In reply: Immigration: Apply the rules of the country of origin...

In reply to the following comment:

There is an easy solution to the problems inherent in immigration. We apply the rules of the country of origin to all immigrants seeking citizenship in this country. Say, whatever Mexico required for one seeking citizenship there it would be applied across the board to Mexicans seeking citizenship in this country.
It would be fair to all involved and would ensure that people in this country would be conversant with how other countries control immigration. Whereas a person seeking work would have a green card or what ever the equivalent paperwork required in other countries. It removes political considerations from the equation.
We could take other actions for those seeking political asylum, et al. - Dennis - April 28, 2010, 7:26 AM comment at the post "American Power: Illegal Alien Superhighway"

Dennis: It's a neat rhetorical trick--and one with which I'd agree, believe it or don't--except that I wouldn't want American law to be determined by and at the mercy of the whims of the lawmaking of foreign countries.

If we were to get serious about enacting/enforcing laws and penalties against hiring illegal workers--against the people hiring them, along with the workers, themselves--I suspect that a whole lotta people who lack proper documentation would self-deport. (I'm a big fan of the E-Verify system, and would like to see it become mandatory for all US employees, perhaps under the tax code.)

Because I'm a liberal though, I'm opposed to denying health and safety benefits and protections to illegal aliens, or criminalizing the act of being undocumented in the US--the AZ law goes too far, in that regard--and I wouldn't be opposed to helping those countries from which we receive the largest number of illegal immigrants to improve their economies, so that there's less financial impetus for leaving one's family and home country in the first place.
---
Submitted for moderator approval April 29, 2010 9:58 AM (AmPow blog time)

SCrOTUS Flag and Pledge

Stupid's Pledge

(Pinned to the top until 2/1/10. Please look below for new posts.)

Maybe we ought to read that Homeland Security report again...

Rightwing Extremism:
Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment

And just to be clear... This is what they said about veterans:
-----

Disgruntled Military Veterans

DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.

— After Operation Desert Shield/Storm in 1990-1991, some returning military veterans—including Timothy McVeigh—joined or associated with rightwing extremist groups.

— A prominent civil rights organization reported in 2006 that “large numbers of potentially violent neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists are now learning the art of warfare in the [U.S.] armed forces.”

— The FBI noted in a 2008 report on the white supremacist movement that some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have joined extremist groups.

It doesn't say that veterans are terrorists. It says that right wing extremist groups target returning vets, and that a small number of those vets do become extremists. It is the military training that makes the small number of extremist vets more of an issue to DHS than the small number of extremist accountants or extremist small business owners, not their service.

The wingnut paranoia about this report--and the spineless reaction to it by those career security people, and moreso their political counterparts--was nonsense the first time, but would be unforgivable now, given recent events. If the mainstream right cannot admit that there are extremists and nutjobs lingering at the edges of their ideology, so be it. But that does not mean that those political and career security personnel who take oaths and pay to keep we Americans safe should cover their eyes and ears to rightwing extremism because some of our friends on the right are sensitive to the implications of rightwing violence. Their issues of identity and place should not deter us from defending this country from domestic terrorists, right or left.

The latest on the Biden hoax: It's the "Whitey Tape" all over again

The truth is coming out, and just like some previous political hoaxes, it's biting folks in the ass.

Tommy Christopher at Political Machine gets to the heart of the matter, saying: There is No "Ashley Biden Cocaine Tape":

"There are glaringly obvious reasons to believe this thing is a fake. There are clear reasons why this story should never have been reported, and once it had been, why the only appropriate response would be to point that out.

But the fact that has been buried in all of these stories is that the tape, or at least an authenticatable original, does not exist. What does exist cannot be described as an "Ashley Biden" tape of any kind. That should have been the end of it, at least for the New York Post, the only one of the 3 bidders pretending to have journalistic standards"

Of course, that isn't what's happening... Those initially pushing it are either sticking by their guns, or pretending their evil twin, Skippy was the one who made that blog post excoriating Ashley, the VP, and/or all Dems with this story over the weekend.

Meanwhile, here are the facts about this story, from Tommy Christopher's blog post linked above:

* The video shooter's (hereafter referred to as "Deuche Bagilow") attorney told the NY Post that he destroyed the original. He didn't just tape over it with a Jerry Springer episode, he drilled a hole in the camera's hard drive and threw it into a lake. This claim defies credibility. Why would you destroy the original of something you had made a copy of? Well, you might claim to have done that if you didn't want anyone to ask to see the original.
That fact alone ends this. There is absolutely no way to authenticate the tape, so there was no point in having these outlets watch it. Still, let's look at the rest of it.

* Deuche Bagilow also claims he tried to sell another Ashley Biden tape in August, during the heat of the Presidential race, but could find no takers. Either that tape was as convincing as "Nailin' Paylin," or this was a lie designed to give the sellers a fallback reason to accept a lower bid.

* Deuche's lawyers claimed to have turned down a $250,000 offer. Given the preceding claim, this seems unlikely.

* Deuche's lawyers lied to the Post, telling them the subject of the video was aware of the camera. Deuche's former lawyer now cites this as one of the reasons he quit.

* All 3 "firsthand" accounts of viewing the tape bizarrely contradict each other. The Radar reporter said the subject used a rolled-up dollar bill to snort the white powder, while the Post claimed it was a "red straw." The Enquirer reported being there, but then only quoted Radar's reporter, giving no account of their own.

Radar reported the tape as being from a hidden camera, while the Post reported that Deuche's lawyers told them that the subject acknowleges the camera on a different part of the tape.

Radar reported the subject as "clearly resembling" Biden, while the Post said she "appeared to resemble" Biden. The Enquirer wouldn't make any characterization.

* None of the outlets that saw the tape were willing to bid on it, yet happily exploited it despite this.

* Deuche's lawyers claimed that Ashley Biden was under Secret Service protection, but had her dad call them off because they were blocking her driveway.

* Finally, here's a fun fact: Deuche's lawyer was once involved in a lawsuit over the rules of kickball. Seriously.

But this is my favorite part. As I hoped for yesterday, the ass who started this could face jail time himself, because he bought the cocaine, placed the hidden camera, and tried to entrap his "friend." It was all a set-up. Fuck him. Fuck his spiritual sister, Ashley Todd, and fuck Larry Johnson, "No Quarter," and those Republicans and "PUMA"s, all of whom lied, lied, lied in the name of political partisanship. May they all get what they deserve.

Tired of the stupidity

Is it too much to ask that we (and they, themselves) give our representatives--and the American people--enough time to read all the bills that come before them in final form before the votes, and then to hold them accountable for having done so?

Every representative who votes on a bill they haven't read is a moron, and if there's one thing we need, it's fewer damned morons in elected office.


Read The Bill from Sunlight Foundation on Vimeo.

Is 72 hours enough? I don't know, but it is better than nothing... Imagine if every bill had to be given to the House/Senate clerk in final form, and posted online for the American people and the news media to read for at least 72 hours before voting could begin on them, and that every change restarted the 72 hour clock... Think of all the foolish bullshit that we might've avoided over the years...

This thing Dodd snuck out of the bailout bill is (or should be) a friggin' crime, but while I'm pissed at Dodd, I have no sympathy for all the people from both parties claiming they had no idea it was changed... They are assholes all, and if they can't be bothered to read the friggin' laws before passing them, they have no business being in congress... (Perhaps we need to raise the taxes on their salaries to 90% or so, until they actually do their jobs.)

We need more sunshine all over the legislative process. I'd ultimately like to see bills posted online, with names attached to every earmark or other change to every bill, updated within 24 hours of every change (on 3/15/09 @ 7:45 AM Senator Dodd struck the following line from S:177 "... ..." and replaced it with "... ...". The following 6 senators/conferees agreed to the change "... ..."; the following 4 were opposed "... ..."). I realize that may be a pipe dream since, no matter which party is in charge, secrecy and "It wasn't me" is the name of the game... ...but at the very least, we should never again hear the words "I didn't know that was in the bill I voted for/against. I didn't read the bill." That cannot be too much to ask...

Is there a right to marry whomever one wishes?

UPDATE: Once again, a rousing welcome to Nero's readers. Read & reply, if you would be so kind... It's easy to make fun or spout ubsubstantiated charges like "playing fast & loose with history & constitutional law," as Nero does, but it does nothing to further anyone's argument. If you wish to make a point, please do so...
--------------------------------

Nero at American Power, grasping onto one of the few electoral victories for his side this season, puts forth the proposition that Gay Marriage is Not a Civil Right. Is he correct?

Latching onto foolish, racist behavior by some of the folks protesting in favor of retaining the right to marry, brought on by the fact that the same blacks who turned out in record numbers to vote for Obama also voted in favor of restricting the rights of homosexuals to marry in CA, Nero first quotes a piece of an article from the LA Times: Gays, blacks divided on Proposition 8, suggesting that many black voters don't see homosexuality as being a civil rights issue in the same way that the African American struggle has been.

Nero goes on to say:

Indeed, the effort to change the language of traditional civil rights to include gay marriage has been one of the most clever yet sinister elements of the same-sex marriage movement this last few years. Yet, as Eugene F. Rivers & Kenneth D. Johnson indicate [in a 2006 Weekly Standard article, Same-Sex Marriage: Hijacking the Civil Rights Legacy], the equation of gay rights with the black freedom struggle - and the traditional civil rights agenda - is a fraud that cheapens the historic legacy for equal treatment under the law in the United States:

I'll quote & reply to what the two opinioneers from the Weekly Standard article had to say in due course, but at the outset, let me say that few on any side of this issue are suggesting that gay & lesbian people are facing the exact same struggles that blacks once did. Of course they aren't. While there has been some pretty nasty treatment of people based on their sexual orientation in various places & times over the years, there have been far fewer cases of slavery, lynchings, & other awful behavior affecting the homosexual population than affected the black population in this country.

Nero offers it in his first line above. The Weekly Standard boys put it this way:

"Whatever wrongs individuals have suffered because some Americans fail in the basic moral obligation to love the sinner, even while hating the sin, there has never been an effort to create a subordinate class subject to exploitation based on "sexual orientation.""

This is a red herring. Many groups in the US have faced discrimination or been seen as less deserving of rights over the years, including women, the Irish, Jews, Catholics, and the disabled. Some of these groups continue to face issues to one degree or another to this day, while the problems of others are substantially behind us. To my knowledge, none of these groups has faced the same degree of oppression & mistreatment as blacks, either, but most Americans agree that when people from these groups are discriminated against, it is a civil rights issue. Just because the discrimination is not as bad as it could be, or not as bad as it once was for another group, that does not mean discrimination is not taking place, and to suggest otherwise is smoke & mirrors.

Continuing, as Nero does, with Eugene F. Rivers & Kenneth D. Johnson, writing in the Weekly Standard:

"It is precisely the indiscriminate promotion of various social groups' desires and preferences [italics (the equivalent of John McCain's "dick fingers", as far as I'm concerned) as in original] as "rights" that has drained the moral authority from the civil rights industry. Let us consider the question of rights. What makes a gay activist's aspiration to overturn thousands of years of universally recognized morality and practice a "right"? Why should an institution designed for the reproduction of civil society and the rearing of children in a moral environment in which their interests are given pride of place be refashioned to accommodate relationships integrated around intrinsically non-marital sexual conduct?"

What we're looking at here is various social groups desires & preferences for having the same access to the rights & privileges of this society as anyone else, and not have them denied based on race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. This is not that difficult a concept.

There are many half-truths, suppositions, & bandwagoneering in this paragraph, & indeed much of what these two gentlemen write in their article. The idea of " thousands of years of universally recognized morality and practice" is called into question--by a devout Christian, in an piece discussing how best to advance Biblical morality, no less--in this article: The Biblical Source of Western Sexual Morality, by Peter J. Leithart A quick excerpt, from the beginning:

It is all too easy for Christians, when examining the moral behavior and beliefs of cultures, to impose our patterns of morality on them. As Christians, of course, we must make judgments about all cultures based on the eternal standard of Scripture; I am not advocating cultural relativism. What I am warning against, however, is the tendency to assume that past civilizations (or even contemporary civilizations) approach life and morality the same way we do. If we make that assumption, we will never be able to begin to understand their behavior. The danger of this approach is not only that we will fail to understand another culture, but that we will appeal to a nonexistent 'consensus' as the standard of moral behavior. Conservatives and many Christians make this mistake when they call for the reintroduction of "traditional values". The question must arise, Which tradition?

To suggest that marriage was or is "an institution designed for the reproduction of civil society and the rearing of children in a moral environment in which their interests are given pride of place" is a short-sighted description. Were marriage primarily designed for reproduction & child-rearing, those who could not reproduce would discouraged from marrying, and those who did not reproduce would be ostracised in society. Neither is the case.

In point of fact, Marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: "People marry for many reasons, but usually one or more of the following: legal, social, and economic stability; the formation of a family unit; procreation and the education and nurturing of children; legitimizing sexual relations; public declaration of love; or to obtain citizenship."

More from Rivers & Johnson:

One must, in the current discussion, address directly the assertion of discrimination. The claim that the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman constitutes discrimination is based on a false analogy with statutory prohibitions on interracial marriages in many states through much of the 20th century. This alleged analogy collapses when one considers that skin pigmentation is utterly irrelevant to the procreative and unitive functions of marriage. Racial differences do not interfere with the ability of sexually complementary spouses to become "one-flesh," as the Book of Genesis puts it, by sexual intercourse that fulfills the behavioral conditions of procreation. As the law of marital consummation makes clear, and always has made clear, it is this bodily union that serves as the foundation of the profound sharing of life at every level--biological, emotional, dispositional, rational, and spiritual--that marriage is. This explains not only why marriage can only be between a man and a woman, but also why marriages cannot be between more than two people--despite the desire of "polyamorists" to have their sexual preferences and practices legally recognized and blessed.

While it's fine for these two men--one the Founder and President of the Seymour Institute for Advanced Christian Studies, and a pastor of the Church of God in Christ, the nation's largest historically Black Pentecostal denomination, and the other a Senior Fellow for Social Policy and Civil Society at the same Seymour Institute for Advanced Christian Studies--to define & discuss marriage from a biblical standpoint, such views do not deserve to be the basis of US law or included in the definition of what is & is not discrimination or a violation of one's civil rights.

Unfortunately, many of the same arguments offered against gay marriage--including arguments based on the Bible & religion--were offered against interracial marriage:

Miscegenation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: "In the United States, segregationists and Christian identity groups have claimed that several verses in the Bible[13], for example the story of Phinehas and the so-called 'curse of Ham', should be understood as referring to miscegenation and that these verses expressly forbid it. Most theologians read these verses as forbidding inter-religious marriage, rather than inter-racial marriage[14]."

The trial judge in the original Loving case, Leon Bazile, echoing Johann Friedrich Blumenbach's 18th-century interpretation of race, proclaimed that

“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and He placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix."

More: Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

Rivers & Johnson, continued:

Moreover, the analogy of same-sex marriage to interracial marriage disregards the whole point of those prohibitions, which was to maintain and advance a system of racial subordination and exploitation. It was to maintain a caste system in which one race was relegated to conditions of social and economic inferiority. The definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman does not establish a sexual caste system or relegate one sex to conditions of social and economic inferiority. It does, to be sure, deny the recognition as lawful "marriages" to some forms of sexual combining--including polygyny, polyandry, polyamory, and same-sex relationships. But there is nothing invidious or discriminatory about laws that decline to treat all sexual wants or proclivities as equal.

People are equal in worth and dignity, but sexual choices and lifestyles are not. That is why the law's refusal to license polygamous, polyamorous, and homosexual unions is entirely right and proper. In recognizing, favoring, and promoting traditional, monogamous marriage, the law does not violate the "rights" of people whose "lifestyle preferences" are denied the stamp of legal approval. Rather, it furthers and fosters the common good of civil society, and makes proper provision for the physical and moral protection and nurturing of children.

As I noted above, there are differences in the experiences of homosexuals & blacks, and fact that there is some difference in the motivation for discriminating against them by law (though not as much as these two suggest) is another. So what. If we are indeed discriminating by not allowing gays to enjoy the same rights & benefits of marriage as everyone else, who cares why we're doing it? If it's discrimination to do so, the motives are unimportant.

Further, to see gay coupling & marriage as nothing more than a "form of sexual combining" dismisses the myriad of other very real & necessary reasons people choose to affiliate as couples in loving relationships.

And finally, there is the nature/nurture debate. While these two Christians have seemingly decided that homosexuality is a sexual want people choose (nurture) and can change their mind about, there is plenty of evidence suggesting that one may be born to love one's own gender (nature), and theories abound on both sides, as well as combinations of the two camps, in concert. Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture. I have no theories of my own, but also don't see it as important to the debate. Whatever makes the heart want what (or who) it wants, the heart does want what it wants, and the state should not hold any more sway over one's heart than is absolutely & demonstrably necessary.

It is there that Nero leaves his friends from the Weekly Standard, and I see little in the remaining article worth discussing at this time (though there are more of the same religiously-based, right wing talking points about defending "true marriage"...) Summing up what he suggests we've learned from them, he says:

I have no illusions that such rigorous argumentation and logic will convince homosexual rights advocates that gays face no discrimination on the question of marriage rights.

But as we can see, the homosexual movement is attempting to create a right to marriage that has no basis in historical practice, and such attempts trivialize the bloody march to equality Americans have endured and overcome.

As I believe I've shown, these gentlemen's article, & Nero's quotes of it, is far from the final word on the subject of discrimination against homosexuals as concerns marriage rights, and the idea that any claim of discrimination that speaks to treatment less severe & horrendous than that faced by blacks is not a "real" civil rights violation, is just silliness, and moreover, a red herring tossed in to distract one from the issue under discussion.

Nero:

This is a lesson gay activists should consider, for when 70 percent of blacks in California - the nation's most liberal, trend-setting state - oppose the demands of an extremely vocal radical minority, it's a pretty good indicator that the movement for same-sex marriage rights falls outside the bounds of both traditional law and universal morality.

The fact is, I'm neither surprised or offended that religious folks, whatever their race or denomination, opposed gay marriage in CA. As I've said previously & at length, I agree that marriage is a sacred rite, and that the laws of man have no business infringing on it. The state & the laws governing the legal uniting of two persons ought to use the term "civil union" in place of "marriage," and define it as including--but not limited to--the rites offered by the church & officiated by a religious figure.

In closing, I want to include the following bit from Mildred Loving, spoken in celebration of the 40th anniversary of the Loving v. Virginia decision. While I understand that her opinion holds no more (or less) sway than any other lay person's, it's interesting (& gratifying) to know how a person who went through the trials & tribulations she did in her day views the current situation.

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: "On June 12, 2007, Mildred Loving issued a rare public statement prepared for delivery on the 40th anniversary of the Loving v. Virginia decision of the US Supreme Court, which commented on same-sex marriage. The concluding paragraphs of her statement read as follows:

“Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the 'wrong kind of person' for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.
I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about."

My thoughts on Homosexual Marriage

Given the uproar about Prop 8 in CA & similar propositions elsewhere, I was reminded of a conversation I had with two other bloggers at the beginning of the summer, and figured that I'd try to make it a post, here. As usual, it's a bit longwinded, but it lays out my ideas on the subject pretty well.

The original conversation took place (& is still housed) at The Griper's blog, Just a Man with his Thoughts: Homosexual Marriage. Anyway, here's what I think:

Marriage shouldn't be bound by law at all, but by the church. (It is a sacrament, after all.) I'd much rather see civil unions (any legally-based union between two people including--but not limited to--the sacrament of marriage) governed by state/federal law, and marriage itself governed by the church one attends.

I'd like to see the word "marriage" replaced by "civil union" in all federal/state law, giving every two folks who're united either by the church or by a judge the same rights and responsibilities. That allows the church to maintain the sacrament, and the government to maintain law, which is as it should be, in my opinion...

With divorce so common and families disintegrating, I don't agree that any union between two consenting adults ought to be discouraged by law, particularly since I believe that a two parent household--even a homosexual one--is more beneficial than a single parent one. While it's good to want to encourage the "best" situations for children via law, we ought to be consistent and base our decisions on what other situations encourage &/or outlaw based on the rest of that same scale. If one cannot have a traditional family situation, what's the second best situation for raising children? What's the third? Is a two parent household lead by homosexuals really less beneficial than a single parent household? And if (as I suspect) it is better for children to have two parents--even if they are two gay parents--why are we as a society not doing more to discourage divorce via law, rather than gay marriage?

Makes me wonder...

Speaking for myself, I'd prefer we not base laws on religious conviction alone. "Sin" and "illegal" is not the same thing, nor should they necessarily be. While murder is both, I wouldn't want there to be legal consequences for not honoring one's parents, or misusing the name of God, for instance. The sacred is the sacred, and that's fine. But the sacred should not bind the secular to its will.

In the same way, I do not wish to see "separate but equal" govern the legal union of two people. Yes, there are other ways to get most of the benefits of a union, and yes, anyone can write anyone else into a will. But when two people in love come before the state (or any agent of the state, which in this case includes religious celebrants) to unite themselves to one another legally, they should receive the same benefits as everyone else who does so, on that basis alone.

Marriage is a religious sacrament. To the extent that there is any question about what constitutes a marriage, one should look to his/her faith to answer it.

But as a legal matter, the religious definition and specific rites of marriage need hold no sway, though I'm fine with recognizing a religiously based union as one way of entering into a legal union. But just as I wouldn't want to enact a law stating that one can only be legally united in a place of worship, I would prefer that religious conviction not be the be the final arbiter of who may & may not enter a legally recognized union, with all of the benefits & responsibilities that entails.

I can appreciate your not wanting to tolerate anything your faith teaches is a sin. But we in America do not all share your faith, and American law should not be based on your faith, either. While I was a big fan of "blue laws," and--being in retail-- miss having that time set aside for my faith & my family, much of America rejected having laws requiring us all to keep the catholic Sabbath. Still, I'm sure many Catholics still honor it, and refrain from frequenting those businesses and institutions that choose to break God's law... ...on the Sabbath, at least. While it may be a sin to conduct business on a Sunday, laws forbidding it are all but gone and, while we don't have to like it (& can each make the choice as to whether to commit a sin by working / shopping on the Sabbath) we do have to accept that not everyone in America chooses to keep the Sabbath, and it's very unlikely that those laws enforcing it are ever coming back.

Biblical references are always tricky. Going back to the last few paragraphs, it appears that we retail folks would be in real trouble should too many Americans follow the bible too closely (Exodus 35:2 "For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a holy day, a sabbath of complete rest to the LORD; whoever does any work on it shall be put to death.") While it's likely you may've already seen it, I include the mythical Letter to Dr. Laura (or "even though touching the skin of a dead pig is unclean, (Lev 11:6-8) may I still play football if I wear gloves?") in reply.

I disagree that tolerance calls on one to love the sin. It merely asks one to recognize that not everyone shares your faith, or it's particular view of what is/isn't sinful. You may certainly still disapprove of the sinful behavior...

To be clear... I am not saying that there should be no law regarding legal unions. In fact, I believe there should be. I would just prefer to see the word "marriage" replaced by "civil union" in every law currently on the books, and view the religious sacrament of marriage as but one path to a civil union.

That keeps the sacred institution of marriage safe from defilement by the state, and allows those who are not united by a priest in a church to obtain all of the benefits & responsibilities that come with that legal, moral, and emotional commitment.

Finally, the will of the people argument. For that, I turn to Glen Greenwald:

California's marriage ruling -- what it means and what it doesn't mean - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com:

"Equally misinformed will be anyone arguing that this is some sort of an example of judges 'overriding' the democratic will of the people. The people of California, through their representatives in the State legislature, twice approved a bill to provide for the inclusion of same-sex couples in their 'marriage' laws, but both times, the bill was vetoed by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said when he vetoed it that he believed 'it is up to the state Supreme Court' to decide the issue.

Polls have found substantial support for gay marriage in California, with dramatic trends toward favoring gay marriage. While there was a referendum passed in 2000 limiting marriage only to opposite-sex couples, five years later (in 2005), California's state legislature became the first in the country to enact a same-sex marriage law without a court order compelling them to do so. Thus, even leaving aside constitutional guarantees (which, in a constitutional republic, trump public opinion), today's ruling is consistent with that state's democratic processes and public opinion, not a subversion of it."

For me, this is the basis of my beliefs on the subject: "constitutional guarantees trump public opinion in a constitutional republic. "

Glenn addressed it again in more detail a week later:

The California marriage decision and basic civics - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com:

"That a law invalidated by a court is supported by a large majority is not an argument supporting the conclusion that the court's decision was wrong. Central to our system of government is the premise that there are laws that even the largest majorities are prohibited from enacting because such laws violate the constitutional rights of minorities. Thus, the percentage of people who support the law in question, and how lengthy and painstaking the process was that led to the law's enactment, is totally irrelevant in assessing the propriety of a court decision striking down that law on constitutional grounds."

"...a court striking down a law supported by large majorities is not antithetical to our system of government. Such a judicial act is central to our system of government. That's because, strictly speaking, the U.S. is not a "democracy" as much as it a "constitutional republic," precisely because constitutional guarantees trump democratic majorities. This is all just seventh-grade civics, something that the Brookings scholar and those condemning the California court's decision on similar grounds seem to have forgotten."

In response, my friend The Griper said:

"as to the idea of renaming it [marriage] for secular purposes i will only quote shakespere, "a rose by any other name is still a rose."'

But I'm suggesting that we're talking about two different "flowers" here. The terms "Marriage" and "civil union" have different meanings. I'm not suggesting calling the rose "marriage" something else, but recognizing that the rose of "matrimony" is but one kind of flower in the garden and that, while a rose has certain unique characteristics, many of the rules of botany apply to other flowers, as well.

Griper:

"and all laws are based upon religious conviction of right and wrong."

You'll note that I never said otherwise. (In fact, I pointed to murder as an example of an action that is both an illegal act & a sin.) But murder isn't an illegal act because it's a sin, and that's the difference. (If it were otherwise, there would be laws against being disrespectful to mom, and almost every teenager in America would be incarcerated.)

Some sinful acts are also illegal acts, but that does not mean that every act deemed sinful by one denomination or another need be illegal.

(As an aside, we might explore whether the concepts of "right & wrong" are strictly religious convictions or, more broadly, moral ones where religion plays a part for those who believe, and not so much for those who don't, as well as the religious implications of the law against making a right on red, but we can save both for another time.)

I like the idea that meanings are contained in people, but also believe words and correct definitions must play their part, if we humans intend on finding common ground & solving common problems. (And while someone recently suggested that folks on the left are anti-semantic, the fact is, some of my best friends are meaningful.)

tolerance - OneLook Dictionary Search:

(Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 10th Edition) - sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own b: the act of allowing something

(Webster's Revised Unabridged, 1913 Edition) - The endurance of the presence or actions of objectionable persons, or of the expression of offensive opinions; toleration.

All together there are 23 general dictionary definitions at this site (along with several medical, business, & other "special" definitions). I only chose the Websters, but if another definition suits the meaning of anyone here better, we can explore further.

Put me down as aligning myself with this one: Tolerance.org: What Is 'Tolerance'?:

"The word "tolerance" is surely imperfect, yet the English language offers no single word that embraces the broad range of skills we need to live together peacefully.

The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. used the Greek term "agape" to describe a universal love that "discovers the neighbor in every man it meets." The various disciplines concerned with human behavior have also offered a variety of adjectives: "pro-social," "democratic," "affiliative."

In its Declaration of Principles on Tolerance, UNESCO offers a definition of tolerance that most closely matches our philosophical use of the word:

Tolerance is respect, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of our world's cultures, our forms of expression and ways of being human. Tolerance is harmony in difference.

We view tolerance as a way of thinking and feeling — but most importantly, of acting — that gives us peace in our individuality, respect for those unlike us, the wisdom to discern humane values and the courage to act upon them."

More:

Declaration of Principles on Tolerance

Here is the whole of Article 1 - Meaning of tolerance:

===================

Article 1 - Meaning of tolerance

1.1 Tolerance is respect, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of our world's cultures, our forms of expression and ways of being human. It is fostered by knowledge, openness, communication, and freedom of thought, conscience and belief. Tolerance is harmony in difference. It is not only a moral duty; it is also a political and legal requirement. Tolerance, the virtue that makes peace possible, contributes to the replacement of the culture of war by a culture of peace.

1.2 Tolerance is not concession, condescension or indulgence. Tolerance is, above all, an active attitude prompted by recognition of the universal human rights and fundamental freedoms of others. In no circumstance can it be used to justify infringements of these fundamental values. Tolerance is to be exercised by individuals, groups and States.

1.3 Tolerance is the responsibility that upholds human rights, pluralism (including cultural pluralism), democracy and the rule of law. It involves the rejection of dogmatism and absolutism and affirms the standards set out in international human rights instruments.

1.4 Consistent with respect for human rights, the practice of tolerance does not mean toleration of social injustice or the abandonment or weakening of one's convictions. It means that one is free to adhere to one's own convictions and accepts that others adhere to theirs. It means accepting the fact that human beings, naturally diverse in their appearance, situation, speech, behaviour and values, have the right to live in peace and to be as they are. It also means that one's views are not to be imposed on others.

================

Griper:

"ok, what are the the differences in meanings?"

Griper had already answered his question in his initial post on the subject:

"and marriage performed by a civil servant of the government has always been defined as a civil union. in fact some religions don't even recognize it as a marriage but society does. and government treats them both as the same."

Marriage is a sacred rite uniting two people in love according to the traditions of the faith.

Civil union is essentially a legal contract between two people in love, governed by local, state, & federal law.

What I say is, the government has no place in determining religious tradition, nor should they be bound by any particular (or even "the vast majority of") religious traditions in this country when crafting secular law. Legally, almost ALL marriages (as I defined the terms) are civil unions, but there are plenty of civil unions that are not marriages, as defined by many churches.

I was "united" to my wife by a judge, meaning there are religions who don't see me as being any more married than Adam & Steve or Adina & Lisa in NH. I can tolerate that, but still believe that the laws of NY give me the same rights & responsibilities to & with my wife as they would if I were married n my local Roman Catholic church.

Marriage is marriage; one of several ways to enter into a civil union with another person. But "marriage" & "civil union" are not synonymous, any more than "rose" and "flower" are.

My religious tradition--Unitarian Universalist--WILL perform a marriage ceremony for homosexuals. Our creed allows it. In this case, the couple is married in the eyes of our faith, but not civilly united according to the government.

Marriages and civil unions are different, one one can have either one without the other, in some cases.

Griper:

"the right to marry is the stated goal of the homosexual community not a civil union."

This is because many (& perhaps most) local, state & federal laws are written with the word "marriage" not "civil union" in them.

But if you ask them, I'm willing to bet my last dollar that the vast majority of the homosexual community seeking the right to marry are looking for the legal rights, not the religious rites, and striking the word "marriage," & replacing it with "civil union" in the laws would suit them just fine, without hurting heterosexual unions (be they marriages like yours, or civil unions like mine) in any way.

(And for the record, I would never support anyone's effort to demand that any given church be compelled by law to marry anyone that their faith says are not a suitable couple. I suppose there are a few gay or human rights activists who might...)

Griper:

"as for the rest that is what we are speaking of, state recognition, not religious recognition. and the state has already defined the union as a union of marriage."

Not for my fellow Unitarians... I've been to two homosexual weddings. According to my church and my faith, these folks are married. According to the state, they're not.

If you agree that marriage is a religious rite governed by the church rather than the state, and that my church has recognized and performed marriage ceremonies for same sex couples, than the state hasn't "recognized & defined the union as a union of marriage." That is... unless you believe that the state can dictate the terms of religious rites.

Griper:

"the only reason it is defined as a civil union is the recognition of the person performing the ceremony, a civil servant rather than a minister of religion."

So all those folks who go to city hall are not really married, then... They are united in the eyes of the state, but not in the eyes of God. That's consistent with my position in saying marriage & civil union are not the same, and that the law has no place in legislating the sacred rite of marriage, and should instead legislate the legal rights involved in civil unions, and include the sacred rite of marriage as one way to become civilly (legally) united.

Griper:

"and if you are right in regards to their attitude then changing the other laws will serve the same purpose without the controversy.

why change laws creating division instead of changing laws that result in unity?"

I think the primary controversy is in redefining marriage. Not only does my proposal not do that, it actually makes marriage more sacred, by only including those who are united in a ceremony of faith, rather than a secular ceremony of law.

If my ceremony by a family court judge (friend of the family), in the outdoor court of a beauteous hotel, followed by darn near the best reception anyone's ever been too (Not too gaudy, not too cheap, simple good food & live music) means I'm not married to my wife of 8 years come next September, I'm pretty sure Adam & Steve or Adina & Stephanie can be "not married" as happily as my bride & I are. (...aren't?... Whichever... You get my meaning...)

I can see where many will find in "controversial" to discover that they are not really married, but that's only because the wrong word was used in laws in the first place. The law calls my union a marriage, but calling it that doesn't make it so. My church calls a union of two souls--whatever bodies they're housed in--a marriage, but that doesn't make it a legal union.

The second controversy involves tolerating homosexuality. Perhaps those who view it as a sin or otherwise immoral don't want the government to sanction or condone it by giving homosexuality legal recognition. To the extent that's true, your solution does no better than mine because, either way, the government is recognizing homosexuality as a valid lifestyle, sanctioned by state and federal law.

If you believe I'm misstating or overlooking something here, please let me know... But the way I see it, these are the controversies...

Griper:

"and i would add that changing the other laws are more beneficial because it gives the people the right to choice in those matters not government. and you are the one who is always advocating for the right of people making the choice in matters, aren't you?

in other words, my solution is beneficial to everyone not just a few as your solution would be."

I believe that we are the folks who make up our government, so it's the people making the choices & speaking about them, regardless...

But I still don't see how my suggestion benefits only a few, or why yours benefits many...

The ability to make legal provisions stipulating legal & financial arrangements is law, already (though I understand that there are places where laws need tweaking to make them better or more fair).

But because those arrangements are automatic by virtue of a legal union (called marriage), it still treats some citizens who enter into said unions (like Adam & Steve, "married" at a Unitarian Fellowship) second class citizens, because those benefits are not automatically given to them, the way they were to you and I when you got married, and I got "married." Our unions (yours a marriage by religious rites, and mine a "marriage" without those rites) are not treated equally under law.

Why should Adam & Steve have to see a lawyer to get what we get by virtue of our unions. Religiously, your union & theirs are both sanctioned by faith. While some of the specific traditions in my church are different than the ones in yours, the UU ceremony they had would be just like the one you & your wife or me & mine could've had at that church. The only difference is, at the end of our ceremonies, the state would recognize our marriages and hand over the legal goodies automatically, while Adam & Steve need to see a lawyer to get what we get by virtue of being men united with (married to) women.

If the laws on wills, medical decision-making, child custody, and the rest are sufficient, why grant these things automatically to some unions, and not others? Why shouldn't you & I have to see the lawyers to set these things up for our spouses, too? The answer, I think, is that they are not sufficient. A union is a union is a union. And every union deserves the same consideration under law.

Griper:

"my post dealt with marriage as defined by the state. it had nothing to do with church or religion."

Marriage always has to do with religion, and the state has no business defining it.

Griper:

"the people of the state of California expressed their will, by inititive, by enacting a law declaring that marriage was to be only between a man and woman. The Supreme Court of California defied the will of the people by declaring that law unconstitutional."

I believe this "will of the people" idea was covered quite well above. Please follow the Glenn Greenwald links found in this post, or just read what this wise soul said on the subject.:

"this assumes that the people cannot pass laws which are unconstitutional and that is false. we are a nation bound by a Constitution not the will of the people. if we were a nation bound by the will of the people there would be no need for a Constitution."

If you're looking for the original comment from whence that came, it appears here, from Griper's own keyboard.

Griper:

"so, any reference to the idea of marriage being a sacrament of the church is irrelevant because my post was not comparing the two types of marriage only the one, marriage as a legal bond as defined by the state."

Well, it is your original post, but I believe the religiosity of marriage is central to any discussion on the subject, be it heterosexual marriage or the issue of homosexual marriage. In my eyes, the legal bond is incidental to marriage, and certainly cannot be used to define the term.

Aside that, it is the religiosity of the term marriage that creates much of the controversy you do seem to wish to talk about. I just don't believe you can take the religion out of a discussion of marriage & homosexuality any more than you can take religion out of a discussion of Christmas.

Blogger: User Profile: Lista:

"Actually, Repsac, marriage is both a religious rite and a legal contract and I'm not sure that it is governed by the church as much as it is by God. I really don't think that the religious side of it has to do with laws, but simply with always doing the right thing before God in love. Right or wrong, the church doesn't usually get involved in legal matters such as divorce. That's been left up to the secular courts."

I see marriage as being the religious component, and civil union as the legal component, and the fact that those writing secular laws incorrectly used the word "marriage" in those laws as the primary problem here.

In almost all churches (that is, according to the version of God worshiped in most churches), homosexuals cannot marry. Leaving my faith (& a few others, I think) aside, there is no such thing as homosexual marriage.

(That my church worships a God that allows homosexual marriage while most churches worship a God that does not, is where that tolerance thing comes in. While we each believe that the God we worship is offering "truth," while the other is offering "falsehood," we accept that different faiths believe different things, give each other some space, and hope that one day the other will come to a better (that is "our own") understanding of God.)

For the most part, I don't even believe that those fighting for "homosexual marriage" WANT marriage. They want the rights that come with the legal union. (They call what they want "marriage" for the same reason we are here; wrong word in the law.) If it were otherwise, there would be a whole lot more picketing of churches, and a whole lot less picketing of politicians. I think I once heard one gay rights activist talking about changing the rules of the church. Aside that one guy (& I'll grant that he may have a few friends), it's really all about the laws and about equal protection under those laws, and that really isn't about marriage...

The church doesn't often get involved in legal matters, & I'm not suggesting they are here, either. But the reverse is also generally true. The law doesn't often get involved in church matters... But in using a sacred term as a definition in a secular law, the law is treading in space they're not meant to inhabit, and causing all this commotion. Folks are up in arms over the redefinition of marriage, when no one is really trying to redefine marriage at all. The redefinition is of what constitutes a legal union, not a sacred one. Marriage is safe.

Lista:

"The only problem with your argument, though, Repsac, is that it requires the state to "recognize these marriages", even the Homosexual ones."

That is what I believe & where I'm headed (except for changing the word "marriages" to "unions"), but if you look back, I've never actually said so thus far... Changing "marriage" to "civil union" in the law does not require a given state (or "the state") to offer civil unions to same gender couples. All it does is decouple the sacred right of marriage, as defined by God & over which the church--not the state--holds sway, from the argument. It makes the argument over same sex unions what it really is; a discussion of rights, equality, and law. The recognition of those unions, if/when there is to be any, comes later.

Lista:

"Christianity does not sanction or condone Homosexuality, Repsac, and most of us would prefer that the state didn't either."

Leaving aside the issue of Christianity, I can appreciate that you feel that way... I simply disagree with you.

I wonder whom you mean by "most of us"? Most Christians? Most Americans? They (we?) are welcome to have their say, but as Griper said above, the US & state Constitutions trump even the will of the majority, sometimes... If a law goes against the Constitution, the law falls, at least until the Constitution is amended in such a way as to allow the law to stand. Protection of the minority from the will of the majority is one of the hallmarks of a constitutional republic.

Lista:

"You are actually the one who said in your response to Griper "recognize our marriages and hand over the legal goodies automatically".

In doing so, I was talking about my union with my wife, and his union with his, both of which are recognized by the state as marriages under current law...

My contention was, if you & I decided to go to my church & have a double ceremony with Adam & Steve -- (I know... It's so sudden... It seems like just yesterday we were but two strangers talking on the internet, and then... 8>) -- both you & I and Adam & Steve would be before the same celebrant in the same church, hearing & speaking the same words of love & fidelity just moments apart, but at the end of that ceremony, only you & I would be legally united and afforded all the rights & privileges that entails, according to the state. It doesn't seem just, to me.

Lista:

"Is "handing over legal goodies" synonymous to "recognizing a union as a marriage"?"

Only in so much as the law uses the term "marriage," currently. What I prefer is that the state recognizes a union as a union, and treats every legal union with the equality that this country prides itself on offering its citizens.

Every union is not a marriage, and I do not believe every union should be recognized as a marriage, either. That's why I object to the state using the word marriage in the law. They're muddying the waters by confounding the sacred with the secular...

In debating whether I'm married or civilly united, Griper (see just below) seems concerned because the word marriage is (incorrectly) used in law, and therefore I am married because the law says so. To me, THAT'S a redefinition of marriage more great than anything I've heard gay activists (except that one guy I mentioned earlier) suggesting. Marriage is not a legal concept, but a sacred one, and the state cannot change that by using the term in law.

Griper:

"in other words, let the people decide who gets the benefits not the state. benefits are still received but the beneficiary is determined by the person who is actually handing over the benefit by some act of his own, not the state. and it does not need a lawyer to do that."

I'm still not quite sure how you propose that would work, especially given this litigious society. While one can write out one's wishes regarding health care, child custody, and disposition of property after death on a piece of notebook paper, no one is obliged to follow those wishes under law, and even when lawyers are involved and the proper forms are filled out & every signature notarized, such things are frequently challenged in court by well meaning & not so well meaning family members alike.

Griper:

"remember repsac, married persons receive and give benefits that not only homosexuals cannot give or receive but also any other single person cannot either. a heterosexual couple shacking up have the same problem."

Again, I'm not sure I understand your meaning... Are you wishing to make it easy for any two people (heterosexual couples living together, homosexual couples, parents/adult children, close friends) the ability to bestow on each other all the rights & privileges afforded legally united couples, or are you saying that couples united by law share a unique bond, and thus deserve special consideration as regards these rights & privileges?

Personally, I go with the latter. (I agree there ought to be another way for one person to give another each & every one of the rights afforded united couples, but not that it ought to be a simple process that one can do capriciously.)

Griper:

"as for you not being married to your wife, i'm sorry, i don't buy into that. for you to convince me that you do not think you are married in every sense of the word you'd have to tell me that you are not the husband of your wife and that she is not your wife for one thing. for those identities are the exclusive property of marriage whether it be legal or in God's eyes.

the next thing you would need to do is convince me that you did not ask your wife to "marry" you and mean it in every sense of the word, that is if it was you that asked.

third you'd have to convince me that when that civil servant performed the ceremony you did not feel you actually married the girl but felt that it was only a cicil union.

thirdly when you fill out that income tax form you feel like you're lying when you mark the space "married filing jointly"

fourthly when you went down to the court house and bought that marriage licence it wasn't for the purpose of getting married. and you do not have a "Marriage certificate"

when someone asks if you are married you say no because you feel you are not married but only civilly united.

you go to your wife and tell her that you ae not married and she agrees with you without question.

I understand your difficulty, Griper, but if you really don't buy into what I'm saying, you'll have to take that up with the churches & religions you cited above, when you said.:

"and marriage performed by a civil servant of the government has always been defined as a civil union. in fact some religions don't even recognize it as a marriage but society does. and government treats them both as the same."

Marriage is a sacred rite.
Marriage is not a legal contract or obligation.
As a religious rite, marriage can only be performed according to religious tradition, and I know of no religion that allows government functionaries to perform sacred rites.
God and the church determine who can participate and who can officiate, and the law has no role to play in those decisions.

Civil union is not a religious rite.
Civil union is a legal contract / obligation.
While the law may choose to recognize unions performed by religious officials, it must do so equally if it is to do so at all.
The law determines who can participate and who can officiate, and God & the church have no role to play in those decisions.

If Lista & I go to city hall to tie the knot, we're civilly united. (Though the church may choose to recognize that as a marriage... Some do, some don't.)
If Lista & I go to her church or mine to tie the knot, we're married. (The law chooses to recognize this as a civil union, as well. But it's not obligated to do so.)

If you & I go to city hall to tie the knot, we get turned down, except in a few select places. In those places, we're civilly united. With a few exceptions, no church chooses to recognize that union as a marriage, and they are not obligated to do so.

If you & I go to my church to tie the knot, we're married. But the law chooses not to recognize that marriage as a civil union.

Sure, any of us can call any of those ceremonies and the subsequent day to day life resulting from them a marriage (or a civil union) but saying it doesn't make it so... Both marriage & civil union have specific definitions that don't change because people (including me, sometimes) use the words incorrectly or imprecisely. Marriage has come to be used as shorthand for any civil union, in the same way that Coke, Xerox, & Frigidaire represents all cola, any copier (or copies, or the act of duplicating) and all refrigerators. That's all well & good, but it doesn't mean plenty of folks who use those terms don't then take an RC out of their Maytag, and drink it while making color copies on their Brother copier.

What we or others call it isn't always what it is, and I think that should answer all of your concerns about my "marriage".

Griper:

"before the controversy there was no such definition of a civil union, a marriage was a marriage regardless of who performed the ceremony and everyone recognized that when you sought and received a divorce that you were dissolving a marriage."

Change is constant... Once upon a time, folks didn't talk much about homosexuality (or racial issues, or gender equality, or child abuse, or ...) but the fact that polite society preferred not to discuss 'em never meant these issues didn't exist.

The good old days were frequently not as good as folks remember 'em...

There is still more, including my thoughts on nature/nurture with respect to homosexuality, beginning here.

If you're lookin' for me of late...

I've been here, in a fascinating discussion of marriage, civil union, religion, and the state. the Griper: Homosexual Marriage.

I'd welcome comment (there or here) on the subject, if anyone reading has any...

(Yeah, I let that nihilist comment Griper made at Nero's blog go... Everyone makes mistakes, and since he hasn't chosen to defend or address it in any way since, that's the story I'm goin' with... Bottom line is, I like the guy, even when I think he's wrong...)

ABC News: Sources: Top Bush Advisors Approved 'Enhanced Interrogation'

ABC News: Sources: Top Bush Advisors Approved 'Enhanced Interrogation'

Detailed discussions were held about techniques to use on al Qaeda suspects

In dozens of top-secret talks and meetings in the White House, the most senior Bush administration officials discussed and approved specific details of how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, sources tell ABC News.

The so-called Principals who participated in the meetings also approved the use of "combined" interrogation techniques -- using different techniques during interrogations, instead of using one method at a time -- on terrorist suspects who proved difficult to break, sources said.

Highly placed sources said a handful of top advisers signed off on how the CIA would interrogate top al Qaeda suspects -- whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding.

The high-level discussions about these "enhanced interrogation techniques" were so detailed, these sources said, some of the interrogation sessions were almost choreographed -- down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic.

The advisers were members of the National Security Council's Principals Committee, a select group of senior officials who met frequently to advise President Bush on issues of national security policy.

At the time, the Principals Committee included Vice President Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

As the national security adviser, Rice chaired the meetings, which took place in the White House Situation Room and were typically attended by most of the principals or their deputies."

Is anyone surprised?

The CIA, remembering how previous covert actions (Phoenix, Iran-Contra) were said to be the work of an agency out of control, sought to protect itself by having "the principles" sign off on their actions:

"It kept coming up. CIA wanted us to sign off on each one every time," said one high-ranking official who asked not to be identified. "They'd say, 'We've got so and so. This is the plan.'"

Sources said that at each discussion, all the Principals present approved.

"These discussions weren't adding value," a source said. "Once you make a policy decision to go beyond what you used to do and conclude it's legal, (you should) just tell them to implement it."

Then-Attorney General Ashcroft was troubled by the discussions. He agreed with the general policy decision to allow aggressive tactics and had repeatedly advised that they were legal. But he argued that senior White House advisers should not be involved in the grim details of interrogations, sources said.

According to a top official, Ashcroft asked aloud after one meeting: "Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly."

This is not the America I believe in. Some Republicans--including many in charge--are taking their foreign policy cues from episodes of "24." We can do better, America. We have to, if we intend to remain the shining example for the rest of the world. American values are more powerful than American military might. Once we lose them--or worse, intentionally give them away--we're finished.

Another Person Arrested for “Impeach” Sign

There have been a spate of arrests & other harassment of people who dare to use their free speech to advocate against Mr Bush. Here is another.

Watching Melissa Etheridge on TV at the Live Earth concert persuaded Jonas Phillips and his wife, Kindra, to go out and do something about the Bush Administration’s abuses.

So they made a cardboard sign with “Impeach Bush Cheney” on it.

And they held that sign on the sidewalk of the Haywood Road Bridge over I-240 in Asheville, North Carolina, on several different occasions this summer.

Like Kevin Egler of Kent, Ohio, who was arrested for illegal advertising with his “Impeach” sign (see Recordpub.com - 'Impeach Bush' free speech test? Man who posted sign in Kent surprised by uproar ), they got in trouble for theirs.

read more | digg story

More on the topc:
How I Got Arrested for Holding an IMPEACH Sign | AfterDowningStreet.org
CITIZEN-TIMES.com: Political messages should not interfere with traffic
YouTube - WLOS: Highway Blogging

My take... If they felt that highway blogging was unsafe, they might've respectfully given the man a warning, rather than arresting him...

Peaceman sez: Impeach the Chenguin!!

I don't agree with everything he says, and he ain't in my party, but Dennis Kucinich is a decent man who's correct about "Big Time" Dick. It's too bad there aren't more like him serving this country...

ACLU Blog: When "Torture" Is the Only Way to Describe It

"When 'enhanced interrogation techniques' are discussed in abstract and generalized terms, it's much easier to trivialize human suffering, or to ignore it. Abu Ghraib has been universally condemned--or almost universally, anyway--not because the abuses there were any more brutal than elsewhere, but because the ghoulish photos of human beings on leashes, or stacked naked in a pyramid, or standing hooded on a box, were tangible and real in a way that words on a page simply cannot be."

"But the most profound and lasting legacy of the Bush Administration's morbid embrace of torture may lie not in the injuries to detainees or their interrogators, but in the harm to this country's reputation and standing — and its security. By bringing the words of the victims into U.S. courtrooms, we begin the long and difficult process of restoring America's legal and moral standing. We can only hope that some federal judges will see past our clients' words to their humanity."

Follow the link for the whole posting.

UPDATE: And go to this link for more on the story: The Black Sites: A rare look inside the C.I.A.’s secret interrogation program.

Video: Voter Caging - NOW: PBS

"How secure is your right to vote? NOW investigates a secret Republican plan designed to disqualify voters."

Video: Voter Caging - NOW: PBS

I didn't think I'd ever see this discussed on American television...

Everyone who cares about free & fair elections here in the US should make themselves aware of the issue. This video is a good start...

"You never see the ACLU speaking up for the free speech rights of Christians" (The ACRU Blog)

O'Reilly Right on Target (The ACRU Blog) Posted by Peter Ferrara: "But you never see the ACLU speaking up for the free speech rights of Christians, for example, or anyone who believes in traditional moral values, like the Boy Scouts."

I don't wish to be difficult, but perhaps Mr. Ferrara might read the website to which he was posting (ACRU) before making such statements.

From two postings below Mr. Ferrara's, Headlines from the Ongoing Battle for American Civil Rights - 7/27 (The ACRU Blog):

"But here are a few real free speech cases on campus:

First Amendment Lottery (Campus Report Online)"

It says that the ACLU defended The College Republicans at San Francisco State University regarding an anti-terrorism demonstration in which several members stepped on replicas of the flags of Hamas and Hezbollah, two groups officially recognized by the U.S. as terrorist cells. Mightn't one assume that these college Republicans believe in traditional moral values?

From the linked posting, 4th paragraph: First Amendment Lottery: "According to FIRE's press release, media from across the country rallied to the support of the accused in defense of constitutional liberty. The Northern California Chapter of the ACLU also defended the students. After the group representatives appeared before a school tribunal, the announcement came that the students would not face punishment."

If that isn't enough for Mr. Ferrara & Mr. O'Reilly, three more links (the 2nd, 3rd, & 4th links listed when I did a Google Search - ACLU defend Christians):

American Civil Liberties Union : Iowa Civil Liberties Union Defends Right of Students to Wear Anti-Abortion T-Shirts

American Civil Liberties Union : ACLU of Michigan Defends Catholic Man Coerced to Convert to Pentecostal Faith in Drug Rehab Program

Preemptive Karma: The ACLU Hates Christians...

Perhaps Mr Ferrara & Mr Bill might want to reconsider using such strident tones...

BREAKING: Newly Obtained Emails Reveal GOP '04 Vote Supression Scheme

Previously undisclosed documents detail how Republican operatives, with the knowledge of several White House officials, engaged in an illegal, racially-motivated effort to suppress tens of thousands of votes during the 2004 presidential campaign in a state where George W. Bush was trailing his Democratic challenger, Senator John Kerry.

read more | digg story

E-mail to Mr. Bush

I'm very disappointed that the President chose to substitute his judgment for that of our American legal system a scant 5 hours after inmate number 28301-016 (Mr. Libby) lost his appeal to stay out of jail pending appeal.

It was my understanding that Mr. Bush was not commenting on ongoing legal cases such as inmate number 28301-016's, but by commuting his sentence (and having that spiffy legal defense fund to pay the fine), the convict is essentially getting away without punishment for the crimes for which he was convicted.

Because inmate number 28301-016 so recently worked for the White House, it is a pretty obvious conflict of interest. (In a similar situation, both President Nixon & President Ford declined to pardon or commute the sentences of their former employees.)

Now that the White House has seen fit to comment on this case, I hope President Bush and the rest of his cabinet (& Mr. Cheney, as well) will explain why Mr. Rove is still working for the White House, despite being one of the leakers, by his own admission in court in Mr. Libby's case.

Thank you for your time.

Bush makes power grab, by Jerome Corsi

While I'm not a big WorldNetDaily fan, this story is very important.

"President Bush, without so much as issuing a press statement, on May 9 signed an executive order that granted near dictatorial powers to the office of the president in the event of a national emergency declared by the president." And, guess who decides what constitutes a "national emergency"?

As the article shows, this goes far beyond the usual plans for the continuity of government after emergency or attack that've been a part of our government since the beginning of the Cold War, at least. Read on, patriots, read on...



read more | digg story

Liberals Fail To Get Ann Coulter's Scalp : American Conservative Daily

Liberals Fail To Get Ann Coulter's Scalp : American Conservative Daily

Since I'm not sure that my comment is going to pass muster at this Con site, I repost it here. If it does appear, it ought to be comment #2 or so. (There was only one other comment when I tried to post it.)

After reading this Con take, I said:
--------------
There are some very interesting twists that are left out of this story. It is alleged that the FBI agent in question is a former boyfriend of miss Coulter's. That FBI agent's actions in miss Coulter's voter fraud case are now under review at the FBI.

Miss Coulter falsified her address, both on her voter registration form and her driver's license application. The voter form (& most likely the license application, as well) include an oath at the bottom which affirms that everything she filled out on the form is true, and also says "I understand that if it is not true, I can be convicted of a felony of the third degree, and fined up to $5000 and/or imprisoned for up to five years." The address she used on both forms belonged to miss coulter's real estate agent, and that real estate agent has testified that miss Coulter did not have permission to use her address on those forms. It's hard to believe miss Coulter did not know her own address, or that the one she put on those forms was not hers.

There is the alternate theory that she used this other woman's address without her knowledge to avoid a stalker. Of course, that doesn't say much about miss Coulter's character in exposing her real estate agent to this stalker instead, particularly without telling her. And I wasn't aware of there being an exception to that oath she signed on those forms for folks wanting to avoid being stalked. Getting a post office box, or perhaps filing a police report regarding her stalker might've been more helpful...
--------------------

FBI agent steps into Coulter voting case

I never saw a woman who enjoyed being stalked quite so much...

FBI agent steps into Coulter voting case

================
Conservative pundit Ann Coulter has been cleared of allegations that she falsified her Palm Beach County voter's registration and voted illegally — this, after a high-level FBI agent made unsolicited phone calls to the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office to vouch for Coulter.

County Supervisor of Elections Arthur Anderson, meanwhile, decried what he called "FBI intrusion." He referred the Coulter case to PBSO after poll worker Jim Whited originally reported the incident.

"This doesn't bode well in terms of the public's impression that celebrities receive preferential treatment," Anderson said. "I'm curious about how anyone can justify the FBI's intrusion."

As for Coulter's alleged stalker, check this out: Fitzgerald identified him as conservative Christian, rabid anti-Coulter blogger Dan Borchers of coulterwatch.com. Borchers said he remembers talking to two FBI agents about stalking accusations — in 1998.

"They stayed for five minutes," he said, "told me to be careful not to scare Ann Coulter. She hollers stalker at anybody who opposes her."

Fitzgerald told Villa that the supposed Borchers probe led to no arrest and he saw no reason why Coulter's address should remain secret.
====================

More complete info:
The BRAD BLOG : EXCLUSIVE: FBI AGENT WHO INTERCEDED IN ANN COULTER VOTER FRAUD CASE ALLEGED TO BE HER FORMER BOYFRIEND!

The BRAD BLOG : SPECIAL COVERAGE: Ann Coulter's Voter Fraud Felony