Today President Obama decided that the Justice Department will cease legal defense of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman.
After this announcement, Senator Diane Feinstein stated that she intends to introduce "legislation that will once and for all repeal the Defense of Marriage Act."
If my father has caught news of any of this, he's probably having fifty conniptions... like he nearly did on Christmas eve, when somehow, I guess it was a bad idea now that I think about it, we were watching Miss Congeniality over at my sister's house. Well, somebody (not me) brought up some minor controversy over a beauty pageant. No, it was not the controversy where that ditz defended "opposite marriage," but some other totally different controversy, but the point is my dad reflexively assumed we were discussing that case. So he instantly got himself into one of those loud, boiled, acrimonious speeches that makes sense to him alone.
Somewhere in between hyperventilating and foaming at the mouth he brought up a California case where the judge was known to be gay. In the mind of a septuagenarian straight white male, this is indisputable proof of bigotry. Because in his world, men just like him are the de facto standard for neutrality. Because if there are two sides of a coin, then his side is always somehow neutral.
But then, when my dad took a breather, my niece... she's my sister's stepdaughter through her most recent marriage... said, in a very tiny, polite voice, "Oh, but I think everybody has biases." And that shut my dad up, at least for one night.
It was 1997 when a friend and I went to a newly remodeled AMC theater. Got our tickets, found our theater, chose our seats... well... there really wasn't much choice. As a wheelchair user, this was basically my option:
Stadium-style seating was here and AMC clearly didn't give a rat's ass about the "viewing experience" of their disabled customers.
These seating arrangements place most seats higher than the seats immediately in front of them which means each higher row is up one step. Without giving a damn about the part of the ADA that requires wheelchair accessible seats to have a "comparable" line of sight to non-accessible seats, AMC smacked a few wheelchair spaces in the front row. Or, in even worse cases, they placed the accessible locations about three rows back and placed the seats in front at equal height guaranteeing an obstructed view if those seats were taken.
However, during any movie showing on any particular day, the audience avoids those front rows because they're crap:
AMC was 'changing the way the world sees movies' but all I was getting was a pain in the neck with slight nausea.
In 1999, The Justice Department sued AMC for not providing stadium-style seating to individuals who use wheelchairs.
Ahh... I remember 1999. Clinton was president and the economy was good. I also remember that this suit was often misconstrued as the disabled demanding that all seats be made wheelchair accessible or that stadium-style seating be outlawed. That's B.S. Just give me a clear view from a comfortable distance where I can enjoy the show with my friends.
It has always baffled me that AMC completely ignored a demographic that could have been their most loyal customers. Honestly, there's not a whole lot I can do with my friends. "Hey Kristen, you want to go skiing?" Umm no. "Hey Kristen, you want to go bike riding?" Umm no. "Hey Kristen, you want to go bungee jumping?" Umm no. "Hey Kristen, you want to go to the movies?" I'm there!
But not at AMC. I've avoided this lousy chain as much as possible. But it's been a sore spot. I'm disabled 24 hours a day, 365 days a year (366 in leap years!). Getting a bad seat isn't the same as an able-bodied person occasionally getting a bad seat. At an AMC theater, I (and my companions) will always get bad seats. And I will sit there, without protest, but my blood boils, my anger foments, and my fists clench.
In court documents, AMC admitted that "seats in the front of a movie theater are the “least desirable," and that seating in the rear portion of most theaters provides lines of sight that are the "most favored" and the "best in the house."
But I have to laugh at the AMC spokesperson's PR platitude: "We are happy to settle this lawsuit in a cooperative manner and will be undertaking the required modifications to our theaters in the near future." Well, if it makes you so bloody happy, you could have made the changes 13 years ago.
I wonder how much longer I have to wait for the modifications.
I simply didn't have the stamina to watch that bizarre Glenn Beck civil rights pantomime over the weekend. I've been out of it for a week, and I'm still under the influence of narcotics (see post below) and my prescription label says, "do not drive, operate heavy machinery, or watch Beck rallies." I'm sure some of you must have seen parts of it though?
So I ask you, did he cry? Did he tell us how much he loves his country? Did the Mormon shock-jock call for some kind of vague Christian revival? Was it self-indulgent? Was it pitiful?
I heard about the geese flying in a v-formation over the reflecting pool. I'm concluding from the many awe-struck replies on this YouTube video that most of Beck's fans flunked science, so let me share the secret: that's the way migrating geese fly!Shh!
And here's another little factoid: interpreting the will of the gods by studying the flight of birds is a pagan practice called augury. I think Beck's crowd reached a new level of confused religiosity.
Anyway, if there was a god who busies himself organizing geese, then those birds would have shat on Beck's head.
This whole self-anointed messiah act is exhausting. I try not to react to every idiot comment coming from Beck, Palin, Limbaugh, etc., but liberals cannot ignore these people into irrelevance. They preach to the choir and their choir is devout.
In fact if you follow Fox News and the Limbaugh/Hannity afternoon radio crew, this summer’s blowout has almost seemed like an intentional echo of the notorious Radio Rwanda broadcasts “warning” Hutus that they were about to be attacked and killed by conspiring Tutsis, broadcasts that led to massacres of Tutsis by Hutus acting in “self-defense.” A sample of some of the stuff we’ve seen and heard on the air this year:
On July 12, Glenn Beck implied that the Obama government was going to aid the New Black Panther Party in starting a race war, with the ultimate aim of killing white babies. "They want a race war. We must be peaceful people. They are going to poke, and poke, and poke, and our government is going to stand by and let them do it." He also said that "we must take the role of Martin Luther King, because I do not believe that Martin Luther King believed in, 'Kill all white babies.'"
CNN contributor and Redstate.com writer Erick Erickson, on the Panther mess: "Republican candidates nationwide should seize on this issue. The Democrats are giving a pass to radicals who advocate killing white kids in the name of racial justice and who try to block voters from the polls."
On July 6, the Washington Times columnist J. Christian Adams wrote an editorial insisting that "top [Obama] appointees have allowed and even encouraged race-based enforcement as either tacit or open policy," marking one of what would become many assertions by commentators that the Obama administration was no longer interested in protecting the rights of white people. "The Bush Civil Rights Division was willing to protect all Americans from racial discrimination,” Adams wrote. “During the Obama years, the Holder years, only some Americans will be protected."
July 12: Rush Limbaugh says Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder “protect and represent” the New Black Panther party.
July 28: Rush says Supreme Court decision on 1070 strips Arizonans of their rights to defend themselves against an “invasion”: "I guess the judge is saying it's not in the public interest for Arizona to try to defend itself from an invasion. I don't know how you look at this with any sort of common sense and come to the ruling this woman came to.” That same day, Rush says this: "Muslim terrorists are going to have a field day in Arizona. You cannot ask them where they're from. You cannot even act like we know where they're from. You cannot ask them for their papers. We can ask you for yours. Not them."
July 29: The Washington Times asks “Should Arizona Secede?” and says the Supreme Court "is unilaterally disarming the people of Arizona in the face of a dangerous enemy” with the aim of creating a “socialist superstate.” The paper writes: "The choice is becoming starkly apparent: devolution or dissolution."
July 29, Fox and Friends host Steve Doocy continues the Radio Rwanda theme, saying, "If the feds won't protect the people and Governor Brewer can't protect her citizens, what are the people of Arizona supposed to do?"
Taibbi concludes that conservatives really don't want a race war, but driving frustrated/broke white suburbanites into a race-hatred frenzy happens to be good business.
So -- though I'm still unsure what "restoring honor" means -- I'm guessing the restoration is not complete... because then Beck's gig would be up.
You can read the entire 138 page ruling on Scribd. Ultimately, the judge concluded the following:
Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.
The constitutional obligations refer to the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment which prohibit state and local governments from depriving people of life, liberty, or property without the process and proceedings of the courts of justice. For example, taking away somebody's right to marry.
Coincidentally, the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution also has that Citizenship Clause we've been hearing so much about lately. Some congressman (Lindsey Graham, Chuck Grassley, I'm looking at you) are hyperventilating over "anchor babies" and are radically suggesting that birthright citizenship is a mistake and that the Amendment should be transformed or even repealed. This would of course create a permanent underclass of immigrant workers... exactly what the Fourteenth was designed to prevent!
At one point in history, Republicans viewed passage of this Amendment as an accomplishment. However, 144 years later, they're having second thoughts.
But hey, if they can repeal it now, they can re-institute slavery and block same-sex marriage all in one move! And though I don't like conspiracy theories, I wouldn't doubt that these are the exact intentions of some members of the Republican party.
Anyway, if you want a same-sex marriage in California, you better do it before they overturn the overturn.
I know my blog posts have been a little sparse this month. I'm not sure what my problem is. Maybe I've caught that infectious anti-incumbent fever that's been going around. Achoo!
Actually, I've hardly paid attention to the elections this week, but people are making a fuss about them, so I guess I will too.
So there's this guy Rand Paul, political neophyte son of Republican Congressman Ron Paul -- no relation to RuPaul, who won a Republican Senatorial primary race. Calm down Kentucky teabaggers. It's a primary race. He's not a Senator yet!
But, no doubt, Rand is the man of the teabaggers: "I have a message. A message from the Tea Party. A message that is loud and clear and does not mince words: We have come to take our government back."
After watching that Rachel Maddow interview, does anybody have any doubt that there is a strong racist vibe with the teabaggers and their candidates? If the creepy "take our government back" line is a racist dog whistle, then the rest of that interview was a racist bullhorn. Rand couldn't even give a straight answer to the Woolworth's lunch counter conundrum.
Hey Rand, it's really not a brain teaser. Most of this country agrees that it should be illegal for a business to discriminate based on race, gender, religion, or disability. Rand tried to compare it to a business owner discriminating against those who openly carry a gun. Well, I think the man doesn't know real discrimination. You can choose whether to carry a gun or not. You can choose what day you want to carry a gun. You don't get to choose your race, color or disability, and though you can change your gender and religion, it's certainly not something you do flippantly.
Rand tried to say that the civil rights issues that Rachel Maddow brought up were "red herrings." Well if Rand ever makes it to the Senate floor, then his positions on the Civil Rights Act and the 20-year-old American's with Disabilities Act are not inconsequential footnotes. As a Senator, his beliefs get translated into laws! That's the way it works!
Nobody wants to re-fight the civil rights battles of the last century... except apparently Rand Paul and the teabaggers. As a person with a disability, I do feel threatened every time some politician feels more empathetic toward the "free speech" of a business owner versus the basic rights of the disabled. I know it's hard for libertarians to understand, but in 1990, a federal law increased my rights.
The small government types don't comprehend this. Government had to write the rules to protect my rights. Free markets can't, won't, and aren't designed to do such things. Bob Cesca explained the flaws of libertarianism better than I can:
Libertarianism, which both Ron and Rand Paul famously embrace, suggests the free market is a significant and vital component of liberty. Private businesses are capable of accomplishing everything, and government can't interfere or regulate those businesses in any way. The free market will police itself. Just leave it be.
Private industry can pave roads, educate children, put out fires and protect our streets from drunk drivers. It can shuttle our kids to corporate schools and back, it can provide clean water to our homes and they can guarantee our meat and vegetables aren't contaminated with diseases. And by the way, in a nation that's 70 percent white, private businesses can choose to do all of these things for white people only. Private businesses can provide everything we need, but only offer those services to white people.
And these businesses, according to libertarian ideology, can form monopolies if they want to. As we're all painfully aware from the health care debate, monopolies occur even in our current government-regulated system. Imagine what would happen in a totally unregulated free market.
And really, after witnessing what has happened with the banks in the last year, and the BP blowout last month, we should all realize that businesses need to be regulated diligently. Leaving them to run amok is dangerous!
Can the federal government set the private sector's minimum wage? Can it tell private businesses not to hire illegal immigrants? Can it tell oil companies what safety systems to build into an offshore drilling platform? Can it tell toy companies to test for lead? Can it tell liquor stores not to sell to minors?
Hmm... wouldn't want the nasty government telling businesses not to hire illegal immigrants, would we teabaggers? Now there's a conundrum for Rand.
I usually don't believe conspiracy theories. But then there's this:
To avoid Constance McMillen bringing a female date to her prom, the teen was sent to a "fake prom" while the rest of her class partied at a secret location at an event organized by parents.
McMillen tells The Advocate that a parent-organized prom happened behind her back — she and her date were sent to a Friday night event at a country club in Fulton, Miss., that attracted only five other students. Her school principal and teachers served as chaperones, but clearly there wasn't much to keep an eye on.
Wow. A whole lot of hate and hard work went into planning two proms while keeping one a secret from a select group of outcasts. The conspirators are a sad, spiteful bunch of parents, teachers, and students. And I take back what I previously said about maybe the students are cooler than their bigot parents. They're not. Maybe one day they'll grow up and understand the hurt they have caused.
However, I think my intuition was accurate when I commented that the Mississippi school maliciously wanted to exclude everybody who made them feel uncomfortable:
Two students with learning difficulties were among the seven people at the country club event, McMillen recalls. "They had the time of their lives," McMillen says. "That's the one good thing that come out of this, [these kids] didn't have to worry about people making fun of them [at their prom]."
I wonder who the other second class students were? Atheists? Jews? Salsa dancers? Check out the pictures of the "real" prom. No minorities or disabled students present:
That's the clean-cut look of small-town bigotry... but wait? Two chicks kissing? Isn't that a "distraction to the educational process"? I guess it's all cool as long as they weren't... you know... on a date!
Itawamba County sounds like a real shithole. I hope Constance gets out of there quick.
"Due to the distractions to the educational process," the administration at Itawamba Agricultural High School in Fulton, Mississippi decided to cancel the entire prom rather than allow Constance McMillen to bring her same-sex date to the event.
These redneck school officials have a roundabout way of saying, "we like to exclude people who make us feel uncomfortable."
And though they should be looking out for the safety and well-being of all students, the administration has irresponsibly marked the young woman for retaliation by angry classmates who blame her for the cancellation.
Well, I don't think it's cool, neither does the ACLU, and neither does U.S. District Court Judge Glen Davidson. The federal judge ruled that the school board violated McMillen's rights. However, he did not order the district to reinstate the April 2 prom. So what kind of victory is that?
To add insult to injury, a private dance has been organized by students' parents, but McMillen hasn't been invited to that one either. Well, she should sue them too! I hate to be litigious, but it's really not so hard to have a prom that everybody can attend. Stop judging, don't make a fuss, and the students... well... they're young and hopefully a little cooler than their bigot parents and the bigot school board.
And though the dress pictured above has nothing to do with the story, I couldn't help but wonder if it would go over well at a Mississippi prom.
"I'm sorry, but revolutions start with young people, not 65 year old people talking about literacy tests and people who can't say the word 'vote' in English." — Meghan McCain on The View.
That's my favorite quote this week. For one thing, and I hate to say this, the old people have been getting on my nerves lately.
I was having lunch with my mom last week, and out of the blue she tells me that one of her friends, an author of children's books and a Mormon, gave $10,000 of her own money to support Prop 8 -- that's the California ballot initiative that banned gay marriage. I tried to control myself, but my refrained response was basically "how much do you have to hate somebody to spend that much money to stop them from doing something that doesn't harm you in any way? How spiteful do you have to be to use your freedom to take away somebody else's freedom?"
My mom didn't have much of a reply, because I know darn well she voted for Prop 8 just like all of her gray-haired little-old-lady friends, but she did say that maybe that chunk of money would have been better donated to cancer research or something more helpful to everybody...
See, my mom is not totally dumb or cold-hearted, but she's certainly not versed in the subject of civil rights. I wouldn't be surprised if she supports the idea of a voter literacy test. Rachel Maddow recently did a thorough report on the history of such tests. I recommend you take a look at that video, but the major point is that those tests were only given to minorities and the questions were so ridiculously difficult that I'm not even sure a professor of political science could pass the quiz.
Also, those literacy tests are not our ancient history. They are our recent history. They were still being used when my parents were old enough to vote. Old people should know that these tests were discredited because they were racist tools of disenfranchisement.
About a year ago, I heard my dad espousing Ann Coulter's idiotic idea to take away women's right to vote... if you can even call that an "idea." Coulter's argument goes, "if we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president."
And that's the whole idea. Eliminate voters who vote differently than the white landed gentry. Go back to the way it used to be, because things were just so bloody good back then for YOU... as long as YOU weren't black, Hispanic, Asian, Jewish, Muslim, female, gay, or disabled.
It's a resurrection of the intolerant past, and the old people want to call that a revolution.
I like this headline from The Huffington Post: "Obama Responds To Gay Anger: You'll Be Happy In The End." Haha. Happy Endings.
However, I don't really like what President Obama is saying: "Obama added that he was working with the Pentagon, as well as Congress, to end "Don't Ask Don't Tell." He called this period a "transition" toward that end but said it had to be done pragmatically, so the new policy works in the long-term."
Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke of "the tranquilizing drug of gradualism." In the 1960's, many felt that the belief that blacks and whites should be gradually integrated was just a way for the government to put off doing anything substantial.
Now is always the time. If the commander-in-chief really wants to end the military policy of "don't ask don't tell," why doesn't he issue an executive order? (MSNBC video link)
"Well, I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage, and you know what, in my country and in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be between a man and a woman." — Carrie Prejean
There is nothing particularly shocking about these comments made by Carrie Prejean, whose official title is now "Miss California who is against gay marriage, does soft porn, has breast implants, and has shirked her duties with the Miss Universe Organization but was pardoned by Donald Trump and his penis." However, I have a few comments to make anyway...
Of course, she can have her "honest belief" about gay marriage. That's fine, and she doesn't need to apologize, but don't tell me not to judge her. She was in a beauty pageant parading across the damn stage begging us to judge her. That's the whole point of these events!
But even though I'm judging her, I won't call her a "dumb bitch" like others have done. No, she's not a dumb bitch just shameless, opportunistic and completely unquestioning. "Americans are able to choose" she says? No they're not. If you're gay you can't choose to get married in most states. That's what this whole controversy is about! No wonder the religious right has adopted her as an icon. She can now team up with Sarah Palin, Joe the Fake Plumber, and Jonathan Krohn. Start printing the bumper stickers now!
Oh, and I'll also add the word "bigot." If you want to deny civil rights to a group of people, then you're a bigot. It's that simple. No offense, Miss Prejean.
Prejean and Trump held a press conference today which added a whole new level of offense and martyrdom. "This should not happen in America. It undermines the Constitutional rights for which my grandfather fought for," Miss Prejean whinged! What? What part shouldn't happen? What part did she not predict? That she'd put her crown in jeopardy by breaking her contract and becoming an advocate for the National Organization of Marriage?
Or did she think that free speech only applied to her? That only she could express herself, and nobody else would ever express disapproval of her? Yes, that's the nature of free speech. You get to say what you want, and others can say what they want too.
Finally, what the hell does Miss California do? Oh, here's the ironic answer: "Our specific platform is all about diversity and embracing what is so unique about California."
I've got a better idea. If we're ever invaded by space aliens, Miss Prejean, as a representative of the Miss Universe Organization, should be the one to greet our intergalactic invaders first. Let's hope they're not gay.
I've been terribly sick with a cold for two days, and I've spent many hours in bed. However, the urge to blog is stronger than shivers, sweats and sneezes.
I'm going to let Keith Olbermann provide the heart of this post for me. Here are his special comments on California's Proposition 8 (if video doesn't show, click here):
On a lighter note, this guy who I've never heard of before wants you to know that his only serious concern about gays getting married is that they'll "register someplace pricey."
Today I learned about an important court victory: a federal appeals court ruled that would-be passengers can ask a judge and jury to decide whether their inclusion on the government's secret no-fly list violates their rights. So, who would object to this ruling?
The "no fly list," also known as the "terrorist watch list," is a secret list maintained by the FAA of people who are not permitted to board a commercial aircraft for travel in the United States. The list has swelled to over 1 million names. In the past it has famously included some very unlikely suspects like Nelson Mandela and Edward Kennedy. The list has brainlessly included air marshals hired to protect us. The list has also been used as a political weapon.
So, shouldn't ordinary people (like those who are NOT a Kennedy) be able to challenge their inclusion on the list? Who would be against this recent court ruling? The answer is my father.
For those who don't know me personally, I'm embarrassed to admit that my father is a neocon. I know there is nothing I can do about it. He hasn't always been this way. I think he became more extreme after retirement when he had more time to watch FOX News.
Anyway, his nonsensical argument goes something like this: "I love these people who come to our country and think they can challenge our Constitution. There should be some kind of reciprocal rule. They should only have the rights of their own country when they come here. Then Sharia can apply here and they can be beheaded."
Anyway, I'm paraphrasing a bit, but that's very close to what he said. And when he said "love" he didn't really mean "love." I'm pretty sure the word he was looking for was "hate," but that's typical for Mr. Cranky Pants.
But doesn't his argument leave you with your jaw on the floor? The factual errors are bad enough -- the would-be passenger challenged the no-fly list not our Constitution -- but the saddest mistake in my father's argument is not understanding fundamental human rights -- the ones we call inalienable rights. Inalienable rights are natural rights. They are not granted. They are not conditional. They apply to all humans.
Likewise, justice isn't exclusively for American citizens. If our laws really work, then they work for everybody. If the woman challenging the list is innocent, then she is innocent no matter what her country of origin. And why would any thinking person even dream of legitimizing another country's primitive laws?
I don't know. It's frustrating. I'm a person concerned with our loss of liberties and our government's unchecked power. My father is an authoritarian septuagenarian raised on WW II propaganda and fear of Communism.
Turns out there are some aspects of Communism he really really likes.
Remember the US Attorney Purge Scandal? It was a scheme by the Bush administration to turn the Department of Justice into a Republican re-election machine.
The WSJ reports a development in the scandal. Federal prosecutors are pursuing their first criminal indictment in the case. The focus is on the possible perjury by Bradley Schlozman, the former chief of the Justice Department civil rights division.
So Schlozman does all this stuff to suppress the Democratic votes of minorities... all while heading the civil rights division??? This deserves a big WTF! Then, as his reward, he is the first interim U.S. Attorney to be appointed under a new controversial provision in the revised U.S. Patriot Act (which allowed for an indefinite appointment without Senate confirmation). Keep in mind, Schlozman had no experience as a prosecutor prior to his appointment as US Attorney.
Oh, and let's not forget that while he was head of the civil rights division, he had two minority women transferred out of their jobs in order to "make room for some good Americans." Who put this guy in the civil rights division? Oh yeah, it was Bush.
So although it is good news that this investigation is advancing, there are no guarantees that any criminal charges will be filed. But they should be filed. And the next President might have to open a whole new division of the DoJ just to handle all the criminals from the Bush administration.
Today President Obama decided that the Justice Department will cease legal defense of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman.
