Not that I'd defend Liz Cheney for one mili-second, but I'd wager a small amount that she was taken by surprise that Mary and her wife Heather responded via Facebook to her maundering on Fox last Sunday.
After all, Mary remained tight-lipped and above the fray for years when her father was Vice President. She could be counted on to maintain silence no matter what was said about her and her lover or about the rocky road to LGBT rights.
Why wouldn't Liz expect the same in her quixotic try for the U.S. Senate? After all, La Liz is in a teensy bit of trouble (she's not doing well in the polls), and a pandering bit of disparaging marriage equality would play well with the base (Quite a loaded word, that!) and would possibly give her a poll bump or two up. Right?
Ooops.
Mama bear growled back this time.
And it's about time she did.
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
The Mary and Liz Show
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
SCOTUS and the First
Here’s the First Amendment to the Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Here’re some quotes from Snyder v Phelps:
Speech deals with matters of public concern when it can “be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community,” Connick, supra, at 146, or when it “is a subject of legitimate news 7 Cite as: 562 U. S. ____ (2011) Opinion of the Court interest; that is, a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public,”
The “content” of Westboro’s signs plainly relates to broad issues of interest to society at large, rather than matters of “purely private concern.” Dun & Bradstreet, supra, at 759. The placards read “God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11,” “America is Doomed,” “Don’t Pray for the USA,” “Thank God for IEDs,” “Fag Troops,” “Semper Fi Fags,” “God Hates Fags,” “Maryland Taliban,”“Fags Doom Nations,” “Not Blessed Just Cursed,” “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” “Pope in Hell,” “Priests Rape Boys,” “You’re Going to Hell,” and “God Hates You.” App.3781–3787. While these messages may fall short of refined social or political commentary, the issues they highlight—the political and moral conduct of the UnitedStates and its citizens, the fate of our Nation, homosexuality in the military, and scandals involving the Catholic clergy—are matters of public import. The signs certainly convey Westboro’s position on those issues, in a manner designed, unlike the private speech in Dun & Bradstreet, to reach as broad a public audience as possible. And even if a few of the signs—such as “You’re Going to Hell” and “God Hates You”—were viewed as containing messages related to Matthew Snyder or the Snyders specifically, that would not change the fact that the overall thrust and dominant theme of Westboro’s demonstration spoke to broader public issues.
And here’s my problem with the Supreme Court’s decision in reversing the judgment against Phelps and his Westboro Baptist church: Content of those signs. Since Phelps and his family base their protests entirely on passages from the Christian Bible, haven’t the Supreme Court 8 given a nudge to establishing the Judeo-Christian religion as the official religion of the United States; or at least given substance to using a biblical citation as justification in a court case?
How, for instance, can the current cases involving same-sex marriages prevail against the religious onslaught found in every one of the arguments against such marriages in light of this decision? It certainly seems as though by giving carte blanche to Phelps and his congregation and including the biblical interpretations as protected speech the Court has done damage to the establishment clause, if not to the free exercise clause.
Where does Phelps’ free exercise end and my freedom of association and inherent right to privacy begin?
Sphere: Related ContentMonday, February 14, 2011
What’s the difference?
What’s the difference between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Knights of Columbus?
Between Opus Dei and the Masons and the Muslim Brotherhood?
Which organization really is a threat to our way of life?
Just askin’.
Sphere: Related ContentMonday, November 22, 2010
Get Real
All this brouhaha, Dear Gentle Reader(s), about pat downs and scanners at the airports makes one wonder.
Do we really want the perceived enemy to know exactly what to expect at the security points in our airports? Do we want him or her to know not to expect to have a full body scan or to know there will be a pat down which won’t disturb “junk”?
If someone is so convinced of the rightness of their cause that they will recruit pregnant women to carry out a suicide mission, do we think they won’t somehow ask, or trick, grandma to carry some explosives onto a plane?
How often do we read of some unfortunate soul who kills a child of their own to save the child from an unhappy life? Do we think that religious fanatics are less capable of such an atrocity?
If it keeps the potential bomber guessing, then whatever the Department of Homeland Security comes up with is pretty much fine with me.
Don’t give murders a road map.
Trust, but verify.
Sphere: Related ContentMonday, November 1, 2010
A quick question
It’ll never catch on, Dear, Gentle Reader(s), but what do you think would be the result if, at every Congressional committee hearing which allowed, or requested, non-Federal government testimony, to have the very first question for each testifier be, “How much money, and to whom, have you contributed to a Federal election campaign, either at the general election level or the primary election level, in the past five years?”
That would be one way to keep track of monies expended in political campaigns, as well as to whom it was directed.
Cui bono—who benefits? Until we know that, we don’t know enough.
Trust, but verify.
Sphere: Related ContentThursday, October 28, 2010
ALEC—and Arizona and Prisons
There’s a new corporation acronym on the block, and it’s not a comic actor, by a long shot. Meet ALEC, Dear Gentle Reader(s), and be afraid. Be very afraid. (Good tie-in for Halloween, eh wot?)
Here’s a rather chilling excerpt from NPR’s website:
NPR spent the past several months analyzing hundreds of pages of campaign finance reports, lobbying documents and corporate records. What they show is a quiet, behind-the-scenes effort to help draft and pass Arizona Senate Bill 1070 by an industry that stands to benefit from it: the private prison industry.
According to NPR, the genesis of Arizona’s immigrant law, SB1070 occurred last December at a conference of the American Legislative Exchange Council—ALEC. An Arizona pol was at the conference, and the rest of the story we all well know.
Admittedly, Capitalism has brought us to a very good life, but every once in a while we surely have to wonder about making profit off of the misery of those who are less fortunate.
Or not?
Trust, but verify.
Sphere: Related ContentThursday, October 21, 2010
Nervous?
The current brouhaha about Juan Williams’ nervousness in an airport is generating a little heat.
While we bruit about various rationales supporting or decrying the fact that Williams lost his NPR job, how about if we take a longer view?
Do you suppose the average Iraqi or Afghani, walking down the street is or is not nervous these days? Talk about nervousness!
Frankly, I think three or four skinheads are scary…three or four black guys with “dreads” are scary…biker girls are scary.
It’s a scary world out there.
Trust, but verify. And keep a sharp eye out.
Sphere: Related ContentThursday, March 13, 2008
Muckroom Follies 3.13.08 Historical Accuracy?
Over at the Muckroom, one William Rusher offers another paean to William F. Buckiley, Jr., and the mid-20th century rise of "conservatism."
That's OK. One expects, Dear Gentle Reader(s), that such would appear upon the occasion of the passing of Buckley and that such will continue for some time. After all, given the current public regard for the conservative movement as exemplified by the Bush administration, they're going to resurrect whatever shining moments they can for as long as they need.
One wonders, though, why they don't include President Lyndon Johnson as a major player in the rise of conservatism. After all, Mr. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which, according to some, gave the conservatives the opportunity to capitalize on the festering social unrest of the day: America was a segregated country when LBJ came to power. It wasn't when he left. From his very first hours in office, he would move to combat it on a broad front. But he also knew not an inch would be won cheaply. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is to many of us a watershed in American history. It was one of the most exhilarating triumphs of the Johnson years. Yet, late on the night of signing the bill, I found the President in a melancholy mood. I asked what was troubling him. "I think we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come," he said. Even as his own popularity soared in that heady year, the President saw the gathering storm of a backlash.
Senator Goldwater's "Southern Strategy" enabled the Republican party to gain a foothold in the South, and the rest is, as they say, history.
Buckley's intellectual foundation making aside, the conservatives of 2008 would not have been so successful without the progressive vision and determination to do the right thing of Lyndon B. Johnson.
Don't, though, expect too many conservative water carriers to acknowledge LBJ's contribution. They're ashamed of what it made them do.
Sphere: Related ContentMonday, March 10, 2008
The Grey Lady's Step to Redemption 2
The New York Times has taken another step in redeeming itself for its decision to hire William Kristol for its op-ed page. Today it published an editorial, "What’s on TV Tonight? Humiliation to the Point of Suicide."
The editorial points out that the NBC television show, "To Catch a Predator," has little socially redeeming value. It sets up a sting and then invites local law enforcement officers to stage a raid which it records and then airs on network television. A 2006 raid resulted in a coup for the camera crew, the object of the sting "took out a handgun and shot himself to death," which prompted an officer on the scene to comment, reportedly, "That’ll make good TV."
Nice, eh wot, Dear Gentle Reader(s)? By the way, it did make TV, albeit in a truncated form. It also "made" the basis for a $100 million lawsuit against NBC.
The Times comments about this aspect of "reality" shows: “To Catch a Predator” is part of an ever-growing lineup of shows that calculatingly appeal to their audience’s worst instincts. The common theme is indulging the audience’s voyeuristic pleasure at someone else’s humiliation, and the nastiness of the put-down has become the whole point of the shows."
The truth of this is that these shows do not elevate nor do they elucidate. They do exhibit a clear example of the reprehensible in human behavior, on both sides of the issue. The Times opines, "The producers of “To Catch a Predator”...appear to be on the verge — if not over it — of becoming brown shirts with television cameras. If you are going into the business of storming people’s homes and humiliating them to the point of suicide, you should be sure to have some good lawyers on retainer."
The lawsuit continues.
So do, alas, the television shows.
Friday, February 29, 2008
R.I.P. WFB, Jr.--Obit anus abit onus
William F. Buckley, Jr., died this week, Dear Gentle Reader(s). Almost as distressing as his political views, are some of the encomia which have been heaped on his memory, exemplified, alas, by my hero, Andrew Sullivan.
Sullivan gave space several times over the past week to moments of reflection about Buckley. The one which is most disturbing appeared on February 28, under the title "Buckley and the Gays."
Here are some quotes Sullivan attributes to Buckley, presented in a letter written by Buckley to a colleague who had just come out to him: "I honor your decision to raise publicly the points you raise ... but you too must realize what are the implications of what you ask. Namely, that the Judaeo-Christian tradition, which is aligned with, no less, one way of life, become indifferent to another way of life ...National Review will not be scarred by thoughtless gay bashing, let alone be animated by such practices ... You are absolutely correct in saying that gays should be welcome as partners in efforts to mint sound public policies; not correct, in my judgement, in concluding that such a partnership presupposes the repeal of convictions that are more, much more, than mere accretions of bigotry. You remain, always, my dear friend, and my brother in combat."
Just what ill would befall a particular (Judaeo-Christian) way of life by its indifference is not limned. Nor is it exactly clear what Buckley meant by "much much more than mere accretions of bigotry." What could be so important to convictions of any sort than ridding it of convictions of bigotry?
Sullivan begins this posting with He was much too civilized to have been personally hostile or rude; and ends it with absent Buckley's grace and manners.
In the middle, he reminds us, and himself, that "gayness would bar [a person] from full inclusion as an equal in the conservative movement."
Buckley had grace and manners? Of the sort which is imperious, perhaps. Rather like the attitude celebrated by Rogers and Hammerstein in The King and I: "Don't let us up off our knees, your Majesty/ Give us a kick, if you please, your Majesty/ Give us a kick, if you would, your Majesty/ Oooph! Oh, that was good, your Majesty!"
The man scorned Sullivan's core being--with grace and manners, to be sure.
Schopenhauer's little quip seldom had more meaning than in the case of Mr. Buckley.
R.I.P. William F. Buckley, Junior.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
100 Million "Minorities"
Our Palm Springs Gannett outlet, The Desert Sun, leads with the USA Today story based on recent Census population estimates.
Indicative of future shifts is the statistic that Hispanic students are increasing in our schools while "white" students are decreasing in number.
Among the many items of interest indicated by this growth of "minorities," is the discussion of ethnic "counts."
Perhaps when the subcategories of ethnicity were introduced during the Nixon administration they were a cultural necessity for correcting some imbalances in our society.
The question today is whether those subcategories are still useful or whether they have become detrimental to the "melting pot" concept of our system of government.
Perhaps it's time to stop asking a person's ethnicity. We're all Americans--all U.S. citizens--all one nation--with liberty and equality for all.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
"A Cancer on the Presidency"
John Dean's famous warning to President Nixon made the connection between the insidious growth of cancer and the corruption of the Nixon administration in the 1970's.
Logo is broadcasting Paragraph 175 this week. It's part of their "evolution in visible" series. Paragraph 175 illustrates the insidious growth of anti-gay attitudes in Nazi Germany in the 1930's.
Watching the film in 2007 gives one an eerie feeling of deja vu. Are we losing, incrementally, our freedoms today?
People who trust implicitly in the government should watch this film. It graphically demonstrates the truth of "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
Paragraph 175, released in 2002, interviews survivors of Nazi Germany's campaign against homosexuals in the 1930's. Several male survivors of prisons and concentration camps told their stories. The one lesbian in the film managed to escape to England; she was the only surviving member of her Jewish family.
A theme throughout the movie is the repetition of how quickly the Nazis managed to squelch the budding gay life in Berlin and destroy the research done by Magnus Hirsch's group.
And each of these people saw signs of the approaching disaster but paid little attention to them. And their non-gay friends quickly became indifferent to their suffering.
"It can't happen here."
It could. Verify the truthfulness of government leaders. Is the administration fostering our common weal or one it deems in its own best interest?
Paragraph 175
Culture Wars
Civil Rights