Should people who have served time in custody be required to compensate the state if they win the lottery? These things do happen ... although in this case the perp, a sex offender, is in trouble not for the $10 million, but for not reporting a change of address. (Source: WCVB)
It's almost impossible to impose an enforcement mechanism that prohibits such people from playing lotteries or at casinos. But in my opinion, they owe restitution to their victims; and if they have a winfall they should forfeit it to those victims.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Get rid of the superdelegates
NBC Reporter and legal counsel Dan Abrams wrote an entry on his blog at The Huffington Post about those "superdelegates" that the MSM is focused upon right now, especially in the Democratic Party. He raises the point that these ex officios, about 20% or more of the delegates, each effectively has the power of 10,000 -- that is, it takes ten thousand votes to earn one delegate; but as a Congressman, Governor, ex-President or Veep, or state party chair one automatically gets a free ticket to the convention. (Except for "Independent" Democrat Joe Lieberman, who was stripped of his status since he's campaigning for John McCain.)
It's a good point. I want to see Obama or Clinton lock up the nomination by the state caucuses and primaries; not in a smoke filled, wine and cheese gobfest. Abrams' suggestion, that the supers be bound by the majority vote in their respective district, is smart but impractical. They'll do what they want; and if it goes against what appears to be the clear will of the people, McCain will be laughing his way to the White House.
America doesn't need another eight years of hegemony. It needs a man or woman of the people, not a man or woman of the elites.
Jesse Jackson had it right back in 1992: Get rid of the superdelegates entirely. Party officials should earn their way to the convention the same way as any other delegate. Billy Clinton only cut them by a 1/3, very reluctantly, as the price of getting Jackson's endorsement after the two fought it out all through the first half of that year -- and that decision is now rearing its ugly head. (Jackson also claimed he had the "right" to be veep that year, but Clinton offered that cut, which started from zero, as his quid pro quo to get the minister to shut up.)
No election without selection -- period.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
It's a good point. I want to see Obama or Clinton lock up the nomination by the state caucuses and primaries; not in a smoke filled, wine and cheese gobfest. Abrams' suggestion, that the supers be bound by the majority vote in their respective district, is smart but impractical. They'll do what they want; and if it goes against what appears to be the clear will of the people, McCain will be laughing his way to the White House.
America doesn't need another eight years of hegemony. It needs a man or woman of the people, not a man or woman of the elites.
Jesse Jackson had it right back in 1992: Get rid of the superdelegates entirely. Party officials should earn their way to the convention the same way as any other delegate. Billy Clinton only cut them by a 1/3, very reluctantly, as the price of getting Jackson's endorsement after the two fought it out all through the first half of that year -- and that decision is now rearing its ugly head. (Jackson also claimed he had the "right" to be veep that year, but Clinton offered that cut, which started from zero, as his quid pro quo to get the minister to shut up.)
No election without selection -- period.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Clinton gets desperate
Four years ago, John Kerry made a desperate gamble and dipped into his personal fortune -- he is indirectly connected to the Forbes dynasty on his mother's side -- and loaned his campaign $6 million. It paid off in spades. But that was very early in the campaign, well before the regional primaries, way before Super Tuesday.
Now, Hillary Clinton has loaned $5 million of her own money to her campaign. This time, I think it's too little too late. If her campaign is bleeding money, Barack Obama is raising it like crazy -- $3 million just on Thursday. In her latest column, even Margaret Noonan (the woman who wrote the elder Bush's infamous "Read My Lips" speech) suggests the momentum is now tilting clearly in Obama's favour; and that the" superdelegates" who have staunchly been behind Clinton may have now quietly decided to flip and vote for the Man from Illinois if it goes to the convention floor.
That kind of backstabbing would be more stupid than just openly admitting the truth. But beyond that there are from my perspective some big problems with the American Way of politics. Two stick out.
First, if one accepts public financing, he or she is limited to how much they can spend. If they don't they can spend as much as they want. Edwards did the right thing and took public money but it made him an even bigger minnow in a war of attrition. Most other countries set out strict limits for both the nomination process and the race to the actual election.
Second, unique among democracies in the world, America doesn't have free time advertising; that is, requiring networks to give over some time each night during a campaign to let the campaigns tell their stories unfiltered. The best known example is the UK and their announcements which usually have professional production values and a bit of wit attached to them. Canada has a hybrid system with both paid and free time ads.
If everyone in the States had a strict limit of spending and an allotted time to speak out, it would be a more thoughtful and less personal debate; and winning and losing would depend less on personality and more on character. It would be an issues based campaign. And there would be people who actually deserve to run for the highest office in the land; not people who run just because they have money because they're born with it or are convincing authors.
The rate things are going, though, it's going to be McCain vs either Clinton or OBama and it will come to a battle of personalities. America needs a better debate than that.
And I'd start the debate by getting rid of the "commission on Presidential debates" and letting the League of Women Voters do the job again. And let the LWV, not the networks, determine who are viable candidates. Heck, get Ralph Nader involved too -- just so Americans can see for themselves how irrelevant he has become.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Now, Hillary Clinton has loaned $5 million of her own money to her campaign. This time, I think it's too little too late. If her campaign is bleeding money, Barack Obama is raising it like crazy -- $3 million just on Thursday. In her latest column, even Margaret Noonan (the woman who wrote the elder Bush's infamous "Read My Lips" speech) suggests the momentum is now tilting clearly in Obama's favour; and that the" superdelegates" who have staunchly been behind Clinton may have now quietly decided to flip and vote for the Man from Illinois if it goes to the convention floor.
That kind of backstabbing would be more stupid than just openly admitting the truth. But beyond that there are from my perspective some big problems with the American Way of politics. Two stick out.
First, if one accepts public financing, he or she is limited to how much they can spend. If they don't they can spend as much as they want. Edwards did the right thing and took public money but it made him an even bigger minnow in a war of attrition. Most other countries set out strict limits for both the nomination process and the race to the actual election.
Second, unique among democracies in the world, America doesn't have free time advertising; that is, requiring networks to give over some time each night during a campaign to let the campaigns tell their stories unfiltered. The best known example is the UK and their announcements which usually have professional production values and a bit of wit attached to them. Canada has a hybrid system with both paid and free time ads.
If everyone in the States had a strict limit of spending and an allotted time to speak out, it would be a more thoughtful and less personal debate; and winning and losing would depend less on personality and more on character. It would be an issues based campaign. And there would be people who actually deserve to run for the highest office in the land; not people who run just because they have money because they're born with it or are convincing authors.
The rate things are going, though, it's going to be McCain vs either Clinton or OBama and it will come to a battle of personalities. America needs a better debate than that.
And I'd start the debate by getting rid of the "commission on Presidential debates" and letting the League of Women Voters do the job again. And let the LWV, not the networks, determine who are viable candidates. Heck, get Ralph Nader involved too -- just so Americans can see for themselves how irrelevant he has become.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Friday, February 8, 2008
A real fine mess
So Stephen Harper has raised the stakes yet again and has introduced a non-confidence motion to extend the Afghanistan mission to 2011. The motion is also predicated on the condition that other NATO countries start pulling their weight.
Two points:
Two points:
- Too little, too late. The time for NATO to have acted in Afghanistan was right after the 9/11 attacks. The offers made recently by Poland and France are useful but we can't wait another year for another 1000 troops. To do the job properly, we need as many soldiers as there are right now in Iraq. In other words, not 4000 to 5000, but 130,000. Afghanistan is where they should have been in the first place, anyway -- not Iraq. We need a sabbatical -- and those troops should instead be providing security in Vancouver and Whistler for the Winter Olympics two years hence. Had the whole of NATO pulled its weight to begin with, there would be no question in my mind we should stay the course.
- Does every single thing the government is doing have to come down to a vote of confidence? This is the same Reform Party which once said that such an issue would never be considered one of confidence. And from the same guy who drafted much of the Blue Book. What a Harpercrite. Not only that, but realistically extending the mission would require the very machinery that both the Liberals and Conservatives continue to keep delaying. There is simply no way to procure all the orders and have all the equipment delivered in time -- unless we buy them off the shelf from the Russians, which would no doubt tick off our allies. Harper can't blame the Liberals any more -- he's two years beyond being the "new" government.
I can't help but wonder if this was the UK and Harper tried to pull this same stunt as Prime Minister, the Queen would fire her chief servant on the spot. But of course, this is Canada and that job is up to the Governor-General; and no GG has dared to pull the plug since the 1926 King-Byng Affair. (Note to Australian and American readers: The issue then was somewhat similar to the Kerr-Whitlam spat in 1975, when the Australian GG and PM fired each other -- and there was alleged American interference in that affair as well.)
To quote a famous comedian from the 1930, we've gotten ourselves into a real fine mess. I think it's time to get out of it.
UPDATE (5:19 PM EST, 2219 GMT): An analogous situation in the UK would be covered by what are known as the Lascelles Principles, an informal convention first discussed in 1951. It's never been used -- although it came close during the stalemate in that country in 1974. I'm sure Betty Windsor was glad that a second election was held that year rather than having her back against the wall; as Harper seems so bent on doing to Jean.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Harper's brinkmanship
I might be able to understand it if PMS decided to call an election over the Afghanistan issue. Actually he doesn't even have to ask Parliament for consent to extend the mission -- national defence falls under the Crown Prerogative. If Harper thinks another vote is going to divide the Liberals again, I believe he's mistaken. Diplomacy and development have been complete failures as we've defended another country. The Liberals are prepared to fight an election over South Asia if that's what Harper wants; but this coming election, whenever it is, will be more than just about Afghanistan.
However, it's Harper's petulant attitude over the omnibus crime bill that continues to be perplexing. The components of the bill -- which amends not just the Criminal Code but also five other Acts of Parliament -- were well on their way to being passed when Harper decided to call a new session. Rather than renumber the prior component bills and pick up where they left off, which the Standing Orders permit, he killed them and introduced this monstrosity. This required "clause by clause" to be commenced all over again. I lamented this move back in October and I'm still pissed off about it. This includes raising the age of consent to sixteen which no one other than NAMBLA and "The Family" could possibly object to.
(My opinion on this remains the same -- the age of consent for both heterosexual and homosexual partners should be sixteen; with the exception of two individuals below that age if both offer their unconditional consent, consent as defined under the "no means no" sections of the Code.)
Now it's stalled in the Senate pending a final vote. Harper is saying if the Liberals who have a majority in the Senate don't move on it, he'll consider a matter of non-confidence and he'll ask Governor General Michaëlle Jean to dissolve Parliament and call an election. I hope and pray Her Excellency isn't that stupid.
There may be some Parliamentary democracies where a non-confidence vote may be cast in the upper chamber but the lower chamber must concur in that as well. No such convention exists in Canada. A budget or appropriations bill must be defeated; or a clear statement of non-confidence must be passed. The only place where this can happen is in the House of Commons.
I'm not sure what the specific hold up is in the Senate, but my personal objection to the bill is not getting tough on crime -- actually, I do support a get tough approach. My problem is it doesn't get tough enough on the causes of crime; nor does it begin to consider a "broken windows" approach to fighting it. With this government's philosophy, even if it did, it would not properly fund it; downloading the responsibility on the provinces and territories.
We're sick and tired of unfunded mandates. Health care nearly became one just a few years ago and while we're back up to 25 cent dollars we'll probably never get back to the 50 cent proposition it was in the 1970s.
Of course, PMS can call an election and make it the issue. Canadians are more broad-minded than that, though; and if I was him I'd start looking for an apartment in the non rent control zone that Calgary is. Heck, even oil executives are living in homeless shelters; I'm sure one of them, male, would be more than glad to share his cot.
UPDATE (5:18 PM EST, 2218 GMT): Perhaps to get around the constitutional issues, PMS has introduced a motion in the House demanding the Senate move on the crime bill, and has made that motion a confidence measure. That is uncharted territory that would even make Beauchesne (or however it's spelt) tremble.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
However, it's Harper's petulant attitude over the omnibus crime bill that continues to be perplexing. The components of the bill -- which amends not just the Criminal Code but also five other Acts of Parliament -- were well on their way to being passed when Harper decided to call a new session. Rather than renumber the prior component bills and pick up where they left off, which the Standing Orders permit, he killed them and introduced this monstrosity. This required "clause by clause" to be commenced all over again. I lamented this move back in October and I'm still pissed off about it. This includes raising the age of consent to sixteen which no one other than NAMBLA and "The Family" could possibly object to.
(My opinion on this remains the same -- the age of consent for both heterosexual and homosexual partners should be sixteen; with the exception of two individuals below that age if both offer their unconditional consent, consent as defined under the "no means no" sections of the Code.)
Now it's stalled in the Senate pending a final vote. Harper is saying if the Liberals who have a majority in the Senate don't move on it, he'll consider a matter of non-confidence and he'll ask Governor General Michaëlle Jean to dissolve Parliament and call an election. I hope and pray Her Excellency isn't that stupid.
There may be some Parliamentary democracies where a non-confidence vote may be cast in the upper chamber but the lower chamber must concur in that as well. No such convention exists in Canada. A budget or appropriations bill must be defeated; or a clear statement of non-confidence must be passed. The only place where this can happen is in the House of Commons.
I'm not sure what the specific hold up is in the Senate, but my personal objection to the bill is not getting tough on crime -- actually, I do support a get tough approach. My problem is it doesn't get tough enough on the causes of crime; nor does it begin to consider a "broken windows" approach to fighting it. With this government's philosophy, even if it did, it would not properly fund it; downloading the responsibility on the provinces and territories.
We're sick and tired of unfunded mandates. Health care nearly became one just a few years ago and while we're back up to 25 cent dollars we'll probably never get back to the 50 cent proposition it was in the 1970s.
Of course, PMS can call an election and make it the issue. Canadians are more broad-minded than that, though; and if I was him I'd start looking for an apartment in the non rent control zone that Calgary is. Heck, even oil executives are living in homeless shelters; I'm sure one of them, male, would be more than glad to share his cot.
UPDATE (5:18 PM EST, 2218 GMT): Perhaps to get around the constitutional issues, PMS has introduced a motion in the House demanding the Senate move on the crime bill, and has made that motion a confidence measure. That is uncharted territory that would even make Beauchesne (or however it's spelt) tremble.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Mitt Romney out
It looks like clear sailing now for John McCain. I suspect Romney's gunning for the veep post or Treasury Secretary.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Silence, like yellow ribbons, is golden
My colleague A BCer in Toronto asks some tough questions about the Harper Government's silence over the death of a Canadian peacekeeper during the disproportionate Israeli attack against Hezbollah a couple of years ago that would up hurting civilians more than it did the terrorist group.
The question I would have is if Harper has gotten too much advice from the televangelists who oppose anything Muslim or Islamic. Guess his campaign slogan "Stand Up for Canada" doesn't include soldiers trying to keep the peace between two groups if one of those groups happens to be Muslim. If that be true, Harper should do us all a favour and pull the peacekeepers out of Cyprus, too.
Silence, like yellow ribbons, is golden.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
The question I would have is if Harper has gotten too much advice from the televangelists who oppose anything Muslim or Islamic. Guess his campaign slogan "Stand Up for Canada" doesn't include soldiers trying to keep the peace between two groups if one of those groups happens to be Muslim. If that be true, Harper should do us all a favour and pull the peacekeepers out of Cyprus, too.
Silence, like yellow ribbons, is golden.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Super Tuesday: Aftermath
If people were hoping for a clear trend after yesterday's megaprimary in the States, they were mistaken. It's still wide open as well as it should be. This means more door knocking, more debates, and unfortunately more negative advertising. But if America has to wait until April or May to find out who's made the final cut for November that really isn't a bad thing.
On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton ran up some of the larger states including New York and California; but Barack Obama ran the board in fourteen states. The delegate count still favours Mrs. Clinton slightly but that includes the "superdelegates" -- the ex officio office holders -- and they really aren't pledged to anyone; they could very well switch allegiances if they think Obama has a better chance of beating the GOP nominee. In terms of "earned" delegates, though, it was almost a dead tie. Neither are near the magic number of 2,025 to win outright.
On the Republican side, McCain should have wrapped this up last night; but in a huge shock Huckabee ran the board across the South. Even Romney did better than most expected. True, McCain won the lion's share of delegates yesterday but he's still far away from the magic number of 1191.
My observations this morning: First, for the Democrats, Obama raised nearly three times as much money last month as Clinton. I expect this to continue; and in the long run the odds favour him. Last night's speeches were also indicative: Obama sounded more like a confident winner while Clinton gave a stump speech -- not what one would expect with tens of millions of viewers watching.
Second, for the Republicans, McCain has the road to the nod; but he has to avoid the temptation to pander to right wing talk radio, most of which has already dismissed him. Invoking the "Reagan Revolution" is rather disingenuous as well. He has to stay true to himself. If he had done so eight years ago, he would have won and not Dubya and America would be a much different and better country today.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton ran up some of the larger states including New York and California; but Barack Obama ran the board in fourteen states. The delegate count still favours Mrs. Clinton slightly but that includes the "superdelegates" -- the ex officio office holders -- and they really aren't pledged to anyone; they could very well switch allegiances if they think Obama has a better chance of beating the GOP nominee. In terms of "earned" delegates, though, it was almost a dead tie. Neither are near the magic number of 2,025 to win outright.
On the Republican side, McCain should have wrapped this up last night; but in a huge shock Huckabee ran the board across the South. Even Romney did better than most expected. True, McCain won the lion's share of delegates yesterday but he's still far away from the magic number of 1191.
My observations this morning: First, for the Democrats, Obama raised nearly three times as much money last month as Clinton. I expect this to continue; and in the long run the odds favour him. Last night's speeches were also indicative: Obama sounded more like a confident winner while Clinton gave a stump speech -- not what one would expect with tens of millions of viewers watching.
Second, for the Republicans, McCain has the road to the nod; but he has to avoid the temptation to pander to right wing talk radio, most of which has already dismissed him. Invoking the "Reagan Revolution" is rather disingenuous as well. He has to stay true to himself. If he had done so eight years ago, he would have won and not Dubya and America would be a much different and better country today.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
My endorsement: Barack Obama
Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) appears to be almost unstoppable as we are now officially into Tsunami Tuesday. In the key race in California, he is now ahead of Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) by a full 13 percentage points according to Zogby, while Rasmussen still has him ahead by just one. Many are saying that the advance polls probably swung towards Clinton but I'm not entirely sure about that. California is a bellwether for future trends and I think that many have just plain lied to the pollsters -- they don't want to necessarily admit that they have reservations about extending the Bush - Clinton family feud into a third decade.
I don't doubt that Mrs. Clinton would do a good job. (So would have John Edwards, except my first choice dropped out last week.) But America needs something more than a mere technocrat. They need someone who can inspire and who can convince Americans to set aside their fears just as Washington, Lincoln and FDR did. So, if I was an American, I would be voting for Barack Obama.
It's not an issue of race or of sex. It's about inspiration and it's about hope. And Obama has hit a raw nerve, the kind we haven't seen since two of the three Kennedy brothers who ran for President. (The third, Ted, never had a chance even against an unpopular Carter back in 1980.) He does have some drawbacks, not the least of which is his health care proposal which might help 75% of Americans at best compared to Clinton's 90-95%.
But he is, if anything else, principled. He was opposed to the Iraq War from the very beginning. Hillary Clinton can't fall back on the excuse that she was deceived -- frankly, America and the world entire was deceived about the WMD issue. The problems was Congress wasn't asking the tough questions. Obama and others were, even before he was elected to the Senate.
As well, Obama's been correct in his assessment that "No Child Left Behind" has been an abyssmal failure because the funding that should have gone to it has instead gone to fund a fruitless struggle. He's also strongly against the idea of "vouchers," which is just another clever attempt by Republicans to destroy public education. One shouldn't teach to the test (the standardized tests), one should teach to ensure those tests are the least we can expect from kids, not the most.
But the big point is that Obama represents the attitude of doing something for one's country rather than just expecting an entitlement. Yes, America must do better by its middle and lower classes especially when it comes to the tax burden. But before my time when a challenge was issued America rose to the challenge. It did so in science and technology, human rights, the attempt to alleviate endemic poverty. Even most Republicans understood the need to protect the environment as Nixon did. Then came Reagan who said trees cause acid rain and took the world on a downhill slide that continues to this day.
Simply stated, Barack Obama truly is the "Maverick" that the Secret Service deservedly calls him. If it comes down to a choice between my head (Obama) and my heart (Clinton, code-named "Evergreen"), I go with my head. Eight years of a heart with no brain have been an utter disaster and America and the world doesn't need four more years of that from either party. I'd prefer someone who has a brain tempered with a heart, not the other way around. I'd like to see the day a woman becomes President, but Mrs. Clinton just doesn't cut it for me.
On the lighter side of the news: The Mayan Indians, and now televangelist Jack Van Impe, predict the end of the age will be on December 21, 2012. I was under the impression when I read the Bible that the Rapture occurs during or after the Tribulation -- not before it.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
I don't doubt that Mrs. Clinton would do a good job. (So would have John Edwards, except my first choice dropped out last week.) But America needs something more than a mere technocrat. They need someone who can inspire and who can convince Americans to set aside their fears just as Washington, Lincoln and FDR did. So, if I was an American, I would be voting for Barack Obama.
It's not an issue of race or of sex. It's about inspiration and it's about hope. And Obama has hit a raw nerve, the kind we haven't seen since two of the three Kennedy brothers who ran for President. (The third, Ted, never had a chance even against an unpopular Carter back in 1980.) He does have some drawbacks, not the least of which is his health care proposal which might help 75% of Americans at best compared to Clinton's 90-95%.
But he is, if anything else, principled. He was opposed to the Iraq War from the very beginning. Hillary Clinton can't fall back on the excuse that she was deceived -- frankly, America and the world entire was deceived about the WMD issue. The problems was Congress wasn't asking the tough questions. Obama and others were, even before he was elected to the Senate.
As well, Obama's been correct in his assessment that "No Child Left Behind" has been an abyssmal failure because the funding that should have gone to it has instead gone to fund a fruitless struggle. He's also strongly against the idea of "vouchers," which is just another clever attempt by Republicans to destroy public education. One shouldn't teach to the test (the standardized tests), one should teach to ensure those tests are the least we can expect from kids, not the most.
But the big point is that Obama represents the attitude of doing something for one's country rather than just expecting an entitlement. Yes, America must do better by its middle and lower classes especially when it comes to the tax burden. But before my time when a challenge was issued America rose to the challenge. It did so in science and technology, human rights, the attempt to alleviate endemic poverty. Even most Republicans understood the need to protect the environment as Nixon did. Then came Reagan who said trees cause acid rain and took the world on a downhill slide that continues to this day.
Simply stated, Barack Obama truly is the "Maverick" that the Secret Service deservedly calls him. If it comes down to a choice between my head (Obama) and my heart (Clinton, code-named "Evergreen"), I go with my head. Eight years of a heart with no brain have been an utter disaster and America and the world doesn't need four more years of that from either party. I'd prefer someone who has a brain tempered with a heart, not the other way around. I'd like to see the day a woman becomes President, but Mrs. Clinton just doesn't cut it for me.
On the lighter side of the news: The Mayan Indians, and now televangelist Jack Van Impe, predict the end of the age will be on December 21, 2012. I was under the impression when I read the Bible that the Rapture occurs during or after the Tribulation -- not before it.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Smart move towards equal families -- in New York
As I've noted here before, I'm personally opposed to gay marriage but have never had an issue with same sex couples living together at common law. But I also think that where one jurisdiction has recognized the practice, others should recognize that validity.
Claiming that "the people" have voted against gay marriage in one state doesn't invalidate actions that have taken place elsewhere; doing so is not only unfair but in the States it violates the "full faith and credit" clause of Article IV -- which essentially means a marriage in one state is a marriage in all of them.
More than a year ago, for instance, a court in Virginia enforced a child custody arrangement from Vermont where a civil union between two women broke down. One of the partners who lost custody of a child had kidnapped the child and went to a state where gay marriages are banned (as per referendum) but the court said the state had to enforce Vermont's custody order regardless.
Now, a New York appeals court has ordered a community college in Monroe County -- which includes Rochester -- to provide fringe benefits to a lesbian couple who got married in Canada. Their reasoning is that the state has always recognized marriages performed in other jurisdictions and that until it passes a law that declines such recognition for such unions it has to recognize what is.
For me, that's the correct decision as was the prior decision in Virginia. Many businesses and agencies have already extended benefits voluntarily, but as a matter of law it should be compulsory. While I still think a kid is better off with both a father and mother, there is simply no proof that a kid is going to turn homosexual because one or both of his or her parents are. Besides, the families already exist de facto, they should get recognition de jure. After all, can only really believe there is less love in a family where the heads have an alternate lifestyle?
As for Canada -- the issue is settled. It's time to move on. We have bigger problems. The lack of affordable day care and tax policies which punish families rather than rewarding them is something of concern to both straight and gay couples.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Claiming that "the people" have voted against gay marriage in one state doesn't invalidate actions that have taken place elsewhere; doing so is not only unfair but in the States it violates the "full faith and credit" clause of Article IV -- which essentially means a marriage in one state is a marriage in all of them.
More than a year ago, for instance, a court in Virginia enforced a child custody arrangement from Vermont where a civil union between two women broke down. One of the partners who lost custody of a child had kidnapped the child and went to a state where gay marriages are banned (as per referendum) but the court said the state had to enforce Vermont's custody order regardless.
Now, a New York appeals court has ordered a community college in Monroe County -- which includes Rochester -- to provide fringe benefits to a lesbian couple who got married in Canada. Their reasoning is that the state has always recognized marriages performed in other jurisdictions and that until it passes a law that declines such recognition for such unions it has to recognize what is.
For me, that's the correct decision as was the prior decision in Virginia. Many businesses and agencies have already extended benefits voluntarily, but as a matter of law it should be compulsory. While I still think a kid is better off with both a father and mother, there is simply no proof that a kid is going to turn homosexual because one or both of his or her parents are. Besides, the families already exist de facto, they should get recognition de jure. After all, can only really believe there is less love in a family where the heads have an alternate lifestyle?
As for Canada -- the issue is settled. It's time to move on. We have bigger problems. The lack of affordable day care and tax policies which punish families rather than rewarding them is something of concern to both straight and gay couples.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Countdown to the political tsunami
Something has been happening the last few weeks that has been so hard to describe, but can only be called momentum. Obama has now made this a real horserace for the Democrats, and both Rasmussen (+1) and Zogby (+4) now have him ahead in the key state of California. For the GOP, McCain appears to have the edge in many of tomorrow's Tsunami Tuesday sweepstakes; with contested races in no fewer than 22 states and the territory of American Samoa.
Given the Republicans have adopted a winner take all system in most states McCain could have it all wrapped up tomorrow or be very close to it. The Democrats, on the other hand, could be dragging this out for a long time yet because they have a proportional representation system -- in some states it's statewide, in others it's district by district. But enough wins for Obama tomorrow and the die could be cast.
The one possible wrinkle in all of this -- Ralph Nader. Yes, it looks like the hero turned zero wants to run another spoiler campaign in an attempt to siphon votes away from whomever is the Democratic candidate. Even if he can poll at least 5%, the minimum to be considered a significant threat, a third party candidacy is a threat to the incumbent party -- the GOP -- not the Dems. Less than that, however, and it could be a problem.
I find it interesting that the CBC, the BBC and al-Jazeera, among many others, are giving up a chunk of their schedules tomorrow to cover tomorrow's races. That in itself tells me just engaged the world is, and that the world is watching to see if America turns to the future or the past with both the mainline parties. Even McCain, elder statesman that he is, would be a breath of fresh air for his party compared to the other candidates.
In other news: Karl Rove is now part of the political analysis team for Fox News. Shouldn't he be facing indictment for treason instead?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Given the Republicans have adopted a winner take all system in most states McCain could have it all wrapped up tomorrow or be very close to it. The Democrats, on the other hand, could be dragging this out for a long time yet because they have a proportional representation system -- in some states it's statewide, in others it's district by district. But enough wins for Obama tomorrow and the die could be cast.
The one possible wrinkle in all of this -- Ralph Nader. Yes, it looks like the hero turned zero wants to run another spoiler campaign in an attempt to siphon votes away from whomever is the Democratic candidate. Even if he can poll at least 5%, the minimum to be considered a significant threat, a third party candidacy is a threat to the incumbent party -- the GOP -- not the Dems. Less than that, however, and it could be a problem.
I find it interesting that the CBC, the BBC and al-Jazeera, among many others, are giving up a chunk of their schedules tomorrow to cover tomorrow's races. That in itself tells me just engaged the world is, and that the world is watching to see if America turns to the future or the past with both the mainline parties. Even McCain, elder statesman that he is, would be a breath of fresh air for his party compared to the other candidates.
In other news: Karl Rove is now part of the political analysis team for Fox News. Shouldn't he be facing indictment for treason instead?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Wow
You knew the Patriots were too cocky about this one ... and their perfect season is for naught, as the Giants come from behind to win Super Bowl XLII. I was rooting for the underdog but I don't think anyone expected this result.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
The war against women, Kenya front
In a political crisis, whether in a developed or developing country, the first victims usually are women and children. And the situation in Kenya is absolutely desperate. This morning, I heard that at least 600 women have reported been raped since the fradulent election there a few weeks back. That's up from 140 just a week ago. The oldest victim is 58. The youngest -- just one.
And bear in mind, those are the reported cases. Imagine the thousands of others unreported because of shame or "tradition" or intimidation. If there's an explosion of HIV and Hepatitis C in the next few months and years, it will be traced back to the election.
At this point I really don't care who won or lost, whether the election was fake or not. Both of the country's leaders have women's blood on their hands. Canada, the Commonwealth, NATO -- all countries -- should impose an indefinite travel ban on both Raila Odinga and Mwai Kibaki. All known tribal leaders ordering this war against women should also be banned and added to the growing lists of wanted terrorists, along with Odinga and Kibaki. They do not deserve our hospitality, period.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
And bear in mind, those are the reported cases. Imagine the thousands of others unreported because of shame or "tradition" or intimidation. If there's an explosion of HIV and Hepatitis C in the next few months and years, it will be traced back to the election.
At this point I really don't care who won or lost, whether the election was fake or not. Both of the country's leaders have women's blood on their hands. Canada, the Commonwealth, NATO -- all countries -- should impose an indefinite travel ban on both Raila Odinga and Mwai Kibaki. All known tribal leaders ordering this war against women should also be banned and added to the growing lists of wanted terrorists, along with Odinga and Kibaki. They do not deserve our hospitality, period.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Groundhog Day!
So Wiarton Willie didn't see his shadow this morning. Which allegedly means an early spring in Southern Ontario. Of course he wouldn't, not with yesterday's nasty snowstorm.
Like I believe that legend -- statistically the woodchuck's spotting or non-spotting of the shadow on the Feast of the Presentation of Jesus in the Temple, a.k.a. Candlemas, has prognosticated the timing of warmer weather only 37% of the time.
But it's still a fun tradition, and if it brings thousands of tourists to the usually deserted Bruce Penninsula, it can't hurt. So happy Groundhog Day, or Candlemas -- or Saturday, as the case may be.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Like I believe that legend -- statistically the woodchuck's spotting or non-spotting of the shadow on the Feast of the Presentation of Jesus in the Temple, a.k.a. Candlemas, has prognosticated the timing of warmer weather only 37% of the time.
But it's still a fun tradition, and if it brings thousands of tourists to the usually deserted Bruce Penninsula, it can't hurt. So happy Groundhog Day, or Candlemas -- or Saturday, as the case may be.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Friday, February 1, 2008
New low for Bin Laden
Osama Bin Laden is a truly, truly wicked man. Not just for the fact that he hates women; or for all the terrorist attacks he has masterminded over the last ten years. But not even I could have imagined the depths to which his posse sunk today. He actually used two women who were mentally ill or had Down's Syndrome to blow up two marketplaces in Baghdad. At least 70 killed, 200 or so injured. It's the worst attack since the so-called "surge" began last year.
There can be no doubts the real enemy is not Iraq or Afghanistan, it's that maniac. He must be stopped by any means necessary. For all we know, he might be living in Colombia or Central Park West. Maybe even shaved off his beard and discarded his turban. The problem is we are just not looking for him, period -- not that we're looking for him hard enough.
Eternal justice is the Lord's, however, and I trust that sooner or later the Big Guy upstairs will get some common sense and have OBL die from natural causes. It would not be as cathartic as a commando killing him, but at least he'd get what he deserves.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
There can be no doubts the real enemy is not Iraq or Afghanistan, it's that maniac. He must be stopped by any means necessary. For all we know, he might be living in Colombia or Central Park West. Maybe even shaved off his beard and discarded his turban. The problem is we are just not looking for him, period -- not that we're looking for him hard enough.
Eternal justice is the Lord's, however, and I trust that sooner or later the Big Guy upstairs will get some common sense and have OBL die from natural causes. It would not be as cathartic as a commando killing him, but at least he'd get what he deserves.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)