December 05, 2003
Is Rush un-raveling?
Watching Rush deal with the legal fall-out of his drug problem is going to be interesting. Yes, he says, I was addicted to drugs. Yes, he said, I illegally purchased the pain killers. Yes, he said, I withdrew large sums of money to pay for the drugs in a manner which skirted the law (though, on the advice of my bank).
So, when prosecutors pull his medical records to see if he was 'doctor shopping', naturally they're only doing it because he's a star. They have no reasons to look into whether or not he was getting overlapping prescriptions. Certainly, there's nothing wrong with that.
"What these records show is that Mr. Limbaugh suffered extreme pain and had legitimate reasons for taking pain medication," Limbaugh read. "Unfortunately, because of Mr. Limbaugh's prominence and well-known political opinions, he is being subjected to an invasion of privacy no citizen of this republic should endure."
Black said Friday that Limbaugh didn't become a target of State Attorney Barry Krischer's painkiller probe until the National Enquirer quoted Limbaugh's maid in October saying she had unlawfully sold Limbaugh such medications.
"Suddenly an elected public official could not ignore the name Rush Limbaugh," Black said on NBC's "Today" show. Black is also a paid NBC commentator. "They are looking to publicly embarrass him and affect his radio program. ... Why is Rush Limbaugh the only person treated like this in America?"
Yes, Rush is the only person investigated like this.
The only one.
Comments:Is that Air force One?
Yes, the story changed. Yes, it was probably told for greatest impact. The interesting part of this story lies elsewhere.
For those of you not in the know, the story is that as Bush was headed to Iraq on his secret mission, they were spotted by what was thought to be a British Airways plane. The Pilot of the BA plane, or so it was thought at the time, radios 'Did I just see Air Force One?', to which the A.F.O. Pilots radioed back 'Gulfstream 5'. The joke being that the plane obviously wasn't a Gulfstream 5, but that they should mind their own business. So, a small flap ensued, as British Airways denied any such conversations, blah, blah, blah.
Here's my problem. Air Force One is the President's plane. I'm guessing it has state of the art defenses, radar, what have you. How in the world did other planes get close enough for a visual observation of the plane? Shouldn't they have been avoiding that circumstance? Especially now, that the story from the white house seems to suggest :
1) It was a non-UK person who inquired if it was Air Force One - but they don't' seem to know any more than that.
2) The seemed to be suggesting that there was, additionally, a B.A. plane in close proximity to A.F.O. for 'a while'.
Is it me, or do both of those scenarios seem to suggest that more should have been done to keep the plane hidden?
Comments:This and 90 cents will get you a coffee
Enraged about the CBS Miniseries, that they successfully had quashed in a scary show of influence over a media corporation, republicans are now looking to get revenge by removing FDR from the dime and replacing him with Reagan.
"I certainly would not look at it in any way as dishonoring FDR. He's also one of my favorite presidents," said Rep. Wally Herger, R-Calif. "He was also interestingly enough a personal hero of President Reagan's, but frankly I feel more connection with Reagan. He's a Californian, also closer to us now in history."
Souder [Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind, The person who introduced the bill] rounded up support from colleagues for his bill with a letter, headed "Win One for the Gipper," that lambasted CBS for its "vile miniseries."
Aren't there more important things for these guys to be worrying about?
(I have nothing more to add except, if it succeeds, I want to put Clinton on the quarter. After all, Washington already has the dollar bill. )
Comments:Brett said (at December 5, 2003 02:51 AM):
Personally, I would want to disrespect FDR by pulling him off the dime. He's the second-most despicable president in United States history after Lincoln.
December 04, 2003
Ohio Race problems
It's apparent that race relations in Ohio is a concern, because I can't think of any other reason why people would view the death of the man in custody after he struggled with police as anything other than a tragedy brought on by the man himself (Link to video - may disappear).
The Lawyer for the family, who I'm sure if distraught, is claiming the man was trying to surrender. Family members are calling him a 'gentle giant' - which he might have been when he wasn't on drugs. Watch the first few seconds of the video, and tell me who is the aggressor. The police or the man. And, in a perfect word, maybe the police should be able to respond to any situation perfectly, from my point of view - if you go after a cop - they should be able to defend themselves - because they have no idea if you're just looking to scrape, or if you're going to try to get their weapon while you struggle (which happens).
Yes, if the man didn't struggle with police, he would most likely be alive today. If the man hadn't attacked police, he wouldn't have needed up in the struggle. If the man hadn't been acting oddly, most likely due to the drugs in his system, the police never would have been called.
It's unfortunate that people grab onto situations like this, because it distracts people from the real problems of race in our country.
Comments:December 03, 2003
Is Don't ask Don't Tell hurting the war on terrorism?
MSNBC has a article on DADT and it's effects on our intelligence efforts.
Comments:In the past two years, the Department of Defense has discharged 37 linguists from the Defense Language Institute for being gay. Like Glover, many studied Arabic. At a time of heightened need for intelligence specialists, 37 linguists were rendered useless because of their homosexuality.
Married in the eyes of Mike Potemra
Brett, at Tabula Rasa, links to an NRO The Corner post about Gay Marriage by Mike Potemra .
From the NRO Post:
When gay friends, or just gay people in the general public, say that they consider themselves married, that's good enough for me. They are making a commitment, before God, and telling me about it. They are married, as far as I am concerned. So far, so good: I am in favor of gay marriage. But now let's look at the legislation being discussed-by actual legislatures, and by courts acting as legislatures. The proposed measures codify gay marriage as a government-approved status. What has been added by this extra step? Let's take off the table issues such as health benefits and hospital-visitation rights, which most people admit can be taken care of without recourse to formal recognition of gay marriage
While I appreciate the attempt, this argument falls apart upon closer review. (I'll skip the pro-religion argument, raised by the 'making a commitment, before God' belief - though there is one.)
First of all, why does Mr. Potemra 'take off the table' issues such as health benefits and hospital-visitation rights? That's at least half of the reason why there is such a push for gay marriages (or an equivalent). Yes, it's true, that most of the 'rights' a marriage certificate grants to couples can be replicated legally. It's also true, that this takes a good amount of time and money, and has (and continues to be) ignored by people when they are most needed. Throw into this mix parental/child rights - and it seems to be a lot of issues to simply ignore.
So, why do gays want marriage?
What's left then? Public, democratic recognition of the marriage of gay couples. In short, what gays are being denied is not a definable good or benefit but merely the formal approval of their fellow citizens acting collectively. What they are being denied is a particular status in the minds of other people -- in other words, exactly the sort of thing that, to be meaningful, must not be coerced or imposed undemocratically.
There is truth, mixed with cleverness here. I'll take issue with the 'Public, democratic' descriptor, which is used to set-up the half truth. The suggesting here, is that forcing the public to recognize gay marriages, will not make people more willing to accept gay marriages. And, to some extent, he is right. Of course, most gay people are not looking for 'Public, Democratic' recognition. They are looking for governmental recognition. The difference is, I could care less if people like Jerry Falwell, Jonah Golberg, or G.W. Bush look kindly on my relationship. I'm not interested in there being a public referendum on whether or not I marry someone they approve of. I only need the approval of myself, my friends, and my family.
I do want state recognition, however. I've posted before as to the non 'benefit' reasons as to why this is important to me. And, if you turn this argument around it becomes an argument for the state to get out of Marriage completely. If there is no reason for gays to marry other than this public acceptance, isn't the same true of non-gay marriages? If a man and a woman 'consider' themselves married in the eyes of God, isn't that enough by Mr. Potemra's thinking? Apparently not, because I didn't see him arguing the state should get out of the marriage business completely (which, while maybe solving some problems, would never happen).
There is something tangible to marriage, beyond just a paper to hang on your wall. It is a symbol of commitment. It lends strength to the family and the couple. The funny thing is, with few exceptions, the gay people who want to get married want to because they see a value to marriage. All of those things which the right frets over being destroyed, if gay marriage is approved, are values those gay couples agree with. Family, commitment, fidelity, love.
The post ends with an intellectual distraction about civil right and gay rights.
If I had said to a black person in 1964, "You can vote as far as I'm concerned, but you shouldn't insist on this right because there are a lot of racists out there," I could justly have been accused of hypocrisy-because in fact, there is no such thing as a vote "as far as I am concerned"; there's only a real-life vote. If they don't count your vote along with everybody else's, your voting rights have been denied and that's the end. The civil-rights analogy, taken logically, would protect gay people from being arrested for consensual sex; in those cases, either the police burst down the door and arrest you or they don't. But the civil-rights analogy does not demand the recognition of gay marriage by anyone who opposes gay marriage.
The last sentence is true, though unrelated to the whole preceding paragraph. Civil right laws do not demand people recognize that minorities are not 'inferior', they demand that minorities not be treated differently. One is a belief, the other is an action. One is not enforceable, the other is. Mr. Potemra (purposely?) avoids the better comparison of inter-racial marriage. That's because very few people (today) would take him seriously if he suggested mixed race couples can be married in his eyes, but that since there isn't 'public democratic' recognition of inter-racial marriage, then laws which prohibit inter-racial marriage are okay.
Of course, that argument would have held water 40 years ago - though not in a legal sense. Even though, arguably, there was no public majority of acceptance for these mixed race marriages - the Supreme court didn't rule to protect the comfort of the majority, they ruled to protect the rights of the minority. And, while some have argued that it may have been a faster process if these marriages hadn't been 'forced' on the public, the truth is today few people even blink an eye when people of different races choose to marry.
(Which, for some conservatives, is what they're most worried about. Not gay marriage, per se, but that people will come to not even notice the difference).
Comments:Brett said (at December 3, 2003 05:19 AM):
You say:
"Certainly, we respect the will of the majority, but there are certain rights which can not be abridged by will of the majority. At least, not easily."
Just to play Devil's advocate for you:
First, I search my copy of the Constitution in vain for the right of homosexual couples to have the government formally approve of their union. I can agree that gay couples have a right to marry (there's your First Amendment religious freedom) and a right to the legal and financial benefits that accorded married couples (there's your Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause). But a "right" to a state seal of approval? That's a hard sell, even as a Ninth Amendment unenumerated right.
Second, even conceding arguendo that there *is* a right to have state recognition of your marriage, it's just plain naive to believe that the government has any respect at all for the constitutional constraints of its authority. One need only look so far as the Second Amendment to find a case of an unambiguous civil right that has for all intents and purposes been read out of the Constitution, and only as far as the Commerce Clause to find a bit of constitutional text that has been perverted beyond all imagining.
Henry said (at December 3, 2003 05:49 AM):
Good. Now do the same thing for non-gay marriage. Show me where, in the constitution, there is the state recognition for ANY marriage.
You're arguing consitutional language as written. I'm arguing practice. What, exactly, does 'state seal of approval' mean? To me, it just means that the state treats me the same as it treats other couples.
Does the state give it's 'seal of approval' to married couples? Yes - without a doubt. In symbolic, legal, and financial ways.
I'll concede that 'marriage' is no where in the constitution. However, at some point, the government got into the 'marriage' business. You may wish they hadn't, or you may view that as an over-reach in power.
That's a whole other issue.
Brett said (at December 3, 2003 10:30 AM):
While I don't want to be put in the position of defending Potemra's post -- because, as I said, I'm not wholly persuaded by it -- I don't think you're understanding him correctly when he suggests "taking off the table" the various legal/financial bennies that accord to married couples.
I don't think he was saying, "Let's take this stuff off the table because it's not important and is easily dealt with AS THINGS STAND TODAY."
Instead, I read him as saying, "Let's take this stuff off the table, because it can be dealt with through robust domestic partnership legislation short of capital-G-capital-M Gay Marriage(tm)."
In that light, I think he's onto something: if we leave couples (regardless of gender) to make whatever cohabitative arrangements they want, and we grant them analogous legal/financial benefits, then all that's really left is public, democratic *approval* (as opposed to tolerance) of gay marriage as conveyed through state recognition. I'm fairly sympathetic to the argument that in order for public, democratic approval to mean anything, it can't be coerced.
(Of course, privatization arguments vis-a-vis marriage resonate with me as well. I'd like nothing more. :) )
This is why I suspect Potemra didn't delve into the interracial marriage analogy: it's inapt. In the Jim Crow-era South, interracial marriages were being forbidden altogether, and violators were actually punished by the state. In Potemra-Land, let's call it, homosexual couples would be perfectly free to call themselves married and cohabitate, and they would possess all the legal/financial benefits of marriage through some kind of domestic partnership arrangement. All that would be missing is an official state marriage license (or whatever) -- at least, until such time as voters of that state were willing to issue such things.
Anyway. I thought it was a more thoughtful contribution to the debate than the usual, infantile, John Derbyshire or Stanley Kurtz blatherings.
Henry said (at December 3, 2003 11:00 AM):
Well, I agree that it is a fairly moderate opinion from the NRO crowd. I also agree that, if his intention was how you read it, then that's fine with me. I, personally, don't need 'M' marriage, I'd be happy with Civil Union 'Marriage' (though not everyone will be).
That said - I think it's a somewhat forgiving read. Understanding it's a blog post, not an article, so it's more off the top of the head, there's nothing in the post which says 'I'm for CUs', it says 'I'm all for gay couples callings themselves married, but the majority shouldn't be forced to recognize those marriages'.
As for his 'off the table' remarks, maybe I'm cynical - but again, nothing he wrote gives me that impression. He specifically said 'Take it off, because it can be handled without gay marriage'. Yes, I suppose he could have meant CUs, but if that was the case, you'd think he'd mention CUs at least ONCE in the entry.
Your Civil Right interpretation is stronger. I don't buy it 100%, but I see how it can be read that way - so I'll give the benefit of doubt.
It does smack of silliness, though, that he claims to be in favor of Gay Marriage, though what he really means is he's in favor of gays saying they are married, not actually in favor of allowing them to get marriage.
Brett said (at December 3, 2003 11:07 AM):
Oh, one other thing:
I would submit to you that, court decisions favorable to gay marriage notwithstanding, "governmental approval" and "public democratic approval" are, with respect to this issue, the same thing.
Why? Because like it or not, this is a political question. Court decisions are certainly going to help frame the debate, but ultimately it's the people, represented by their legislators, who determine the precise contours of governmental approval given to *any* marriage.
Henry said (at December 3, 2003 11:34 AM):
Yes and no.
Certainly, we respect the will of the majority, but there are certain rights which can not be abridged by will of the majority. At least, not easily.
Yes, there is a movement afoot to alter the constitution to have a strict marriage definition. If they succeed, a big if, then it becomes a 'majority rules' sort of thing. The fact is that our system is designed to prevent just sort a thing - which is why I'm relatively sure the amendment attempt will fail.
Again, going back to Loving - I would argue that there was no 'democratic public approval' at that time. There is now. It may be argued if 'Loving' helped or hindered that process - but it can't be argued that there isn't majority approval now.
The truth of the matter is, gay marriage with a big 'M' will happen. The question is will it happen in 5 years or 50 years.
Eurpose doesn't 'Get' Bush
There is a Time article which, despite a horrible title, actually offers some insight into why Europe deosn't seem to like the President.
Bush reminds Europeans of the dark angels of their past. He is a conviction politician, a man who knows what he thinks and couldn't care two hoots for what he doesn't know. But after its blood-drenched flirtation with fascism and communism, Europe distrusts such certainty.
Interesting read.
Comments:Next Up: When Men Marry Dogs
As predicted by the ever-worried right, a polygamist is attempting to use the Lawrence decision in an appeal to his bigamy conviction.
Of course, there are a few differences - he was also convicted of child rape, as one of his 'wives' was 13, and he was convicted of nosupport of his 30 kids.
Lawrence, also, focused on the right to privacy within your home - and bigamy is about marrying more than 1 person - these two things are not completely the same. And certainly, the state has a compelling interest in protecting 13 year old girls.
While Lawrence doesn't focus on marriage, per se, I'm guessing that any pro-gay marriage decision on a national level might also be used as a defense against Polygamy charges.
It will be interesting to watch this proceed.
(Conservatives claiming the sky is falling in 3...2....1....)
Comments:December 02, 2003
That's Gay
What do you do when a 7 year old student in your class has 2 mommies?
You make him come to school early each morning and write I will never use the word 'gay' in school again on the blackboard.
Was there no 'ding' that went off in this teacher's head that there might be an issue with this?
Comments:Jenny Oliver said (at June 2, 2004 09:56 AM):
I believe that the teacher who gave this punishment should be made to not teach a semester without pay. The teacher had no right to punish the student for the sexually prefence of their parents. and there is nothing wrong with people being gay, that is just how they are.
