The 9th Circuit ruling

.........................................................
Another one that deserves to be preserved for posterity:
.........................................................

CherokeeNative

Those of you who are following this issue here in Washington might find it interesting to read the 9th Circuit' ruling in Perry v. Brown, http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1593339.html?DCMP=NWL-pro_family   It is interesting that many if not all of the reasons argued here by readers were arguments made in this case and the Court addressed each of them:

The 9th Circuit in holding that Prop. 8 violated the Equal Protection Clause stated: 

Absent any legitimate purpose for Proposition 8, we are left
with “the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of
animosity toward,” or, as is more likely with respect to Californians who voted
for the Proposition, mere disapproval of, “the class of persons affected.”
Romer, 517 U.S. at 634. We do not mean to suggest that Proposition 8 is the
result of ill will on the part of the voters of California. “Prejudice, we are
beginning to understand, rises not from malice or hostile animus alone.” Bd. of
Trustees of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 374 (2001) (Kennedy, J.,
concurring). Disapproval may also be the product of longstanding, sincerely
held private beliefs. Still, while “[p]rivate biases may be outside the reach
of the law, the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect.” Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429, 433 (1984). Ultimately, the “inevitable inference” we must draw in this circumstance is not one of ill will, but rather one of disapproval of gays and lesbians as a class. “[L]aws
singling out a certain class of citizens for disfavored legal status or general
hardships are rare.” Romer, 517 U.S. at 633. Under Romer, we must infer from
Proposition 8's effect on California law that the People took away from gays
and lesbians the right to use the official designation of ‘marriage’—and the
societal status that accompanies it—because they disapproved of these
individuals as a class and did not wish them to receive the same official
recognition and societal approval of their committed relationships that the
State makes available to opposite-sex couples. 

It will not do to say that Proposition 8 was intended only to disapprove of
same-sex marriage, rather than to pass judgment on same-sex couples as people.
Just as the criminalization of “homosexual conduct ․ is an invitation to
subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the
private spheres,”
Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 575, so too does the elimination of the right to use the
official designation of ‘marriage’ for the relationships of committed same-sex
couples send a message that gays and lesbians are of lesser worth as a
class—that they enjoy a lesser societal status. Indeed, because laws affecting
gays and lesbians' rights often regulate individual conduct—what sexual
activity people may undertake in the privacy of their own homes, or who is
permitted to marry whom—as much as they regulate status, the Supreme Court has
“declined to distinguish between status and conduct in [the] context” of sexual
orientation. Christian Legal Soc'y v. Martinez, 130 S.Ct. 2971, 2990 (2010). By
withdrawing the availability of the recognized designation of ‘marriage,’
Proposition 8 enacts nothing more or less than a judgment about the worth and
dignity of gays and lesbians as a class.

Just as a “desire to harm ․ cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest,”
Moreno, 413 U.S. at 534, neither can a more basic disapproval of a class of
people. Romer, 517 U.S. at 633–35. “The issue is whether the majority may use
the power of the State to enforce these views on the whole society” through a
law that abridges minority individuals' rights. Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 571. It
may not. Without more, “[m]oral disapproval of [a] group, like a bare desire to
harm the group, is an interest that is insufficient to satisfy rational basis
review under the Equal Protection Clause.” Id. at 582 (O'Connor, J.,
concurring). Society does sometimes draw classifications that likely are rooted
partially in disapproval, such as a law that grants educational benefits to
veterans but denies them to conscientious objectors who engaged in alternative
civilian service. See Johnson, 415 U.S. at 362–64. Those classifications will
not be invalidated so long as they can be justified by reference to some
independent purpose they serve; in Johnson, they could provide an incentive for
military service and direct assistance to those who needed the most help in
readjusting to post-war life, see id. at 376–83. Enacting a rule into law based
solely on the disapproval of a group, however, “is a classification of persons
undertaken for its own sake, something the Equal Protection Clause does not
permit.” Romer, 517 U.S. at 635. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 is a
classification of gays and lesbians undertaken for its own sake.

The “inference” that Proposition 8 was born of disapproval of gays and
lesbians is heightened by evidence of the context in which the measure was
passed.26
The district court found that “[t]he campaign to pass Proposition 8 relied on
stereotypes to show that same-sex relationships are inferior to opposite-sex
relationships.” Perry IV, 704 F.Supp.2d at 990. Television and print
advertisements “focused on ․ the concern that people of faith and religious groups
would somehow be harmed by the recognition of gay marriage” and “conveyed a
message that gay people and relationships are inferior, that homosexuality is
undesirable and that children need to be protected from exposure to gay people
and their relationships.” Id. These messages were not crafted accidentally. The
strategists responsible for the campaign in favor of Proposition 8 later
explained their approach: “ ‘[T]here were limits to the degree of tolerance
Californians would afford the gay community. They would entertain allowing gay
marriage, but not if doing so had significant implications for the rest of
society,’ “ such as what children would be taught in school. Id. at 988
(quoting Frank Schubert & Jeff Flint, Passing Prop 8, Politics, Feb. 2009,
at 45–47). Nor were these messages new; for decades, ballot measures regarding
homosexuality have been presented to voters in terms designed to appeal to
stereotypes of gays and lesbians as predators, threats to children, and
practitioners of a deviant “lifestyle.” See Br. Amicus Curiae of Constitutional
Law Professors at 2–8. The messages presented here mimic those presented to
Colorado voters in support of Amendment 2, such as, “Homosexual indoctrination
in the schools? IT'S HAPPENING IN COLORADO!” Colorado for Family Values, Equal
Rights—Not Special Rights, at 2 (1992), reprinted in Robert Nagel, Playing
Defense, 6 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 167, 193 (1997).

When directly enacted legislation “singl[es] out a certain class of citizens
for disfavored legal status,” we must “insist on knowing the relation between
the classification adopted and the object to be attained,” so that we may
ensure that the law exists “to further a proper legislative end” rather than
“to make the[ ] [class] unequal to everyone else.” Romer, 517 U.S. at 632–33,
635. Proposition 8 fails this test. Its sole purpose and effect is “to
eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California”—to dishonor a
disfavored group by taking away the official designation of approval of their
committed relationships and the accompanying societal status, and nothing more.
Voter Information Guide at 54. “It is at once too narrow and too broad,” for it
changes the law far too little to have any of the effects it purportedly was
intended to yield, yet it dramatically reduces the societal standing of gays
and lesbians and diminishes their dignity. Romer, 517 U.S. at 633. Proposition
8 did not result from a legitimate “Kulturkampf” concerning the structure of
families in California, because it had no effect on family structure, but in
order to strike it down, we need not go so far as to find that it was enacted
in “a fit of spite.” Id. at 636 (Scalia, J., dissenting). It is enough to say
that Proposition 8 operates with no apparent purpose but to impose on gays and
lesbians, through the public law, a majority's private disapproval of them and
their relationships, by taking away from them the official designation of
‘marriage,’ with its societally recognized status. Proposition 8 therefore
violates the Equal Protection Clause.

http://www.theolympian.com/2012/02/08/1982400/house-sends-gay-marriage-to-governor.html#storylink=cpy

.........................................................

Today’s top income tax rates are currently lower than at any time since 1930!

............................................................
THE GREAT FURY OVER TAXES
By David Brin.  Feb. 9, 2012.  From his blog: Contrary Brin

To listen to Republicans, you would think we have the most oppressive tax rates ever, with the federal government hogging ever larger portions of the national economy.  Ever hear of Orwellian anti-truth?  That is where you repeat the exact opposite of the truth and people start believing it.

Top Federal Marginal Income Tax Rate from 1913 to 2011

But drop by and look at the actual facts. See this compilation of income tax rates.. Tax rates are at historic lows. And  this is for earned income. Rates for dividends and capital gains are even lower - by half - than what you see in the figure!

In the 99 years that we have had the income tax, rates for top earners were lower than they are today only twice: 

1)  during the 5 years before the US entry into the First World War in 1917, and

2) during the brief stretch from 1925 through 1930... when a massive asset value bubble pumped the economy into the Great Depression.

Also note this. They are LOWER for the middle class, under Obama, than they were under Bush. The "Obama tax hikes" are purely mythical.

That’s it. Today’s top rates are currently lower than at any time since 1930... and ironically that includes half of the HOOVER Administration preceding FDR. In other words, the hiking upward was first done by the same 1930 Republican Congress that brought us the Smoot-Hawley Tariffs!

Just to make this clear, so you rub it in your crazy-as-Fox uncle, income tax rates are lower than at any time in 80 years.

The other big fact is the fraction of U.S. national GDP taken by the federal government.  Fox’s uncles swear that this is at an all-time high. In fact, the federal share of GDP is at its lowest since 1950.

Be entrepreneurial.  Make Adam Smith proud and use all this to make money. Seriously. Lure your nearest Tea Partier to make grand declarations about the oppressiveness of recent tax rates and the growing federal share of the economy and then demand a wager!  Only... get it in writing.

............................................................

Give us a break!

..........................................................
A Strong Contender for this Year’s “World’s Smallest Violin” Award
By Jesse Singal, February 11, 2012

Politico reports that Philip Ellender, president and COO of Government and Public Affairs for Koch Companies Public Sector LLC, has hit back hard against President Obama and Nancy Pelosi’s recent anti-Koch rhetoric. “Apparently, the President and his allies do not want to lose that perceived fundraising advantage during the 2012 Presidential campaign, and are trying to intimidate into silence those who may disagree with them and who may decide to support other candidates,” he told Mike Smith.

Can we please, please, please put to bed the “Don’t bully me into silence!” gripe? There are people in the world — lots of them! — who really can’t say what they want to say because they face some sort of actual threat if they do so. People who witness crimes in certain dangerous neighborhoods. People living in Syria.

But if you work in politics in the United States, where anyone with an Internet connection can spew whatever stupid nonsense they want onto the Internet with impunity, and particularly if you are affiliated with billionaires, you really can’t say this without sounding like a jerk.
..........................................................

A little gullibility?

..............................................................
Wonder how many left the "interview" early and wrote up their notes for publication before learning the error of their ways?
..............................................................
Palin impersonator fools them at CPAC
By Josh Lederman, 02/11/12

A dead ringer for former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) briefly fooled reporters on Saturday, giving no indication that she wasn't the politician she purported to be.

A group of reporters covering the Conservative Political Action Conference, where Palin is speaking, spotted her eating with what appeared to be a bodyguard in the back of a Washington restaurant, and approached her for an interview.

The fake Palin was glad to oblige, discussing with impressively convincing authority her views on Mitt Romney, the GOP presidential race and whether she would endorse Newt Gingrich.

"This process is a rally good vetting process and the country needs it," she said. "I'm not going to officially endorse anyone today, but I think the voters will decide."

The Hill noticed that fake Palin's voice seemed a bit more guttural than usual, despite having the perfect inflection and Alaska accent that Palin is known for, and asked if she was feeling under the weather.

"I have a little cold. It's cold in D.C. We're not used to that in Alaska," she said with a characteristic Palin wink.

The impersonator ended the interview by handing reporters her business card: Patti Lyons — The World's Premier Sarah Palin Impressionist. ..............................................................

Melt Sarah's brain!

............................................................
Heh, heh, heh.....
............................................................
The Sarah Palin Candle Project

Sarah Palin has transformed herself from a polarizing politician to a polarizing pop culture icon. To represent this phenomenon, two artists from Brooklyn have hand sculpted her image in an historic pose and reproduced it in a temporary medium.  Whether you want to show the world your love of Sarah Palin or simply want to melt her brain, this candle is for you.

Our Sarah Palin bust stands 10 inches tall and is made of a mixture of paraffin and soy wax to give it a wonderful creamy marble finish.  Give the Republican in your family a piece of art to proudly display on the bookshelf in their corner office at the fortune 500 company, or give the Democrat in your family a hilarious gag to be used as an icebreaker at the next anti-fracking-vegan-book-club meeting. 

............................................................

The “paranoid style”

................................................................
Susan G. Komen: The Tip Of The Iceberg
By Cliff Schecter, Feb. 10, 2012

Perhaps over the past week you’ve heard the name Susan G. Komen? You know the folks I’m talking about, the ones who’ve turned breast cancer into a non-stop Nike-like branding campaign that translates into helpful suggestions, like how you should chomp down on the extra crispy bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken to fight cancer (get heart disease, but cure cancer!).

Yeah, those guys.

They’ve had a bad week or two, to put it kindly. But their self-immolation at the hands of tea-party cranks, such as the recently resigned senior vice president for public policy, Karen Handel, is worth looking at for what it tells us about the demise of American institutions. Because the thing is, their corruption of a charity meant to help find a cure for breast cancer with their Sharia Christianity, is only one of many examples of this phenomenon in the United States.

Whether it’s the courts, Congress, state legislatures, media, churches, academia, non-profits, or a variety of other institutions, these important organizations that set the social, cultural and political parameters in our democracy, and served us well (overall–on the issue of race, for example, it took many of them a while to get with the program) have been thoroughly hijacked by what the late historian Richard Hofstadter referred to as those exhibiting the “paranoid style.”

You know who I’m talking about. The tri-corner hat crowd ready to take up arms every time they walk into Nathans because they have a sneaking suspicion that the hot dogs are halal. Those who think that Social Darwinism was ordained by God, but actual Darwinism is a hoax. The ones who claim they are pro-life, but love everything from .50 caliber sniper rifles to foreign wars like they’re engaged in the honeymoon period of a non-platonic relationship.

Sure, these people always existed. But they didn’t make it onto the Supreme Court. They didn’t become the Speaker of the House. And they weren’t named senior vice presidents for policy at the Susan G. Komen Foundation. Karen Handel is someone who ran for governor in Georgia on a campaign of defunding Planned Parenthood. And got her picture taken toting an assault rifle like she was Ripley from Aliens.

It makes you wonder–was Christine O’Donnell not available for Komen to hire?

It was not always such. There was a time that a statesman in the Republican Party meant being Nelson Rockefeller and not Newt Gingrich. When the media was made up of giants such as Walter Cronkite, and a lunatic such as Glenn Beck, would be kept away from sharp objects and off camera.

I was reminded of this recently, as I worked to help promote the terrific film, Hot Coffee, by Susan Saladoff. This documentary shows how the far right has literally performed a leveraged buyout of our courts, replete with slick pr, bought-and-paid-for state and local judicial races and a variety of other means to turn the system into a Mitt-Romneyfied dystopia, abridging our 7th Amendment right to a trial by jury.

In this effort to return us to a caveat emptor society, they have cooked up phony “tort reform” measures, which are good for 99% of us if we are maimed by a shoddy product or drunk doctor. But, as usual, their hypocrisy knows no bounds, as the sponsor of a $250,000 cap on non-economic damages (which thankfully didn’t pass), one Rick Santorum, was cool with his wife suing her chiropractor for twice that amount (he tried to claim he didn’t know much about it even though he actually testified–although in his defense, his mind might have been on a previously planned sweater-vest shopping spree).

The worst part is that this corporate coup has convinced regular people that some sort of “jackpot justice” exists, as if frivolous lawsuits are not immediately dismissed, and judges don’t reduce any awards that lack merit. This has happened, because as Saladoff bluntly put it to me, “Karl Rove and The U.S. Chamber of Commerce have masterminded ways to limit average Americans access to our courts…which in turn limits our ability to hold wrongdoers accountable and putting more money in corporate coffers.”

Much the same could be written about how right-wing think tanks have corrupted academic studies or far-right talk radio has misinformed the public to the benefit of corporations and religious charlatans (I know, that was redundant). This is the the world in which we now live. Susan G. Komen is just the symptom of a much larger problem.
................................................................

Democrats: more enthusiastic voters in 2012 than Repuglicans

....................................................................
New poll: Democrats more enthusiastic to vote in November than Republicans
Robert Sobel, February 11, 2012

One of the many things that the 2010 mid-term elections showed us was that the conservative base was fired up with passion and ready to go. Historically, Democrats don't show up to mid-term elections as often and that was never more evident than in November 2010 when the Republicans took back the House of Representatives and gained seats in the Senate.

With the rise of the Tea Party in 2008, the 2010 elections were a clear reflection of the anger from the far right of the political spectrum. As conservatives flocked to the polls to cast their vote, Democrats were underwhelmed. The Democratic voters who came out to vote for President Obama in 2008 decided to stay home during the mid-terms. Whether they were upset at President Obama for not doing things fast enough or just not excited enough in general, the Democrats paid the price. With the presidential election less than a year away, the tide of excitement is starting to shift again. With constant Republican debates and attacks ads taking up the time on the television, radio and the internet, Americans are overwhelmed with conservative rhetoric. As Republicans throw mud at each other and the president, President Obama has stood on the side of the American people. With an economy on the right track, Democrats are starting to get excited once again.

 

According to a new poll by pollposition.com, registered Democrats are more enthusiastic to get out and vote than their Republican counter parts as well as independent voters. Democrats hold a near 10 point advantage over Republicans when asked if they were excited to vote in the upcoming 2012 election. Nearly two-thirds of Democrats said they were excited to vote, 74%, compared to 65% of Republicans who say they were excited. Only 17% of Democrats said they weren't excited while 21% of Republicans said the same. Independent voters were even less excited to vote as only 58% said they were ready to vote in November. The most surprising statistic comes when you break down the numbers and look at the racial breakdown. African-American voters were polled at 78% when asked if they were excited to vote as well 74% of Hispanics. Only 63% of white voters said they were enthusiastic, which is not a good sign for the Republican party.

 

While the Republicans gained ground in 2010, it looks like they might have a problem in the 2012 presidential election. Recently, the Republican party has focused on social issues because they can no longer win on the economy. Republicans have said that President Obama needs to "own" the economy at some point and if things continue in the direction they are, I don't think the president will mind.

....................................................................

A highly recommended blog

............................................................
That's interesting...

"Well, all this is interesting to me, anyway, and that's what matters here. The Internet is a terrible thing for someone like me, who finds almost everything interesting." 

"There's a little bit of everything here."

............................................................

Ricky’s Big Night

..............................................................
Rickypalooza
By Ed Kilgore

Only Rick Santorum would pull off a stunning sweep that meant absolutely nothing.

[snipped]
..............................................................

Rove needs to make room in his brain for things besides politics

...................................................
Don't pick a fight with Clint Eastwood
By Ruben Navarrette, Jr., CNN Contributor.  February 8, 2012

Karl Rove is obviously a smart guy. And yet, recently, the political strategist and former senior adviser in the George W. Bush administration did something that wasn't very smart. He picked a fight with Clint Eastwood.

I tell you, this story made my day.

Rove essentially threw down a penalty flag over, of all things, a Chrysler ad featuring the actor that aired during the Super Bowl. In the ad -- titled "Halftime in America" -- Eastwood praises the strength of the American spirit and the resilience of the American people in bouncing back from adversity. The symbol of that resilience: the U.S. auto industry.

The idea of the ad is to sell cars, of course. And maybe it's also intended to give Americans a much-needed pep talk as they continue to wrestle with economic uncertainty.

But Rove thinks there is something more sinister at work here, and that the real purpose of the ad is to put in a plug for President Obama's re-election.

[snipped]

It's a good, strong ad. But did you hear the political message? No? Me neither. All I heard was an upbeat message slickly produced and expertly delivered. Which raises the question: Even in a presidential election year, does every single thing have to be about politics?

For Rove, the answer seems to be "yes." He told Fox News that he was "offended" by the ad, which he said was an example of "what happens when you have Chicago-style politics."

Give me a break. It's OK to not be impressed with the resurrection of the Motor City. But do you then have to respond by attacking the Windy City?

Rove thinks the ad is calling for Obama's re-election, so we can start the "second half."

[snipped]

For his part, Eastwood denied there was any political motivation behind the ad.

Speaking to Ron Mitchell, a producer at Fox News Channel's "The O'Reilly Factor," Eastwood insisted, "I am certainly not politically affiliated with Mr. Obama. It was meant to be a message ... just about job growth and the spirit of America. I think all politicians will agree with it."

But, he added, if Obama or other elected officials "want to run with the spirit of that ad, go for it."

It would be great if our leaders went for it. We need more optimism in American politics. There is too much doom and gloom and too many people preaching that America's best days are behind it. Everyone feels entitled to one thing or another, and everyone is a victim. People adopt the view that there is always a scam, a hidden message or an ulterior motive. Someone is always trying to convince you of something or con you out of your life savings.

Rove has succumbed to that trend. He jumped to the wrong conclusion with no evidence to back up his claims, and he made himself look foolish. It's OK to have politics on the brain, but there should be room for other things.

Sometimes, a Super Bowl ad is really just a Super Bowl ad. And the message behind this one is bigger than any one political figure.

After all, America may be headed into the second half. But no one says we can't change quarterbacks.
...................................................

Tebowing = grating public faith

...............................................................
Tongues, Tebow, and Tagalog, or Grating Public Faith
The Parish, January 02, 2012

Tim Tebow was praying in tongues yesterday. Not a joke. I'm almost certain of it. I saw him on the sidelines late in the loss to Kansas City, kneeling on the turf, head bowed, lips moving remarkably fast. Unless he was reciting the Lord's Prayer over and over at blistering speed making all his lip movements unreadable in terms of real words, he was praying in tongues. I've tried to discover whether or not he's a charismatic. I assume he is, and I just don't care about that. I'm not going to hate Tim Tebow. He's not done anything hateworthy. He's a remarkably good guy by any account, and he defies the odds occasionally. Four things happened—two before Christmas and two yesterday—that make this a topic I'm finally going to get to.

Here are the four things: I went to a very nice holiday wine party with a very hospitable Christian family and happily avoided a conversation about Tebow. Bill Maher raised a storm of controversy (no shit) when he tweeted: 

"Wow, Jesus just fucked #TimTebow bad! And on Xmas Eve! Somewhere in hell Satan is tebowing, saying to Hitler "Hey, Buffalo's killing them"

Yesterday, Bronco punter Britton Colquitt pointed godward with both hands when a Chief's return man (Arenas maybe?) failed to field an otherwise average punt. The ball rolled twenty more yards making it a very good punt. Colquitt assumed this was part of the divine mystery instead of shitty football and responded accordingly. Fourth, Tim Tebow prayed in tongues. 

I'm seriously okay with public expressions of faith that respect the Constitution, as in no faculty/admin-sanctioned prayer in public schools, no prayers at inaugurations, etc. Praying over your meal in a restaurant seems oddly normal to me. I don't find it offensive, so long as you don't pray so loud that I have to listen, and then it's not offensive, just annoying. Want to wear a Christian tee shirt or a brooch of the Buddha? Not a problem. I don't want you wearing a "Muhammad was a pedophile" tee shirt to my class and call it religious expression, but if yours says "Jesus is Lord," I'll understand why you feel that way. 

All that to say that Tebow's public expressions of faith don't trouble me. I do think it's worse than stupid to assume god gives two shits about the outcome of a game, but I understand why some fundangelicals believe he does. Tebow sports a Bible verse on his eye-black. So? At least it's not Leviticus 18:22. He prays. Billions of people pray. He prays publicly. You get the point. He's acting like a very committed, outspoken man of faith. Give it a rest, people. If you hate Florida, say so. If you don't like that he's big and goofy and gives all the credit to his god, say so. I will admit to some glee at watching his evangelical fan base gnash their teeth when I mock them with tweets about Dagon being god of Denver, just as Maher annoyed millions with his tweet. There seems to be this strange ability amongst certain people of faith to say that they know something isn't true (God cares about football games) while still holding onto a belief that it is true. Mocking them along that axis leads to anger and/or a bit too much celebration when Tebow wins. As one recent poster said: "Go Tebow! Go Jesus!" Yeah, words fail. 

Where I get annoyed is with people who simply believe nonsense or when sports are portrayed as spiritual warfare. First, the party. A very nice lady said, "Tim Tebow doesn't talk openly about his faith. It's the media that keeps talking about it." This is willful ignorance or outright lying. She was nice, so I'll go with the former. Her follow-up statement was even more ridiculous: "The Bible says the Gospel is offensive. That's why people hate Tebow." The Bible verse she is referencing is in Romans, and it refers back to Isaiah, and as usual, it's Paul's updated version of the Tanakh. Isaiah warns the people that YHWH will become a stone of offense to them because of their disobedience. In view here is the coming punishment of the nation of Israel at the hands of Babylon. How any of this applies to Tim Tebow being a tad grating is clearly beyond my comprehension. Maybe it's one of those things that must be "spiritually discerned." 

Sports as spiritual warfare. For those of you unfamiliar with praying in tongues, it's a common practice in churches known as Charismatic. The churches are a later form of Pentecostalism inasmuch as they believe in the ongoing gifting of the Holy Spirit in extraordinary forms (tongues, prophecy, healing, etc.). If I don't know how to pray, as Paul says, the Holy Spirit will help. Add to that the "though I speak with the tongues of men and angels..." and you have a rationale for praying in tongues. Why Tim Tebow is praying in tongues rather than watching the game is beyond me. Is the Holy Spirit supposed to help him pray that he can defeat the other team (and its Christian players), or is he perhaps praying to accept God's will for this game? Sigh. Evander Holyfield was the first athlete I remember practicing a prayer language during his events. He prayed in tongues when he fought Tyson, about whom an argument for demonic possession can surely be made, especially post face tattoo. 

It's an odd cosmology that assumes a sporting event is the battle ground between the forces of good and evil. It's more than a little narcissistic, but that goes hand in hand with the evangelical worldview. I am important. Jesus died just for me. God has a plan for my life. They are taught to study David and Solomon and Peter and Paul and pray for the plan of God for their lives, all the while ignoring the untold millions who simply lived, worked, loved, prayed, and died. Tebow is following in his father's footsteps. His father runs the Bob Tebow Evangelistic Association, a ministry that focuses on the Philippines to "bring the Gospel to the whole country." The ministry web site claims: 

In 1998, BTEA began to implement a plan to preach the gospel in every barangay (village) in the Philippines. In a country of 92,000,000, it is estimated that over 65,000,000 Filipinos have never once heard the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 Who is doing the estimating? According to the CIA World Factbook, the population of the Philippines is roughly 83% Catholic. Now my math sucks, but I'm pretty sure 65 million is more than 17% of 92 million. Right? 

It's conceivable that people raised to believe nonsense like this (the above quote) might have a slightly elevated view of their own importance. God has chosen them to make an impact, or some other such construct. The problem with any story like this is that it's only waiting for you to interpret it along whichever axis you prefer: theist or non-theist, skeptic or believer, fan or hater. Please, pray in public all you want. Cheer for Tebow. I too enjoy watching sports commentators scratch their heads when he wins on determination, athleticism, and love of the game. He's fun to watch, primarily because of his unpredictability. He's a little like Roethlisberger in that way. What I don't need is a well-meaning if deluded believer explaining that God is using the Broncos and Tebow to bear witness. It's football, folks. Football.
...............................................................

Santorum discriminates against gays and women making medical choices

............................................................
Impressions of Rick Santorum
By Jan Ting, Jan. 9, 2012

I’ve had a few encounters with former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum over the years, in Pennsylvania, in Delaware, and in Washington. Now a candidate for president who nearly beat front runner Mitt Romney in the Iowa caucuses, Santorum has on every occasion impressed as someone with a clear understanding of what he believes, and a readiness, almost a combativeness, in defending those beliefs against all challenges.

When he visited Temple Law School as Pennsylvania’s junior U.S. senator to answer questions from students, he left a clear impression with me that he wouldn’t give an inch on his beliefs that the self-reliant family is the essential building block of society, that children do best with both a mother and a father, and that dependence on government handouts weakens families.

When a student expressed concerns about a bar association finding of inadequate government support for legal aid for the poor, Santorum turned the question around by asking, “If the bar association is concerned about inadequate support for legal aid, why doesn’t the bar association do something about it? Why not organize its members to provide volunteer legal assistance?”

Santorum’s political liability is usually identified as his failure to get himself re-elected to the U.S. Senate from swing state Pennsylvania despite the advantages of being a two-term incumbent. His 2006 loss to current U.S. Senator Bob Casey was not close. He lost by almost 18%, the biggest loss by an incumbent U.S. senator in a quarter century, and the largest loss by an incumbent Republican U.S. senator since the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913 mandating direct election of U.S. senators.

But as I recall only too well, 2006 was the worst possible year to run as a Republican. The Republican-instigated invasion of Iraq had gone terribly wrong, and national regret over the election and re-election of President George W. Bush was at its peak. Voters were looking for a way, any way, to vote against the Republicans.

Santorum’s 2006 challenger, Bob Casey, was an especially attractive candidate, a proven vote-getter for statewide office, with a great political name shared with his father, a former two-term Pennsylvania governor, and a shared commitment with his father to the pro-life, anti-abortion cause, which diluted the enthusiasm of Santorum’s base. For those reasons, Santorum is entitled to some mitigation of the significance of his re-election loss in Pennsylvania in 2006.

I respect Santorum’s willingness to clearly articulate and defend his views even on controversial social issues. He has demonstrated the necessary “fire in the belly” by remaining in the race in the face of long odds and media ridicule. With his success in Iowa, I expect him to stay in the race for the Republican nomination right up to the August convention in Tampa, Florida.

But I personally couldn’t support him because of his endorsement of discrimination against fellow citizens who happen to be gay, and also because of his objection to allowing American women to make medical choices for themselves after consulting their own physicians.

While every American is entitled to embrace his or her own religious views, no American should be able to impose those views on other Americans who have differing or no religious views at all. I believe that America is evolving and becoming more open to full and equal rights for all, including gay Americans, and that Americans of different religious views increasingly believe that government should not stand between a woman seeking medical advice and treatment and her physician.

While there is evidently still a place for Rick Santorum in the American political process in 2012, I believe it only exists on the extreme fringe of the minority political party. Am I right? That’s why we hold elections.
............................................................

Disqus experiencing delays

........................................................
For once The Olympian is being proactive about their commenting software:

NOTICE – The Disqus commenting software is experiencing intermittent delays, as well as other issues today.

The company is aware of the issue, and it should be resolved soon.

Read more here: http://www.theolympian.com/#storylink=cpy

........................................................

Karl Rove offended... (or is that "offensive"?)

.................................................
Too bad, Karl.  Wish you would be offended enough to STFU all the time....
.................................................
Karl Rove says he was 'offended' by Clint Eastwood's Chrysler Super Bowl commercial
.................................................

"Term limits" for employees? WTF?

.....................................................
Coming Soon: Term Limits For Employees
By Danny Tyree

Could changes in the gaming industry someday affect YOUR job security?

According to ABC News, the new Revel casino (scheduled to open later this year in Atlantic City, N.J.) has an innovative manpower strategy. All the staffers who spend the most time with the public (including bellhops, dealers, waiters, bartenders and desk clerks) will be given a contract for a specified number of years (usually between four and six). No matter how glowing their performance reviews, when the period is up, they must reapply for their own job, competing with other applicants who are hungry for employment.

Revel would like to be acknowledged for facing economic realities in the highly competitive hospitality industry. This is ironic, since the aforementioned industry encourages people to face economic FANTASIES. (“Junior, I know I spent all the money for your braces on the slots; but when we break the bank, I’ll buy you a clone and we can transplant his whole danged mouth.”)

The company denies any form of discrimination, saying it just wants to keep its workforce “fresh.” (Unfortunately, the Pillsbury Doughboy couldn’t reach the pedals for a valet parking job.) But the cynical see the “term limits” as a convenient way for regularly purging employees who have added a few pounds, wrinkles or gray hairs over the course of the contract. (I think “human being” is the scientific term for these individuals.) The company doesn’t mind having employees who are “hit on” for dates; they just don’t want employees who are “hit on” to restart their heart.

Reaction to the plan runs the gamut. Union members are furious. Economists express grudging admiration for the game-changing plan. Some pundits shrug and say, “There are no guarantees in life.” (There are no guarantees in life except “There will always be smug &^%$ who say there are no guarantees in life.”)

How long until the casino executives realize that they are still falling short in their fiduciary responsibility to stockholders? To maximize the benefits of the plan, they should stage a caged brawl for job re-openings, televised on pay-per-view. (“Ow! Not the face! Not the face!”)

Some commentators remark that executives should have to go through the same competitive process themselves. Realistically, partially trained chimps could probably fire employees just as well. On the other hand, the chimps probably wouldn’t be able to fling feces as skillfully.

If Revel’s philosophy spreads across the American labor market, look for one of two outcomes. If the workers see they have a fighting chance, they’ll redouble their efforts and give 110 percent as the contract draws to a close. If they see the writing on the wall (with the aid of high-magnification bifocals), there will be a rash of laziness, vandalism, embezzlement and workers comp cases. (“The plaintiff says it was the company’s negligence that caused him to injure himself while smuggling a Dodge Grand Caravan engine block in his Speedos.”)

If YOU ever go through a second job interview, it is vital that you NOT wistfully mutter, “I can remember a time when employee and employer were loyal to one another throughout a long career.” That falls into the category of SELF-INCRIMINATION. (“I’ll bet he even remembers where he was when Michael Jackson died! Ewwww! Somebody fumigate the office for old people cooties!”)
.....................................................

Super rich pay lower taxes

..........................................................
Are the Super Rich Different From Us? Yes, They Pay Lower Taxes
By Jan Ting, January 30, 2012

The belated disclosure of his 2010 tax return by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney confirms the public speculation that Romney and his wife pay income tax on his enormous income of nearly $22 million in 2010 at a lower rate than many middle-income taxpayers. Their federal income tax of less than $3 million amounted to an effective tax rate of only 13.8 percent, although the top federal income tax rate of 35 percent was supposed to apply to taxable incomes in excess of $379,150 in 2010.

Estimated taxes for 2009, disclosed on the 2010 return, suggest that in earlier years Romney may have paid significantly less tax on significantly more income, but we will never know unless Romney decides to release tax returns for earlier years.

How are the Romneys, and other super-rich Americans like them, able to pay taxes at a lower rate than middle and upper-middle income Americans? The main reason is that our current tax system taxes income from capital more favorably and at a lower rate than income earned through labor. Most Americans earn most of their income through labor. Such ordinary income is taxed at ordinary rates topping out at 35 percent. In comparison, the Romneys reported no income from wages at all in 2010, and almost all their income came from capital gains and dividends received from corporate stock. Such income from capital is taxed at a top rate of 15 percent.

Many of the super-rich, including the Romneys, have been able to characterize the compensation they receive for services rendered as capital gains and dividends through a device called “carried interest” by which their compensation is determined as a percentage of partnership capital gains and dividends. Legislation is pending in Congress to properly characterize such carried interest as ordinary income for services. But such legislation has been and is vigorously opposed by Republicans, including Romney.

I think the Obama administration could and should unilaterally and retroactively declare such “carried interest” to be ordinary income for services and direct the Internal Revenue Service to tax it accordingly. But that would unleash a political firestorm from the super-rich, and the administration has shown no interest at all in administratively applying the basic tax principle that “substance prevails over form” to carried interest.

What possible justification can there be for treating income from capital more favorably than earned income from labor? There are many theories, none of which I find very convincing. There’s the theory that because capital gains and dividends come from the success of corporations which themselves are subject to tax, taxing such capital gains and dividends as ordinary income would amount to double taxation of the same income. The flaw in that argument is that the capital gains preference does not depend on any corporation actually paying any tax, and many corporations are able to minimize their tax obligations or even reduce them to zero. Some are not even subject to U.S. income tax on activities outside the U.S.

Another argument is that capital gains shouldn’t be treated like ordinary income because part of the gain accruing over time is due to inflation. But that ignores the fact that any taxes due on capital gains are payable in inflated dollars.

Some claim taxing capital gains as ordinary would distort the marketplace by locking-in investments that would produce gains upon sale. But that ignores the marketplace distortion that results from sophisticated taxpayers preferring to engage in activity generating capital gains rather than ordinary income. See carried interest.

Some claim that a preference for income from capital over income from labor is just the normal functioning of a capitalist economic system, a kind of “Golden Rule” under which those that have the gold make the rules. And it’s apparently true that most capitalist economic systems do seem to have some kind of tax preference for investment income. But the American tax system goes to an extreme, as analysts have noted who tried to estimate what the Romneys would have paid on their income in other countries.

It should also be noted that besides minimizing their federal income tax, the Romneys minimized the payroll tax for Social Security and Medicare which working Americans see deducted on their pay stubs. Payroll taxes claim about 6 percent of the income of the median American taxpayer who earns just over $50,000. Mitt Romney and his wife managed to pay just one-tenth of 1 percent of their income in payroll taxes by reporting zero wages.

And are we likely to elect a President like Romney who keeps his lightly-taxed savings in a bank in Switzerland and in trusts in tax havens like the Cayman Islands and Bermuda, rather than invested in the United States? Or will we prefer someone like President Obama or Newt Gingrich, both of whom pay a significantly higher effective income tax rate than Romney on income which is only a small fraction of Romney’s?

Gingrich, it should be noted, thinks the super-rich like Romney pay too much in tax, and wants to further reduce the tax on capital gains and dividends, virtually eliminating Romney’s federal income tax liability. So Romney could win even if he loses!
..........................................................

Thank you!

..................................................
Kardnos and I would like to thank our faithful readers who like to check the "stupid" reaction boxes.  We're happy to know when we have posted entries that irritate the hell out of you!  Now don't forget to check the box on this one!  LOLOLOL
..................................................

What happens when your brain gets washed?

..........................................................................
A cleverly-worded comment posted to the Olympian that deserves to be preserved for posterity:
..........................................................................

Chelonia Testudines

[snipped] 

There's some christian piety for you. Just shows that once you get your brain fully washed, the dirt runs down into your heart.

http://www.theolympian.com/2012/02/03/1975205/state-shouldnt-govern-marriage.html#comment-429599896

Read more here: http://www.theolympian.com/2012/02/03/1975205/state-shouldnt-govern-marriage.html#disqus_thread#storylink=cpy

..........................................................................

Bully us, will ya?

.................................................
The big backlash against bullying women
By Petula Dvorak, February 2, 2012
[snipped]

The Virginia Senate passed a bill Wednesday requiring women who are about to have a legal abortion to get an ultrasound first. The woman is supposed to be shown the image and will have to sign a waiver if she chooses not to take a look.

[snipped]

This legislation is nothing but bullying.

And the biggest bully on the playground this week wore pink. The Susan G. Komen Foundation, in a thinly veiled attack on abortion, withdrew its funding to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screenings.  [Since reversed.]

[snipped]

My colleague Robert McCartney just wrote about the war against the Girl Scouts.

Churches in Northern Virginia and other parts of the country have kicked out Girl Scout troops after a virulent smear campaign linking them to an international scouting association and every single reference either group has ever made to Planned Parenthood.

[snipped]

This is complete insanity. And all of it threatens things that are good — even vital — for women. Meanwhile, the work that needs to be done to help prevent unwanted pregnancies — real sex education and easy access to birth control — is being marginalized.

And the work that needs to be done to bolster good parenting — real child care, equal pay for mothers and flexible work time for all families — is being ignored.

No wonder there’s a backlash erupting. The Pink Bully is getting blasted big time online:

[snipped]

Thousands of women rushed to support Planned Parenthood. The organization received $650,000 in 24 hours.

Women have had enough and have struck back in some pretty interesting ways. Buying Girl Scout cookies is an easy and yummy way to make a statement. (Thin Mints as political protest!) But take a look at this maneuver by Virginia state Sen. Janet D. Howell (D-Fairfax) on the odious ultrasound legislation.

Howell proposed a “his” version of the bill, with some requirements for Viagra prescriptions:

“Prior to prescribing medication for erectile dysfunction, a physician shall perform a digital rectal examination and a cardiac stress test,” Howell said, reading the amendment aloud. “Informed consent for these procedures shall be given at least 24 hours before the procedures are performed.

“I just think we should have a little gender equity here,” Howell added.

You want to hear the real kicker? The amendment fell short by just two votes. Keep messing with us, and the next time it might pass.
.................................................

We need to return to "one reference to religion"

Marriage is a fundamental right and shouldn't be put to a public vote

...........................................................
This is an excellent comment posted on the Olympian (see link below):

CherokeeNative

There are currently three articles regarding gay-marriage being commented on in the O - and in each one, the opponents of gay marriage are condeming the passage of the gay marriage bill as being against their religious beliefs.  No matter how many times it is pointed out that civil marriage is a legal status granted by the state and has nothing to do with religious marriage, the debate over the opponents' arguments eventually lead back to religion.  This is exactly why the gay marriage bill should never be given to the citizens of Washington to vote on - because the opponents cannot set aside their faith and look at the issue strictly from a legal standpoint under the eyes of the state.  Thus, even if the gay marriage issue is finally brought to vote of "the people" it will not end there - it will end up in the courts, and although it will prolong the ultimate, gay marrige will eventually become legal not only in the state of Washington, but the entire United States.

The right to marry has been recognized by the US Supreme Court as a fundamental right under the United States Constitution.  Government has no business intruding in our personal lives.  A Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages would write discrimination into the Constitution.

More importantly, we do not democratically decide on fundamental rights.  The US Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that marriage is indeed a fundamental right.  Imagine if we could democratically vote on whether to abide by one of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.  What would be the point of having the Bill of Rights at all if we could just vote to ignore it? The founders of the United States believed that people have inalienable rights that cannot be taken away or brought to a vote.  These rights are enshrined in the Constitution and its Amendments.  Amond them, we find Equal Protection under the law.  Equal protection is non-negotiable without a Constitutional Amendment.  Other civil rights issues have been unpopular, but ultimately rpevailed by virtue of the unconstitutionality of suppressing them.  Most recently, the black civil rights movement, desegregation of public schools, and permission of inter-racial marriages were all unpopular ideas at the time, but prevailed because they were right, not because they were popular.

Thus far, federal courts have ruled that bans on gay marriage cannot withstand the scrutiny of the Equal Protection Clause.   Vaughn R. Walker, then Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in ruling that Proposition 8 violated the equal protection and due process rights of gay and lesbian couples in California, stated:  Proposition 8 cannot survive any level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.  Excluding same-sex couples from marriage is simply not rationally related to a legitimate state interest."

It is only a matter of time until the US Supreme Court resolves this debate by holding that gay marriage is a fundamental right under the United States Constitution.  It is unfortunate that those citizens of Washington who oppose gay marriage cannot recognize this fundamental right as a separate civil right from their religious traditions and beliefs.

http://www.theolympian.com/2012/02/01/1973174/hope-history-on-line-with-gay.html#comment-428606109

Read more here: http://www.theolympian.com/2012/02/01/1973410/senate-votes-28-21-to-legalize.html#comment-428650339#storylink=cpy

...........................................................

A gay mans comment

As many of you know, I am openly gay (whatever that means...I don't brag about it, but I don't deny it, either. It's simply a part of who I am..)

BTW..is there such a thing as being "openly heterosexual"???

Anyway, I asked my partner of 25+ years the other night if he wanted to get married.

We'd had this discussion before, but now that the moment is actually at hand, we basically decided, "Why should we?".

We've had power of attorney agreements for years, wills, etc...It just seems silly to spend the money for a piece of paper to try and validate the love we've had for each other for almost 3 decades..

I'm glad the gay marriage act has passed, but even if it had failed, it doesn't take a thing away from the love and joy I've had for almost 30 years..

Thanks for the support from all of you, and boo-hoo to the haters out there..

But tomorrow, the sun will rise, life will go on, and I'll just hug my partner, my brother, my best friend, a little bit tighter, and let him know how much his friendship and love have meant to me...

..And I'll be happy...

The rest of the idiots can go to hell, basically

Vote against the Senators who opposed the gay marriage bill

.................................................
These are the state senators who opposed the gay marriage bill.  We should be supporting with our time and money anybody, from either party, who runs against these hidebound people.

Paull Shin, D-Edmonds: No
Doug Ericksen, R-Ferndale: No
James Hargrove, D-Hoquiam: No
Tim Sheldon, D-Potlatch: No
Michael Baumgartner, R-Spokane: No
Randi Becker, R-Eatonville: No
Don Benton, R-Vancouver: No
Mike Carrell, R-Lakewood: No
Jerome Delvin, R-Richland: No
Mike Hewitt, R-Walla Walla: No
Janea Holmquist Newbry, R-Moses Lake: No
Jim Honeyford, R-Sunnyside: No
Curtis King, R-Yakima: No
Bob Morton, R-Kettle Falls: No
Mike Padden, R-Spokane Valley: No
Linda Evans Parlette, R-Wenatchee: No
Pam Roach, R-Auburn: No
Mark Schoesler, R-Ritzville: No
Val Stevens, R-Arlington: No
Dan Swecker, R-Rochester: No
Joseph Zarelli, R-Ridgefield: No
.................................................

Patronize Starbucks! Boycott churches!

....................................................
I don't drink coffee, but just to spite these a-holes, I think I'll begin to patronize Starbucks for their tea!  I drink lots of tea, so I ought to be able to offset at least five of these fools!
....................................................
Group calls for Starbucks boycott after company's support of same-sex marriage

SEATTLE — A Christian group is urging people across the country to think twice about buying Starbucks coffee after the company stated its support for gay marriage.

Pastor Steven Andrew with USA Christian Ministries issued a statement Wednesday night calling for the boycott.

“Starbucks is no longer fashionable,” the statement read. “The boycott is important because God blesses those who obey Him…Starbucks can follow Satan if they want to.”

In the last couple weeks, Starbucks and other northwest companies, including Microsoft and Nike, have backed legislation legalizing same-sex marriage.

Andrew estimated that Starbucks would lose 80 percent of its customers if all Christians bought their coffee somewhere else. He said he’s specifically calling on all churches across the country to stop buying Starbucks.

....................................................

We're also glad he cleared that up

.....................................................
After Florida win, Mitt Romney stumbles in comments on poor
By: Mike Carlson, Reuters, 02/01/12

Mitt Romney regained the lead in the Republican presidential nomination race with a big win in Florida, but drew criticism on Wednesday in what should have been his victory lap with remarks suggesting he was indifferent to America’s poor.

Romney rolled to an impressive triumph in Florida, capturing 46 percent of the vote to Newt Gingrich’s 32 percent after pounding his nearest rival with negative advertisements.

The victory restored him to front-runner status in the state-by-state battle for the Republican nomination to run against Democratic President Barack Obama in the Nov. 6 general election.

But the wealthy ex-governor and former private equity executive, who lost the South Carolina primary on Jan. 21 after opponents painted him as a heartless capitalist, gave a reminder of the challenges he will face winning over voters struggling with the economic downturn and high unemployment.

In an interview on CNN, Romney said he was not concerned about the poorest Americans, but that his primary focus was on the middle class.

“I’m not concerned about the very poor, we have a safety net there,” he said, adding, “If it needs repair, I’ll fix it.”

Romney also said he would leave concern for the poor to the Democratic party.

“We will hear from the Democrat party the plight of the poor,” Romney said. “And there’s no question it’s not good being poor and we have a safety net to help those that are very poor. But my campaign is focused on middle Americans.

“You can choose where to focus, you can focus on the rich, that’s not my focus. You can focus on the very poor, that’s not my focus. My focus is on middle income Americans, retirees living on Social Security, people who can’t find work.”

TOUGH PATH AHEAD

Opponents seized on his remarks. Democratic National Committee spokesman Brad Woodhouse emailed them to journalists, with the introduction, “I’m glad he cleared that up.”

[snipped]

Romney, who has a personal fortune estimated at some $270 million, came under fire earlier in the campaign for saying that he liked to fire people, although those comments were taken out of context.

[snipped]

The well-organized and well-financed Romney has now won two of the first four nominating contests, also capturing New Hampshire while coming in second in Iowa and South Carolina.

Romney’s Florida victory got his campaign back on track after the loss to Gingrich in South Carolina 10 days earlier. Gingrich and his supporters ran devastating attack ads in South Carolina portraying Romney as a heartless corporate raider who destroyed businesses and enjoyed firing people.

With Gingrich vowing to fight on for months, there is the potential for a divisive battle that could damage the party’s chances of denying Obama re-election in November.

The ugly fight in Florida highlighted deep divisions among Republicans. The party establishment largely backed Romney, but the most conservative voters, particularly those from the small-government, fiscally conservative Tea Party movement, and religious conservatives, leaned toward Gingrich.

Romney’s victory also came after his team spent millions of dollars on television ads that blasted Gingrich, raising doubts about whether the former Massachusetts governor can energize the Republican base and rally supporters to his side rather than win by tearing down opponents.

Romney made no apologies for his tactics.

“At this point I think it’s been helpful. I think the back and forth and even the attacks have been helpful because what comes from Barack Obama will be the same, just a heck of a lot more of it,” he said on NBC’s “Today.”

Gingrich’s ads in Florida were equally negative against Romney, but Gingrich was outspent by a ratio of five- or six-to-one.
.....................................................