Proposed Constitutional Amendment aims to end corporate personhood, money as speech

In an amazing radio discussion November 28, Ben and Jerry's co-founders Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield made the case for a 28th Amendment to the US constitution.  The proposed amendment would put an end to the legal fiction of corporate personhood and the absurd premise - rampant in law today - that money is somehow speech, and is therefore carries with it First Amendment protections.

The show included input from a lawyer from a pro-amendment group, Move to Amend (http://movetoamend.org), as well as commentary from other lawyers and listeners.  It is both a highly informative discussion, as well as a strong example of how ideas can be debated in a rational and dispassionate manner.  Additionally, for those who agree with the ideas of the amendment supporters, the show gives a formidable list of organizations with whom individuals may get involved to build momentum for this much needed amendment.

The episode can be found here, and may be listened to on the webpage or downloaded in mp3 format.

Note: The organization with whom Mr. Cohen and Mr. Greenfield are affiliated for the purposes of this movement is Business for Democracy.

Vermont can lead the way

Today, independent Senator Bernie Sanders announced that the State of Vermont had been awarded $18 million to help implement a new federal health reform law.  This comes at a time when Vermont is planning to transition to a state-wide single payer healthcare system with the ability to cover nearly every Vermonter by 2017.  Hopefully, through successful implementation of federal reforms now and the anticipated expansion of coverage to all state residents by 2017, Vermont can lead by example and set the precedent for universal coverage for all people in this country.  Read more from Senator Sanders' office here.

More police brutality at Occupy protests

Lest anyone doubt the seriousness of the situation in New York, Washington, or anywhere else - or lest anyone claim that the police brutality on Wall Street was an accident or an exception to the rule, this video exposes the disgusting acts of police in Oakland, CA last night.  There, officers in riot gear cracked a veteran's skull with a canister of tear gas.  When fellow protester's came to the veteran's aid, another officer attacked the group huddled around the injured man with a flash grenade.

Please share this video.  It is not a matter of believing in protesting as an act, but about standing up for the First Amendment to the Constitution as a fundamental right which is shared by all Americans and which is presently under attack.

A reason to look forward to Monday

PRESIDENT OBAMA TO UNVEIL PLAN TO TAX THE WEALTHY

According to the BBC, the President is at last ready to unveil a new scheme by which the wealthy would come closer to paying their fair share for the upkeep of this country.  Read the full story here.

Just in time for the debate!

Here is a link to an amazing blog post at Big Corporation.  The post is essentially a list of quick facts and counterpoints to conservative misinformation, with topics ranging from jobs to the taxes to healthcare.  This is very well grounded fact sheet, with each fact cited with a link to the source of information.  Much of the information is in fact derived directly from original primary sources - that is, it is often taken directly from the original study that revealed the fact in the first place, without it having passed through a news outlet or other secondary source.  And the post will link you directly to that very study.  Try having an opponent rebut your argument now!  The facts are on your side.

Check it out here!

Classic Primary Debate Moments

As we political nerds prepare for this evening's stand-up special, Politico has put together a great list of primary debate moments from the past thirty or so years, spanning from Reagan to Obama.

It being a rainy and miserable day here in Washington, so this writer will be preparing for the debate with a home cooked meal and a drink to warm up.  It will probably be most prudent, however, to stay away from foods on which one could choke easily - tonight's main event will likely be replete with gaffes, shockers, and non-sequitrs.

With that in mind, pop some popcorn, get comfortable, and enjoy!

Breaking news in antitrust

Breaking news this morning - and good news at that!  This morning, the Department of Justice has filed suit to block AT&T from buying T-Mobile.

This same issue had been discussed earlier on this blog last month.

It is imperative that AT&T be permanently blocked from purchasing its smaller rival.  Such a merger would concentrate the national cell service market and place it in the hands of only three companies, the smallest and lowest cost of which (Sprint), could possibly be forced out of the market by two titan rivals.

More to follow...

A wake-up call to Rick Perry: Evolution is real

This is a compelling and artfully written opinion piece by British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins.  Such an articulate and forceful piece is a rare find, and this one certainly merits sharing and much discussion.  The introductory snark would make any liberal and/or Democrat snicker, but Dawkins goes on to make a nearly legal or mathematical argument for the strength of evolution as a scientific fact.

Richard Dawkins piece can be found here.
 

Washington Monument cracked in quake

The Washington Monument prior to the quake

According to a Politico blurb, unofficial reports of the Washington Monument tilting after yesterday's earthquake led park officials to inspect the national monument for damage.  As it turns out, the rumors we all heard on local radio yesterday proved untrue: the monument is still upright.  Sadly, however, a crack has formed near the top of the obelisk, and the structure and surrounding area are closed to the public until further notice.  

The Case for taxing the rich: Warren Buffet

In this compelling op-ed piece written by Warren Buffett in the New York Times this morning, the legendary investor and billionaire makes the case for properly taxing the super-rich in this country.  It is certainly refreshing to see a wealthy individual stand for shared sacrifice in this time of great need, and it is equally enjoyable to see some one so influential deconstruct the anti-tax, anti-government propaganda proliferated by the far right for the past three decades.

Read Mr. Buffet's op-ed here.

11th Circuit's blow to healthcare reform

In a ruling issued just yesterday, the 11th Circuit ruled that the individual mandate - the provision within the Affordable Care Act which would make nearly all Americans purchase health insurance - was unconstitutional. Suits brought in other circuits have yielded very different outcomes, and indeed this was the first ruling against the provision, with a Clinton appointee siding with an H.W. Bush appointee on the issue of the mandate.

The DOJ must now either ask for the entire 11th Circuit to review the decision, or ask to be granted certiorari by the Supreme Court.  It seems very clear where this is headed...

Full story here.

S&P lowers "rating" of US; investors buy US bonds

Yes, the same ratings agency that missed the entire mortgage-backed securities scam in 2008 just downgraded our country's credit rating.  How does the market react?  By selling private sector stocks and buying US Treasury Bonds.

Full text here

Default crisis? Congress reaching an impasse? Solution: abolish mid-terms

Despite all of the excessively dramatized newscasts and hyperbolic rhetoric surrounding the debt talks, none of this is really news.  The fact that Congress and the President cannot come to an agreement comes as no surprise.  In fact, it would have been far more shocking if the Congress and President had come to a swift and amicable agreement over the national debt and budget months ago.

Why is this?  Because after President Obama and the Democrats took the White House, Senate, and House in 2008, the tides changed and the GOP took the House in 2010, leaving the opposition party in charge of the lower house.  In effect, the government is split, there is no ruling consensus, and the country is caught in a form of political gridlock.

Some see this as checks and balances at work; those individuals clearly fail to grasp the concept.  Checks and balances are institutional - that is, they are the embedded in the mechanisms and laws which govern interactions between the three branches of government.  Their role is not to ensure that a party, project, or policy is held back, but rather they are in place to ensure that no one branch - as an institution - oversteps its Constitutional bounds.

What we are now witnessing in these default crisis talks is a stalemate, not a check or a balance.  What is more, the stalemate is largely unnecessary.  It is simply there because we are now tolerating a government which is comprised of the outcomes of two separate elections trying to work together as one.  Often this may work, provided there is no great shift in voter turnout such as was seen between 2008 and 2010.  Here, however, the two adversarial parties are entrenched in two separate sides of one government, each attempting to lead as though they held a mandate from the people.  Arguably, they both do, albeit from different moments in time.

There is a solution, and it sits before us like the great big elephant in the room: end the two-year election cycle for the House of Representatives.

That's right.  There needs to be an end to the ridiculous gridlock, posturing, and business of politics, and by extending Representatives' terms and synchronizing their elections with those for the Presidency, all this and more could be achieved.

First, if Congressmen were up for election only at the same time as the President, there would be no confusion as to what the electorate is seeking.  The government as it would be comprised at the outcome of that election would be the government the people voted into office.  There would be no halfway turnarounds two years after the election, and there would be no confusion as to who holds the mandate of the people.  Neither the legislature nor the executive could claim to be in the right, and all members of the House and the President would know with which other elected officials they would need to work for the accomplishment of their goals.  The balance of power both within the legislative chambers and between Congress and the White House would be the balance voted for by the people.  Leaders in Congress and the President could then effectively move forward on legislation based upon that sound premise.

Second, an extension of Representatives' terms would strike a massive blow at the business of electoral politics, ending much of the posturing demonstrated by members such as Boehner and Cantor today.  In short, because Representatives would not always be in a perpetual election cycle as they are now, they would be able to actually sit down and develop policy to be shared with the Senate and to have signed by the President.  They would be veritable legislators, debating and drafting policy, rather than our current campaigners who are most often seeking the most opportune sound bite or photo op.

Of course, all the officials involved in debates such as that surrounding the current default crisis would still be politicians, and would always be looking at re-election.  That said, with longer terms and without the specter of mid-terms looming on the horizon, Representatives could focus their attention and energies on campaigning every one or two years out of four, rather than one or two years out of two.

It would be a bold move, but consider this in closing: 4 year House cycles, synchronized with Presidential elections, would simultaneously provide Representatives with more time to develop policy instead of campaign material, and eliminate the awkward mess of a potentially divided government after a mid-term election.  Again, it would be a bold shift, and it would likely not occur any time in the near future.  However, this reduction in election cycles is absolutely imperative for the development of a more efficient and effective government.

Elizabeth Drew: How Obama can end the agony

Amazing opinion piece by author Elizabeth Drew, which appeared today on politico.com.  In it, she essentially develops a strategy for the President whereby he can stand his ground, present his case to the American people, and throw the proverbial ball into the GOP's court.  She also demonstrates how Republicans would be largely ineffective in turning the issue back around on the President once he takes the case directly to the public in this evening's speech.

We can now only hope Mr. Obama takes Ms. Drew's advice at 9pm...

Full opinion here.

Washington Post: Iraq likely to miss deadline on US Troop decision

According to a Washington Post article published recently, Iraqi officials will likely miss the deadline to formally request continued US military presence, mostly because of the widespread disagreement between officials on how the US will stay involved, in what capacity, and for how long.

The most notable of all quotes from the article comes from Basra provincial governor Khalef Abdul Samed, who said “I need the Americans with civilian suits, not military uniforms,” expressing his views that the US should focus on investing economically in the country and rebuilding schools.  He further state that continued US military presence should focus only on protecting Iraq’s air space and borders

Good news for Maryland: Gov. O'Malley lends name to marriage equality

Here is an exciting new post from Progressive Maryland: Governor O'Malley Stands for Marriage Equality.  The Maryland Governor made the announcement yesterday only a few weeks after the landmark passage of marriage equality legislation in New York.  Progressive Maryland's link also includes video of the Governor's original statement, so you can see and hear it all there.

Herb Kohl: voice of reason in the AT&T/T-Mobile proposal

Today Rep. Herb Kohl of Wisconsin has called on Attorney General Eric Holder and FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski to block the proposed merger of AT&T and T-Mobile.  Though himself not responsible for deciding the outcomes of proposed mergers, Kohl is the Hill's top antitrust lawmaker, and his opinion will likely be considered at the Department of Justice, overseen by Holder, and at the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates telecommunications and broadcast media.

The trouble with the proposed merger is two-fold.  First, it would lead to such a concentration in market share that Verizon and AT&T would control the wireless carrier market.  Second, far too few people seem to be paying attention to the proposed merger and its outcome. Here is why they should.

If T-Mobile is absorbed into AT&T, a low-cost competitor will be eliminated, leaving Sprint to fend for itself on the national marketplace as the sole lower-cost alternative for consumers.  That will not last, however. If that one competitor is left against two gargantuan national carriers, it will either be forced to raise prices to compete, or be forced out of the market altogether by the two giants. 

This is not the problem. It is not the justice system or regulatory agencies' responsibility to keep a corporation afloat.  Rather, the problem is that with the entire market split between two massive corporations, Verizon and AT&T can either work together to raise prices for all American consumers or simply have prices rise across the board on their own because of a lack of competition in the market. 

Either alternative is unacceptable. It is both against public policy (keeping competition in the market to lower prices for consumers) and antitrust law, whose goal is to stop the creation of monopolies and the formation of conspiracies to raise prices.

Regardless of whether or not Sprint fails in this scenario, the proposed merger must not be permitted.  Even if Sprint were to survive, prices for all American cell phone users would rise because two companies would posses so much of the market that they would control it.  A negative ruling would stand out as regulation at its best; government would not be stymieing a capitalistic free market - it would be saving it.

Ralph Nader: The corporate Supreme Court

Compelling op-ed piece by Ralph Nader available on opednews.com.  Though trailing off into hyperbolic language at times, Nader presents a strong case for removing justices who politicize issues, elevate corporations to the level of "natural persons", and undercut the rights of individual American citizens.  The full op-ed piece can be read here.

Let's tell our President its time for shared sacrifice

Now you can go to the Progressive Change Campaign Committee's site and add your name to this important campaign.  Check out their page, look at their incredible stats, and see what you can do to help.  This is not about soaking the rich.  It is about all taxpayers pitching in a fair amount, relative to their income, to pay for all of the things we take for granted as Americans.

GOP defies basic math

Here is an interesting opinion piece by Matt Miller in today's Washington Post.  While a few side notes on corporate taxes and payroll taxes are a bit unpalatable, Miller's thesis is sound: Republicans are denying reality and basic math in order to preserve their own political brand in the eyes of the electorate.  His counter to the GOP is equally sound: regardless of spending, it is impossible to keep revenue at sub-Reagan-era levels while baby boomers continue to age and retire by the tens of millions.

The stark reality of an aging population has already proven itself to be problematic in Europe, where baby boomers and the elderly will soon economically outweigh the young and employed.  Across the Atlantic, however, officials, economists, and voters all realized years ago that this is a simple reality which cannot be avoided by skewing the numbers or re-framing the issue.  The danger in the United States is if the GOP - the party of "no" - continues to play ostrich, bury its head in the sand, and not face facts. If they think $14tr in debt is a fiscal crisis, they have seen nothing yet.

Human Rights Watch demands torture investigation for Bush admin

After the 2008 election, many groups and individuals demanded Bush officials be investigated over allegations of torture in the so-called war on terror.  News agencies carried stories of demands, letters, and legal opinions.  Then on to the next news cycle.

The problem is that the allegations never went away, America's reputation has suffered irreparable harm, and instances of waterboarding - a certified, verified torture technique - have been confirmed by U.S. agents.  This is a legal question, not a simple passing news story.

If indeed officials have broken the law, they must be investigated and tried in a court of law.  The United States, being a nation of laws and not men, has no exception for criminals who hold government titles.  That is the very definition of the rule of law: men, no matter how powerful or high-ranking, can never supersede the laws to which all citizens must submit.  Nixon's adage that if the President does it, it is not illegal, has long been shunned and discredited.  Now is not the time to give it credence.  

Human Rights Watch, one of the most reputable, far-reaching, and well-published non-profits in the world is now calling on the Obama administration to investigate top Bush administration officials for suspected torture and mistreatment of detainees.  They have now published a new report entitled Getting Away with Torture, which was recently reported upon by BBC World News.  

While it would be unfair at this time to condemn as guilty top Bush administration officials, the allegations have been put forth and substantiated.  What is more, former officials have admitted ad nauseum to U.S. forces' use of waterboarding on foreign detainees.  Still, no action has been taken to rectify the situation, which is precisely why the country now needs to investigate officials and try them before a court of law, should investigations yield strong enough evidence.  Until that time, the public will not have the truth, those harmed will go without vindication, and justice will not be served.  America's name will remain tarnished.

Good news: 71% Shun House GOP's tactics

Unfortunately for Republicans, a new CBS poll finds that 71% disapprove of their handling of the debt crisis.  Equality stark is their approval rating on the question of the national debt, which has stooped to a low 21%

 

Granted, House Democrats also face a high level of disapproval, but they do have 10% greater support than their GOP counterparts.  Perhaps the best news in all of this is that while all parties involved have high disapproval numbers, the President's approval rating is more than double that of House Republicans, and is nearly as high as his disapproval rating.

For the country as a whole, the debt discussion gridlock is a negative without question.  That said, the President standing out so far ahead of his Republican opposition speaks volumes about his tact and conciliatory approach, and certainly bodes well for 2012.

Full story here

Video: If GOP ignores economists, perhaps they will listen to Reagan

Though grave in its message, the video is somewhat humorous in that it consists of the idol of the present-day GOP attacking said party's debt strategy.  One can only hope that if ideologues refuse to listen to numbers and reason, they will at least consider the words of their muse himself.

Bachmann in favor of subsidies - for the "right" people

Take a look at this Plum Line piece from the Washington Post.  In it, you will find how Michele Bachmann, whose family farm has pulled in $260,000 in federal farm subsidies over the years, finds the dividing line between deserving recipients and leaches on the system.  That line, apparently, is the color line.

Full story here

O'Malley's interview with Chuck Todd

Watch Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley's interview with Chuck Todd.  At at time when other executives across this country are degrading teachers, firefighters, and police officers, O'Malley talks compromise.  He realizes it is about shared sacrifice.

This may not be of great interest to those who are not residents of Maryland, but it should be.  This man is quickly rising to national prominence and will be a household name outside of his home state by the time his tenure as governor is up.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

What if Rupert Murdoch hadn't been born?

Hilarious video starring Hugh Laurie that dares to ask the question "what would the world be like if Rupert Murdoch hadn't been born?"  Admittedly, it takes a little knowledge of the British media and infrastructure to get all the jokes, but a very good American version could easily be made based off this one.

Telling Obama to stand his ground

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee has circulated a petition calling on President Obama to stand up and fight for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.  While too harsh in its wording - the petition reads as an ultimatum to the President - it attempts to fill a vacuum in this country's political arena and national discourse.  Progressives, perhaps because of their great diversity and peaceable nature, are not as organized as their conservative counterparts and are less likely to take a demanding stance.  As such, conservatives tend to be more effective in achieving their goals and drowning out dissenting voices in any national debate.  Hopefully, groups and petitions such as this will succeed in creating a cohesive and demanding progressive agenda behind which millions can rally and effectively push for positive change in the country.  Next time, however, it would be best if the phrasing were slightly more refined.

To read the petition, click here.

Further explanation on the debt talk failure

From the Washington Post's Ezra Klein:

Three reasons the debt deal collapsed

As predicted...

Well, it is Monday morning, and the predictable happened over the weekend.  Debt talks reached an impasse, and Republicans held their shameful line, insisting on cuts to the poor, sick, and elderly, and refusing to even talk about serious cuts to the crushing military budget.

Read more from Politico here.

Perhaps the most startling line from the article: Core Pentagon spending would grow by $17 billion in 2012, even as the 11 remaining annual bills would be reduced about $45 billion altogether.

Unconstitutional Unconservative

Here is Michele Bachmann's official sales pitch to the country.  In this clip, she talks about bringing "our" voice to the White House after years of bringing "our" voice to Congress.  Well, it is still unclear how Bachmann has done that when she hasn't championed any legislation during her tenure.

Perhaps the funniest thing to notice here is that her campaign has disabled user comments on the video's youtube page.  Correct.  An individual running for the White House has disabled feedback from voters.

Enough of the anecdotal and on to the truly disturbing: the closing frame.  Bachmann here is marketing herself as a "constitutional conservative".  

This term is thrown around frequently these days, but not by journalists or pols describing others.  Rather, we see pols proclaiming themselves "constitutional conservatives".  The trouble is that these folks do not have a working knowledge of constitutional law, and they are very hard to consider conservative.

Take Bachmann as an example.  For a former lawyer, she has shockingly poor knowledge of the workings of American society and its history.  Her repeated gaffes on slavery in the US reveal a sobering ignorance not just of US history, but of constitutional law as well.  How so?  Well, a lawyer should be able to point to the Reconstruction amendments, written nearly a century after the Revolution, and explain how they worked to abolish slavery and establish personhood and citizenship for formerly enslaved persons of African descent in the United States.  These are not history factoids for Jeopardy; they are part of the US Constitution.  As in "constitutional".  As in "constitutional conservative."

Now let's look at the "conservative" title.  Small government, economic conservatism can be disregarded off the bat: Bachmann has long made her money from the federal government, working as a tax attorney and a congresswoman, and taking farm subsidies from Washington for her family's lands.  Conservative with regards to the Constitution?  Well, if conservative means adhering to traditional values, and adherence to those mores requires a knowledge of them, then one can hardly be called conservative if that person does not even know the tradition and values of the matter at hand.  How could some one call themselves traditional if they do not know the traditions?  Simply put, if one does not know constitutional law, one absolutely cannot be a constitutional conservative.

This is not a question of semantics.  It is a question of issue framing.  When fragments of the Republican Party branch off and proclaim themselves to be "constitutional conservatives", they are giving themselves a false position of authority in a larger national debate on values.  They can hide behind the weight of the Constitution to frame a hotly-debated topic in terms of us vs. them, wrong vs. right, constitutional vs. unconstitutional.  They essentially take the cultural importance and weight of the Constitution to bolster a stance that is not rooted in the Constitution itself.  Rather than using the Constitution as law, they use the idea of it as a way of making the playing field uneven so that the "conservative" side has an unearned higher ground above an "unconstitutional" and "liberal" opponent.  Above and beyond politically dirty issue framing, it is a twisted way of politicizing the legal principals upon which this country was founded.

If ever confronted by a self-proclaimed constitutional conservative, seize the high ground and do so fast.  The title is untrue, unearned, and unconstitutional.  It should always be revealed as such.

How is this news?

Who doesn't love Larry David?  Seinfeld, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Whatever Works - all great.  He is the somehow like-able misanthrope.  But when it comes to a relatively polite off-hand comment on his dislike for Virginia's Eric Cantor, it is hard to characterize that as solid David wit, never mind a serious news story for Politico.

Take a look for yourself.  It is mildly amusing, but not news.  Honestly, anyone who has ever engaged in a political debate with a friend or relative has heard stronger language.  It is G-rated at best.

It really is high time news outlets dig deeper into stories and regain their journalistic integrity.  Trying to fill websites and papers with as much gossip as possible rather than with longer, more researched stories degrades once reputable sources and places them on a level much more comparable to that of a tabloid.  Research and writing make a paper, not spewing of content.

Finding a middle ground by combining the extremes

Today President Obama is talking deep cuts to entitlements with Republicans in an effort to bring down the national debt.  At the same time, Republicans are mixed on their message on levying taxes.  While some say they are willing to meet the President half way, others continue their hard line opposition to taxes.

The problem is that before they even develop a cohesive stance on their party's side of a debt compromise, Republicans already have President Obama giving concessions.  The President is entering negotiations already willing to sacrifice the millions of Americans dependent upon the very programs Republicans would cut, while Republicans are still not showing how much they are willing to compromise.  In this all-important game, the GOP is using dissension within its ranks as a kind of poker face, hiding their hand by giving conflicting stories on their willingness to negotiate.  On the other side of the table, the President has already laid out his cards.  If he has already conceded this much, it would be quite unpleasant to think of how much more Republicans can now squeeze out of him now knowing how much he will give.

Equally disappointing is the choice of cuts.  Rather than taking a scalpel to the disgustingly overfunded Pentagon, Obama is willing to take a hatchet to entitlements.  Rather than ending giant agriculture or petroleum subsidies, the parties are talking taxing more income from the poorest of Americans.  It is this sort of insanity that infuriates Americans - Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike.  And for what?  Bipartisanship?

The central problem here is that rather than finding a middle ground, the two sides are uniting the extremes. Instead of cutting into several different programs - including subsidies and tax breaks for the rich and major corporations - the talks are centered around cuts to entitlements.  While the parties could talk tax hikes, they will certainly not even make a dent in the excessive lifestyles of the rich and famous.  Potential tax hikes will also likely not even likely be directed at those who can more than afford them.  Whatever compromise is made, it will not be a true middle ground.  It is bound instead to be a hodgepodge of extreme points on revenue and cuts, harming the middle and working classes while bolstering the very wealthy.  For those who were hoping for an end to business as usual, welcome to Washington.

UPDATE: Stephen Colbert prevails at FEC

Stephen Colbert was given the go-ahead from the FEC this morning, clearing the way for him to run his Super PAC.  Though no one should have a Super PAC, Stephen Colbert would be the most entertaining individual to head one.

It was a compromise decision, as shown here: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/58130.html

As Bernie Sanders does from the Senate, Martin O'Malley does from Annapolis

Just a few days ago, Senator Bernie Sanders gave a riveting speech calling on President Obama to stand for working people, reject extremist Republican budget proposals, and have the rich to pay their fair share.  In addition, he has put out a letter to President Obama, and has been asking for co-signers.  


In a similar yet more measured move, Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley released a statement to the President yesterday, calling for the same shared sacrifice as demanded by the Senator from Vermont.  The Governor also presented some important numbers in his statement.  As of yesterday, it read:

“More than 55 percent of the nation’s projected deficit is a direct result of the Bush era tax cuts - tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the very wealthiest 3 percent of Americans. 

“A return to the Clinton-era tax rates for millionaires and billionaires is a fiscally responsible and necessary step to help put our country on solid footing for recovery. I commend President Obama for his leadership on this matter. What we need right now is to remain laser focused on creating jobs, not on protecting special interest tax breaks for the wealthiest 3-percent of Americans.

“I urge Congress to come together and work to reduce the deficit in a balanced way that benefits all Americans.”

The Governor makes an important point.  The time has come to have all members of our country lend a hand in this time of need, and the wealthy should not be excused from this.  His secondary point is just as important: ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich would not be an extreme or leftist move, but would simply be a return to the centrist Clinton-era structure of taxation, under which America prospered in a way it truly has not in more recent years.  

Though it remains to be seen whether our President will respond positively to appeals from the Vermont Senator and Maryland Governor, it is certainly reassuring that there are at least a handful of elected officials who will stand for working people in this time of economic hardship. 

Colbert's joke might not be so funny

Synthesis.net

A front page story from Politico today shows just how dangerous Stephen Colbert's famous practical joke may become.  For those who are not regular viewers of the show, the joke referred to here is Colbert's Super PAC (political action committee), which he is starting to mock the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC.  Colbert's general idea is to expose how ridiculous it is to allow corporations to levy unlimited campaign contributions from their general funds, and to use his SuperPAC to fight against such interests (the irony being that his SuperPAC would itself be a sort of corporate extension of Comedy Central's Colbert Report).

Opponents of his PAC worry that it would open the floodgates for public figures such as Sarah Palin to siphon funds from Fox News or other conservative corporate interests into campaigns via a SuperPAC.  This argument seems very weak, however.  All Colbert would be doing is giving them a new idea, as the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United could already be interpreted as permitting such an egregious act without Colbert's FEC request even being granted.  In other words, the Supreme Court could be said to have opened the gate, while Colbert may only be showing others how to walk through.

Of course, Colbert's idea is great as a joke on his televised comedy show, but terrible when acted upon in real life.  The fact is that the humor and irony all go away when the joke is no longer a joke, and Colbert actually takes legal action to create something he would fight against: a corporately-funded political action committee.  Then again, perhaps the irony stays, but the humor definitely runs out.

Whether conservative of liberal, ironic or not, the idea of building a corporately funded political body out of a legal fiction is terrifying.  It essentially means that while individuals have caps on their campaign contributions to prevent the wealthy from buying a bigger voice than the poor could afford, the extremely wealthy can use their corporate funds to create a fictitious entity that knows no bounds when it comes to campaign contributions.  Though appreciable as a form of social commentary, Colbert's SuperPAC joke really may backfire as Politico contends.  In the end, however, it really does not matter if it is intended as a joke or not; it is still a SuperPAC, and therefore something that should never exist.

What the Dream Act means

Here is a little inspiration for the middle of the week - in the form of a video from Maryland State Delegate Rich Madeleno.  It tells the story of Maryland's Dream Act, from the points of view of activists, supporting legislators, and students who are actually effected by the legislation.  As news of an anti-Dream Act petition emerge in Maryland and anti-immigration views are espoused across America, it is important to bear in mind what the debate is really about: people who are all in search of a better life.

Sanders stands for common man

Here is a small portion of Senator Bernie Sanders' compelling and stirring speech on the Senate floor, which he gave starting at 4pm yesterday.  Senator Sanders at this point in time appears to be the only Senator who is actually willing to fight for those who cannot afford lobbyists or admen to fight for them.  He speaks of the working people who are losing their homes, the millions who cannot see a doctor or dentist in the wealthiest society on earth, and even of a first generation law grad living in a pit in Barre, VT who cannot pay down his debt or have his family visit him because of his decrepit living conditions.

Take a look at this brief segment, and if it is compelling enough to you, consider signing the Senator's letter to the President on the same topic.  It it not for the Senator from Vermont; it is about average people who are struggling to live.

Double vision

In a recent interview with George Stephanopolous, Michele Bachmann not only stood by her statement that the Founding Father's worked tirelessly to end slavery, but also would not concede the point that John Quincy Adams was not a Founding Father, but the son of one:




Now here is Sarah Palin during her freedomy freedomness tour.  At this point she was in Boston, and made so many mistakes on the midnight ride of Paul Revere it is hard to keep count.



No doubt Michele Bachmann is a bigger political threat.  Though loose on her definition of reality, she is more intelligent and more educated than Sarah Palin.  That said, this is not the first time she has made a Palin-style flub: she is also famous for believing that the battles of Lexington and Concord happened in New Hampshire, not Massachusetts.  Whether Bachmann, Palin, or anyone else who throws their hat into the ring, it is simply unacceptable to have a candidate for office who does not even know the history upon which this country's politics, culture, and laws are predicated.  Ever.

The F*&!ing FCC

According to a business blog post published on the Washington Post website today, the Supreme Court will rule on the FCC's role in continuing to censor America's mass media.  Apparently, the suit comes out of a 2nd Circuit (New York City) decision which stated that the FCC overstepped its bounds in fining ABC for an episode of NYPD Blue in which a woman's backside was exposed before she entered a shower.

For those of you who do not remember the incident, back in 2003, America's innocence was taken as its collective eyes were burned by a 3 second image of buttcheeks.  Yes, buttcheeks.  A woman was shown quickly getting into the shower, and her back and butt were visible.  No breasts, no nipples, and nothing else.  Still, the FCC fined ABC.

The main argument against the FCC's alleged role is admittedly more policy than law.  In short, the public already has unbridled access to violent, pornographic, and crude material over the internet, and uses vulgar language throughout the day.  Children swear and talk about sex in school, and women are just as adult as men and should be treated as such.  Their sensibilities are not offended by the F word.  In such a climate, the federal government has little legitimate policy interest in enforcing public decency when there is no more public decency.  Furthermore, the rise of digital media has obliterated any spectrum scarcity justifications.  With no more policy concern upon which to predicate FCC fines, the sole defense which the FCC could legitimately offer is precedent - precedent which is starting to show its age.

It is likely that many folks with backgrounds in law will have their own precedent and citations to attack this argument, but that does little to weaken its validity.  The fact remains that in the age of an open internet, the idea of censorship is archaic.  Furthermore, at a time when women, children, and businessmen may all be more crude and vulgar than any stereotypical depiction of a working man, the idea that their eyes and ears must be protected is nearly insane.    We do not live on the set of Leave it to Beaver, and in truth never have.

If one does need to cite law - this being an impending Supreme Court case - there is always R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul.  Now please, what kind of speech in not protected now?

In conclusion, here is the article.  Please, leave any comments on this post that will spark lively discussion. Oh, and fuck...

Michele makes it official in Iowa

Its official.  Michele Bachmann is now a candidate for the Presidency - in case you failed to realize that point when she unofficially announced her candidacy during the CNN debate.

What is most alarming is one of this central points in this Politico article: that Michele Bachmann is more than just crazy - she is crazy and cunning.  She is not just the weird lady who looked at the wrong camera during her Tea Party response to the State of the Union, but a "polished politician" who can sincerely connect with conservative voters.

Fears of her loose grip on reality and her potentially tight grip on voters' attention are compounded by Matt Taibbi's penetrating article, shared on this blog last week.  If Taibbi's thesis is correct, and Bachmann is truly on a political "holy war", and she is as politically skillful as Politico's article claims, this could prove to be a perfect storm in which a veritable madwoman is regarded as serious by a large swath of the electorate.  While reading the articles linked in this post, please try not to play into the fear, and contemplate the possible outcomes as calmly as possible.

Senator Bernie Sanders and Shared Sacrifice

An articulate and compelling letter to President Barack Obama by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, asking the President to reject draconian Republican budget cuts and to place a fair share of the burden on corporations and the super wealthy. It is imperative that as many people as possible sign this letter so that the President knows just how important this matter is. As it stands, the overwhelming majority of Americans believe that a good way to help balance the budget is for the super rich to pay their fair share. Republicans, however, have taken the upper hand in framing the issue in the national media and would have everyone believe that fairly taxing the rich would be unpopular and economically unwise. The facts are of course to the contrary.

Please take a few moments now, read this beautifully written letter to the President, and sign your name to it if you agree.

Petition - Shared Sacrifice: U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Vermont)

You an also find Senator Sanders and his updates on this issue on twitter @SenatorSanders

Obama at DNC Fundraiser

This clip comes from before the New York Senate passed the state's marriage equality bill and Gov. Cuomo signed it into law last night.  That said, it is just as relevant this morning.

President Obama speaks here of equal rights for all couples, the non enforcement of DOMA, and the extension of federal benefits to partners of federal employees.  However, he does not go as far as endorsing marriage equality - openly.  It seems though that in the smirks, smiles, and subtext of this speech, the President is leaking his own personal opinion on marriage equality.  He appears positive on the issue, and it even seems that he is hinting at his approval of same-sex marriage.

The problem for the President is that he is walking a tightrope on the marriage equality issue.  Gay Democrats and their allies comprise a vocal and wealthy subset of the party, while still many other Democrats of various backgrounds and positions are cold to the issue.  President Obama walks the tightrope again in this speech, and does so tactfully.  What has changed since that night, however, is the passage of marriage equality in the most populous state to do so yet, putting the ball back into Obama's proverbial court once more.

Funniest book ever

Its Saturday, and time for some lighter fare.  With that in mind, consider the following:



http://www.guardianbookshop.co.uk/BerteShopWeb/viewProduct.do?ISBN=9780857862655

Equality at Last!

After days of delay, the New York Senate has approved marriage equality 33-29.  29 Democrats and 4 Republicans have joined together to do what's right.

In short, tonight is a good night, and justice has been done.

Here's all the benefits for the soon-to-be happy couples.  Special thanks to the New York Times.  The only problem with the article is how reminiscent it is of a course in wills, trusts, and estates.

UPDATE: Deal Reached on terms of religious exemption

Update: Vote may not be delayed

New York's vote on marriage equality might come to the floor later tonight

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/25/nyregion/new-york-state-senate-to-vote-on-same-sex-marriage.html?hp

Friday afternoon laugh

A good laugh thanks to House Dems and Pat Bagley at the Salt Lake Tribune.

Equality Delayed

The New York Senate will not be voting on marriage equality until after the weekend, thereby extending the state's legislative session into another week.  Reuters story below.

New York same sex marriage vote delayed

Let's Get Ready to Rumble... over redistricting

Typical.

Apologies for the one word introduction, but nothing else sums up the situation as effectively and concisely.  According to The Hill, Illinois Republicans are set to file suit over the state's new redistricting map, which has recently been signed into law by the Democratic governor.  Republicans apparently are angry that they did not have control over the state when redistricting occurred, and are now threatening suit because the map looks suspicious to them.  The map, as it was when being proposed by the state legislature, is available here.

In defense of Republicans, Aaron Blake's article in the Washington Post does point to redistricting experts who find this redistricting comparable to one done by Texas Republicans nearly a decade ago to oust a half dozen Democrats.  What is difficult to square, however, is the dramatic reporting with the banality of the map itself.  If one simply looks at the map, it is plain to see that the rural areas are cut into large swaths of land, while metro Chicago is divided into linear tracts, spreading out into concentric suburbs.  No large hooks, no self-evident gerrymandering. 

As for state Democrats, the Governor has ensured that the map is fair, competitive, and protects the voting rights of minorities.  There is no need to mince words here: ensuring the rights of minority communities and individual citizens is far more important than than keeping a political machine comfortably in power.  Though written largely as personal opinion here, it is also law.  Still, Republicans will take to the airwaves and the courts to bemoan their plight.

This is typical because once again, Republicans are playing the victim while they in fact hold the upper hand.  In reality, they have no fear of loosing, and should secretly be preparing for a big win.  At present, Republicans hold a powerful majority of statehouses across the United States.  The states, of course, conduct the redistricting, which means that in all of those states in which Republicans hold a majority, they now have the power to carve up electoral territory as they see fit.  In principal, they can squeeze out many Democratic Congressmen while drawing up new districts just for new Republican contenders - not just in one state like Illinois - but across America.  The most frightening prospect here is conservatives being able to secure themselves a future in congress even while fast moving demographic changes are shifting the country away from such inland conservative ideology.

Republicans will not publicize these facts, and they certainly will not publicly celebrate their wins.  Instead, they will do what they do best, and cry about one state whose map they did not draw all by themselves.  

Gutsy, Gutless, or Childish

Yesterday, Congressman Cantor walked out on budget talks with the White House's budget team.  This blog called it childish, but David Mark over at Politico is asking another question: was it "gutsy" or "gutless"?

It is hard to think of it in those terms when the stakes are so high.  Yes, typically one would be viewed as gutsy when making a bold move despite great risk. In this situation, however, the potential for disaster is so real that engaging in brinksmanship seems more like a case of putting partisan victory over the best interests of the United States and its people.

Here is the debate at Politico's ARENA: Eric Cantor gutsy of 'gutless' on debt talk walk-out

Senator Bernie Sanders has strong reply at the top of the page at the moment.  Riveting as always.

Matt Taibbi: Great Piece on Michele Bachmann

This is truly a great example of opinion writing.  Matt Taibbi is on top of his game here, blending colorful language, piercing snark, and fun, light reference points.  He also effectively vacillates from the serious and analytic to the humorous, making for a truly enjoyable piece.

Though a rather long article to be dedicated to one individual, it gives great insight into the insane world of Michele Bachman.

MICHELE BACHMANN'S HOLY WAR

Town Halls on YouTube

Apparently, YouTube is now a very official looking public forum.  There is a podium, flags, and all - all digital!

Seriously though, YouTube town halls are a new way of putting Democrats and Republicans side by side on a given issue and letting viewers voice their opinion by voting for one or another official on a given issue.  There is no telling how this will play out in the near future, and it is the first time I have heard of the forum.  That said, it could be an interesting little sideshow as we move closer to more serious debates for the Republican primary.

Here is an example from Nancy Pelosi on immigration and the Dream Act:

Perry for President - Maybe

An unconfirmed report is out now about Texas Governor Rick Perry declaring his candidacy for the 2012 Republican nomination.  Perhaps we will now see a little shakeup in the otherwise abysmally dull cast of GOP contenders.

Source Says Rick Perry Is Running, Campaign Adviser Can't Confirm

Bipartisanship at Last

What can bring elected officials together from across the aisle in this hyper partisan age?  Well, at the state level, it often seems to be same-sex marriage, though even this exception only cuts slightly into the homogeneous Republican camp.  At the federal level? Enter Mary Jane.

That's right.  Democrat Barney Frank and Republican Ron Paul of Texas are working together to end federal prohibition of marijuana and to allow states to regulate the plant as they see fit.  Frank of course hails from a state which has already decriminalized marijuana, and Ron Paul is perhaps the day's most outspoken libertarian.  In that regard, this alliance would seem to make sense.

Frank and Paul to introduce bill to end pot prohibition

More from the Party of "Adults"

In the latest childish move by a leading GOP operative, Eric Cantor (R-Va) walked away from budget talks led by Vice President Biden today.  That's right.  From the Party that came into Congress in 2010 talking about having an "adult conversation" comes a grown man who walked out of a room when he failed to get all of what he wanted, when he wanted it.  Adult?  Not sure.  A lot of us did that before entering elementary school.

It would be an entirely different matter altogether if Mr. Cantor stormed out of a meeting over a trade dispute or refused to speak to a foreign dictator who had brutalized his own people.  But here the swarthy Virginian stormed out on a team headed by the Vice President of the United States over the budget, an issue which requires cooperation and urgent attention at a time when the country desperately needs a cohesive economic plan.  Seems as though the budget is not all that important to Mr. Cantor.  Maybe getting his way is really his number one priority.

Please see: Cantor pulls out of White House budget talks

NOTE: The above photo was in no way altered.  After much consideration, it was decided that no amount of digital alteration could render a goofy-er depiction of the Congressman than that shown in the photograph above.

At Last: Dems Winning a Messaging War

This is amazing.  Republican Rep. Paul Ryan is now the third most disliked Republican in America, and according to Politico, Democrats are winning a messaging war against him and his party.  It is truly refreshing to see Dems take control of an issue for once and not simply behave in reaction to Republican initiatives.

And now, time to take a moment and celebrate the first time Dems have led in a P.R. battle since late '08:



To read more from Politico, click here.

Marriage Equality in New York this week?

This week New York state legislators in Albany are struggling to decide whether to allow for a vote on a law that would legalize marriage for same-sex couples in the state.  Many proponents of the bill believe it would clear the state senate if put to a vote, as 29 out of 30 Democrats are in favor, as are a handful of Republicans.  Even more Republicans admit they are undecided and have not as of yet opposed the legislation.  New York’s State Senate counts only 62 members.

This past legislative session in Annapolis, state delegates and numerous groups tried to pass a similar piece of legislation for same-sex couples in Maryland.  Though a version did clear the senate with relative ease, the house bill could not garner enough support to be voted upon, and was sent back to committee. 

In Albany as in Annapolis, the same pivotal issue clouds the greater picture: exemptions for religious groups who do not want to marry same-sex couples or who refuse to permit such couples to celebrate their marriage at their facilities.  In addition to that point, opponents of marriage equality bills also would like religious exemption for non-religious groups, such as caterers and banquet halls who would refuse to work with same-sex couples on their wedding day.  This would of course then establish a certain prioritization of rights, putting those of business owners ahead of those of the happy couple.  It also risks raising certain questions of constitutional law, with contractual relationships being dragged into the realm of 1st Amendment rights.

What we all must remember in this debate in Maryland, in New York, and across the country, is that this is not a question of redefining marriage.  Married heterosexual couples will still be married, regardless of whether or not same-sex couples can do the same.  This is also not an issue of the State infringing upon the rights of the church.  A decision rendered in Albany or in Annapolis would only affect civil marriage between two citizens of the same sex.  Already, millions of heterosexual couples are married every year in a civil, non-religious setting, and a law legalizing same-sex marriage would only expand this same ability to all couples.  Houses of worship will always have their own rules and beliefs on marriage, regardless of the state’s civil marriage laws.

What also cannot be forgotten is that this is a matter regarding the happiness and future of couples in every state of this country.  It is not a question of creating a new holiday, or changing when the clocks go back, or even budgeting highway funds.  It is a question of whether a state allows couples who love each other to come together in marriage, or whether a state stands in the way of their happiness and their future together.  The questions citizens of all states must ask themselves now is which of those states could they support and live in.

Be Prepared to Discuss...

Here is the original Supreme Court decision handed down Monday on the Wal-Mart class action suit.  Once time permits a thorough reading and analysis of the decision, there will certainly be greater discussion on this blog.  Read along if you dare; it will only better prepare you for the commentary and exchanges to ensue.

WAL-MART STORES, INC. v. DUKES

Progressive Maryland

Here is something definitely worth checking out.

Progressive Maryland's new blog, launched today at the organization's offices in Silver Spring, MD, is the new center of information for the non-profit group.  It will be regularly updated with the organization's events, ways of getting involved, and fundraising efforts.  Additionally, the blog will be a clearinghouse of information for progressives across the state, and will be tackling issues ranging from marriage equality to progressive taxation and raising the minimum wage.

So far, the blog has paid special attention to public banking and income disparity in the United States.  In the near future, the site will also be educating readers on issues about which they have previously heard very little, such as establishing a State Bank of Maryland, The State of Working Maryland, and a report card that Progressive Maryland puts out every year on legislators in Annapolis.

For readers who do not already know, Progressive Maryland is a 15,000-member strong grassroots non-profit comprised of a full-time staff, interns and volunteers, and 40 affiliated non-profit, labor, and religious groups.  It maintains centers of operation at Silver Spring in the Washington, DC area, as well as in Baltimore.  The group is primarily concerned with the rights and economic well-being of working families within the state, though it does also promote progressive social agendas within its advocacy work.

To check out the new Progressive Maryland blog, please go to http://progressive-maryland.blogspot.com

Of Scalia and Wal-Mart

Today, the Supreme Court rendered yet another decision in favor of the business "community". You are hereby invited to take a look at the New York Times piece linked below.  It is a brief overview, and it gives a couple of snippets of the opinion that would normally be difficult to contextualize by one who has not been to law school.  What anyone can easily comprehend in this case, however, is the self-evident b.s.

As a great law professor of mine  once said, "there are no apolitical decisions", and this is no exception.  The court's decision, written by Justice Scalia, seems to make every effort to disregard this class action suit as far fetched, frivolous, and baseless.  Reading the full text of the opinion will certainly be a joy, as it will no doubt be full of Scalia's classic bobs and weaves to avoid principles of precedent, history, and - let's be honest - the spirit of the law.

Further commentary on this decision must be saved for a reading of the full text of the decision.  No full analysis of the case can be made from the New York Time article alone.  In the meantime, please take a look at the original article here.  Also, keep an eye on your blood pressure while reading.

Illegal Immigrants Start Fires?

This one press conference ties together two unfortunate story lines: the increasingly nationalistic and xenophobic rhetoric of the Republican Party, and the inexorable decline of Senator John McCain.  For the former it is perhaps a sign of the times: a final push for return to a (largely fictional) 1950s-style past before the country finally moves forward on the social issues of race, ethnicity, and religion.  For the latter, it is a sorry display of a man who once stood for bipartisanship and moderation, but who now is behaving as an embittered old man - and one who is losing his grip at that.

Yes, John McCain, who once championed comprehensive and humane immigration reform, is now generating baseless accusations of Mexican-Americans.  Let there be no mistake: in this press conference, he is blaming fires which have forced the evacuation of 10,000 people from 4,300 homes on individuals crossing the US-Mexican border on foot.  Where is the John McCain who championed comprehensive immigration reform?


Then again, his endorsement of such reform was before 2008.  Before losing to then-candidate Obama, before his own party derailed his campaign, and before he decided to release his anger upon immigrants and the gay community.  That was closer to the time of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act, back when McCain could reach across the aisle, display a genuine smile, and most importantly, refrain from the crazy talk.


Perhaps now McCain is in fact more in sync with his own party.  Now he is sharing the same distaste for our neighbors south of the border, the anti-gay sentiment at the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, and the affinity for offensive comments that are sure to make a headline or two.  His moderation and self-distancing from racism, xenophobia, and extremism were always what set McCain apart from many other Republicans, and it was that which earned him much admiration across the aisle.  Unfortunately for the gentleman from Arizona, he is very quickly losing all the respect he earned over very many years, and now, nearly three years since the last presidential election, it is doubtful that he will be able to win much of it back.

UPDATE: Weiner Resignation Official

Just now officials in Washington and Albany received a letter from Rep. Weiner declaring his resignation, a move which now officially destroys any prospect of conspiracy theories or hilarious speculation based upon the previous post.

A Glimmer of Hope?

According to this blurb over on a POLITICO blog today, Rep. Anthony Weiner still has not yet officially resigned.  In truth, this man's career is beyond repair at this point and his lack of official resignation is probably due to an extended weekend trip to the Hamptons.  That said, it is intriguing enough to stimulate some idle speculation (please read comment at the end of the original article).

POLITICO: Weiner still hasn't officially resigned

Something New

Something new here in Maryland politics.  This is now the official blog for Progressive Maryland, a non-profit organization which focuses on issues such as:

• Raising the minimum wage
• Funding public education
• Progressive taxation
• Collective bargaining rights
• Health implementation
• State banking
• Combined reporting
• Fair development
• Marriage equality

The blog will contain useful information about the group, as well as new and exciting stories on many of their issues.  It will also include sources for further reading and information on how to get involved.   Comments are of course welcome.  

Check out the blog!

Saturday Morning Video

Its difficult to stay optimistic in these times, especially when you are awaiting the end of law school and the onset of stifling loan repayments.  It is even harder when the bad times have gone on since you were 14 or 15 years old.  The recession was the final straw, but the decline proceeded steadily for eight years before the market crash.  Terrorist attacks, wars, spending sprees, bigger houses, gas guzzling SUVs in every other driveway, and a previously unimaginable concentration of wealth.  Without delving into statistics or CBO publications, one must be blunt here: the recession was not unexpected; it was merely a culmination of many earlier events.  It is in that light that this video must be shared.  To quote the best line from it, "the 2000's suck".

The Uncler w/ Uncle Sam and Alyssa Milano from Alyssa Milan

UPDATE: New York Marriage Equality

Here it is everyone.  As of today, NY Governor Cuomo expects a marriage equality bill to be passed in Albany by the close of the legislative session next week.  This New York Times article points to a Long Island and a Hudson Valley Republican as being two of the tie breakers, though when this story initially broke the rumor was that the passage of the measure was contingent upon a yeah vote from a Staten Island republican whose quote is given in an earlier blog post on this same subject.


Yet another great quote has come along in this string of stories, this time from the Governor himself, who has recently declared "...this is marriage in a civil context — marriage as defined by government, not by a religion".  A very important point to be made by proponents of marriage equality, especially as religious groups seek to embed special exemptions from discrimination liability in marriage equality legislation.   It is a point hopefully more proponents will use and expound upon in the near future.  


To read the complete story, click here.

Disgraceful Display

There is no good defense for what Congressman Weiner has done, but the only person to whom this man caused any harm was his wife.  At the moment he decided to step down and apologize, people heckle him as though they were at a sporting event.

Rep. Weiner did something lewd, odd, and downright creepy.  That said, he did not break any laws, he did not molest any of the women with whom he exchanged photos online, and he did not engage in any violent behavior.  What should have been a shameful and tearful time between the Congressman and his wife became a media firestorm because he showed a photo of his clothed genitalia to an individual and coincidentally his name, which is German for the adjective 'Viennese', is also an American term for penis.  Funny.

Not really.  This man is a husband who wronged his wife in almost the worst possible way.  He was also a rare loudmouthed liberal who stood up for his constituents at a time when those of us from the East Coast are repeated called un-American by those whose home states are barely older than most of our parents.  Now that he has resigned, there is one less person to argue for what is right, to protect the interests of progressives in this country, and to defend those millions of us under attack in the so-called culture wars simply because of geography.

Watching this video is yet another harsh reminder of how crude and cruel those who appose men like Anthony Weiner can be.  Again, there is no defense for his own behavior. When a man has decided to apologize and bow out gracefully, however, those to whom he is apologizing must be graceful themselves, and let him.

Amazing Condensed Explanation of the Economy

The message in this video was already my point of view prior to me watching it.  So, in this particular instance, it was a case of preaching to the choir.  However, I hope that others willfind it useful in conveying some simple messages to friends and family, especially those caught in the useless and counterproductive battles of Point 5.  That point in particular is as old as time, and was especially prevalent during the 19th Century when owners of large factories would break up strikes being held by members of one ethnic group with strike busters from another, pitting the poor against the poor.

In short, this video give a correct and concise assessment of the so-called "big picture".  Unfortunately, to those for whom the brand MoveOn has already been tarnished, this message may be falling on deaf ears. What I will say in its defense is that this model view of the current economic climate is shared by many outside of that organization's ranks, including people from varying levels of education.

New York So Close to Marriage Equality

I love the quote: "They can take the job and shove it... I'm trying to do the right thing."

Check out this bit on NYS's Senate trying to pass marriage equality in that state.  Fingers crossed.


Gay marriage bill one vote shy of clearing NY Senate

Video: Keeping the Debate Moving

This was literally how the debate proceeded last night.  Every single candidate tried to squeeze three minutes into thirty seconds, and every time Jon King uttered an "uh-huh, uh-huh" to cut them off in the most polite way possible.  Truly a shame he could not keep the topics moving as cleanly as he could the candidates, especially when the debate took a turn towards the uglier social topics.  All video credits to POLITICO.COM.