Your turn.
This is an Open Thread.
Make a new account
Actually, I don't really wonder. Pretty sure about it. Parent
Former Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday he supports gays being able to marry but believes states, not the federal government, should make the decision. "I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone," Cheney said in a speech at the National Press Club. "I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish."
"I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone," Cheney said in a speech at the National Press Club. "I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish."
Cheney has always been right on this issue. Just like Bush was right on immigration. If only they got it right on everything else... Parent
Interestingly, Virginia has a law that bans any partnership that is akin to same-sex marriage (The Marriage Affirmation Act - Va. Code Ann. § 20-45.3) which says:
A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited. Any such civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created thereby shall be void and unenforceable.
So, not only is same-sex marriage prohibited, any private contract entered into between two people that LOOKS like a marriage - even if from another state -is illegal.
Here's an interesting article from 2004 about this. Parent
I know, I know, community, roots, family, job, etc. But still. Parent
I really wish he would just go away...is there a way to arrest him if he accidentally stumbles into non-US/international territory? Party at Spain's embassy, say? Parent
"Red Faction: Guerrilla delivers on its promise of destruction, and offers an experience unlike anything else out there." - 9 out of 10 - Game of the Month - Game Informer (US)
"Guerrilla is the best summer blockbuster of this generation, filled to the brim with gaming superlatives." - 93% - Xbox World 360 (UK)
"A true Gem" - 9 out of 10 - Editors Choice - Official PlayStation Magazine (Australia)
I did the effects. buy a copy and pump up my 401K.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy said Tuesday that federal judge Sonia Sotomayor told him she'd follow the law as a Supreme Court justice and not necessarily base her rulings on her life experiences. "Ultimately and completely, a judge has to follow the law no matter what their upbringing has been," the Vermont Democrat quoted President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee in a private meeting the two had on Capitol Hill. Leahy had asked Sotomayor, 54, what she meant when she said in 2001 that her decisions as a "wise Latina" would be better than those of a white male. Prominent Republicans have cited the 2001 remark to call her a racist. Leahy said the judge told him: "Of course one's life experience shapes who you are, but ... as a judge, you follow the law."
"Ultimately and completely, a judge has to follow the law no matter what their upbringing has been," the Vermont Democrat quoted President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee in a private meeting the two had on Capitol Hill.
Leahy had asked Sotomayor, 54, what she meant when she said in 2001 that her decisions as a "wise Latina" would be better than those of a white male. Prominent Republicans have cited the 2001 remark to call her a racist.
Leahy said the judge told him: "Of course one's life experience shapes who you are, but ... as a judge, you follow the law."
Leahy called the criticism against Sotomayor "among the most vicious attacks that have been received by anybody," and lamented that as a nominee she's unable to directly answer them. So he asked the judge whether he could repeat publicly what she told him privately about how her personal experiences -- she is the New York-born daughter of Puerto Rican parents who was reared in a Bronx housing project and went on to Princeton and Yale on her way to the highest echelons of the legal profession -- would shape her rulings. Leahy quoted Sotomayor as saying, "There's not one law for one race or another; there's not one law for one color or another; there's not one for rich and one for poor; there's only one law."
So he asked the judge whether he could repeat publicly what she told him privately about how her personal experiences -- she is the New York-born daughter of Puerto Rican parents who was reared in a Bronx housing project and went on to Princeton and Yale on her way to the highest echelons of the legal profession -- would shape her rulings.
Leahy quoted Sotomayor as saying, "There's not one law for one race or another; there's not one law for one color or another; there's not one for rich and one for poor; there's only one law."
I predict this still will not be enough for some of Sotomayor's detractors.
Meanwhile, I will be interested if Feinstein is reassured by Sotomayor's views on the right to privacy, which Feinstein says she intends to ask about.
A Supreme Court justice is often confronted with decisions that cannot be made simply by relying on "the law" because, of course, a huge part of the Supreme Court's role is to define the law. Parent
I think he has to realize that flying to New York is self-indulgent. Go down to the corner bar and have a drink, a shot and a beer. It does not matter where you go with your wife, is that it's with your wife. That's really the point... I would make the argument, the simpler the date, the more normal it is.
So Santorum's idea of a good, romantic time is going down to the bar and binge drinking? Good Lord.
Ricky is a dolt. Parent
I think he has to realize that flying to New York is self-indulgent. Go down to the dog pound and have a drink, a shot and a beer. It does not matter where you go with your wife, is that it's with your wife. That's really the point... I would make the argument, the more legs, the more normal it is.
But it's not really about money. It's about being able to show a little class. And imagination helps.
Dressing up for a nice night out makes people feel good. Most people I know, anyway. Parent
A class of hunk unto hisself.
:-) Parent
Well, I'll always have my memories of all those romantic nights zipped in the same sleeping bag under the stars in the wilderness with the sound of the stream and the scent of the pines.... Parent
Especially if they can play a guitar or something. Nothing quite like music and moonlight. Parent
The hot target at the moment: levying a tax on health benefits provided through employers, which currently aren't subject to taxation. Why it looks likely: It's a cash cow. The deduction on health benefits is worth more than $200 billion annually. Baucus does not want to eliminate the deduction, but he has floated a cap that would tax plans worth more than a certain amount. Liberal and conservative academics support the change. And congressional Republicans have advocated eliminating the tax-free status of employer insurance, giving the idea bipartisan credibility (although the GOP would want to return all the money to individuals in the form of tax credits). ...As a candidate, Obama ran against the idea of taxing health benefits. It could also endanger his pledge not to raise taxes on individuals earning less than $200,000 annuually. Still, White House aides have sent signals that Obama would not veto a bill that changed the tax treatment of health benefits. Link
Why it looks likely: It's a cash cow. The deduction on health benefits is worth more than $200 billion annually. Baucus does not want to eliminate the deduction, but he has floated a cap that would tax plans worth more than a certain amount. Liberal and conservative academics support the change. And congressional Republicans have advocated eliminating the tax-free status of employer insurance, giving the idea bipartisan credibility (although the GOP would want to return all the money to individuals in the form of tax credits).
...As a candidate, Obama ran against the idea of taxing health benefits. It could also endanger his pledge not to raise taxes on individuals earning less than $200,000 annuually. Still, White House aides have sent signals that Obama would not veto a bill that changed the tax treatment of health benefits. Link
Dems just can't stand being the majority.
Dems evidently don't need union or union worker support or the support of everyday people who gave up pay increases to get decent health coverage come election time. Parent
I guess if Democrats refuse to fight for equal rights in one way, they might as well at least achieve them in another way. Parent
So, if they do this, they better darn well offer medicare-for-all also, because there will be a lot more uninsured. Parent
It could also endanger his pledge not to raise taxes on individuals earning less than $200,000 annuually.
Could endanger? It flat out breaks that pledge.
I am not averse to tax increases, but there has to be a better way than this. Parent
I fear we end up with auto-insurance mandate redux...where you get fined if you don't have it, yet it is still unaffordable to some of the working poor. What good is adding the threat of a fine to people already stressed from strectching their dollars as far as they can? Plus I even question if the state even has the right to mandate the purchase of any type of insurance...I don't get how you can make someone buy something they may not want. Parent
I did think, though, there was a certain financial level where the insurance would be furnished at no cost. Parent
I don't think the government is going to fine people for getting sick and it certainly can't make it illegal for them to get sick until they pay the fine.
More likely, you'd be made to purchase coverage through a payroll deduction or if you are self-employed through a mechanism like the self-employment tax. If you don't work, your coverage would be purchased for you by the mandatory contributions of others.
I think that's a bad solution that will do as uch or more harm as good.
No one seems to want to talk about actually reducing or reigning in the incomes of doctors and health provider executives, but unless that is done all of these ideas are just different ways of paying for the same problem.
I'd advocate a single-payer program divorced from the insurance model entirely, removing one huge layer of costs which not only must collect enough to administer the programs but to make large profits. A single-payer system still must collect enough to cover administration as well as care but it could eliminate a layer of profit taking.
Then, doctors and clinic and hospital administrators, etc. must learn to make do with less money.
Chances of that happening? Probably zero.
Parent
The story focuses on a county in Texas with the nation's highest per capita health care costs and "medical culture" there which is brazenly profit driven. The writer then infers that this "culture" is a leading cause of higher health care costs more generally. He points to areas of similar demographics with lower costs and no appreciable dimunition (at least statistically) of quality of care provided.
It may be a less than objective piece of reporting and heavily reliant on anectdote and inference, but I think he is right (but, of course, I agrred with him before i read it.) Parent
For others here, basically this article tests -- by looking at the most costly county for health care in the country -- the premises of many approaches discussed today, suggesting why they may not be the solutions because they don't encompass the entirety of the problem, when the problem includes that the MBA approach to health care has replaced the M.D. approach. Parent
Then, doctors and clinic and hospital administrators, etc. must learn to make do with less money. Chances of that happening? Probably zero.
So could lawyers who sue, which in turn drives up malpractice insurance.
Hey - I clerked at a small personal injury plaintiffs' firm - I saw what was out there. Now, my bosses were cool and turned down cases that were questionable or would just be ambulance chasing - our clients were really hurt (I know - I wrote up the case evaluation summaries, which means I delved through thousands of pages of medical files). But not all lawyers and PI firms are that conscientious. Oh sure, bad cases hopefully get thrown out of court, but not always.
I'm not arguing with your premise, per se, it's just that everyone talks about doctor's huge salaries, and I just find it ironic coming from a lawyer (whenmany people think the same about lawyers - we all make huge bucks, right?) Parent
Even private practice obstetricians who might pay $150K a year in premiums in some localities generally have net profits at least 3 times and often many times more than that.
Rookie ob-gyns who work as employees and have coverage provided have salary ranges from $150-250K depending on locality.
Doctors in lower risk specialties pay more along the lines of $25,000-50,000 in malpractice premiums and often have gross revenues dozens of times that.
I could point to the fact that I serve on the CJA panel and accept the lower fees provided and that I accept state appointments that I don't bill at all and that I take some private cases pro bono, but the facts are that doctors do charity work too and I still make what many people would consider a lot of money.
On the other hand, people who don't want to pay what I charge can hire a different lawyer who charges less. With health care there really isn't the same level of competition. Parent
I get it, and I agree - I think it's going to be cuts for many people across the board. It's just easier when people talk about cutting other people's salaries. People (and I'm just as guilty) complain about government workers' salaries, but they work just as hard as any schmo in private industry. Some are good, diligent, hard workers, and some are not. But I don't go into stores and complain about how they should lower their prices and pay their employees less because their employees are lazy and provide poor customer service. Parent
On a personal note, spend your first few years attacking the principal on those loans. Let your peers snicker at your department store suits, used car and starter house and put as much as possible into paying down the principal.
I do think the costs of education have a damaging impact on the professions because people feel compelled to take the highest paying job out the gate because of the debt and feel like they can't afford to do something more personally rewarding and socially valuable. I was lucky enough to go through school on scholarships and graduated with no debt which made it a lot easier to pass on biglaw and do my own thing. Parent
Im skeptical. Slim and his caretakers just dont look like they were in on the joke and I doubt they have that much acting ability. of course its better for everyone now to say it was staged. still, it was live tv and accidents are rare I know. but even if it was, I will prefer to believe it was not. seeing that misogynistic homophobic twerp with Brunos cheeks in his face will make me smile for a long long time.
I honestly did not think it was funny at all, just typical frat boy humor. Parent
I don't think this particular character is in very good taste. Parent
As much as I'm a PC cop, I admit that I'm occasionally inconsistent, as I think we all are. But there are shades of gray, and I think Bruno is probably over the line. Parent
and of course he is over the line. thats the whole point. Parent
Bruno, however, is unmistakable as an archetype. Yes, I will probably still see that one too. Parent
My Kazakh friends in college thought it was hilarious. I know, anecdotal evidence isn't actual evidence, but I think it depends on your sense of humor.
Personally, I thought the t.v. show was better than the movie. There was nothing quite like watching a bar full of people singing and clapping along to "throw the jew down the well". Quite the eye opener.
For some reason, Michael Moore gets on my nerves for being an in your face jerk, but if it's in the name of comedy, somehow it doesn't bother me as much. Even political comedy. But we all have our own lines. Parent
"throw the jew down the well".
ok, how many people think his intention there was to denigrate jews?
anyone? Parent
and it also works like a charm. Parent
I find that almost unbelievable.
look, if was want to be part of the big picture we have to stop being so thin skinned. I often agree with you but not this time. or yesterday either for that matter when you were enabling that absurd commenter who was bashing Ted Olson for being "paternalistic".
btw I also love South Park. Parent
I don't think of it as being thin skinned, I think of it as not putting up with people walking all over you. I guess it's a difference of philosophy and degree. Parent
of course "everyone" wont get it. thats the point. Cohen is a treasure BECAUSE he drives the pearl clutchers nuts. Parent
Possible implications as far certifying Franken:
Pawlenty is under far less pressure to certify Democrat Al Franken as the winner in the Minnesota Senate race if the state Supreme Court rejects the election appeal of former Sen. Norm Coleman... ...Pawlenty can refuse to sign the election certificate for Franken -- if Coleman wants to take the legal fight federal -- and continue to raise his national profile by arguing (in his low key, inoffensive way) on a variety of televisions outlets that he is simply trying to ensure no legitimate votes are left uncounted, a GREAT issue for him in the eyes of GOP base voters. That remains just as true today. So, if Coleman decides he wants to take the case to the federal level if he were to lose at the state court level, there's now a significantly higher likelihood that Pawlenty would be receptive to such a move.
...Pawlenty can refuse to sign the election certificate for Franken -- if Coleman wants to take the legal fight federal -- and continue to raise his national profile by arguing (in his low key, inoffensive way) on a variety of televisions outlets that he is simply trying to ensure no legitimate votes are left uncounted, a GREAT issue for him in the eyes of GOP base voters.
That remains just as true today. So, if Coleman decides he wants to take the case to the federal level if he were to lose at the state court level, there's now a significantly higher likelihood that Pawlenty would be receptive to such a move.
Minnesota Statutes § 204C.40, subd. 2 (2008), which provides that a certificate of election cannot be issued until the state courts have finally decided an election contest pending under chapter 209, applies to an election for the United States Senate.
In my view, this whole story is overblown. Governors do not have the ability to unilaterally refuse to acknowledge the results of an election. The fact that people would even suggest that Pawlenty could so openly defy the law and democracy itself is absurd. However, it does seem as if in the post-Bush era, we are willing to accept that almost anything can happen, I guess. Parent
Is it possible that Pawlenty has already p.o.'d enough moderates in MN that he could potentially not even win his home state in the '12 primaries?
Seems like he may have squandered a lot of goodwill in his quest to do the GOP's bidding in keeping Franken from being seated. Parent
I can hardly wait to see Trey Parker and Matt Stones version.
But, not really.
"I do not believe and have never seen any evidence to confirm that [Hussein] was involved in 9/11. We had that reporting for a while, [but] eventually it turned out not to be true," Cheney conceded. But Hussein was "somebody who provided sanctuary and safe harbor and resources to terrorists. ... [It] is, without question, a fact."
But Hussein was "somebody who provided sanctuary and safe harbor and resources to terrorists. ... [It] is, without question, a fact."
So, apparently, is the state of Kansas, and wherever the heck McVeigh lived. What's his point? Parent
Feinstein said she would ask Sotomayor about the "wise Latina" comment, which she said had been "made into something egregious." She said she also wants to discuss important constitutional topics including abortion, a hot-button issue on which Sotomayor's views are not known . "I'll ask her how she views the constitutional right to privacy," Feinstein said, adding that she "might" inquire about Sotomayor's position on the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that established a woman's right to end her pregnancy.
"I'll ask her how she views the constitutional right to privacy," Feinstein said, adding that she "might" inquire about Sotomayor's position on the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that established a woman's right to end her pregnancy.
Link
MIGHT? Geez, we have really gotten to the point that Democratic politicians are so meek (or worse) that she just "might" ask whether a nominee to the supreme court will uphold the right of women to control their own bodies?
And before people let loose on Feinstein (which, admittedly, is usually very easy to do), notice that no other Democratic senator, as far as I know, has publicly stated that they are even considering asking Sotomayor this very important question. In other words, we have 1 (1!) Democratic senator saying they "might", and the other 58 saying nothing. Shameful, IMO. Parent
All this not asking by the WH is a tad disturbing. Here's hoping more Sen find their spines. Parent
I'd also be surprised if Obama and his team failed to adequately vet her on this threshold issue in the private talks. It is, after all, a proper question to ask of a potential nominee, and a rather crucial one both on the substance and on the political implications for Obama in failing to inquire about it. Parent
My Senators who promoted her right off the bat sure don't know. Hopefully they learned something at lunch. Parent
I find it hard to believe though that a bunch of WH political pros, with so much at risk with her nomination and her one crucial vote on the Roe case if confirmed to the Court, would not have found a way to ask her the basic question, probably in a form slightly different from the way the press person put it to Gibbs in the presser (allowing Bobby G, on strict constructionist grounds, to answer the question in the negative).
Of course, now that there's some question in the public mind about her stance, it makes a great deal of sense for Feinstein and others if necessary to publicly ask her about the right to privacy, and get as much nailed down as possible. Parent
Count me as one who doesn't think it's likely they didn't probe on this. If Roe v. Wade goes down because of an Obama-appointed judge's vote, there will be an uproar the likes of which we haven't seen in a while, and more importantly perhaps, he will be a figure of ridicule for having been stupid enough to appoint such a judge, much as Bush Sr. will forever be for appointing Souter.
If you want to be real, real cynical about it, the ambiguities of the present situation suit Obama's "governing" style. He doesn't have to commit himself much because the law is the law. If the law ceases being the law because of the SC and suddenly a dozen states or more make abortion illegal again, he'll have to take a strong stand one way or the other. Frankly, I don't think he really has a strong stand to take. Parent
"BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and house of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all non citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States be, and they are hereby, declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided That the granting of such citizenship shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of any Indian to tribal or other property. (Approved June 2, 1924)"
The administration took a tragic situation and turned it into an expensive mess to pay a political debt. It wasted billions of dollars over many months delaying GM's filing and then implicitly put itself on the hook for many billions more. The financial, political and social echoes of that decision will be with us for a long time. In short, they blew it.
SANTIAGO, Chile -- Two suitcases carried by a woman who was about to fly to from Chile to Spain were virtually made of cocaine, police said.
Detective Leandro Morales at the Santiago airport said the drug "was not hidden in the luggage. This time the suitcases were the drug."
The suitcases were made of a substance combining cocaine with resin and glass fiber, Morales told The Associated Press.
A "chemical process" could be used to separate out the drug, Morales said, adding that the suitcases were heavier than their contents.
The 26-year-old Argentine woman was arrested.