If Delegates Vote Pro-Marriage, Expect a Referendum
Strange move, reported in The Post:
The bill extending marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples passed last week in the Maryland Senate and the House of Delegates had hearings last Friday -- you can listen to all the testimony HERE. Before these delegates disappeared, the House was expected to vote soon, even today. So far there are not enough committed votes to pass the bill, and in fact a couple of delegates who were in favor of it have changed their minds -- one guy said he would favor civil unions but not marriage, and some others seem to be having second thoughts. So it's not a sure thing.
On the other hand, the House of Delegates is usually more liberal than the Senate, and I'd say the odds are in favor of a pro-marriage bill passing the second house of the legislature. From there it goes to the governor, who has said he will sign it.
Normally that's it. The legislature passes a bill, the executive signs it, and it becomes law. But this subject, for some reason, has "certain people" in a major uproar. It appears that some heterosexual conservatives are afraid that something will happen to their own marriages if gay people are allowed to wed.
So you can figure that if the bill passes in the House of Delegates there will be a referendum effort. According to the Christian Post, they will need 53,650 signatures statewide to get the issue on the ballot in 2012. Can they do it? I wouldn't be surprised.
There will be a lot of money poured into this campaign. The haters will say anything to make our gay and lesbian neighbors look bad, we will hear the reverberation and elaboration of every negative stereotype -- watch the video I linked above, they even had a guy talking about how NAMBLA is trying to "infiltrate society." And this is nothing, this is just a committee hearing, just wait till they start putting advertisements on TV and trying to persuade uninformed voters to vote against letting gay and lesbian citizens marry the person they love, start a family, and participate in the goodness that the rest of us are privileged to enjoy.
It will be ugly.
Metro Weekly is looking into it.
Oh-oh. The Christian Post says fifty three thousand, the Board of Elections says fifty five thousand. You remember when they were trying to re-legalize discrimination against transgender people in our county, they were shooting for the wrong number, I don't think they want to go through that again.
I'm sure the Christian Post is right, don't you figure?
It's good to be confident, and he has a point, if any place can do it, it would be Maryland. But this is going to be a tough fight. The other side is going to push buttons, expect to see a lot of pictures of gay people doing weird stuff in funny outfits, expect to see fake statistics and studies and memorable slogans galore.
I saw an interesting discussion in Facebook this week, one of our legislators said, "With all the outrage from the opposition, I have yet to hear a legal argument against marriage equality. Anyone got one?" And in the conversation that ensued, nobody could offer a legal argument supporting the opinion that same-sex couples should not marry. You might say "that's not what marriage is for," or make some other statement about why you don't approve of same-sex marriages, but we live in a country of laws, there is a certain gravitas to the principles and policies that guide our public lives, and it does not appear that there is any legal justification for banning same-sex marriages, nothing beyond prejudice and discrimination.
One final thing.
In the gender-identity nondiscrimination referendum campaign, the conservatives were very upset that their people had to follow the law and sign their legal names on the petitions. Lots of names were thrown out for failing to match voter records. They don't make it easy to overturn a law by election, and it should not be easy -- we elect people to represent us so that legislation can be passed efficiently by competent individuals with the knowledge to make good decisions. The system is designed to make it hard for the majority to vote to take away the rights of a minority.
One of two legislators who went missing Tuesday morning for a committee vote on Maryland's same-sex marriage legislation said they are withholding their votes on the bill to gain "leverage" on unrelated issues they consider equally important.
Del. Jill Carter (D-Baltimore) told reporters Tuesday afternoon that she and Del. Tiffany T. Alston (D-Prince George's) are concerned about school funding for Baltimore and Prince George's County and some family law bills that have yet to move forward.
"This is still very early in the session, so I think there is time to get it all done," Carter said.
Colleagues had frantically tried to locate the two legislators for about half an hour Tuesday morning before calling off a scheduled vote in the House Judiciary Committee. Both Alston and Carter are co-sponsors of the House version of the same-sex marriage bill. Updated: Missing delegates stall Md. same-sex marriage bill
The bill extending marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples passed last week in the Maryland Senate and the House of Delegates had hearings last Friday -- you can listen to all the testimony HERE. Before these delegates disappeared, the House was expected to vote soon, even today. So far there are not enough committed votes to pass the bill, and in fact a couple of delegates who were in favor of it have changed their minds -- one guy said he would favor civil unions but not marriage, and some others seem to be having second thoughts. So it's not a sure thing.
On the other hand, the House of Delegates is usually more liberal than the Senate, and I'd say the odds are in favor of a pro-marriage bill passing the second house of the legislature. From there it goes to the governor, who has said he will sign it.
Normally that's it. The legislature passes a bill, the executive signs it, and it becomes law. But this subject, for some reason, has "certain people" in a major uproar. It appears that some heterosexual conservatives are afraid that something will happen to their own marriages if gay people are allowed to wed.
So you can figure that if the bill passes in the House of Delegates there will be a referendum effort. According to the Christian Post, they will need 53,650 signatures statewide to get the issue on the ballot in 2012. Can they do it? I wouldn't be surprised.
There will be a lot of money poured into this campaign. The haters will say anything to make our gay and lesbian neighbors look bad, we will hear the reverberation and elaboration of every negative stereotype -- watch the video I linked above, they even had a guy talking about how NAMBLA is trying to "infiltrate society." And this is nothing, this is just a committee hearing, just wait till they start putting advertisements on TV and trying to persuade uninformed voters to vote against letting gay and lesbian citizens marry the person they love, start a family, and participate in the goodness that the rest of us are privileged to enjoy.
It will be ugly.
Metro Weekly is looking into it.
Immediately following the Thursday, Feb. 24 passage of a bill on Maryland's Senate floor that would grant same-sex couples in the state legal marriage recognition, opponents promised to take the issue to the ballot box.
“I don't think the votes on that board accurately represent the citizens of the state of Maryland,” Sen. Nancy Jacobs (R- Cecil and Harford) said, “I think the vote on referendum in 2012 will be the vote of the people and I think this deserves to go to the people, and I'm sure it will.”
According to Donna Duncan, director of the Election Management Division for Maryland’s State Board of Elections, opponents of the marriage bill can start collecting signatures immediately after the passage of the bill in the House of Delegates, before Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) signs the bill.
“I would imagine that they would begin that process soon, and they can start collecting the signatures on the petition with the final act of the General Assembly,” Duncan told Metro Weekly, adding, “It does not have to wait on the signature of the governor.”
A House version of the marriage bill is working its way through committee currently, with a vote expected this week.
The petition form, with the marriage bill’s language attached, would be submitted to the Maryland’s State Board of Elections for review by Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler (D).
“It’s an advance determination of sufficiency, of the language and format of the petition,” Duncan says of that review process.
“The total number of signatures necessary for statewide referendum is 55,736,” Duncan says, adding that one-third of those signatures must be submitted to John P. McDonough (D), Maryland's Secretary of State, by 11:59 p.m. on May 31.
“The remaining two-thirds, must be submitted to the Secretary of State, 11:59 p.m., on June 30, in the year in which the legislation is passed,” she adds. Maryland Marriage Opponents Gearing Up for a Referendum
Oh-oh. The Christian Post says fifty three thousand, the Board of Elections says fifty five thousand. You remember when they were trying to re-legalize discrimination against transgender people in our county, they were shooting for the wrong number, I don't think they want to go through that again.
I'm sure the Christian Post is right, don't you figure?
Duncan says if the petition -- which states: “We, the undersigned voters, hereby petition to refer the bill identified below to a vote of the registered voters of Maryland for approval or rejection at the next general election” -- is successful it would be referred to the 2012 November General Election Ballot, Maryland’s next statewide election.
“Anybody could challenge the petition effort with a lawsuit," Duncan says, "which often happens.”
Sen. Jamie Raskin (D-Montgomery), co-author of the marriage bill, may be up for that challenge. After passage of the marriage bill on the Senate floor, he told Metro Weekly that if the marriage law does go to referendum, “then we'll run it like a campaign.”
“We will be the first state in America where same-sex marriage wins on the ballot.”
It's good to be confident, and he has a point, if any place can do it, it would be Maryland. But this is going to be a tough fight. The other side is going to push buttons, expect to see a lot of pictures of gay people doing weird stuff in funny outfits, expect to see fake statistics and studies and memorable slogans galore.
I saw an interesting discussion in Facebook this week, one of our legislators said, "With all the outrage from the opposition, I have yet to hear a legal argument against marriage equality. Anyone got one?" And in the conversation that ensued, nobody could offer a legal argument supporting the opinion that same-sex couples should not marry. You might say "that's not what marriage is for," or make some other statement about why you don't approve of same-sex marriages, but we live in a country of laws, there is a certain gravitas to the principles and policies that guide our public lives, and it does not appear that there is any legal justification for banning same-sex marriages, nothing beyond prejudice and discrimination.
One final thing.
The Maryland State Board of Elections notes that materials, including the Statewide Referendum Petition, are currently being revised.
“There’s some debate on how a signature and information of the voter must be placed on the petition,” Duncan says. “So there were several court decisions that somewhat counter each other in how the information from the voter has to appear, and we are still awaiting further instruction from the Court of Appeals on that issue.”
In the gender-identity nondiscrimination referendum campaign, the conservatives were very upset that their people had to follow the law and sign their legal names on the petitions. Lots of names were thrown out for failing to match voter records. They don't make it easy to overturn a law by election, and it should not be easy -- we elect people to represent us so that legislation can be passed efficiently by competent individuals with the knowledge to make good decisions. The system is designed to make it hard for the majority to vote to take away the rights of a minority.
posted by JimK at 4:20 PM
39 Comments:
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who is flirting with another presidential campaign, asserted on a New York radio program Monday that President Obama grew up in the African country of Kenya, the homeland of his father.
Huckabee, who hosts a weekly show on Fox News, said on WOR's Steve Malzberg Show that Obama, "having grown up in Kenya, his view of the Brits, for example, very different from the average American." Asked about the birther dispute -- persistent claims Obama was not born in the U.S. -- Huckabee said, "I would love to know more" about the president's background. "What I know is troubling enough."
He said Obama's decision to remove a bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office was "a great insult to the British." But "if you think about it, his perspective as growing up in Kenya, with a Kenyan father and grandfather, their view of the Mau Mau Revolution [uprising against British colonial rule] is very different than ours, because he probably grew up hearing that the British were a bunch of imperialists who persecuted his grandfather."'
Huckabee, a onetime Baptist preacher and former governor of Arkansas, said he was not convinced about the "birther" controversy because if it were true, Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign would have unearthed it in 2008. "And I promise you they would have used it."
Huckabee said he would decide on a 2012 race by late spring or early summer. In the meantime, he is promoting a new book called "A Simple Government."
"it does not appear that there is any legal justification for banning same-sex marriages"
hate to be legalistic but, how about the fact that "same-sex marriage" is an oxymoron?
if marriage means a relationship between a woman and a man, what legal sense does "same-sex marriage" make?
"It appears that some heterosexual conservatives are afraid that something will happen to their own marriages if gay people are allowed to wed."
did you ever consider that they are opposed to there being no word that describes the relationship they have with their spouse?
eliminating the word for something seems like the first step to destroying it
Anon, "oxymoron" is not a legal term. You have totally missed the meaning of the question.
The word marriage can continue to signify a lifetime-committed relationship between two people who love one another. It is nonsense to suggest that any heterosexual couple would be affected by extending the term to include couples of the same sex.
JimK
"Anon, "oxymoron" is not a legal term. You have totally missed the meaning of the question."
by all means, please splain your meaning (this will be good, folks)
I went to a dictionary of legal terms, here:
http://dictionary.law.com
I looked up "marriage" and got this:
n. the joining of a male and female in matrimony by a person qualified by law to perform the ceremony
"The word marriage can continue to signify a lifetime-committed relationship between two people who love one another."
well, as you can see above, based on rules you made yourself, that's not specific enough, in legal terms
if gays want a term to cover when they and some other guy like to rub up against one another, they need to get their own term
how about rubbage?
Anon, look up "oxymoron" in the law dictionary and tell me what you see.
JimK
I'm not interested in that
I want to know
THE MEANING OF THE QUESTION
I totally missed
what did you mean?
is it beyond splanation?
Anon, the question has to do with the concept of a "legal argument," which is not something you seem to be able to grasp.
Your implication that gay people want to marry so they can "rub up against" one another is ignorant. Gay people want to marry for the exact same reasons that straight people do. If you think that marriage means rubbing up against somebody then I pity the poor sucker who finds themselves married to you.
JimK
marriage is defined in the legal dictionary
gay erotic relationships don't meet the definition
it's as simple as that
if there's more to a legal argument, please enlighten us
Could a rubbage be consummated?
Senate Democrats conceded Tuesday that House Republicans won round one of the budget fight but they are trying to find a way to win a bigger battle later this month.
Anticipating that showdown, Senate Democratic leaders are scrambling to unify their caucus as their colleagues express starkly different opinions on the best strategy to pursue.
Centrists who are facing tough reelections in Republican-leaning states want to support Republican spending cuts for the rest of the fiscal year. Some are more willing to accept reductions to social programs than to defense and agriculture programs.
Disappointed and boxed-in Democratic senators said Tuesday they would win — next time.
A Democratic senator who attended a Tuesday conference lunch said colleagues “vented” over cuts in the House bill.
Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) bashed cuts to the women, infants, children (WIC) health and nutrition program.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) spoke out against cuts to Planned Parenthood and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) argued against cuts to the Army Corps of Engineers that she said would stall water projects in California.
But not all Democrats were that upset with the House’s actions.
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), who will likely face a tough reelection race in 2012, said she “does not have a problem” with the House GOP’s spending bill.
Given the views of McCaskill and other centrists, liberals worry that Democratic leaders will roll over and accept another deal on Republican terms in an attempt to bolster their reelection chances.
They fear a reprise of last December when Obama and Republican leaders agreed to a tax-cut deal that was widely panned by the left.
By and large, GOP leaders want to keep negotiating short-term deals as part of a strategy to put pressure on Democrats and win concessions such as they did this week.
Democrats are accepting the two-week stopgap spending measure because they feel pressured to avoid a government shutdown.
“I don’t like this death by 1,000 cuts, but I also don’t want a government shutdown,” said Mikulski.
“These are huge cuts,” said Feinstein, chairwoman of the Appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Energy.
“The Army Corps and bureau is cut by $554 million,” Feinstein said of the House GOP’s two-week spending measure.
But Feinstein conceded that she would vote for it anyway.
liberals have begun to realize they didn't elect a leader in 2008:
"For a man who won office talking about change we can believe in, Barack Obama is a strangely passive president. There are a startling number of occasions in which the president has been missing in action -- unwilling, reluctant or late to weigh in on the issue of the moment. He is, too often, more reactive than inspirational, more cautious than forceful.
Each of these instances can be explained on its own terms, as matters of legislative strategy, geopolitical calculation or political prudence.
He didn't want to get mired in legislative details during the health care debate for fear of repeating the Clinton administration's prescriptive, take-ours-or-leave-it approach. He doesn't want to go first on proposing entitlement reform because history teaches that this is not the best route to a deal. He didn't want to say anything too tough about Libya for fear of endangering Americans trapped there. He didn't want to weigh in on the labor battle in Wisconsin because, well, it's a swing state.
Yet the dots connect to form an unsettling portrait of a "Where's Waldo?" presidency: You frequently have to squint to find the White House amid the larger landscape."
the world begins to realize that their Nobel Prize winner in 2009 will not bring peace:
"While his warplanes bombed rebel-held towns in eastern Libya, Col. Moammar Gadhafi vowed today to fight until the "last drop of blood," and warned that "thousands and thousands of Libyans will die" if the U.S. or NATO intervene.
His haunting threat came in a speech to a crowd of hand-picked supporters in Tripoli. "They are willing to die for me," Gadhafi said of the Libyan people, while his warplanes unleashed artillery on pro-democracy protesters hundreds of miles away.
"We will enter a bloody war and thousands and thousands of Libyans will die if the United States or NATO enters," the BBC quoted Gadhafi as saying. He also predicted that piracy and jihad would embroil the Mediterranean if his regime falls.
The Libyan leader accused the international media of "filling the air with provocation and nonsense," and vowed to hire Chinese and Indian companies to work in Libya's oil industry, instead of Western ones. He also denied the existence of any pro-democracy protests in his country, and said al-Qaida was breaking into prisons and arming criminals. Oil production has reached its lowest level, he said.
A crowd of several hundred supporters of Moammar Gadhafi rallied at the site where a petrol tanker exploded on Wednesday, near the Libyan leader's compound in Tripoli.
Western powers have weighed the idea of imposing a no-fly zone over Libya, to prevent such aerial assaults and stop Gadhafi from flying in more foreign mercenaries to open fire on his people. But the idea, floated by British Prime Minister David Cameron, got a lukewarm response from the U.S. and France. Gadhafi's son Seif al-Islam poked fun at Cameron afterward, saying he's trying "to be hero,"."
good news for TTF's PR department:
"WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the First Amendment protects fundamentalist church members who mount attention-getting, anti-gay protests outside military funerals.
The court voted 8-1 in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan. The decision upheld an appeals court ruling that threw out a $5 million judgment to the father of a dead Marine who sued church members after they picketed his son's funeral.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the court. Justice Samuel Alito dissented.
"What Westboro said, in the whole context of how and where it chose to say it, is entitled to 'special protection' under the First Amendment," Roberts wrote, "and that protection cannot be overcome by a jury finding that the picketing was outrageous."
While distancing themselves from the church's message, media organizations urged the court to side with the Phelps family because of concerns that a victory for the father of the dead Marine would erode speech rights."
with Obama's ineptitude and Biden's constant foot in his mouth,
I think it's become obvious that the Democrats weren't too careful about who they put on their national ticket in 2008
turns out they weren't too careful in 2004 either:
"It's hard to feel too sorry for John Edwards, once a golden boy in Democratic politics and now scorned for the way he betrayed his wife and made her last years harder than they should have been. Elizabeth Edwards succumbed to her cancer last year, and in the months since, Edwards has kept a very low profile, moving back into the family home in Chapel Hill, N.C., that he had left when he and Elizabeth separated.
Edwards' self-inflicted solitude, however, could soon come to an end.
A federal grand jury that has been meeting for almost two years in Raleigh, N.C., is expected to conclude soon. It has been investigating the fundraising practices associated with Edwards' 2008 presidential campaign, and whether any of that money was used either to support Edwards' mistress, Rielle Hunter, or cover up their affair. Prosecutors have combed through bank records from multiple accounts and interviewed dozens of campaign aides along with wealthy donors to Edwards, including 100-year-old Bunny Mellon, who underwrote Edwards to the tune of some $6 million.
If it's proven that money donated to the campaign went to Hunter's upkeep and to assure her silence, that evidence would be half the puzzle. The more relevant challenge for prosecutors is to determine whether Edwards knew the money was being used for that purpose and went along with it in order to preserve his political future. The level of incrimination could mean the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony."
a big turnout among black voters for Obama's re-election in 2012 will make Maryland the sequel to California 2008:
"When same-sex marriage was upended in California by popular vote in 2008, gay rights activists pointed to one factor: religious African Americans who came out in record numbers for President Obama but who also largely voted against the marriage proposal, according to exit polls.
Two and a half years later, the Obama administration announced that the government will no longer defend a federal law banning same-sex marriage.
Blacks remain the ethnic group least likely to support same-sex marriage. Only 30 percent say they back the unions, compared with 53 percent of all Democrats, 44 percent of whites and 41 percent of Hispanics, according to polling from the Pew Research Center. 68 percent of churchgoing African Americans oppose same-sex marriage.
Anthony Evans, a minister who heads the National Black Church Initiative, had a strong negative reaction to the announcement that Obama no longer believes the Defense of Marriage Act, called DOMA, is constitutional. After Obama told Attorney General Eric Holder to stop defending it, the minister put out a statement condemning the decision.
"The president has harmed himself on this issue," he said. "He has openly offended the black church, and he didn't need to do it.""
I think "rubbage" is the reason so many American heterosexuals excel in divorce.
life-long commitment to an exclusive heterosexual relationship is called marriage
there isn't, as yet, a term for a life-long exclusive commitment to a homosexual relationship but "rubbage" is merely a notable suggestion and, actually, such relationships aren't very common, which is probably why no term has been settled on
let's get our definitions correct, people!!
just like cynco wants, Libyan blood spilled
they are pleading for our help
Obama fiddles while the Mideast burns for democracy
all we have to do is make a few airstrikes
bring back JFK
"BREGA, Libya - Rebel forces routed troops loyal to Moammar Gadhafi in a fierce battle over an oil port Wednesday, scrambling over the dunes of a Mediterranean beach through shelling and an airstrike to corner their attackers. While they thwarted the regime's first counteroffensive in eastern Libya, opposition leaders still pleaded for outside airstrikes against pro-government troops.
The attack on strategic Brega, 460 miles east of Gadhafi's stronghold in Tripoli, illustrated the deep difficulties the Libyan leader's armed forces -- an array of militiamen, mercenaries and military units -- have had in rolling back the uprising that has swept over the entire eastern half of Libya since Feb. 15.
In the capital of Tripoli, Gadhafi warned against U.S. or other Western intervention, vowing to turn Libya into "another Vietnam," and saying any foreign troops coming into his country "will be entering hell and they will drown in blood."
At least 10 anti-Gadhafi fighters were killed and 18 wounded in the battle for Brega, Libya's second- largest petroleum facility, which the opposition has held since last week. Citizen militias flowed in from a nearby city and from the opposition stronghold of Benghazi hours away to reinforce the defense, finally repelling the regime loyalists.
The attack began just after dawn, when several hundred pro-Gadhafi forces in 50 trucks and SUVs mounted with machine guns descended on the port, driving out a small opposition contingent and seizing control of the oil facilities, port and airstrip. But by afternoon, they had lost it all and had retreated to a university campus 5 miles away.
There, opposition fighters besieged them, clambering from the beach up a hill to the campus as mortars and heavy machine gun fire blasted around them, according to an Associated Press reporter at the scene. They took cover behind grassy dunes, firing back with assault rifles, machine guns and grenade launchers. At one point, a warplane struck in the dunes to try to disperse them, but it caused no casualties and the siege continued."
Where should the nation draw the line on free speech?
For Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, the defense of First Amendment rights expressed by today's majority ruling in the Westboro Baptist Church case goes too far.
The 8-1 decision found that the fringe church's hate-filled picketing at the funeral of a Marine corporal killed in Iraq qualified as public discourse protected by the First Amendment. Church members claim soldiers' deaths are God's punishment for U.S. tolerance of homosexuality.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito Jr. was the lone dissenter in Snyder v. Phelps. In staking out his lone dissent, Alito suggested that when publicly offensive speech is also -- and perhaps primarily -- personally painful, the Constitution doesn't protect it.
"Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case," Alito wrote.
"Mr. Snyder wanted what is surely the right of any parent who experiences such an incalculable loss: to bury his son in peace," he added. "But respondents, members of the Westboro Baptist Church, deprived him of that elementary right."
American voters are split as 46 percent say it would be a good thing and 44 percent say it would be a bad thing if the U.S. government shut down because of disagreement in Washington over federal spending, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.
Looking at the controversy over pay for government workers, 35 percent say the pay is "about right," while 15 percent say it is too little and 42 percent say it is too much.
To reduce state budget deficits, collective bargaining for public employees should be limited, 45 percent of American voters tell the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll, while 42 percent oppose limits on collective bargaining. But voters say 63 - 31 percent that government workers should pay more for benefits and retirement programs.
Efforts by governors to limit collective bargaining rights are motivated by a desire to reduce government costs rather than to weaken unions, voters say 47 - 41 percent.
"Rubbage" -- sometimes the best ideas come quickly and easily. I say we adopt it and not waste money on costly focus groups and polls.
WASHINGTON – Short of a U.S.-led military offensive, international options to quickly force Moammar Gadhafi from power now appear to be highly limited, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates called for an end Wednesday to "loose talk" about steps that would amount to an act of war.
There are still hopes that U.N. sanctions and other diplomatic moves can undermine Gadhafi's authority, and Libyan rebels pressed their fight against troops loyal to Gadhafi on Wednesday.
But while a leading U.S. senator urged the Pentagon to be prepared to provide air cover for the rebels, there was little evidence of an appetite by the U.S., Europe or other powers to risk the consequences of military intervention.
Gates captured the mood in telling a congressional panel, "Let's call a spade a spade: A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya" to destroy its air defenses. His point: To ground Libya's air force in a way that minimizes risk to U.S. or coalition pilots would mean initiating an act of war in an Arab land.
The unspoken subtext is that with U.S. forces already deeply committed in Afghanistan, still winding down military operations in Iraq and on the watch for surprises in Iran and elsewhere in the suddenly volatile Persian Gulf region, the risks associated with military action in Libya might be unacceptable.
Alluding to Gates' announcement a day earlier that he had ordered two U.S. warships into the Mediterranean in case they were needed for civilian evacuations or humanitarian relief, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in separate testimony that the crisis could call for a mix of diplomacy and more.
"We are taking no option off the table so long as the Libyan government continues to turn its guns on its own people," she said.
WASHINGTON — As politicians in Washington — and across the country — seek to cut spending to reduce their budget deficits, the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that the American public is divided about how far they should go.
In the poll, eight in 10 respondents say they are concerned about the growing federal deficit and the national debt, but more than 60 percent — including key swing-voter groups — are concerned that major cuts from Congress could impact their lives and their families.
What’s more, while Americans find some budget cuts acceptable, they are adamantly opposed to cuts in Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security and K-12 education.
And although a combined 22 percent of poll-takers name the deficit/government spending as the top issue the federal government should address, 37 percent believe job creation/economic growth is the No. 1 issue.
Republican pollster Bill McInturff, who conducted the survey with Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, says these results are a “cautionary sign” for a Republican Party pursuing deep budget cuts.
...
The survey — which was conducted Feb. 24-28 of 1,000 adults (200 reached by cell phone), and which has an overall margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points — also listed 26 different ways to reduce the federal budget deficit.
The most popular: placing a surtax on federal income taxes for those who make more than $1 million per year (81 percent said that was acceptable), eliminating spending on earmarks (78 percent), eliminating funding for weapons systems the Defense Department says aren’t necessary (76 percent) and eliminating tax credits for the oil and gas industries (74 percent).
The least popular: cutting funding for Medicaid, the federal government health-care program for the poor (32 percent said that was acceptable); cutting funding for Medicare, the federal government health-care program for seniors (23 percent); cutting funding for K-12 education (22 percent); and cutting funding for Social Security (22 percent).
"Short of a U.S.-led military offensive, international options to quickly force Moammar Gadhafi from power now appear to be highly limited, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates called for an end Wednesday to "loose talk" about steps that would amount to an act of war."
the current defense budget is well over 500 billion and we can't enforce a no-fly zone on a third-rate desert nation?
please
Gates also pushed for gays in the military
he serves the pleasure of and as an apologist for our incompetent-in-chief
"The survey — which was conducted Feb. 24-28 of 1,000 adults— listed 26 different ways to reduce the federal budget deficit.
The most popular: placing a surtax on federal income taxes for those who make more than $1 million per year (81 percent said that was acceptable),"
isn't that interesting?
81% of people think someone else should pay more to cover the budget
why don't we just cut out the middle man and ransack mansions across America?
"eliminating spending on earmarks (78 percent),"
the new Tea Party legislators have done this and Democrats howled
"eliminating funding for weapons systems the Defense Department says aren’t necessary (76 percent)"
it's part of the Republican plan
"and eliminating tax credits for the oil and gas industries (74 percent)."
why don't we try drilling in Alaska? that would bring in a ton of revenue
"The least popular: cutting funding for Medicaid, the federal government health-care program for the poor (32 percent said that was acceptable); cutting funding for Medicare, the federal government health-care program for seniors (23 percent); and cutting funding for Social Security (22 percent)."
did anyone ask them if we should borrow this money from the Chinese?
that's how we're balancing the budget now
"cutting funding for K-12 education (22 percent);"
Federal spending here is wasteful
this should be a local responsibility with community monitoring
education is much more complicated than throwing around money
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- The bargaining rights of public workers in Ohio would be dramatically reduced and strikes would be banned under a bill passed by the Ohio Senate on Wednesday.
A GOP-backed measure restricts the collective bargaining rights of roughly 350,000 teachers, firefighters, police officers and other public employees.
Firefighters and teachers shouted "Shame!" in the chamber as the legislation was approved.
The bill would ban strikes by public workers and establish penalties for those who do participate in walkouts. Unionized workers could negotiate wages, hours and certain work conditions - but not health care, sick time or pension benefits.
another Democratic Senator quits
maybe they all will
"U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka announced today that he will not run for re-election in 2012.
Akaka, 86, has served in the Senate since 1990."
Well, it looks like there was no rest for the hateful late last night.
You must be so excited to know that you are among the fewest Americans who think the rich paying their fair share of taxes is "ransacking mansions" and who think federal funding for K-12 education is "wasteful" at the very time when states are being forced to lay off teachers and end programs due to falling revenues. Why I bet you even imagine GOP Speaker Boehner has NOT keep his district's earmark for an alternate engine for the F-35 the Pentagon has been trying to cut for 5 years in the GOP budget.
Open your eyes and see what the GOP is costing America -- our middle class!
Wisconsin is realizing that a little too late. AOL News reports Wisconsin Do-Over? Scott Walker Would Lose if Election Held Today, Poll Finds
..."And it's mostly Republicans who are shifting their support. Roughly 10 percent of GOP members now say they would vote for Barrett, up from the 3 percent of Republican voters who actually supported him over the Democrat in November..."
Sitting at the negotiating table are David Koch (the Scrooge McDuck impersonator Gov. Walker thought he was talking to on the phone), a Wisconsin teacher, and a Tea Party member. A waiter brings them a dozen cookies. Koch takes 11, then warns the Tea Partyer, "Hey, better watch that guy. He wants half your cookie!"
Leading BYU rebounder Brandon Davies has been booted from the team because he engaged in premarital sex, a violation of the school’s honor code that says students must remain “chaste and virtuous.”
In the Cougars’ first game without Davies, they lost to New Mexico 82-64 on Wednesday.
"The least popular: cutting funding for Social Security (22 percent said that was acceptable)."
when people answer this question, they are talking in generalities
the same poll shows most Americans support increasing the retirement age to 69 and reducing benefits for the wealthy
timid reforms that are beyond the leadership capacity of the current fake "President"
those two changes would solve most of the underfunding over the first half of the 21st century
"Well, it looks like there was no rest for the hateful late last night."
good ol' Bea
always looking for an opportunity for a personal attack to divert attention from the inanity of her arguments
she ran on fumes for years after I once mentioned I had had a glass of Jack Daniels
well, Bea, just to entertain you, I'll tell you I nodded off during evening coach potato activities around 9:30, woke up around 1:30, surfed the web awhile, went back to sleep around 3 and slept in until 8ish
thanks for alluding to the Bible passage though
I love that
"You must be so excited to know that you are among the fewest Americans who think the rich paying their fair share of taxes is "ransacking mansions""
rich people already pay most of the tab for our governmental expenditures with China supplying most of the rest
you're right though: that's not fair
they deserve a tax cut
I just think it's interesting that you think a poll showing most people think someone else should bear the burden of funding society is somehow remarkable
take your meds, lady
"and who think federal funding for K-12 education is "wasteful" at the very time when states are being forced to lay off teachers and end programs due to falling revenues"
how about having the Feds back off and try a program where they buy a good textbook and teach kids basic math?
the local yokels can actually handle that
the Department of Education won't be around much longer
"Open your eyes and see what the GOP is costing America -- our middle class!"
the GOP was not in power the last two years
see any uptick in middle class numbers?
it's actually not a legitimate function of government to maintain class quotas anyway
opportunity is abundant in America, though, when the government steps back
the trillions of dollars Obama spent causing construction traffic delays would have been better spent reducing taxes
recessions during the Reagan era were short-lived and this one would already be over if the GOP had the three Houses of government (Rep, Senate, White)
"Wisconsin Do-Over? Scott Walker Would Lose if Election Held Today, Poll Finds"
that poll will look pretty stupid in 2012
polls also show that Wisconsin voters think government workers should contribute more of the cost of their benfit plans
you just have to ask the right question
that's what liberals do
right now, government workers in Wisconsin average twice the income of the average worker in Wisconsin
that's insustainable
furthermore, public servants should be those committed to public service
strikes, which contradict that mission, should not be permitted as a bargaining chip
interesting that the same people so opposed to the Republicans shutting down the government seem to think it's fine when government workers do it
"yesterday is just a memory
and tomorrow is never what it's supposed to be"
-Bob Dylan
last week, lunatic fringe gay advocates were giddy about same sex "marriage" in Maryland
then, the time for the vote came earlier this week and two of the sponsors didn't show
one of them was Tiffany Alstott, from PG County, who was raised in a big churchgoing family and was elected with support from the huge black churches in her county:
"Most of my constituents are against it," she said. "And now I have to think of them, to think of representing the people who put me here."
Go into her district and you'll find she was right. Most people are against it.
When the vote came up in the Maryland House committee on Tuesday, Alston disappeared. So did a fellow sponsor, Del. Jill Carter (D-Baltimore).
The vote was delayed. There was major drama as House leaders tried to find the missing delegates.
After absconding from the vote, Alston issued a heartfelt statement in the middle of the night. She's wrestling with her views as a lawyer, a married mother, an elected official and a daughter in a big, church-going family.
"There are several fundamental rights that shape this debate: a fundamental freedom to express yourself; and just as important, a fundamental right to religious freedom," she wrote.
So in between sessions this week, she went back to her office, where she looked at the mail, listened to the messages and leaned back in her chair, in turmoil.
Ideally, she would amend the bill to get Maryland out of the marriage business altogether.
"It should be civil unions for everybody," she said. "Civil unions for men and women and civil unions for same-sex couples. Then, if you want to, go to your church and have a wedding."
She gets up from her chair. Maybe, if the vote is delayed this week, she can have a big town hall meeting over the weekend!
And then the light on her phone goes on again, angrily blinking red, red, red.
A 70-year-old church lady, angry at the thought of two men marrying each other. "It's just not right. We shouldn't even be talking about such things, let alone voting on them," she tsked.
These are the folks Alston, a Democratic state delegate from Mitchellville, is representing when she casts her vote for or against the state's same-sex marriage bill.
"Maryland is so liberal, yes," Alston said. "But there are the churches."
A solidly blue state, Maryland also has deep Catholic roots, and the black churches of Prince George's are a force. An unexpected force for Alston.
"We have about 900 messages we're trying to get through today," she said. "And look at that red light on the phone that says it's ringing. All. Day. Long. Ringing."
Golly Anon, did you feel personally insulted by my comment about "the hater?" I'm sorry, I figured you'd just laugh it off like you expect Vigilance readers to do when you hurl your invectives at real LGBT people who comment here. All that hatred you have expressed in writing here over the years is just a big joke we're all supposed to find funny, right?
Ho ho!
Wisconsin voters think government workers should contribute more of the cost of their benfit plans
WI state workers already agreed to all of Walker's concessions for both their health and retirement plans. But that's not all Walker and the GOP want.
"Open your eyes and see what the GOP is costing America -- our middle class!"
the GOP was not in power the last two years
And every law on the books was not written in the last two years, either.
Walker is out to destroy unions and the GOP has been attacking the middle class's unions since the days of Reagan. You might recall Walker claimed, in his widely distributed conversation with the fake Koch brother, that he was acting like the Reagan, who busted the air traffic controllers' union.
government workers in Wisconsin average twice the income of the average worker in Wisconsin
No they don't, but for the sheer joy of educating Vigilance readers, I will clarify your statement with some facts.
On Monday, February 21, 2011, Eric Bolling on FOX NEWS said: "In Wisconsin, teachers make $89,000 in salary and benefits, compared to $48,000 for all other workers in the United States."
He claimed a $41,000 difference in those salaries and benefits.
Let's get the basics right.
The comparison Bolling made is between teachers in Wisconsin and all other workers in the US, it is not between "government workers in Wisconsin" and "the average worker in Wisconsin."
Bolling claimed WI teachers on average earn $89K in salary and benefits, but his figure on benefits was thousands of dollars too high.
Bolling claimed the average salary plus benefits for all other US employees is $48,000, but that figure was wrong too. BLS reports the figures for 2010 were actually $41,000 for salary and $17,000 for benefits, a total of $58K.
So Bolling started with the WI teachers' salary plus benefits figure thousands of dollars too high and the "all other workers" salary plus benefits figure thousands of dollars too low.
The next night Bolling changed his figures and closed the gap considerably from a difference of $41K per year to a difference of $15K.
But Bolling's other problem was that he was comparing apples to oranges.
To be hired as a teacher in Wisconsin, you've got to have a 4-year college degree. In addition, 52 percent of Wisconsin teachers have also earned a master's degree. That's much, a much higher average education level than the average education level for "all other workers in the US" in the private sector.
To be an honest comparison, WI teachers' salaries should be compared to a group of private sector employees who all have a bachelor's degree with 52% of them holding master's degrees. Then and only then can a true comparison between WI teachers' salaries and a similarly educated group of "all other workers in the US"'s private sector be made.
"I figured you'd just laugh it off like you expect Vigilance readers to do when you hurl your invectives at real LGBT people who comment here."
actually, Beatrice there's a difference
1. my insults are directed generally at arguments; if I call someone a moron or a jackass, it's in the context of reacting to a specific comment
2. if not as in #1 above, then the comments is obviously hyperbolic and baseless, which is part of the humor; you don't see me trying to figure out your personal life as a tool for facetious attack; you actually sometimes mention personal details that I ignore
3. my humor is based on the view expressed, not whether the commenter is a "real LBGT"; I generally like real LBGTs and find that the ones who comment here aren't very representative
"WI state workers already agreed to all of Walker's concessions for both their health and retirement plans. But that's not all Walker and the GOP want."
you're right
he also wants to take away their right to shut down the government with impunity- public servants shouldn't strike- it endangers society
"On Monday, February 21, 2011, Eric Bolling on FOX NEWS said: "In Wisconsin, teachers make $89,000 in salary and benefits, compared to $48,000 for all other workers in the United States."
To be an honest comparison, WI teachers' salaries should be compared to a group of private sector employees who all have a bachelor's degree with 52% of them holding master's degrees."
I don't generally watch FOX News and didn't see the Bolling interview.
If you want to talk teachers, a good comparison would with teachers in private schools or other professionals who work 9 out of 12 months.
Just to clarify, you think public workers don't receive compensation superior to the private sector?
I suggest you watch this 5 minute video and let Jon Stewart explain it to you.
When will America's teachers follow the lead of tax-payer-bailed-out Wall Street executives and start making sacrifices for the children?"
If you want to talk teachers, a good comparison would with teachers in private schools or other professionals who work 9 out of 12 months.
Great, go find the figures so we can make the comparison and be sure to show both sets of teachers' education levels are comparable, 52% with master's degrees.
you think public workers don't receive compensation superior to the private sector?
I don't think, I know your claim that WI workers make twice what private sector employees make is false, as was Bolling's similarly false claim that you apparently picked up at one of your right wing blogs that serves as FOX NEWS' echo chamber.
Now I'm asking for you to prove your claim that "government workers in Wisconsin average twice the income of the average worker in Wisconsin" and show us some facts that support it.
"I suggest you watch this 5 minute video"
thanks, but no thanks
the democratically elected representatives have reached a decision
outlaws are trying to thwart the law but the people will prevail
Wisconsin will forge a path that will be used to restore fiscal sanity across America:
"MADISON, Wis. - Thousands of Wisconsin state workers were bracing for layoff notices Friday as Republican Gov. Scott Walker and absent Democrats remained in a standoff over a budget balancing bill that would also strip public workers of their collective bargaining rights.
Walker said he would issue 1,500 layoff notices Friday if at least one of the 14 Senate Democrats doesn't return from Illinois to give the Republican majority the quorum it needs to vote. Senate Republicans voted Thursday to hold the missing Democrats in contempt and force police to bring them back to the Capitol."
"I suggest you watch this 5 minute video"
thanks, but no thanks
the democratically elected representatives have reached a decision
outlaws are trying to thwart the law but the people will prevail
Wisconsin will forge a path that will be used to restore fiscal sanity across America:
"MADISON, Wis. - Thousands of Wisconsin state workers were bracing for layoff notices Friday as Republican Gov. Scott Walker and absent Democrats remained in a standoff over a budget balancing bill that would also strip public workers of their collective bargaining rights.
Walker said he would issue 1,500 layoff notices Friday if at least one of the 14 Senate Democrats doesn't return from Illinois to give the Republican majority the quorum it needs to vote. Senate Republicans voted Thursday to hold the missing Democrats in contempt and force police to bring them back to the Capitol."
thanks, but no thanks
Have it your way. I understand some people believe ignorance is bliss.
I'm not surprised you have come up with no facts or figures to support your claim about the difference in pay and benefits for Wisconsin's private and public sector employees.
Enough said.
"Have it your way. I understand some people believe ignorance is bliss."
I guess so, if watching satiric comics is the difference between ignorance and enlightenment.
"I'm not surprised you have come up with no facts or figures to support your claim about the difference in pay and benefits for Wisconsin's private and public sector employees."
I don't really need to waste a lot of time trying to analyze how you've distorted the facts.
There is little dispute among experts on all sides that public service compensation and benefits are bankrupting this country.
It's also common sense that public workers shouldn't strike.
The die is cast.
Don't stand in the doorways, don't block up the halls.
Politically, he who gets hurt will be he who has stalled.
I guess so, if watching satiric comics is the difference between ignorance and enlightenment.
What an odd thing to say for a man who has for so many years expressed interest in the education of young people and an affinity for polls.
Perhaps you are unaware that your favorite pollster, Rasmussen, has reported:
"Nearly one-third of Americans under the age of 40 say satirical news-oriented television programs like The Colbert Report and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart are taking the place of traditional news outlets...
...Thirty-nine percent (39%) of adults say programs of this nature are making Americans more informed about news events, while 21% believe they make people less informed. Twelve percent (12%) say they have no impact...
...Twenty-eight percent (28%) of Republicans, 22% of Democrats and 21% of adults not affiliated with either party say programs like those of Stewart and Colbert are taking the place of traditional news outlets."
And while you're on that Rasmussen page, click on the link to Wisconsin Poll: Support for Budget Cutting, Not for Weakening Collective Bargaining Rights where Rasmussen reports:
"Most Wisconsin voters oppose efforts to weaken collective bargaining rights for union workers but a plurality are supportive of significant pay cuts for state workers. Governor Scott Walker is struggling in the court of public opinion, but how badly he is struggling depends upon how the issue is presented. There is also an interesting gap between the views of private and public sector union families.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Wisconsin voters shows that just 39% favor weakening collective bargaining rights and 52% are opposed. At the same time, 44% support a 10% pay cut for all state workers. Thirty-eight percent (38%) are opposed. That’s partly because 27% of Wisconsin voters believe state workers are paid too much and 16% believe they are paid too little. Forty-nine percent (49%) believe the pay of state workers is about right."
The following facts you choose not to be enlightened about come from Jon Stewart's always witty and sometimes sarcastic Moment of Zen:
Fox "expert" recently talking about employment "contracts" that determine wages paid to public employees in Wisconsin:
"Governors in Wisconsin, Indiana and New Jersey have said "Enough!" to public employees' unions and their contracts that bankrupt states."
Same Fox "expert" talking about employment "contracts" that determine bonuses paid to bailed out Wall Street firms' CEOs:
"If the government can interfere with a contract just because its execution becomes unpopular, then nobody's liberty and nobody's property is safe."
More enlightenment from politicususa.com
Stewart said, “These folks just want teachers to give back, because they believe that $50,000 in salary plus medical and dental benefits incredibly generous bordering on avarice, and I imagine these same people will feel the same way about couples earning more than $250,000 a year being asked to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire so that they would have to pay a slightly higher income tax rate.”
Cue the video of Fox News and Republicans freaking out and claiming that people who make $250,000 are not rich. [One woman even claimed earning $250K and having a kid in college would be like living in "poverty!"] After the video Stewart said, “No, that is not. Not when it comes to the Bush tax cuts. They’re not big shot teachers with their desks, seemingly endless supply of multi-colored construction papers, oh, and their number two pencils. I guess number 3 pencils aren’t good enough for your majesty.”
After video of Fox News defending the Wall Street bailouts and arguing for Wall St. CEO pay, Stewart said, “Absolutely, we have got to pay those bailed out firm CEOs top dollar. Otherwise those companies could end up being run by a couple of jackasses who f**k things up so royally that it torpedoes the entire global economy. Would you want that to happen? Now to be fair, let’s be fair. We are nothing but fair. We could not have cut those Wall St. CEOs’ pay even if we wanted to. They had contracts.”
Then a montage of Fox News talking heads claiming the iron clad CEO contracts could not be broken was followed by Stewart saying, “Absolutely, you know our financial system is built on faith. Our word is our bond, and even if we could get the Wall Street bonus money back, what do want the Wall St. workers to do? Untake those two weeks on a yacht in St. Martin? Unrerennovate their kitchen? By the way, what about rescinding contractual obligations to teachers?”
Stewart played a clip of Fox’s Tracy Byrnes arguing against the teachers’ contract, and concluded, “She’s absolutely right, and I say this. When will America’s teachers follow the lead of Wall Street, and start making some sacrifices for the children?”
The hypocrisy is obvious. If people making $250,000 aren’t rich, then how are teachers who make only $50,000 overpaid? Why is a Wall Street CEO’s contract an untouchable binding document, but the teachers’ contract can be tossed aside at any second? The answer can be found in the right’s blind faith in the infallible nature of the private sector. In their view, the private sector is always better and more deserving, even when, as was the case with the Wall St. bailouts, the facts prove that they really aren’t. For the right, ideology trumps logic, reason, and consistent argument.
Post a Comment
<< Home