Category Archives: politics

He keeps using that word …

Posted on by

I do not think it means what he thinks it means.

Exhibit A, the Oxford English Dictionary entry for “libertarian,” second item:

An advocate or defender of liberty (esp. in the political and social spheres).

Exhibit B, this interesting recurring theme of Congressman Ron Paul’s legislative career:

Paul’s “We the People Act,” which he introduced in 2004, 2005, 2009, and 2011, explicitly forbids federal courts and the Supreme Court of the United States from ruling on the constitutionality of a variety of state and local laws. That includes, among other things, “any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction.” The bill would let states write laws forbidding abortion, the use of contraceptives, or consensual gay sex, for example.

Maybe it’ll come in handy, having these two items together in one place?

Via @Adenovir. ◼

Apprently, they don’t

Posted on by

Minnesota Republicans, the state party that gave us Michele Bachmann, covered themselves in Santorum.

Meanwhile, my precinct caucus for the Democratic Farm Labor party overwhelmingly elected to support Barack Obama for President. That’s, er, 25 for and 1 “uncommitted.” Needless to say, when you’ve got an incumbent, interest isn’t going to be very high. ◼

Proposition 8 overturned

Posted on by

… by the California Supreme Court the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Proposition 8, of course, was a ballot initiative that amended the California state constitution to forbid state recognition of same-sex marriages, passed in 2008 after the state Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, and thousands of couples had become married.

From the text of the decision, which is a model of sharp language:

All that Proposition 8 accomplished was to take away from same-sex couples the right to be granted marriage licenses and thus legally to use the designation of ‘marriage,’ which symbolizes state legitimization and societal recognition of their committed relationships. Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for “laws of this sort.” [Emphasis added.]

The logic of the decision seems to lean on the fact that California had previously legalized same-sex marriage, and that this right was eliminated by Proposition 8; it doesn’t address the broader question of whether it’s unconstitutional to deny marriage to same-sex couples in states that have never previously recognized such relationships.

Expect an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court—which, let’s not speculate what they’ll do just yet. ◼

Don’t they know how to use Google?

Posted on by

Tonight is caucus night in my adoptive state of Minnesota, and I’m mildly embarrassed to see polling that puts Rick Santorum in the lead with state Republicans. I like to see the GOP make a collective ass of itself as much as the next cog in the Democratic machine, but I wouldn’t wish Santorum on anyone—not even the debt-ridden party that shut down our state government last summer. ◼

Correction

Posted on by

My earlier characterization of Susan G. Komen for the Cure as having cut off funding to Planned Parenthood out of “cowardice” appears to have assumed too much goodwill on the breast cancer megacharity’s part. Today over at The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg reports credible evidence that Komen’s policy to refuse funds to any organization “under investigation” was adopted explicitly to provide an excuse for defunding Planned Parenthood.

The decision to create a rule that would cut funding to Planned Parenthood, according to these sources, was driven by the organization’s new senior vice president for public policy, Karen Handel, a former gubernatorial candidate from Georgia who is staunchly anti-abortion and who has said that since she is “pro-life, I do not support the mission of Planned Parenthood.” (The Komen grants to Planned Parenthood did not pay for abortion or contraception services, only cancer detection, according to all parties involved.)

Meanwhile, Mother Jones reports that the same ban on funding to organizations “under investigation” would, if applied fairly, endanger a multimillion dollar research grant to Penn State’s Milton S. Hershey Medical Center—since Penn State is under investigation by the Department of Education, following the recent child abuse scandal in Penn State’s football program. Oops? ◼

The cowardice of Susan G. Komen

Posted on by

So yesterday a friend pointed this out on Facebook:

The nation’s leading breast-cancer charity, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, is halting its partnerships with Planned Parenthood affiliates — creating a bitter rift, linked to the abortion debate, between two iconic organizations that have assisted millions of women.

The change will mean a cutoff of hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants, mainly for breast exams.

Planned Parenthood says the move results from Komen bowing to pressure from anti-abortion activists. Komen says the key reason is that Planned Parenthood is under investigation in Congress—a probe launched by a conservative Republican who was urged to act by anti-abortion groups.

Komen cites a new policy to the effect that they have to cut off ties to organizations that are “under investigation.” There’s also some possible influence from a new, anti-abortion Vice President for Public Policy at the cancer charity. But what this boils down to is cowardice.

Susan G. Komen for the cure is an immensely well-regarded organization, with influence and visibility many other charities can only dream of—they’re part of a movement that got NFL players to wear pink, for crying out loud. Faced with controversy trumped up around one of their partner organizations—and a partnership that specifically works to provide breast cancer screenings to women who can’t afford them—Komen could have cashed in on some of that goodwill capital to say “We know Planned Parenthood does good and important work, and we’re standing by them even though some ideologues in Congress are out to get them.”

That would’ve been a little risky, but it also would’ve demonstrated that Komen’s priority is womens’ health, not political gamesmanship.

Instead, Komen decided they’d rather cut services to poor women than risk even a little “controversy.” That’s straight-up cowardice, as I said last night on Twitter. It’s capitulation to political bullies, and it gives the lie to anything Komen might say about the importance they place on fighting and treating cancer.

I’m still getting retweet notifications from my little blast of online indignation; I’m far from the only person who finds this reprehensible. Let me suggest a way we can help Planned Parenthood make up the lost funding, and let Susan G. Komen know exactly how we feel about it: Send Planned Parenthood a donation, and when you get the e-mail confirming it, forward that message to news@komen.org, Komen’s PR contact address. [Edit: When you forward that e-mail, make sure you first delete any personal information that you don’t want Komen to have! I’ve just sent mine.]

Further edit: I am advised by Balloon Juice (via Dan Savage) that Planned Parenthood has established a fund specifically for donations to cover the breast exams Komen is no longer funding. So that’s probably your best bet; I’ve updated the donation link above accordingly.

Still further edit: You can also help make up the funding to Planned Parenthood’s breast cancer screening by buying John Scalzi’s e-books, if you buy before 8 Feb. ◼

Counterfactualizing for truth

Posted on by

Something kind of incredible is going on over at Ta-Nehisi Coates’s place: Bouncing off some typically reprehensible and ahistorical remarks by Ron Paul—who apparently thinks that (1) the U.S. Civil War was started by the North, (2) for the express purpose of ending slavery, even though (3) nonviolent means, such as “compensated emancipation,” could have accomplished that end—Coates is not simply rounding up the contrary evidence, but actually trying to work out whether and how a nonviolent end to the “peculiar institution” could have worked. It’s like a Harry Turtledove novel, except fascinating and good and informative.

Nevertheless, the saving of people is, indeed, a noble goal, and Paul is not without at least the rudiments of a case. Enslaved black people were constructed into an interest representing $3 billion. ($70-75 billion in 21st century money.) But including expenditures, loss of property, loss of life (human capital,) the war, according to Ransom, costs $6.6 billion.

The numbers are clear–the South’s decision to raise an army, encourage sedition among its neighbors, and fire on federal property, was an economic disaster for white America. Moreover, the loss of 600,000 lives, in a war launched to erect an empire on the cornerstone of white supremacy and African slavery, was a great moral disaster for all corners of America.

In the most crude sense, it would have been much “cheaper” for the government to effect a mass purchase. But how?

Spoiler alert: compensated emancipation doesn’t look very practical, especially considering that Southern slaveholders were pretty damned hostile to the idea. But getting to that conclusion is enlightening, and the discussion in Coates’s famous comments section is as well worth your time as the posts. ◼

Change happened

Posted on by

Between this and a kick-ass State of the Union address, I’m feeling pretty damned optimistic, all of a sudden. It’s a weird sensation. I think I may be a bit light-headed. ◼

On strike against PIPA

Posted on by

If you like this whole Internet thing we’ve got going, let me suggest that you take the time while your favorite sites are on strike to call your Congresspersons, and tell them to vote against PIPA.

Legislation called the PROTECT-IP Act (PIPA) in the Senate and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) [Ed: the House version, SOPA, is no longer a going concern.] in the House are purported to be a way to crack down on online copyright infringement. In reality the bill is much broader. It would empower governments and corporations to take down virtually any website, create new liabilities and uncertainties for web innovators, and make the web less safe. According to the varied and multitudinous reasons large numbers of sites and individuals are opposed to the bill, it betrays basic American tenets, such as free speech, prosperity, and national security.

Thanks. ◼

We still have a dream

Posted on by

And when you’re finished listening, check out On the Media’s great description of how Dr. King went off script at the best possible moment—and what happened after. ◼