coulter. She comes on any form of media and I instantly think of the Python Arguement Clinic sketch. (BTW, NEVER, EVER if you value your sanity perform that sketch live with a speech-impeded Asian who only THINKS he knows the lines.) She just likes to hear the sound of her own voice and then watch people's reactions. If you can stand it, watch her sometime. Her arguements are circular until she gets her opposition to sink themselves into the arguement, then she just feeds off the (supposed) hostility. My god, I think I just discovered the true identity of X-Ray.

Den--I saw Mr. Hannity (GODS, how I wish he'd change his first name!) gush as well, and I was struck by something. We now know what happened to Alex P. Keaton later in life. Waht scares me with him, though, is unlike Coulter, he really seems to believe his vocalizations are THE WAY IT SHOULD BE, and I know a lot of people that eat it up and try to be good little Hannity-lings. Whenever he's in a discussion, if someone disagrees with him, he never lets them get in enough words to make a point, thus they look like stammering yokels, and he looks like the victor in the debate.

As for Rall's "Army of Scum" comment--sweeping generalizations are an easier way to get your point across than actual accurate language. At least, that's the impression given by a lot of voices on any side of any fence. I long for the day when any debate can be elevated above the "Less filling/Tastes great" level that seems to have become all too common lately. One of the things that I've learned is that there's an intellectual inside everyone and unfortunately the politicians find it easier to appeal to the lowest common denominator rather than elevate a situation. You think it's because they don't want us to know they're just as clueless?

Bill Myers -
Craig, we were talking about how Rall called Condoleeza Rice a "house nigga" because, in your words, she isn't standing up for what she should be.

I said that that is what I believed the intent of the cartoon to be.

But that doesn't mean that Condoleeza Rice has to "represent," any more than I, a caucasian, should feel obligated to "represent."

You're right. As I said, I consider it a toss up as to where I stand on this issue, because I don't consider it a simple one, but yet it is one that makes you think about a lot of different issues in our country.

Case in point, I don't think the No Child Left Behind law works at all. I think it harms schools that already have trouble getting the funding they need, and many of those schools are in poor, inner city neighborhoods where minority groups are the majority.

So, when it comes down to it, Rice and Gonzales, our AG, I would think should have a vested interest in seeing that this law does what it should: and part of what NCLB is supposed to do is help children in minority groups get a better education.

They are representatives of their respective minorities and I would really hope that they would use their positions to help improve things for all minorities.

I just don't see that as the general goal of Republicans, and of this administration in particular.

Bill Mulligan -
Obviously nothing I say would convince you otherwise

Well, make all the assumptions you wish.

but I think it's flirting dangerously close to racism to suggest that people must belong to a particular party because of the color of their skin. Or that said skin color means that anyone else has the right to tell them what they "should" believe in.

See above. I never said somebody "must" belong, but I don't think it's a crime to question her situation.

An interesting note to see in Rice's Wiki entry is that she was Democrat, but became a Republican in 1982 after being put off by Carter's foreign policy. And yes, I do find that ironic, considering Bush's current foreign policy.

Would he have a leg to stand on?

Well, I'm not a judge or a lawyer, so time will tell.

I suppose Ted would have nothing to lose by launching a lawsuit that is paid for by people dopey enough to send him money but it's still a joke.

*shrug* If it somehow causes Coulter to show some humility, it might be worth it in the end.

And no, I didn't contribute.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at June 12, 2006 12:16 AM

They are representatives of their respective minorities and I would really hope that they would use their positions to help improve things for all minorities.

No, they are not representatives of their respective races, any more than I am a representative of the white race. They are individuals.

And there are those who would argue that the welfare state created by liberals has actually been counter-productive. My girlfriend works for the social services department of the county in which we live, and she's told me stories that lead me to believe that that argument has some merit.

The social welfare system was designed to take the edge off of capitalism, which in its purest form tends to foster injustice. Unfortunately, the system has evolved to the point where it serves as a crutch for people who choose to have children for whom they cannot care, and who choose not to try to elevate themselves to a better position in life.

When children grow up in an environment where dependency on the government and irresponsibility are the norm, said children often grow up not realizing there are other, more productive, ways to live. Thus the problem of generational poverty is perpetuated.

I'm aware that the days when an unskilled laborer could pick up a job at a factory and earn a decent living are over. Corporations are all too happy to exploit the working class, and that is also a contributing factor to poverty in this country. But it doesn't help when the government also goes and discourages a certain segment of the population from learning the value of self-sufficiency.

It's a complicated problem. I can see how someone could take the Republican view of things, even if they are a minority. There is a good argument to be made that the social services system has failed poor people, including impoverished minorities, by fostering a culture that doesn't value self-sufficiency and personal responsibility.

I don't know if it's an argument with which I entirely agree. Nevertheless, it's got enough merit that I find it hard to dismiss African-American Republicans as dupes.

No, they are not representatives of their respective races, any more than I am a representative of the white race. They are individuals.

I see what you're saying, and I see that I'm not getting my point across the way I want. My fault, not yours, but I don't think I'm going to try explaining it again as I think I've caused enough trouble lately. :)

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at June 12, 2006 10:11 AM

I see what you're saying, and I see that I'm not getting my point across the way I want. My fault, not yours, but I don't think I'm going to try explaining it again as I think I've caused enough trouble lately. :)

Shit. I always like to let someone else have the last word, but I think your last post merits a response.

I do understand your point, believe it or not. You believe Condoleeza Rice has chosen the political party that has done the least to advance the best interests of African Americans (at least in recent times -- Lincoln, IIRC, was a Republican). Your viewpoint is not without merit.

I think there's a fine line, however, between saying that and telling someone what they should believe because they're black.

That said, last night I began coming to the same conclusion as you: it's probably time for us to agree to disagree. And sometimes, that's all you can expect from a rational discourse: two people exchanging ideas, understanding one another, but nevertheless emerging with their original viewpoints largely intact.

Dunno about you, but that works for me.

Disclaimer of sorts: I don't know all the facts and figures and names, so what follows will be an opinion both unaided and unhindered by those things. I'm not a USian (if you want to be called Americans, get either your country or your continent renamed, it's confusing).

As I understand it, President Bush wants a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage. As I see it, marriage is two people declaring an oath before witnesses (recognised authorities - a judge, a priest, whoever) that they will love and cherish each other (and the rest) 'til death do they part.
Some people choose different wedding vows, that's fine - but it's a vow, a personal commitment, regardless of its legal or religious obligations.

Domestic violence, adultery, deceit, various other factors, are cause for divorce - an oath broken by one or the other party in a marriage. Heterosexual unions aren't perfect. The fallout affects both partners and any kids along the way.

It's my opinion that a homosexual couple should be able to enjoy the same freedoms and make the same mistakes as a heterosexual couple. I think a lot could be gained by defining a marriage as a couple who love and protect one another, who make an oath to that effect, to love and protect any kids they choose to raise (their own or adopted). Those who continue to fulfil that oath are a functioning family unit, and should be supported, and there are more important factors in that continued fulfilment than the specific genders of the couple.

If the law supports functioning families, then hopefully it's saving money on social and welfare services, possibly emergency services, which can be put to better use.

If other people don't like it, then it's their right to not like it, but so long as it doesn't hurt them it's not their right to dictate what can or can't be done.

If the politicians are making decisions based on whether it makes them look good rather than how it serves the people, then they're not doing their jobs.

And if you think I'm wrong... make your case. Persuade me with reason.

1I'm not a USian (if you want to be called Americans, get either your country or your continent renamed, it's confusing).

****
Americans are fine thank you, it is our name, no confusion. United States of America=Americans.

Otherwise, I like your post. Very thoughtful and hearfelt. Right now, undoubtedly since the majority of Americans still oppose gay marriage, the politicians probably do think they are serving the people by opposing it. But things change over time.

I'm not a USian (if you want to be called Americans, get either your country or your continent renamed, it's confusing).

USian is too awkward and difficult to pronounce. The name of the country is United States of America, so American does work out fine. USian doesn't differentiate us from other countries like the United States of Mexico or the United States of Brazil (full names of both countries).

For residents of other countries North America and South America countries who may object to us appropriating that name, all have I to say is we called it first.

Kinda like calling shotgun.

Besides, they have perfectly fine names. Brazilian, Mexican, Canadian.

I think from context we should be able to tell if they are referring to the two continents. and even then South and North American would help.

Seriously, virtually everyone I've ever knew called the country America. and still does.

Imagine my surprise to see the Karate Kid Part II and here him refer to it as "The States" I still hate that.

"I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I am free" "As American as apple pie" "America the Beautiful" "Americana" "God Bless America" "The AMerican league" " America's game" "American Dream" "Captain America"

I mean, we all know what these are referring to, right?

I knew someone who was from the Dominican Republic. She disagreed with us being called American, cause she was too. I said what do you want "United Statsian" and she is like no "NorteAmericano" or north american.

Besides the fact she is North American too, that is no more accurate, even less so, than American. What about our Canadian and Mexican friends, and all those from Central America?

Oops. Opened a can of worms there... do the threads on this website often deviate from the post's topic by this much?

spiderrob8's first reply to my post got me thinking, though... what's meant by "serving the people"? Seems as though one definition (and I'm not saying this is what you meant, but what came across) is to maintain laws the majority support, but which most of that majority won't be affected by anyway.

Right now, undoubtedly since the majority of Americans still oppose gay marriage, the politicians probably do think they are serving the people by opposing it. But things change over time.
************

Except that the majority of Americans also oppose a constitional amendment on the subject, too. So who are they really serving here?

what's meant by "serving the people"? Seems as though one definition (and I'm not saying this is what you meant, but what came across) is to maintain laws the majority support, but which most of that majority won't be affected by anyway.

*****

There's a couple of thoughs really. Should politicians do what the people want even if the politician disagrees? Do they do what is best for the people as a whole in their opinoon or whats right even if the people disagree and they are supposed to represent the people? and where does lonmg term and short term thinking come in? and on what issues one and what issues the other? and how much do you compromise so that you can be re-elected to do more work you think is good?

I don't have an answer really.

Except that the majority of Americans also oppose a constitional amendment on the subject, too. So who are they really serving here?

*****

true, but the majority of Americans also oppose judges creating the right, but then the only way to stop that is a constitutional amendment, but then the people oppose that, so what do you do?

or are they suposed to serve their state? Maybe the majority in georgia support the amendment? Should the senators vote to pass it then, and the Ny Senators vote against it, no matter what they think?
Don't know.

A LOT going on around here - for the record, I can't really argue that we're entirely justified in hijacking the name of two continents filled with nations as our own - maybe we should go with US of A-ians? ;) Ick. United States of America-cans would be better from an accuracy standpoint, but that's a heckuva long handle... (And yes, Ross O'Brien - threads around here very often deviate that far from the original subject, and often far farther :) )

But actually, what I meant to post about were a couple of quotes from Sean Scullion. First:

"Her arguements are circular until she gets her opposition to sink themselves into the arguement, then she just feeds off the (supposed) hostility. My god, I think I just discovered the true identity of X-Ray."

Heh hehhehhehhehhehhehheh! Y'know, maybe... Though actually, X-Ray may have been too nice...

Number two:

"Whenever [Sean Hannity']'s in a discussion, if someone disagrees with him, he never lets them get in enough words to make a point, thus they look like stammering yokels, and he looks like the victor in the debate."

You may have given me the idea which could save political discussion on television! Have you ever seen ESPN's sports discussion show Around The Horn? (5 PM eastern time daily - so probably the same time on the west coast and an hour earlier in the Central and Western time zones? Actually, I've never had cable in the middle time zones, so Imnot sure if it works the same way as broadcast TV. At any rate, the show often re-broadcasts like an hour later on ESPNNews, hour and a half on ESPN 2.) Four sports journalists discuss the issues of the day - but the host of the show (Tony Reali) has a mute button to keep people from speaking over each other and give everybody equal time. It now occurs to me that we need a Mute button on political talk shows, to increase actual discourse. (Though those like Hannity would in liklihood refuse to go on such a show where they would lose control of the situation...)