August 19, 2005
Today's GOP
Moderates need not apply.
You know, if there’s any doubt as to who is in charge of the GOP today, you only have to look at who potential candidates suck up to in order to get the nod to run.
Wannabeleader said (at August 19, 2005 05:20 PM):
Ugh, I think moderates are starting to gain more control, expecially with McCain and his crew. Also, the Republicans only have McCain or Guilani to run for President in 2008, two stict moderates.
Wannabeleader
Henry said (at August 22, 2005 03:41 PM):
Yea, McCain is okay. Unfortunately, he's on the fringe of the GOP, not the leadership. The leadership is Hastert, Trott, DeLay, and Frist.
Of course
It’s not surprising that movie studios want to push of simultaneous release of movies and DVDs. The primary reason, I’m sure, is piracy. While it won’t stop it, surely it will put a dent as pirate version (arguably) won’t be out before the actual versions.
Also, I’m pretty sure the studios make vastly more money off of the DVD sales than they do ticket sales.
The Theaters are blaming the studios for ‘horrible’ movies cutting into the theater business, but that’s a myth (though, certainly there were some stinkers out this year). With few exceptions (Lord of the Rings), where the big screen is part of the experience, I’d much rather sit at home with a DVD than go to the movies. While I don’t have a huge TV, I have a decent sized one AND a surround sound system. Also, I can watch it when I want to have the time, I can pause it if needed, I can watch half one day, then the other half the next. My snacks are much cheaper, and there’s no annoying person kicking my seat.
There have been a few movies out that I am looking forward to see (Willie Wonka, The Skeleton Key, and Red Eye), not to mention moves I wanted to see, but wasn’t able to find the time. So, while there may not be as many good movies, there are good movies out this year.
Also, when you think of it, even at $20 a whack, the DVD is cheaper than paying for a night at the movies, after to consider ticket cost, parking, dinner, and snacks. And, when you own the DVD, you can come back to it.
As CDs marked the end of the cassette tape, I think theaters are a dying breed.
Not seen and Not heard
Because Brightly colored flags are a bad influence on kids.
Dumb Arguments
Via gay orbit, we come to this post at White Peril:
Which is just about the dumbest thing I think I’ve read on the Sheehan thing.
Before I dissect it, though, let me tell you where I stand on Sheehan. I think some of what she’s said is over the top, clearly. I also think she has every right to do what she’s doing, and I don’t think she is bringing ‘shame’ to her son’s memory. I think she’s angry that her son was killed for reasons she doesn’t agree with, and she’s taking a stand. Which, really, is what we’re supposed to be about as a nation.
So, yes, she gets to ‘own’ he son’s memory and legacy – because he was her son, and she loved him. The allusion here (I think, since the question is about whether gay guys should fawn over Cindy), is if you’re gay and you’re parents don’t agree, should they be able to use your memory (assuming you’ve died) to promote their anti-gay agenda? The comparison, though, is a false one. An anti-gay parent who uses the memory of a dead gay-child to promote their anti-gay agenda is (arguably) actively working to tear down their son’s memory. Sheehan isn’t doing that.
She hasn’t had anything bad to say about the military and, to my knowledge, hasn’t said she opposed Casey’s choice to be in the military. What she has said, is that she doesn’t understand what her son’s sacrifice is was for. I suppose you might argue that if Casey was staunchly pro-war-in Iraq (as opposed to pro-doing his duty as a member of the military), you might argue that his mother’s anti-war activities somehow go against his wishes, but even then, it’s not the same thing. Cindy is proud of her son, she misses him, and there’s no indication she wanted him any different than he was – that she didn’t support him.
Cindy has done nothing to sully her son’s life, nor has she uttered one word which condemns or questions the life Casey led. Instead, what she has said is ‘I don’t understand how my kid’s death was for any greater good’.
And, you can disagree. And maybe Casey did (there’s no evidence I’m aware of either way). but that doesn’t make them diametrically opposed, nor does it mean Cindy isn’t proud of who Casey was.
And, I think, any gay child could be happy with a parent like that.
Tight Unifroms, bats, balls, pitchers, and catchers
No wonder anti-gay groups are worried about gay groups attending baseball games. In fact, I think baseball itself should be banned.
August 18, 2005
Daily Delight
Jon takes on Justice Sunday II (Prayback time), with his usually skill. It’s worth watching, if for nothing else, than to see someone at JSII actually say this:
The most un-religious nation on earth is Sweden.
We are a nation of Indians, ruled by a group of Swedes.
No, it wasn’t Zell.
Zell did manage, however, topoint ou that the SCOUTS has been handing down decisions that no Christian can accept. Which gives you a glimpse of their true agenda.
I’ll give you a hint: Rhymes with Meocracy.
Shorter Press Gaggle
The president has nothing to say about anything. Thanks for coming.
Ironic
FRC Today.
What’s that saying? Something about specs and logs? Or is it do as I say, not as I do?
The problem the FRC has is not, of course, the theocratic form of government. Rather, it's that they would be following the wrong theocracy.
Comments:~Dawn said (at August 18, 2005 05:47 PM):
They are absolutely out of their mind..
Even in Liberal NY
The GOP doesn’t want anyone appearing too pro gay.
I wonder in 50 years, if the GOP will apologize for it’s elections strategy which involves actively working to not include gays in the party.
August 17, 2005
You can’t make this stuff up
New London Connecticut, who was the locality that brought you the Kelo recent eminent domain decision, has decided that taking people’s homes is not enough. Since the decision, they have decided that those who fought the city’s attempt to take their land, and lost, have been technically been on city land since the city tried to take it.
So, they are charging the ex-land owners back rent.
I guess shooting these poor people seemed too extreme.
It’s always nice
When people come forward to expose falsehoods. I just don’t understand why they don’t come forward when it would really matter. Like when the commission was still actively investigating things.
August 16, 2005
Interesting
From today’s briefing (towards the bottom):
More Roberts
The ‘radical’ idea that women want equal pay is ‘troublesome’.
Well, it was 21 years ago. Women weren’t really equal back then.
USA Today on Roberts
Most people think a right to privacy exists. Ask Roberts if he’s one of them.
Comments:Thoughts on Zach
I’ve been quiet on the re-emergence of Zach from the camp he was sent to. He’s updated his blog twice, since then, which has caused people to worry that the camp succeeded in brainwashing him. Why, well, most of his frustrations seemed to be focused on the ‘outsiders’ as opposed to his parents, or even the camp.
Which is not surprising.
I’m a firm believer that people shouldn’t/can’t really come out until/unless they are in a position to lose their family and support. Especially teenagers. It may seem harsh, but the reality is that as nice as it might be to think Zach would have said ‘Screw you, I’m gay’ and become the gay spartacus of our time, leading all gay teens to freedom.
Of course, reality has a way of stepping in. Zach is 16. That means, like it or not, he is under the control of his parents. His options, then, are to submit or leave. It’s not too hard to figure out which he would choose. All the focus on the camp, while maybe for an overall good, wasn’t good for Zach. It’s hard enough being 16, and gay. Now imagine the whole world (well, a good chunk of the blog world) is protesting in your name, and your parents are going on TV talking about you. You don’t have a job, you have no where to go.
I’m pretty sure I would do whatever I could to get rid of everyone, tell them to shut up, and try to move past all of this. Which, it seems, is exactly what he is – and should be allowed to- do. As reprehensible as I find the actions of his parents, they are his parents. And he’s stuck with them (good and bad) until he’s able to stand on his own.
Then, maybe, he’ll be in a place to figure things out. Until then, I hope he makes peace with himself, his parents, and try to enjoy the last few years of his childhood.
You knew this was coming
As Phred Phelps becomes more bizarre, the religious right (who was fine when he was limiting his craziness to just the homos), are now suggesting that Phelps is a gay plot:
Uh huh. Those wiley gays.
August 15, 2005
Bush and Co Imitates Maxwell Smart
Just around the corner is a new, Model Democratic Iraq.
Umm, would you believe a near-perfect Democratic Iraq?
Would you believe an Iraq that has the word ‘Democracy’ in its dictionaries?
I guess they missed it by >< that much.
The Lawrence Conspiracy
Some days, I just laugh.
Paul at Right Rainbow links to this palm beach post editorial which promotes a book, claiming the events leading to the Lawrence decision was set-up.
That’s right, a murder. (These things always involved a murder.)
This, of course, echoes the rumblings of the Freeper crowd. Now, I should start off by stating I don’t know what happened and, I suppose, it’s possible that this whole thing was a set-up. I mean, why would someone suggest it, if it wasn’t true.
Well, to overturn Lawrence, of course. If the police were complicit in a conspiracy to have the men charged simply to be able to challenge the law, then someone might challenge the result trying to invalidate it.
The problem is the scope of the conspiracy needed to pull this off. Paul makes a start at responding to this, by suggesting the deputies are involved (They were in the area so they could be the ones to respond). Of course, this means that they were risking their careers in order to facilitate a pro-gay movement. Then there’s the call. Paul mentions in the comments that there may be some question as to who called the police and over what:
Who knows, maybe there’s some bombshell waiting to be exposed...
...but I doubt it.
Paul said (at August 15, 2005 02:56 PM):
It is, I think, difficult to comment informedly on the substance of a book that hasn't yet been released to publication. So I don't know how well, if at all, Judge Law supports her hypothesis that Lawrence was a set-up.
But in any event, my point wasn't to defend her book; my point was to note that there have long been questions about the origins of Lawrence, Judge Law's book notwithstanding.
I do not share your observation that the responding deputies "were risking their careers in order to facilitate a pro-gay movement." Police officers usually do not risk their careers by enforcing the law, and Section 21.06 of the Texas Penal Code was at the time good law.
Indeed, if there was a conspiracy -- and it is an if; I, for one, do not state it as an unequivocal fact -- one problem the conspirators would have faced was in getting the law enforced. As any of us who have ever been stopped for speeding but not ticketed can attest, cops do not always write a citation or effect an arrest for every "crime" they witness. Police officers exercise discretion; this accounts for my observation that the conspirators, if that's what they were, could not have left the identity of the arriving officers to chance. Many cops would not have made an arrest for a violation of 21.06. (The law had, after all, never before been enforced, a fact noted by an article to which you linked.)
If the deputies were involved, all that was required of them was a fastidious performance of their duties. That doesn't strike me as career-wrecking stuff.
To say that the "crime" was staged is not to say that the arrest was bogus. If the officers witnessed a violation of the statute, whether or not the violation was put on display for their benefit, the arrest was good. Indeed, by all accounts -- including that of the petitioners, who never disputed the procedural validity of their arrest; they could not have, lest the courts agree it was procedurally invalid and therefore not reach the merits of the constitutional claim -- the arrest was legititmate.
Henry said (at August 15, 2005 04:17 PM):
That's a narrow view of the deputies role. They would have known, in advance, what was going on. That means, at the very least, they would have had to conspire on having a false report made, which is illegal.
Short of that, however, if it is found out that they played along with a set-up, in order to challenge a law they didn't agree with (which would have to be the assumption, in light of that action), their credibility would be shot.
You’re right – the book isn’t out, but this smells like a right-wing attempt to take down Lawrence. I said that I could be wrong, but I’m willing the book will have lots of shadows, very little proof of anything.
Paul said (at August 15, 2005 05:42 PM):
That's a narrow view of the deputies role. They would have known, in advance, what was going on. That means, at the very least, they would have had to conspire on having a false report made, which is illegal.
Yes, if my suspicion is correct, then the deputies would indeed had to have known in advance what was up. (The "conspirators" might have hoped that deputies generally from the Republican-run sheriff's department would be more likely than cops from the more liberal city police department to effect an arrest, but even that's too chancy.)
But I don't think it follows that the deputies filed a "false report." If the deputies observed John Lawrence and Tyron Garner performing fellatio -- or another same-sex act -- then they observed a violation of 21.06, just as they said they observed. That would make their report true, not false.
And as for the deputies' credibility being shot, how? And in what context? Their personal motivations in effecting the arrests -- and I agree that their actions would have to be interpreted as sympathetic to the defendants' constitutional claims -- is wholly irrelevant to the propriety of their official conduct. Otherwise, to maintain their credibility, police officers could only enforce laws with which they personally agree. But that's not how the system works, is it?
Finally, I don't know what purpose Judge Law had in mind in writing her book. But if she was motivated by a desire to overturn Lawrence, as you seem to suspect, she's going to be disappointed. For even if the case was a set-up, it just doesn't matter, not legally. (I think it's an interesting question of history, which is why I blogged it, but I don't think it changes the disposition of the case one bit.)
Let's say you and I agree to challenge the constitutionality of the drug war by staging a violation of the Controlled Substances Act. We call ahead to agents of our acquaintance in the DEA and tell them when and where we'll be cooking up some meth. The agents show up at the appointed hour, observe our brew and arrest us.
The crime occurred; the police observed it; end of story. Our motivation in breaking the law, and the officers' motivation in enforcing it, is neither here nor there for purpose of constitutional analysis.
In Lawrence, the defendants were arrested for a violation of an actual law. That they wished to be arrested is not germane to the statute's constitutionality.
henry said (at August 15, 2005 08:07 PM):
I’m not saying they filed a false report, I’m saying that they conspired with others to have it done. In other words, they had to know – ahead of time- that a false report of a crime was going to be called in, and not only did they not prevent it – they became accomplices to it.
That’s illegal.
As for their credibility, I come for a cop family. If a cop took part in a ‘fake’ crime, it would wreck their credibility without question. It’s not about the legality of enforcing the law, clearly that part is okay. It’s about setting up a fake ‘gun’ call, in order to ‘catch’ the gusy during sex.
I doubt Lawrence would be overturned, as Supreme Court decisions are supposed to be based not on a particular case, rather in response to one. However, in order to challenge the law, they had to say that the arrest violated their right to privacy. If they ‘invited’ the cops in, then their privacy wasn’t invaded. People would challenge it that way.
Now, if you assume the cops weren’t involved, then the conspiracy relies too much on chance. The cops could have simply turned their heads (lots of cops don’t bother inforcing minor crimes). Also, the choice of ‘Crazed man with a gun’ call is suicidal. Cops with guns drawn is a dangerous situation. However, if this was the case (the call came in hoping the police would arrest them), then there wouldn’t be a story involving sex, jealousy, betrayal, raw ambition, political maneuvering and a murder.
When we’re not seducing children
We’re trying to run you down with our cars.
Well, according to the crazies.
Life in these United States
A man, angered by Cindy Sheehan’s protest, twice shot a shotgun into the air to scare her, causing a response by secret service and Sheriff deputies.
His defense? Ths is Texas.
